Jump to content


freshy's Photo

freshy

Member Since 07 Nov 2007
Offline Last Active Private
-----

#2274336 Needs to be said

Posted by freshy on 26 March 2012 - 08:10 PM

No one here honestly thinks the Wings would be shooting for anything but the top seed they could possibly get, do they? The whole concept of sandbagging is the most un "Redwing" of things you could possibly bring up. We're not Pittsburg for Christ's sake!

They will play to win and look to beat whatever opponets they happen to draw. Hopefully with home ice for as long as we can get it. Have we even won any of the previous 4 cups or made the 6 finals having to play more then 1 series without the advantage of home ice?


#2253009 Ramage hit on Oliver

Posted by freshy on 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.......


#2252870 Ramage hit on Oliver

Posted by freshy on 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?


#2252122 Ramage hit on Oliver

Posted by freshy on 04 February 2012 - 08:33 PM

His shoulder very cleary hits the guy in the facemaskChest. Doesn't make it a dirty hit or even a penalty, but there was contact with the headchest. I don't know the college rule, and going by NHL rules I wouldn't call it a penalty. I wouldn't say the head was targetted or the principle point of contact.

Just saying that with all the attention on head hits and concussions, I can understand why a call was made.


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.



There's a reason slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious. Refs are probably a little over-zealous when calling headshots. That doesn't mean it won't improve as refs and players adapt to the new rules, and certainly doesn't mean that refs will become over-zealous in calling other types of hits.


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.

No one is trying to get rid of body checks. They are trying to reduce head injuries. I would think that head injuries are more 'universally undesireable' than tapping a guy on the hip or mitts with a stick.


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.

Yes, there are inherent risks to the game. However, exaclty what those risks are hasn't been known for long, and I'd bet are still not widely understood by the players. Head injuries can have permanent debilitating effects on people. Players have been getting bigger and faster. Equipment gives better protection so players feel the need to more agressive. As the game becomes more violent, and the risks better understood, you'll get adaptations like this to minimize those risks.


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.

Yeah, maybe you'll see people pulling up on these hits more often. And really, so what? Hits like that happen maybe once a game. If that's all hockey is to you then I'd have to say you're no more a fan of hockey than the guy who tunes into NASCAR for the crashes is a fan of racing. There are big hits that don't involve head contact, and they very rarely result in injury. If anything, I'd expect players to become more adept at laying a big hit without hitting the head.


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.

People always say they don't want to see someone get injured, but it seems to me that is exactly what they want. Maybe not a lasting injury, but you all sure cheer loud enough when someone gets knocked senseless.


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.

Well, guess what. That's a brain injury. Maybe not severe, maybe not one that will cause any lasting harm, but an injury just the same. We still do not really understand how those little injuries can add up.


Sure we do. Recurrent small brain injuries add up over the long run. This isn't new information.


Much better to err on the side of caution. Worst-case we see fewer big hits and fewer injuries. Players are always going to push the envelope; try to get away with as much as possible without crossing the line (or getting caught doing so at least). If you're too lax with the rules, the worst-case is you see a lot more frequent and more severe head injuries. I'd certainly prefer the former.


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?


#2252017 Ramage hit on Oliver

Posted by freshy on 04 February 2012 - 11:45 AM

Bad calls don't spell the end of hockey as we knew it.

Quit being melodramatic.


Hockey is always changing. It's never the same as we "knew it". Apparently it is changing for the better in your opinion, which is cool. I like how someone like Kronwall plays and don't want to have to worry if every big check he makes will end up in a suspension along with a 5 on 5 scrum. Personally I enjoy a nice solid body check as part of the game and don't think it should be legislated out of the sport. How many of these "bad calls" would we have seen 10 years ago? Buppy said he would have given the hitter a pass. No s***, because it was clearly a horrible call. One that no ref would have even contemplated anytime before 2 years ago. That is the entire point.......


#2252014 Ramage hit on Oliver

Posted by freshy on 04 February 2012 - 11:32 AM

Used to be that questionable calls by the refs didn't incite hordes of doomsayers decrying the state of the sport. Ah, the good ol' days...

Given that the kid was bent over pretty far, and was starting to turn inside when he got hit, I'd be inclined to give the hitter a pass. But he did put his shoulder into the guys face, so I can see how the ref might have thought it was worse than it was.

Maybe plays should be reviewed before a player can be ejected, but I don't see this as being all that bad.


Not sure how you see Ramage's shoulder going into the Oliver's face, looks clearly to be hitting him in the shoulder on all the replays. Major point of impact is low causing the guy's stick to snap like a twig. Ramage doesn't leave his feet at all or charge leading up to the hit in any way. The check couldn't have been any cleaner. When I saw Ramage getting a penalty I was shaking my head in disbelief. Then, after a 5 minute discussion by the officials, they tossed him. It was absolutely jaw dropping.

Like Newfy commented, hockey used to be a contact sport. Anyone that played hockey from Bantam level on needed to learn that if you come through the neutral zone with your head down like Oliver did you had a good chance of getting flattened. These type of calls you feel are "questionable" are on the rise. The more calls made like this, the more players will pull up from making a body check to avoid a possible penalty, and the more players with feel comfortable skating through the middle with their heads down. The sport of hockey, just like anything in life, adapts to the constructs of the environment it is in.


#2252000 Ramage hit on Oliver

Posted by freshy on 04 February 2012 - 10:12 AM

I was flipping through the channels last night and happened to stop on the Wisconsin-St.Cloud State game. I had only caught about 5 minutes of the game when this thing of beauty occurred:
http://www.youtube.c...&v=yWVYug0nlw8#!

Ramage recieved a 5min for "Blow to the head" and also was tossed from the game :scared: Needless to say Papa Eaves & the Wisconsin faithful were less then pleased, and the sport of hockey died a little last night.


#2249737 1/25 GDT : Red Wings 2 at Canadiens 7

Posted by freshy on 25 January 2012 - 09:14 PM

The players should be embarassed to cash their paychecks for tonights game, save maybe for Helm & Pavs. I don't think it is possible for a player to be caught more out of position then Erickson has been tonight. He is pure garbage......


#2238402 Stay classy Kesler

Posted by freshy on 22 December 2011 - 06:30 PM

I just caught that hit on youtube. HOLY HELL! Kesler got absolutely destroyed by that thing of beauty :yowza: That plastering looked even harder than the beating Havlat took, if that's even possible.

I think the funniest part was Raymond getting bulldozed by Franzen after he knocked off Nick's helmet and then Kesler falling over his teammate onto his face trying to get after Kronner. What a friggen clown. As far as Kronner answering the bell, when exactly was that going to happen? Kesler looked like a ****** charging at him when the refs had them both basically tied up. What, is Kronner suppose to shake off the ref, drop his gloves, and fight Kesler because of a perfectly awesome, clean hit? Nick's expression of WTF guy? said it all. Keep your head up next time and go sit the F down!!!!!


#2206781 McCrimmon, Salei on board Russian plane crash

Posted by freshy on 07 September 2011 - 07:55 PM

Punched in the gut.

That is what I felt when I started reading this thread. I usually check LGW a couple of times a week is all in the off-season, and then a few times a day once the season starts. The last time I checked a couple of days ago I read about Belak, which was awful enough. Then today I log on to get my hockey update and get blasted in the gut with this tragic news. My mind immediately went back to one of the last posts I read on the Belak thread. Someone commented on all of the deaths so far and mentioned that it seemed the Wings organization was due for a tragedy.

I feel sick. RIP Men.....


#2171929 WCSF Game 6 GDT: Sharks 1 at Red Wings 3

Posted by freshy on 10 May 2011 - 09:41 PM

Give Coture's goofy ass a beatdown Stuart :clap:


#2168033 WCSF Game 4 GDT: Sharks 3 at Red Wings 4

Posted by freshy on 06 May 2011 - 08:38 PM

Wow. Helping of crow please!!! :)


#2127537 Chara's hit on Pacioretty

Posted by freshy on 09 March 2011 - 11:18 AM

Unfortunate outcome, but basically the same thing Stuart does multiple times a season when he is beat defensively on a play. Just happened to catch him at a bad part of the rink. Chara interferswith him but with the speed they are moving and Chara's size & strength he ends up planting his dome against the glass. I'm not sure how anyone can honestly think that Chara conciously thought "I'm going to blast this guy into the turnbuckle." The guy was taking a stupid penalty because he was late reacting and the guy was blowing by him.


#1984801 Hawks or sharks?

Posted by freshy on 13 May 2010 - 07:34 PM

Pulling for the B's to win, having lived in Boston, and liking them as an original six team. I like many players on Philly, but can't get past my immense homicidal hate for Pronger. Montreal is a good story, but of all the hockey teams in Canada, they are the team I would least like to see win the cup. How annoying would those fans be, Jesus. Only fans that would be worse might be the Blackhawk fans, so I hope they choke on it and continue to feel like the little ******* they are too us. I have no problem with San Jose winning if Boston doesn't. They knocked out the Wings and I like the game the play.

To be honest I'm really just happy that Pittsburg lost in such flametastic fashion:)