Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Ramage hit on Oliver


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 Wingzman91

Wingzman91

    2nd Pair Defenseman

  • Bronze Booster
  • 309 posts
  • Location:Fort Myers, FL

Posted 04 February 2012 - 09:55 PM

Those are the exact hits the league wants to end, Ramage comes from the other side of the ice with the sole purpose of making a hit, not to play the puck.
With that much time to make your hit, if you appear to make head contact you should expect a penalty, at the refs discretion, 2 or 5, and possibly a game misconduct.

How about this, there is 45 mins left in that game, after 15 mins Ramage's team is down by 1 and a guy who barely saw the puck coming gets blind-sided without regard for his safety and no way to defend himself.

Ramage saw the play coming, bravo, he made the wrong play in response.

As much as everyone hates it, the checking player has a responsibility to the puck possessing player in blindside instances, real hockey is not a video game where you can turn off injuries and they are trying to protect these possible future stars.

Seriously, stick lift right there and you are in a position to score instead of the showers.

Incidental/minor contact with the head, in college, perfect time to teach.

I don't agree alot with refs, but, I think they got it right sending off the trailing team's captain when that kind of disregard for safety is shown.

Sorry goon fans, this was spot on.

#22 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,019 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:49 PM

I get where you're coming from Harold, but I think you're comparing a bit of apples to oranges here.

(Apples)Clutching, grabbing, and hooking are considered universaly to be undesirable aspects in a hockey game. Dats shouldn't have to fight through hooks, and neither should have Gretzky. To call that tighter opens up the game making it better. You're right that the players did adapt and we see less of that god-awful clutching & grabbing now because of the rules being enforced.

(Oranges)Bodychecks on the other hand are a desirable aspect of the game(IMHO). No one wants to see someone get injured obviously, but the game of hockey comes with inherent risks. Concussions being one of them. When calls like this are even in the refs conciousness because of the current climate, it is going to cause that same adaptation we saw with clutching & grabbing occur with hitting.

I think the game should err on the side of no call in these instances. Kronner's type of hits I see as OK. He is always North-South and isn't taking 10 steps(Pronger) before laying into someone. If they don't want to get hit they need to keep their head up(I'm looking at you Havlat). Making the call of feet being on ice before or after contact being made is way to difficult in game speed for refs to determine so shouldn't be a factor IMO. Again, err on the side of the hitter.

My main point was that the league in both cases is trying to find the line and it takes some time to do that.

#23 Dano33

Dano33

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 920 posts

Posted 05 February 2012 - 01:26 AM

Those are the exact hits the league wants to end, Ramage comes from the other side of the ice with the sole purpose of making a hit, not to play the puck.
With that much time to make your hit, if you appear to make head contact you should expect a penalty, at the refs discretion, 2 or 5, and possibly a game misconduct.

How about this, there is 45 mins left in that game, after 15 mins Ramage's team is down by 1 and a guy who barely saw the puck coming gets blind-sided without regard for his safety and no way to defend himself.

Ramage saw the play coming, bravo, he made the wrong play in response.

As much as everyone hates it, the checking player has a responsibility to the puck possessing player in blindside instances, real hockey is not a video game where you can turn off injuries and they are trying to protect these possible future stars.

Seriously, stick lift right there and you are in a position to score instead of the showers.

Incidental/minor contact with the head, in college, perfect time to teach.

I don't agree alot with refs, but, I think they got it right sending off the trailing team's captain when that kind of disregard for safety is shown.

Sorry goon fans, this was spot on.

No. This hit should be an example of what is acceptable. It absolutely was not blindside. Ramage came from the opposing players left side and hit him in the right shoulder. Sure, the guy was in a vulnerable position, but that's on him and his teammate who lead him there with that pass. Rampage just took advantage.

And it's not just jumping on an opportunity to crush a guy, it's sending a message saying don't go across the middle of the ice. Maybe next time the guy gives up on the play. That's when the turnovers and scoring chances occur.
"I can't believe I shook this guy's friggen hand." -Dino Ciccarelli

"Don't think, just play." -Curtis Granderson, always a Tiger

#24 Doc Holliday

Doc Holliday

    LGW's impromptu Photoshopper

  • Silver Booster
  • 4,340 posts

Posted 05 February 2012 - 01:37 AM

Kronwall with a huge hit on Hemsky, with head contact. No penalty.

Seems like hockey is doing just fine.

Posted Image


#25 Donaldjr2448

Donaldjr2448

    LETS GO REDWINGS!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts
  • Location:Fenton, MI. The land of grid lock

Posted 05 February 2012 - 03:02 AM

Kronwall with a huge hit on Hemsky, with head contact. No penalty.

Seems like hockey is doing just fine.


Yup! Kronner's hit was perfect and legal. However, the Oilers still saw the need to want to fight Kronner after a clean hit! Finally FINALLY FINALLY The refs called a penalty on the team that starts the fight. I honestly think the only reason Barker got a penalty on the play was because he high sticked Kronner and drew blood.

#26 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 05 February 2012 - 03:59 AM

I fixed it for you since you seemed to be watching some other incident. His entire body snapped back because it was a crushing body shot. I understand why the call was made too, and that is what worries me.

Obviously you're not willing to be reasonable. However, it's not really relevant as I already conceded that I don't think the hit should have been a penalty.

You're right, we can't predict the exact future of how this will play out. We can only go by what we see happenning in the present. That call was horrendous. What slippery slope are you talking about? They threw the guy out for a perfectly clean bodycheck at center ice. You say they may get better, I say the trend is to call anything that appears to impact a player hard in the upper part of the body.

But how many big, clean hits have not resulted in a penalty/ejection? I'd say a far greater number, even in cases where head contact is made. You are vastly over-stating the problem. Bad calls happen. How many times have you seen a blatant high-stick go uncalled? Yet I can't recall any threads about how hockey is doomed or that slashing guys in the face is now legal.

I suspect that your issue is not with the bad call, but rather the rules themselves. You see a new rule restricting hitting, and you're afraid it's going to ruin the game. You see a call like this where there probably shouldn't have been a call, you get all frantic, jumping up and down, pointing and screaming "See! See! See!" as if this is the rule rather than the exception. There's been what, 700-some-odd NHL games this year, and who knows how many college or AHL; God knows how many big hits... and how many really bad calls? 20-ish? Even borderline calls aren't all that frequent. It's an aberation, not a trend. You're argument is based on your fear of what might happen rather than a reasonable analysis of what actually is happening, or logical prediction of what might happen.

Refs, for all the criticism they take, do make the correct call far more often than not. Logic suggests that this rule will be no different. Being a new rule, and one that may yet still be tweaked further, you should expect something of a learning curve. Refs will gain a better understanding of what should and shouldn't be called. Players will adapt to the rule. (Take a look at some of Kronwall's recent hits...turns his back almost completely. I suspect he does it to avoid getting his shoulder into someone's chin.) The bad and borderline calls should go down (though they're already pretty low).

Unfortunatly, with any bodycheck comes the inherent risk of sustaining a concussion. Fostering a culture of hypersensitivity of hard checking because of the off chance that a player will sustain one is dumb. No one is arguing against those obvious elbows up, 10 step stupid ass moves that people like Matt Cooke do. If the league were serious about concussion problems they should look at hard shelled equipment, no touch icing etc... Not start ordering the whistle when someone takes a hit that looks bad because they failed to keep their head up.

What inherent risks haven't been known? That participating in ice hockey can lead to concussions? That's the whole reason you sign a liability waver anytime you play any sport. You are acknowledging and accepting the possibility your participation in it could cause bodily harm, even death.

Believe it or not, we are still learning new things about head injuries and how to diagnose them. "Shaking off the cobwebs" used to be the accepted method of dealing with all but the most severe injuries. Now we know that that isn't adequate.

The acknowledged existence of risk does not negate the responsibility of minimizing those risks. Goalies used to play without masks, now play stops dead if a goalie loses his. Player safety always has to be a concern. The league IS going to look at icing, and equipment, boards/glass, etc. They are also looking at how to minimize head contact.

So what? Because hitting(especially the open-ice variety)is an integral part of the game of hockey. It is a unique skill that I enjoy watching. Most times it occurs because of the very fact a player gets caught with their head down. Inherent risk. Not sure where you are going with the NASCAR reference. I can only assume it was to try to hold yourself up as somehow superior to me in your fandom. Whatever.....I like all aspects of the game of hockey, solid checks being one of them.

Back on your high horse again here I see. What evidence pray-tell is there that any of what I have posted could give you the impression I wanted to see Oliver get injured? Dude made a bad decision and paid the price. I feel bad for the kid, but it's an unfortunate part of hockey that if you skate across the middle with your head down you run the risk of getting rocked.

It's a balance of risk or reward. North-South hits where a player may/maynot have his head down and gets clocked err on the side of the hitter I say. Not blow the whistle and give a penalty if their is a hard check followed by a head jerking and a yard sale on the ice. You're correct in players will try to push the rules. How long until they figure out that turning their back or dropping their head at the last second will result in a penalty for the opposition?

You're the one saying hockey is dying over what has been a very few calls in one part of the game. So either you can admit your own hyperbole, or I have to question whether you are actually a fan of the sport, or just a fan of seeing guys "get rocked".

The rule is against targetting the head, not against hard checks. It doesn't make any sense to infer that the handful of bad calls equates to an implied rule against hard hitting. Here I have to assume you're either an illogical panic-monger, or that what you really want to say is that headshots should be legal. That combined with your vehemence in defending these hits leads me to beleive you really like seeing guys get their bells rung. It's human nature to find that sort of violence exciting.

But it is just a sport, with many, many other entertaining aspects. It does not need headshots to be exciting. Players are people. They may be willing to put their health at risk to compete, but that doesn't mean the risks shouldn't be tempered. Also, the players are investments. Sometimes multi-million-dollar investments. Owners have a right to protect them.

If you can make a reasonable argument for why hockey needs headshots, I might be willing to listen. Otherwise, I'll just say that the incident you're whining about is just an acorn. Relax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDLbJ-6OpbI

#27 freshy

freshy

    Freshy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 759 posts
  • Location:Apopka, Florida

Posted 05 February 2012 - 02:12 PM

Obviously you're not willing to be reasonable. However, it's not really relevant as I already conceded that I don't think the hit should have been a penalty.


Reasonable? Tell me on what time stamp of the video Ramage's shoulder contacts Oliver's facemask and then you would have a reasonable argument for it being a blow to the head. To be honest I'm not really sure what your position is. On the one hand you agree with me that they should have erred on the side of Ramage, but then you feel the need to call me a reactionary doomsdayer when I say that's the type of hit that needs to be kept in the game.

But how many big, clean hits have not resulted in a penalty/ejection? I'd say a far greater number, even in cases where head contact is made. You are vastly over-stating the problem. Bad calls happen. How many times have you seen a blatant high-stick go uncalled? Yet I can't recall any threads about how hockey is doomed or that slashing guys in the face is now legal.

I suspect that your issue is not with the bad call, but rather the rules themselves. You see a new rule restricting hitting, and you're afraid it's going to ruin the game. You see a call like this where there probably shouldn't have been a call, you get all frantic, jumping up and down, pointing and screaming "See! See! See!" as if this is the rule rather than the exception. There's been what, 700-some-odd NHL games this year, and who knows how many college or AHL; God knows how many big hits... and how many really bad calls? 20-ish? Even borderline calls aren't all that frequent. It's an aberation, not a trend. You're argument is based on your fear of what might happen rather than a reasonable analysis of what actually is happening, or logical prediction of what might happen.


Correct. I disagree with a rule that penalizes a player for any incidental contact to the head. It's overkill and will change the physicality of the game in a negative way IMO. How much we don't know obviously, only time will tell. Like Harold commented the pendulumn has swung way over to the side of protection. If it is such an abberration why are the commentators talking about the need for a balance after the hit happenning?

You're the one saying hockey is dying over what has been a very few calls in one part of the game. So either you can admit your own hyperbole, or I have to question whether you are actually a fan of the sport, or just a fan of seeing guys "get rocked".

The rule is against targetting the head, not against hard checks. It doesn't make any sense to infer that the handful of bad calls equates to an implied rule against hard hitting. Here I have to assume you're either an illogical panic-monger, or that what you really want to say is that headshots should be legal. That combined with your vehemence in defending these hits leads me to beleive you really like seeing guys get their bells rung. It's human nature to find that sort of violence exciting.

But it is just a sport, with many, many other entertaining aspects. It does not need headshots to be exciting. Players are people. They may be willing to put their health at risk to compete, but that doesn't mean the risks shouldn't be tempered. Also, the players are investments. Sometimes multi-million-dollar investments. Owners have a right to protect them.

If you can make a reasonable argument for why hockey needs headshots, I might be willing to listen. Otherwise, I'll just say that the incident you're whining about is just an acorn. Relax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDLbJ-6OpbI


My initial post was "hockey died a little bit tonight". Sure it was a little hyperbole. So what? You're the one that has their panties in a bunch saying that it is doomsday talk, which I would hardly characterizes it as. The rule, by your own admission, will most likely curtail those open ice hits. Players will start to hesitate before they make any hit, just like they now hesitate before hooking or grabbing. Players will feel more comfortable going up the middle with their heads down because they will have that advantage.

That Boston hit was an exciting hockey play. But I have to wonder, if he goes down hurt like Oliver or fakes an injury, would there have been a call?

Edited by freshy, 05 February 2012 - 02:17 PM.

You gotta be the QB to win the MVP baby! You can't be the punter.

#28 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 05 February 2012 - 04:56 PM

Reasonable? Tell me on what time stamp of the video Ramage's shoulder contacts Oliver's facemask and then you would have a reasonable argument for it being a blow to the head. To be honest I'm not really sure what your position is. On the one hand you agree with me that they should have erred on the side of Ramage, but then you feel the need to call me a reactionary doomsdayer when I say that's the type of hit that needs to be kept in the game.

3:18. The announcer even mentions the shoulder to facemask contact. Again though: not the point.

Correct. I disagree with a rule that penalizes a player for any incidental contact to the head. It's overkill and will change the physicality of the game in a negative way IMO. How much we don't know obviously, only time will tell. Like Harold commented the pendulumn has swung way over to the side of protection. If it is such an abberration why are the commentators talking about the need for a balance after the hit happenning?

Except the rule isn't against incidental contact. The rule (NHL at least) is against targetting the head. It's a subtle but important distinction. There are more examples of head contact not being penalized than there are good hits that are. Someone already mentioned the Kronwall hit from the other night. Head contact and Hemsky gets sent to the quiet room, but no call.

My initial post was "hockey died a little bit tonight". Sure it was a little hyperbole. So what? You're the one that has their panties in a bunch saying that it is doomsday talk, which I would hardly characterizes it as. The rule, by your own admission, will most likely curtail those open ice hits. Players will start to hesitate before they make any hit, just like they now hesitate before hooking or grabbing. Players will feel more comfortable going up the middle with their heads down because they will have that advantage.

That Boston hit was an exciting hockey play. But I have to wonder, if he goes down hurt like Oliver or fakes an injury, would there have been a call?

Threads like this appear seemingly every time there's a poor call like this; always implying some dire threat to the physicality of the game. It's nonsense. It's a bad call and nothing more. It's no more a threat to hitting than a bad interference call is threat to playing defense. Just an acorn. The sky isn't falling.

Sorry if you're offended by debate. You'll rarely find universal agreement on the internet. I don't agree with your assessment of where the game is headed. I'd expect players to change how they hit. Probably see fewer dangerous hits, and fewer injuries as a result. I call that a net gain. All the evidence suggests that big hits, even big open-ice hits, aren't going away.

About all I'd change at this time, rule-wise, is requiring a review before a player is ejected. Maybe even for major penalties.

#29 sandyeggo wingnut

sandyeggo wingnut

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 125 posts
  • Location:The Heights of Dearborn

Posted 05 February 2012 - 07:25 PM

Those are the exact hits the league wants to end, Ramage comes from the other side of the ice with the sole purpose of making a hit, not to play the puck.
With that much time to make your hit, if you appear to make head contact you should expect a penalty, at the refs discretion, 2 or 5, and possibly a game misconduct.

How about this, there is 45 mins left in that game, after 15 mins Ramage's team is down by 1 and a guy who barely saw the puck coming gets blind-sided without regard for his safety and no way to defend himself.

Ramage saw the play coming, bravo, he made the wrong play in response.

As much as everyone hates it, the checking player has a responsibility to the puck possessing player in blindside instances, real hockey is not a video game where you can turn off injuries and they are trying to protect these possible future stars.

Seriously, stick lift right there and you are in a position to score instead of the showers.

Incidental/minor contact with the head, in college, perfect time to teach.

I don't agree alot with refs, but, I think they got it right sending off the trailing team's captain when that kind of disregard for safety is shown.

Sorry goon fans, this was spot on.


Sorry, I disagree. The puck possessor also has a responsibility to "keep hisf****** head up". Where is that video of the linesman (I think) yelling that to a player?

This hit could have been mitigated into a whiff or just something else if Oliver had his head up. This is exactly what Kronwall takes advantage of. Kinda interesting what Ramage's number is :)

#30 dobbles

dobbles

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 864 posts
  • Location:Tulsa, OK

Posted 05 February 2012 - 07:34 PM

freshy, you are basically trolling as you are unwilling to listen to an entirely rational counter argument. you do realize people can have a differing opinion than yours and not be morons for doing so, right?

I love Maltby, but to say he wasn't a ****** is a dis-service to his career of douchebaggery.


#31 Wingzman91

Wingzman91

    2nd Pair Defenseman

  • Bronze Booster
  • 309 posts
  • Location:Fort Myers, FL

Posted 05 February 2012 - 08:18 PM

No. This hit should be an example of what is acceptable. It absolutely was not blindside. Ramage came from the opposing players left side and hit him in the right shoulder. Sure, the guy was in a vulnerable position, but that's on him and his teammate who lead him there with that pass. Rampage just took advantage.

And it's not just jumping on an opportunity to crush a guy, it's sending a message saying don't go across the middle of the ice. Maybe next time the guy gives up on the play. That's when the turnovers and scoring chances occur.



Making illegal contact because of a play like that should be penalized.

Yes, Ramage had a jump on the play but because of his position had to hope that his check hit square and it didn't.

Oliver, A left handed player takes a pass from 10 feet behind him to his right, with a checker on his tail who barely misses the puck with a poke from 2 feet behind on the same back-right positioning, he goes to curl back and gets killed all within about 1/2 second.........and it was Oliver's job to avoid getting blindsided by someone he saw 1/32 of a second before he gets hit.

Ramage had at least a full second if not 2 to decide how to react and he made the same choice as if Little kept the puck, run player with puck.

Yes it is absolutely on the checking player to make 100% sure they make no contact with the head.

-----------------------------------------------

From SportsMadison.com...According to Eaves, referees Brian Thul and C.J. Beaurline said the hit would have been OK a year ago, but because of its blindside nature and the fact Oliver was unsuspecting at the moment of impact led them to assess a major penalty.

"It was high, but (Ramage) had him lined up, though," St. Cloud State coach Bob Motzko said of the check. "A few a years ago, that's a good hit.
"(Oliver) had no idea it was coming. Like I said, a few years ago that's a heck of a hit. But that's what they're taking out of the game."

Sorry goon fans, people would rather see skill over brutality.

Edit:
Forgot to add that this didn't happen in the NHL, I believe they are governed by rules that mandate a 5 min and game or disqualification in the NCAA.

Edited by Wingzman91, 05 February 2012 - 08:19 PM.


#32 Wingzman91

Wingzman91

    2nd Pair Defenseman

  • Bronze Booster
  • 309 posts
  • Location:Fort Myers, FL

Posted 05 February 2012 - 08:40 PM

Sorry, I disagree. The puck possessor also has a responsibility to "keep hisf****** head up". Where is that video of the linesman (I think) yelling that to a player?

This hit could have been mitigated into a whiff or just something else if Oliver had his head up. This is exactly what Kronwall takes advantage of. Kinda interesting what Ramage's number is :)



His head was turned looking behind him 3/4 of the second he possessed the puck.
It is college hockey, they play with full face masks, they do not want east-west blindside checks regardless of the positioning of the attacking player.
It is mainly to protect these kids so they can have a future in a better league and choose to destroy their bodies for pay instead of for a education.

#33 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,019 posts

Posted 05 February 2012 - 08:45 PM

Making illegal contact because of a play like that should be penalized.

Yes, Ramage had a jump on the play but because of his position had to hope that his check hit square and it didn't.

Oliver, A left handed player takes a pass from 10 feet behind him to his right, with a checker on his tail who barely misses the puck with a poke from 2 feet behind on the same back-right positioning, he goes to curl back and gets killed all within about 1/2 second.........and it was Oliver's job to avoid getting blindsided by someone he saw 1/32 of a second before he gets hit.

Ramage had at least a full second if not 2 to decide how to react and he made the same choice as if Little kept the puck, run player with puck.

Yes it is absolutely on the checking player to make 100% sure they make no contact with the head.

-----------------------------------------------

From SportsMadison.com...According to Eaves, referees Brian Thul and C.J. Beaurline said the hit would have been OK a year ago, but because of its blindside nature and the fact Oliver was unsuspecting at the moment of impact led them to assess a major penalty.

"It was high, but (Ramage) had him lined up, though," St. Cloud State coach Bob Motzko said of the check. "A few a years ago, that's a good hit.
"(Oliver) had no idea it was coming. Like I said, a few years ago that's a heck of a hit. But that's what they're taking out of the game."

Sorry goon fans, people would rather see skill over brutality.


Edit:
Forgot to add that this didn't happen in the NHL, I believe they are governed by rules that mandate a 5 min and game or disqualification in the NCAA.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a goon fan? And you speak for the people now and know what we want?

#34 Xraymind7781

Xraymind7781

    Jr. Prospect

  • Member
  • 19 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 05 February 2012 - 09:23 PM

Here is the biggest issue with the hit. The hit is clean as clean can be, but every DAMN time a player gets hit he or team of the player that gets hit decides they need to fight the hitter. This is whats wrong; fights after clean hits. I am so sick of these meaningless fights after good clean hits. As far as I'm concerned, the scrums after clean hits need to be penalized in either 5 minute delay of games or 5 and 10. Keep your head up and hits like this will not happen. Or how about getting the hitter back later on with yet another clean check.

I don't know about anyone else, but nothing frustrates more than these scrums, just like our buddy Kesler wanting to fight Kronner after a good clean hit. :ranting:


I think if the players were allowed to police themselves a bit more in this league we wouldnt see so many instances like this. Im not saying goon it up or anything like that. But when the rules of the game make it difficult to make players accountable for their actions on the ice, you're going to get some pretty stupid things happening out their. Which is why we now have refs calling 5 minute majors on hits like this and petty little wrestling matches following plays like this. You can say the game is now faster and the players are bigger and thats why all these injuries are happening. That may play a bit into it but i think its more because players arent held accountable for stuff like this.

Dont get me wrong, I love Kronwall and the way he plays, but he should get knocked on his ass a few times for hitting guys the way he does. Yes they are clean hits. And yes they are masterpieces. But the guys on these other teams have to stand up to this guy to try and make him think twice about throwing himself around so much. Thats why more players are getting hurt. A few games suspension and a silly fine isnt going to make a guy think twice about throwing a hit like this. It will continue to happen, and i think it will only get worse. The code of the game is what needs to be changed. The overall mindset of the player must be changed. Thats not going to happen by making players accountable off the ice after the incidents occur. They need to be held accountable on the ice at all times.

#35 sandyeggo wingnut

sandyeggo wingnut

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 125 posts
  • Location:The Heights of Dearborn

Posted 05 February 2012 - 10:38 PM

His head was turned looking behind him 3/4 of the second he possessed the puck.
It is college hockey, they play with full face masks, they do not want east-west blindside checks regardless of the positioning of the attacking player.
It is mainly to protect these kids so they can have a future in a better league and choose to destroy their bodies for pay instead of for a education.

I don't know what replay you were watching but Oliver had his head down from the blue line to the point he turned INTO Ramage. It almost looked like he was more concerned about the backcheck than what was in front of him on the ice

I'm sorry but it was like three full speed strides he had his head down and that's three strides too many. Don't blame it on the cage, blame it on the fact he was looking in the wrong direction. And like I said, Oliver actually turns into Ramage. What do you want HIM to do, the play probably came on faster than he intended with Oliver's turn. Look, I'm sorry that the kid got hurt but it was a lapse in fundamentals that caused this, not any goonery.

#36 Carman

Carman

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 5,114 posts
  • Location:Riverview, MI

Posted 05 February 2012 - 11:01 PM

Am I off base for thinking that penalizing these hits will lead to players being more lax in protecting themselves in the neutral zone which might cause even more blindside hits and eventually change the entire game when the defenseman can no longer play the man on the open ice, which could lead to a lot more speed through the neutral zone and more chances for high impact knee collisions when a players tries to avoid someone, and icing plays.

Getting rid of certain plays will have unintended consequences, I really don't mind the fines/suspensions for head hunting, but going any further than that can have a much broader impact on the game than one might think and could in some cases cause even more injuries.

#37 freshy

freshy

    Freshy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 759 posts
  • Location:Apopka, Florida

Posted 06 February 2012 - 10:19 AM

3:18. The announcer even mentions the shoulder to facemask contact. Again though: not the point.


Except the rule isn't against incidental contact. The rule (NHL at least) is against targetting the head. It's a subtle but important distinction. There are more examples of head contact not being penalized than there are good hits that are. Someone already mentioned the Kronwall hit from the other night. Head contact and Hemsky gets sent to the quiet room, but no call.


Targeting would imply aiming or intent I would think. It may be stated as "targeting" but it seems to be enforced as incidental. Oliver curves into Ramage at the last second on that play. People are claiming this type hit to be exactly what should be stopped.(I know you are not saying that about this particular hit) I disagree with that.

Threads like this appear seemingly every time there's a poor call like this; always implying some dire threat to the physicality of the game. It's nonsense. It's a bad call and nothing more. It's no more a threat to hitting than a bad interference call is threat to playing defense. Just an acorn. The sky isn't falling.

Sorry if you're offended by debate. You'll rarely find universal agreement on the internet. I don't agree with your assessment of where the game is headed. I'd expect players to change how they hit. Probably see fewer dangerous hits, and fewer injuries as a result. I call that a net gain. All the evidence suggests that big hits, even big open-ice hits, aren't going away.

About all I'd change at this time, rule-wise, is requiring a review before a player is ejected. Maybe even for major penalties.


Who said I'm offended? You've stated your opinion and I've listened. I think we probably have more common ground than dissent, I would agree with a rule of video before ejection. Debate is cool. Throwing out an initial post telling people to relax and saying they are irrational instead of laying out why you disagree is dumb. The rule is new, and vague, hence the lack of understanding of what will happen to physicality in the game.
You gotta be the QB to win the MVP baby! You can't be the punter.

#38 freshy

freshy

    Freshy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 759 posts
  • Location:Apopka, Florida

Posted 06 February 2012 - 10:25 AM

freshy, you are basically trolling as you are unwilling to listen to an entirely rational counter argument. you do realize people can have a differing opinion than yours and not be morons for doing so, right?


Huh? Since when does not agreeing mean an unwillingness to listen? Who called anyone a moron?Doomsdayers and Goon have been thrown around, but not by me. How bout you post something about the thread topic or go back to lurking.......
You gotta be the QB to win the MVP baby! You can't be the punter.

#39 Dave

Dave

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,186 posts
  • Location:Chesapeake, Virginia

Posted 06 February 2012 - 11:46 AM

Making illegal contact because of a play like that should be penalized.

Yes, Ramage had a jump on the play but because of his position had to hope that his check hit square and it didn't.

Oliver, A left handed player takes a pass from 10 feet behind him to his right, with a checker on his tail who barely misses the puck with a poke from 2 feet behind on the same back-right positioning, he goes to curl back and gets killed all within about 1/2 second.........and it was Oliver's job to avoid getting blindsided by someone he saw 1/32 of a second before he gets hit.

Ramage had at least a full second if not 2 to decide how to react and he made the same choice as if Little kept the puck, run player with puck.

Yes it is absolutely on the checking player to make 100% sure they make no contact with the head.



So from now on players can just leave their head down, or "turned back" while going through the neutral zone and defenders can't touch them. That would be amazingly exploited. It also removes any responsibility from the puck carrier.

#40 Din758

Din758

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,176 posts
  • Location:Hockeytown, USA

Posted 06 February 2012 - 12:10 PM

Love how his # is 55.
Crosby is a crybaby *****





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users