Jump to content

Club De Hockey Canadien


Recommended Posts

I thought that article linked up above was kind of crappy."Making a hit during that play was illegal and Chara received an interference penalty for it. By definition, that makes his hit NOT a hockey play."Is this true? Any play that is called for a penalty is not a hockey play? That doesn't seem right.
I think the author is referring to the term "hockey play" as it was used by some to justify Chara's actions. Chara's hit occurred when Pacioretty didn't have the puck. Pacioretty's hit occurred when Letang had the puck. I think that's the distinction the author is making.Oh and welcome to this thread.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The bolded part is evidently now public. I was not aware. An excerpt from the press conference during the donation pledge....   At Wednesday’s announcement, P.K. was filled with emotion as he talked

This is not the Leafs thread...we don't celebrate every little accomplishment.

Doesn't really matter though. If he creates 5 goals and costs his team 4 goals, he is still more valuable than a super shut down defenseman who never gives up a goal but who never creates a goal for e

Whether it's the right terminology or not, yeah, that's the basic distinction being made, I agree.Pacioretty's hit was more of a hockey play, in the sense that Letang had just released the puck a split second earlier, whereas Chara hit Pacioretty long enough after he had rid himself of the puck that it warranted an interference call (was it a major too?).However, my feeling on the hit, and not sure exactly how this gels with the current form of the rule, is just that it's not a hit that needs to happen. Letang is going to be in a vulnerable spot when he's taking a shot there, and Pactioretty coming from the (arguably) blind side, he really doesn't need to try to kill him there. I agree with your earlier post about the reason for a hit, Dale, to separate the man from the puck, not injure someone in a prone position.Anyways, I got a little off track. I just think that you want to eliminate hits on guys in vulnerable spots like that, and as far as I've read so far, they want to put the onus on the hitter, not the hittee. We'll see how that swings in the future, ie, will guys be showing their back on the boards so that they know nobody can hit them? That could become an issue maybe? For now, that's how I feel though.I'm just happy Letang seems to be ok, aside from his broke nose. Doesn't seem like he's got a concussion, although I'm not sure they've completed all the tests. He was late to practice because he was meeting with the doctors this morning, but did participate fully once he joined the team, and Bylsma said he expects to have him available tomorrow night.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the author is referring to the term "hockey play" as it was used by some to justify Chara's actions. Chara's hit occurred when Pacioretty didn't have the puck. Pacioretty's hit occurred when Letang had the puck. I think that's the distinction the author is making.Oh and welcome to this thread.
I don't think I disagreed with his overall point, I just thought it wasn't written very well. Like where he lists three twitter posts and says, "Where's the bias, huh? Huh?" and then jabs his finger in your chest. At least that's how I read it.I almost never know which thread I'm in while in the hockey forum.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't agree with the "targeted the head" part though.
I don't see how you could possibly say that. Obviously we're both biased but it's pretty clear. (especially on the replay where the spotlight is on letang's upper body)I was thinking 1-2 games with no prior history but in my view that is pretty much textbook for what the league is trying to get rid of.
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the video, he froze it when Letang's head got whipped around, and then the rest of their bodies made contact. I took that to mean that that was the evidence that the head was the "principle point of contact". That doesn't mean he meant to hit him in the head, but the onus is on the hitter when the player with the puck didn't significantly change the position of his head immediately prior to contact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Pac went too high on the hit and that resulted in some head contact. If he crouchers even a couple of inches or so and goes body to body, there is no suspension.3 games is fine with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks clean as clean could be.
Yup, gorgeous and perfectly clean hit. I liked Brayden McNabb's hit the other day...kid is going to be a gamer (for Anaheim after he gets traded in the Bobby Ryan deal).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice hit by Emelin, shoulder to chest. If you ask me, Pavelski almost looks like he stepped into that one on purpose, which is odd to say 'cause no one wants to get crunched like that...do they?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice hit by Emelin, shoulder to chest. If you ask me, Pavelski almost looks like he stepped into that one on purpose, which is odd to say 'cause no one wants to get crunched like that...do they?
He didn't step in intentionally. He was moving up ice with the puck and made a move in the direction from where Emelin was coming.
Link to post
Share on other sites
hey, is eller ever going to be the player the blues thought they were drafting?
He's looked like a very solid two-way player for the most part this season.
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

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...