I honestly think there is zero chance we get Yandle, Ryan, or Nash via trade. When was the last time a star player was even moved in the same conference? Kenny has zero leverage right now when it comes to trying to acquiring a star player. As much as I would love to have Yandle, he is a pipe dream at this point.
I'm enjoying reading the comments at the Tennessean and the Star Ledger and both have often touched on the meme they took the cowards way out.
I can understand Parise's choice(kind of) of wanting to go home, but Suter IMO made a dumb decision. He's not even from MN. He played all those years in Nashville and never sniffed a cup. Had a chance to see our top notch organization multiple times a year. He had the chance to join Detroit for great money/term. He knows they will always try to field a great team each year. None of those things have been demonstrated in Minny.
I'm seeing a lot of irrelevant hate for Crosby here. Yes I remember back in 08 and 09 when we beat him then he beat us, but how does this take away from his skill? He was out forever then came back like nothing happened and put up numbers at the same pace as before his concussion. Sure the media hypes him all the time, but with good reason.
No one is saying he's not a great player. The problem is he is a documented ******-bag. The hate isn't irrelevent. Plenty of other players are/have been great without being complete douches the likes of Crosby. Sakic, Yzerman, Toews, Stamkos, Chara, Iginla, Richards, etc.etc.......Just to name a very few that popped into my head.
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?
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.......
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.
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?
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?
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.......
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.