2010-11 NHL Playoff Thread: HOUSE RULES: ENGAGED

[Selamis]

You're missing the point, this wasn't Seabrook skating up ice and looking down getting drilled. He was turning, and defenseless to accept the puck that was coming around the boards. Why are you defending this hit? If Seabrook was skating and this same hit happens, where he at least as a chance to see Torres coming but still gets nailed then yes, clean hit, but not this and especially not because it's almost the same type of hit that Torres JUST got suspended for. Seabrook had no time to move out of the way for this, that's where the penalty comes from. You can't seriously be over looking this as a homer fan just cheering on your team. Torres is a piece of shit and so far I see all of two people defending this hit as clean. This includes, Facebook, BG, and Twitter so far where I've seen reaction for it, and it's not all just Chicago based people commenting about it either.

[Jememy]

You can't seriously be a homer and think because every hit that Torres throws on a Blackhawk you get to yell and scream suspension!

[Bweigelt]

Q claiming the torres hit should have been a major and that they would have scored 4 goals on it. LOL

Spoiler: show

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5097/cheesebm.jpg

[vagus]

Reason he's gonna get suspended is because it was a hit that Seabrook did not see. Seems NHL is trying stop blind-side hits. It wasn't a head shot and Seabrook is lucky that it wasn't. Could have been really bad. This isn't all Torres fault, as Seabrook should have been looking around. 1 game max imo because Torres has a "previous history." There have been more dangerous hits this NHL playoffs and NHL needs to explain those hits better.

[Thoronas]

I hate to say it but I could see this getting 3 games. Not that it matters as the Canucks are neither better or worse with Torres.

[Jememy]

Whatever happens happens. Pit Van final Cooke and Torres will be suspended an entire season heard it here first.

[Selamis]

You can't seriously be a homer and think because every hit that Torres throws on a Blackhawk you get to yell and scream suspension!

Uh, did I say anywhere that this was the case? No. If it was reversed and a Hawks player absolutely crushed Torres with the same type of hit, I would still say that whoever threw the hit should get a suspension because of the circumstances involved with the hit.

[Ishido]

You can't seriously be a homer and think because every hit that Torres throws on a Blackhawk you get to yell and scream suspension!

Saying it's a clean hit is a huge load of crap. This is a big hit and it would have been fine in a number of other ways, but the principal point if contact is with Seabrook's head, or close enough that people are able to argue it was targeted. It's a reckless hit in a place where it is not necessary.

People (not just Hawks fans) are calling for a suspension because he's done the same kind of reckless hit in back-to-back games. People will make the argument that both players he hit were not injured, but you have to take into account that a very similar hit to both of the ones that Torres delivered essentially ended the career of Savard.

[aurik]

The answer to "how are you supposed to hit him when his head is down" is you don't.

If you can't make a clean hit, you aren't allowed to make the hit.

[Callisto]

Rough stuff tonight, glad I went to skate instead of watching the end of that. Looks like Luongo finally has his brainy bits in the right spot. Hopefully we at least take one game from them.

[Chips]

The answer to "how are you supposed to hit him when his head is down" is you don't.

If you can't make a clean hit, you aren't allowed to make the hit.

I'm not sure I agree. If a guy is speeding down the middle of the ice with the puck, and his eyes are locked on his stick, he deserves to be crushed. Having said that, I do agree with the bans on blindside hits to the head.

[Judai]

If you can't see why that is a bad hit and warrants a suspension you are either an idiot or a canucks homer.

He is looking at the puck at his feet, no shit his head is down. idk about you but I was taught never to hit someone in any sport unless I could see the front of their jersey. Torres sped up and assumed Seabrook would continue turn into the hit. If Seabrook had stopped instead of continuing to turn, it would have been a hit in the back and a boarding call.

[Bweigelt]

Based on the DVD that was sent out at the beginning of the year when a player is behind the net he is free game and is responsible for keeping his head up. It's different than when he is in the middle of the ice. If you go by the DvD that was a clean hit, or at most 2 minutes for interference (which is what was called on the play) because Seabrook missed the puck when he tried to play it.

TSNBobMcKenzie Bob McKenzie
My prediction of what happens, based on DVD of March, 2010, and "hitting area" rationale, is as follows: Don't believe he'll be suspended.

That's the tweet from Bob McKenzie referring to what I'm talking about. He actually explained it more in detail but it's not on his twitter. There are several places on the ice like behind the net where the rules are tweaked it becomes the players jobs to protect themselves.

[vagus]

What I'm having an issue is that the refs only gave Torres 2 mins. If the NHL decides to give Torres a suspension, this will set a precedence. Will the NHL go back and give penalties on hits that weren't given penalities originally.

[Penthesilea]

Looks like a good check to me.

[Chips]

If you can't see why that is a bad hit and warrants a suspension you are either an idiot or a canucks homer.

He is looking at the puck at his feet, no shit his head is down. idk about you but I was taught never to hit someone in any sport unless I could see the front of their jersey. Torres sped up and assumed Seabrook would continue turn into the hit. If Seabrook had stopped instead of continuing to turn, it would have been a hit in the back and a boarding call.

If that was directed at me, I do agree that it was a bad hit. My post was meant for hits to people when their heads are down, but straight-on. Perhaps it was unclear in my post.

[Ishido]

If that was directed at me, I do agree that it was a bad hit. My post was meant for hits to people when their heads are down, but straight-on. Perhaps it was unclear in my post.

Hitting people with their head down is fine, you just need to make it a priority to hit their body.

What I'm having an issue is that the refs only gave Torres 2 mins. If the NHL decides to give Torres a suspension, this will set a precedence. Will the NHL go back and give penalties on hits that weren't given penalities originally.

I'm fairly sure this has already happened.

[Judai]

If that was directed at me, I do agree that it was a bad hit. My post was meant for hits to people when their heads are down, but straight-on. Perhaps it was unclear in my post.

You posted while I was typing lol, it was directed at the few guys who are trying to defend that hit. As long as you dont go for the head or back or anything like that I have no problem cleaning out a dude not paying attention.

Even the Vancouver Sun thinks it was a bad hit. (not that I know anything about that paper/site/reporter. Second link I saw when I googled).

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/C...909/story.html

I'm pretty sure people have been suspended when just a 2m penalty was called, hell I'm pretty sure people have been suspended when no penalty was called.

[Flarega]

What I'm having an issue is that the refs only gave Torres 2 mins. If the NHL decides to give Torres a suspension, this will set a precedence. Will the NHL go back and give penalties on hits that weren't given penalities originally.

Jarret Stoll was suspended and no extra penalty was given (or given in the first place). Ian White was hurt pretty bad though.

[Thoronas]

Based on the DVD that was sent out at the beginning of the year when a player is behind the net he is free game and is responsible for keeping his head up. It's different than when he is in the middle of the ice. If you go by the DvD that was a clean hit, or at most 2 minutes for interference (which is what was called on the play) because Seabrook missed the puck when he tried to play it.

That's the tweet from Bob McKenzie referring to what I'm talking about. He actually explained it more in detail but it's not on his twitter. There are several places on the ice like behind the net where the rules are tweaked it becomes the players jobs to protect themselves.

He did provide some history.

"When NHL GMs created Rule 48, they allowed area behind net is "hitting area" and players need to be more aware than, say, in neutral zone. In March/2010, DVD went to players, coaches, GMs saying exactly that, far more latitude given on hits behind net on unsuspecting players.

In other words, as one NHL GM told me tonight, a hit behind net is viewed more like a north-south hit than an east-west neutral zone hit..."

Now, logically this would mean this hit will warrant no suspension. But honestly who the fuck can predict what NHL discipline will be. Like I said before, losing Torres won't change much at this point. Vancouver is clearly going to win this series and even if Torres gets suspended into the next series well hey, we did fine without him for two games so fuck it. The NHL can suspend Torres for the rest of the playoffs and it will honestly not affect the Canucks chances at all. If anything it might help them since he got more then a couple dumb dumb penalties. Still better then John Scott.