• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Red Wings Addict

Should Kronwall have to answer the bell for his hits?

Rate this topic

Should Kronwall have to answer the bell for his hits?   100 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Kronwall have to answer the bell for his hits?

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      85

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

97 posts in this topic

i wouldnt mind it if the player he hits is the player he fights. i just wouldnt want him fighting a big enforcer because idk how he would do in a fight. pretty sure hes never fought in a game before

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Needing to fight after legal hits isn't too far from needing to fight after legal goals.

Based on this interview with Lucic it sounds like its not uncommon to have a fight after a legit goal, or a legit hit, or just because you feel like your guys are a little sluggish. Anyway, tons of reason to fight which don't involve retaliation for something dirty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wouldnt mind it if the player he hits is the player he fights. i just wouldnt want him fighting a big enforcer because idk how he would do in a fight. pretty sure hes never fought in a game before

He'd get killed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pair Kronwall with Smith. Then after a big hit, you sure as hell will get an answer from Brendan, Kronwall is too important now to be fighting, plus I bet he'd be a terrible fighter. (Kesler sucks)

I think they're going to pair Kronwall with Ericsson. They've been telling Ericsson for the past few years to pattern his game after Stuart's. In that sense, it's only fitting that he becomes Kronwall's dmen partner if they believe Ericsson can be a suitable replacement for the Kronwall-Stuart combination that worked well in the past. My impression is that they're more than willing to at least try out the pairing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kronwall's pretty much our most important player now, IMO. If he goes down for, say, two months? Imagine a two-month-long losing streak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 80's, and even up to the late 90's Kronwall would've been forced to stand up for himself - clean hit, or not...Intimidation had it's role back then.

With that being said - today's game is much different, and with the rules in place he doesn't have to worry as much about retaliation - although getting jumped can still happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he should have to fight for clean hits, but having said that, I'm really surprised that more teams don't make him...or someone else on the team. The fact that he does it and gets away with it so much is a real surprise.

Note: On a positive note, seems like we'll never have to ask this question about Smith.

Years ago it didn't matter if the hit was deemed "clean", or "dirty"...You touch Gretzky - Semenko, or McSorley would come after you...Go after Stevie - Probert, Kocur, or Gallant would get in your face.

How times have changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kronwall's pretty much our most important player now, IMO. If he goes down for, say, two months? Imagine a two-month-long losing streak.

That's what kind of sucks with having Kronwall as the #1 dman. I think he played every game last season but overall his history still says injury prone. Definitely a legit concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 80's, and even up to the late 90's Kronwall would've been forced to stand up for himself - clean hit, or not...Intimidation had it's role back then.

With that being said - today's game is much different, and with the rules in place he doesn't have to worry as much about retaliation - although getting jumped can still happen.

Not really, unless he went after a star player.

Back in the 80s and into the 90s players actually accepted that a clean hard hit was part of the game. They'd take a number and get him back later.

Players jumping guys for throwing a clean hard hit is a relatively recent development.

hillbillywingsfan and Jocke like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, unless he went after a star player.

Back in the 80s and into the 90s players actually accepted that a clean hard hit was part of the game. They'd take a number and get him back later.

Players jumping guys for throwing a clean hard hit is a relatively recent development.

How many times did konstantinov have to "answer" the bell after a clean hit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago it didn't matter if the hit was deemed "clean", or "dirty"...You touch Gretzky - Semenko, or McSorley would come after you...Go after Stevie - Probert, Kocur, or Gallant would get in your face.

How times have changed.

Well that's what I wonder about in a way. Maybe players go after Kronwall after some of his hits because he's always against either skilled players or in general a team's point producers. The job of a top-four dman like Kronwall is to defend against a team's best players. Is the complaint that players shouldn't have to fight after a clean hit on a skilled player unjustified based on the game's history? Because like you said; in the past, if you inflict any kind of harm on a team's point producers then someone would get in your face. Has it always been that way and now all of a sudden we have a league-wide complaint about it that came out of nowhere? If it was that way for Yzerman/Probert-Kocur and Gretzky/McSorley then how or why are people so surprised about a retaliation these days when it happens after a big hit on a team's skilled players?

Now, I'm making a lot of assumptions here but I'm just wondering out loud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, unless he went after a star player.

Back in the 80s and into the 90s players actually accepted that a clean hard hit was part of the game. They'd take a number and get him back later.

Players jumping guys for throwing a clean hard hit is a relatively recent development.

My memory is far from exceptional...

From what I recall the "take a number" might have involved, an elbow, or high stick, or quite possibly a run along the boards as a form of retaliation for the previous hit...From there a fight might've ensued between the 2 players...Either way I found hockey more entertaining in terms of how "heated", or "emotional" a game could be...I'll never forget the look Chelios had on his face after Gallant beat the snot outta him (that's what Cheli got for 'messin' with Feds).

I do agree with ya concerning the "star" treatment; any form of physical contact could result in a meeting with one of the fellas mentioned earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My memory is far from exceptional...

From what I recall the "take a number" might have involved, an elbow, or high stick, or quite possibly a run along the boards as a form of retaliation for the previous hit...From there a fight might've ensued between the 2 players...Either way I found hockey more entertaining in terms of how "heated", or "emotional" a game could be...I'll never forget the look Chelios had on his face after Gallant beat the snot outta him (that's what Cheli got for 'messin' with Feds).

I do agree with ya concerning the "star" treatment; any form of physical contact could result in a meeting with one of the fellas mentioned earlier.

Don't get me wrong, the game would sure get a lot chippier. There just wasn't this automatic throwing off the gloves and jumping a guy right after the clean hard hit.

It ticks me off because it negates the advantage of throwing the hit, separating a guy from the puck and taking him out of the play. Instead of getting to take advantage play is stopped because of the mugging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's what I wonder about in a way. Maybe players go after Kronwall after some of his hits because he's always against either skilled players or in general a team's point producers. The job of a top-four dman like Kronwall is to defend against a team's best players. Is the complaint that players shouldn't have to fight after a clean hit on a skilled player unjustified based on the game's history? Because like you said; in the past, if you inflict any kind of harm on a team's point producers then someone would get in your face. Has it always been that way and now all of a sudden we have a league-wide complaint about it that came out of nowhere? If it was that way for Yzerman/Probert-Kocur and Gretzky/McSorley then how or why are people so surprised about a retaliation these days when it happens after a big hit on a team's skilled players?

Now, I'm making a lot of assumptions here but I'm just wondering out loud.

From my personal point of view - the game has toned down the physical/violent factor considerably when compared to what was the norm back in the 70's, and 80's.

5 on 5 "donnybrooks", and bench clearing brawls were fairly common back then...With todays rules in place, and a shift in the attitude of skill over physicality (courtesy of the Euro influence starting in the early 90's) we are wittnessing the results; skill overrules thuggery, and whenever we see any form of "payback" taking place - many viewers are shocked.

Again - just my personal opinion.

Hockeymom1960 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times did konstantinov have to "answer" the bell after a clean hit?

Almost never.

He wouldn't skate away from anyone coming after him though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To hillbilly, and harold.....I seem to recall Vladdy carried both his stick, and elbows in a rather high fashion.

He tooks his fair share of lumps, but going after Vladdy just might see yourself waking up in the trainers room :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To hillbilly, and harold.....I seem to recall Vladdy carried both his stick, and elbows in a rather high fashion.

He tooks his fair share of lumps, but going after Vladdy just might see yourself waking up in the trainers room :lol:

Agreed.

Vladdy wasn't really a fighter but he didn't fear anybody. And there was definitely a good chance you'd be chewing on some lumber or an elbow if you came after him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're right I am arguing the mental aspect of the position enforcers are in causes more mental harm. I'm not discussing the injuries hitting verse fighting causes, I'm discussing deaths.

How many of these hits have caused suicides? I understand that it's not clear cut scientific data, but just from my personal experience and viewpoint it make sense to me that the enforcing position in hockey is very unhealthy much more-so than hitting, as evidenced by the death's of Terrence Tootoo, Trevor Ettinger, Don Sanderson, Boogard, Rypien, and Belak.

Who has died from a hit on the ice? I guess we can use heart illness that triggers from hits, if we do that we have one Markus Wächter, that died due to complications stemming from a bodycheck, but was later announced he had a heart illness. So over the same period of time it's a 6 to 1 ratio on deaths of fighters to non fighters.

The actual injuries from fighting are less than the actual injuries from hitting.

Most of the saddening examples you mentioned began before the players were drafted Depression, addiction, etc was involved in most of the cases. This is where causality enters the equation. Did these issues occur because the players were going to become/had became enforcers, or did these issues lead these men to become enforcers? Plenty of NHL players have sustained more substantial head injuries than most enforcers.

Personally, I would prefer fewer enforcers and more team toughness in hockey. IMO the game would be better if more than one or two people on each team could be counted on the stand up for themselves and their teammates.

Ally likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times did konstantinov have to "answer" the bell after a clean hit?

A few. But he did. He wasnt a great fighter, but he did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if your link wasn't messed up.

Damn. Sorry. Type in Konstantinov McTavish fight on youtube. Post it for me, will ya bud? Thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a perfect world, Kronwall would crush someone with a clean hit, then when some idiot dropped the gloves and went after him, Kronner would start throwing haymakers and drop that guy too. But he's just not that player.

Would I love him to beat the crap out of someone who expects him to fight for a clean hit? Yes.

Should he HAVE to fight for a clean hit? No.

This exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think of megadeth's "crush em" everytime....

i know...its a cheesy song. but it fits.

When i see guys get plastered through the glass i always think of Stone Cold's theme song done by Disturbed...Glass Shatters. Guys that don't get up and are woozy as all hell....please play anything but Chumbawumba!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, hits are a part of the game, that historically were punished if the hit were dirty. Nowadays, it seems that all hit's cause an altercation to be at least threatened. Two reasons as I see it. One is to take away from the flow (momentum) of the game a hit may cause, the other is the player that was hit feels a need to save face. Save embarassment... I tire of the attempt to fight after EVERY hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0