forever_hope Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Hmm.. after looking at the reply closely again, I'm not TOO sure about his intent.. Keith seems the puck coming and clearly he wants to take the body instead.. but the puck ends up bouncing weirdly so Daniel doesn't shield it like he normally would and ends up looking up. Keith looked like he was looking down when he followed through with his elbow.. I'm not saying he should get away with it but MAYBE he wasn't going for the matt cooke type of elbow that everyone thinks? Still should get a lengthy suspension regardless.. I think he should get 6.. probably will end up with 3-4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binderdonedat Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 why pull that crap now, wait for the playoffs and hope we meet the hawks. did you watch last year when the reffs put away their whistles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Daniel hit Keith in the corner. The primary point of contact was the chest, but his shoulder did catch his head with a glancing blow. Keith just released the puck, and was admiring his pass. Should have been a 2 minute penalty, but suspension? Doubt that. Whereas Keith's "hit" is pretty much the most blatent headshot I've ever seen. I mean, Daniel doesn't have the puck, and BAM!...elbow to the face. There is no explaining it other than a deliberate attempt to injure. Rome's shoulder to a player who just released the puck < Keith's elbow to a player who never had it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Hmm.. after looking at the reply closely again, I'm not TOO sure about his intent.. Keith seems the puck coming and clearly he wants to take the body instead.. but the puck ends up bouncing weirdly so Daniel doesn't shield it like he normally would and ends up looking up. Keith looked like he was looking down when he followed through with his elbow.. I'm not saying he should get away with it but MAYBE he wasn't going for the matt cooke type of elbow that everyone thinks? Still should get a lengthy suspension regardless.. I think he should get 6.. probably will end up with 3-4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I love Bieksa, as one of my favourites, but the Bieksa of old needed to knock someone out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostdivision Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 why pull that crap now, wait for the playoffs and hope we meet the hawks. did you watch last year when the reffs put away their whistles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Put the whistles away? Hell no they didn't, they put Canucks stickers on them and whistled the Canadian anthem evey time we started beat the pi$$ out of Chicago. Last year's playoffs was easily the worst officiating I've ever seen in my entire hockey playing life, both as a player and fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I agree that Keith should have received 5 and a game as that would have negated the Nucks feeling they had to go ballistic in retaliation. Part of what goes into the decision on the ice is who the players are. If it was Cook or Ott than I think an immediate 5 and game. Keith has no history of playing on the edge whatsoever and as much as nuck fans don't like to hear it the Sedins have a history of falling to the ice easily after contact so with this in mind I can understand the call. By the way ... with all this eye for an eye mentality that canuck fans are voicing you better hope the players don't adopt it as well cause it will only mean lots of time spent in the box. Don't even suggest that Daniel embellished this...you'll just look like an idiot trying to detract from the vicious, ugly hit if you try. It's a fine line to walk right now and we're not about to listen to any nonsense suggesting Daniel dropped for effect. He even tried to continue after the attempted decapitation, so don't even go there or you'll get a suspension of your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Keith runs around like he's the toughest thing on two skates. I guess he'll find out the hard way one day..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I agree that Keith should have received 5 and a game as that would have negated the Nucks feeling they had to go ballistic in retaliation. Part of what goes into the decision on the ice is who the players are. If it was Cook or Ott than I think an immediate 5 and game. Keith has no history of playing on the edge whatsoever and as much as nuck fans don't like to hear it the Sedins have a history of falling to the ice easily after contact so with this in mind I can understand the call. By the way ... with all this eye for an eye mentality that canuck fans are voicing you better hope the players don't adopt it as well cause it will only mean lots of time spent in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sulihpoeht Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I don't agree with "why not elbow ___________ in the head". Don't encourage this dirty play - the way to settle this is by beating the crap out of them. Clearly, with the Chickenhawks making the comments towards Kass, they're taunting and even challenging for that. And isn't that part of why he's here? - to deter others from taking runs at our players like this? I know he's young and there's a role beyond that for him, but this is where he needs to start. Every single hit to their players afterwards should have left an imprint. I love Bieksa, as one of my favourites, but the Bieksa of old needed to knock someone out. I do like that we were "ready" to go in response...unfortunately, as is always the case, the refs made sure we couldn't. But I love that Burr didn't care and was in there. And I do wish our guys could've popped a few them despite the efforts to restrain them. Needs to happen. Enough of this trying to do it the way we're supposed to...we end up the losers in that game. Free for all time. Sure, we may lose guys in the process who'll be turfed or, even worse, injured in the process. But isn't that happening anyhow? May as well make them pay too. The fact that Keith was allowed to fly around the ice afterward and Daniel is in a room, with the possibility (there always is) of not returning makes my blood boil. He needed to be addressed - directly and with emphasis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 If you want revenge start with scoring on the *&^%$^*&% powerplay!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realnucksfan2010 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 That hit was deliberate for sure, Keith did not even go for the puck he went strait for Danny's head. If that isn't suspendable I don't know what is!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Premeditated, puck not near Sedin, elbow straight to head. Would get more if he was a repeat offender. Since he isn't, he'll receive 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airjasper Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Why is 5 games an acceptable suspension for a hit like this? That is a measly 6% of the season. It's a joke. If they want to get players to stop it's a pretty simple solution. Hand out suspensions that actually mean something. 10, 15, 20 games. Some of these hits are blatant attempts to injure that could easily end a guy's season, or even a career. Yet we have been conditioned to accept 5 games as suitable punishment. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Premeditated, puck not near Sedin, elbow straight to head. Would get more if he was a repeat offender. Since he isn't, he'll receive 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourl Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Seems to me, things that happen to our team the refs are like "ahh oh well he'll be ok" but if we do something wrong. You are out for the rest of the season or playoffs!!! shrug oh well hope Danny is ok, go canucks go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Why is 5 games an acceptable suspension for a hit like this? That is a measly 6% of the season. It's a joke. If they want to get players to stop it's a pretty simple solution. Hand out suspensions that actually mean something. 10, 15, 20 games. Some of these hits are blatant attempts to injure that could easily end a guy's season, or even a career. Yet we have been conditioned to accept 5 games as suitable punishment. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhawk Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Don't even suggest that Daniel embellished this...you'll just look like an idiot trying to detract from the vicious, ugly hit if you try. It's a fine line to walk right now and we're not about to listen to any nonsense suggesting Daniel dropped for effect. He even tried to continue after the attempted decapitation, so don't even go there or you'll get a suspension of your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Li'l Fra Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 The reffing in the NHL is getting worse and worse. I really don't know what the hell they are doing and apparently neither do they. Game management... how about game mismanagement.! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.