Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

Daniel's Hit On Keith Was Perfectly Ok, Everyone Who Says It Ain't Is Full Of It


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
66 replies to this topic

#61 butters

butters

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,399 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 22 March 2012 - 10:32 PM

Head shots have to be taken out of the game, so even if you think that Sedin's hit was ok it still has to be penalised. If players know that even accidental and innocent head contact will get penalties then a lot of them will be concious of it. I'd rather see a Sedin get unfairly penalised if it otherwise reduces headshots.

#62 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,088 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 22 March 2012 - 11:16 PM

So I'm looking through all the suspensions this season, wondering, how many are for a play that was worse than this?

The Wisniewski one was ugly because it was after the game ended, but I don't recall the guy being injured as a result. Sutton on Landeskog was a vicious headshot but, at least he touched the puck. Carcillo/Gilbert was just brutal, but again it was on a race for the puck. A lot of ugly hits to the head, Letang from Pacioretty stands out for me but it seems like they were all in the course of play, not deliberate attempts to injure away from the play. Marchand's clip was obviously bad in that sense but the puck was right there, and clipping is tough to compare to other stuff because the line is so hard to draw. Didn't like Skinner kicking at that guy one bit, but that was more about potential danger than anything else. Borque on Backstrom is the worst this season so far if you ask me, but even that one he'd just passed the puck and it was arguably lazy and stupid, not malicious and intentional.

So based on that, I say this was the worst suspendable offense so far this season. That's not taking in to consideration who it targeted or the hate between the teams, or possible revenge factor, which make it even worse.

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#63 nucks all the way

nucks all the way

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 297 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 11

Posted 23 March 2012 - 12:18 AM

So I'm looking through all the suspensions this season, wondering, how many are for a play that was worse than this?

The Wisniewski one was ugly because it was after the game ended, but I don't recall the guy being injured as a result. Sutton on Landeskog was a vicious headshot but, at least he touched the puck. Carcillo/Gilbert was just brutal, but again it was on a race for the puck. A lot of ugly hits to the head, Letang from Pacioretty stands out for me but it seems like they were all in the course of play, not deliberate attempts to injure away from the play. Marchand's clip was obviously bad in that sense but the puck was right there, and clipping is tough to compare to other stuff because the line is so hard to draw. Didn't like Skinner kicking at that guy one bit, but that was more about potential danger than anything else. Borque on Backstrom is the worst this season so far if you ask me, but even that one he'd just passed the puck and it was arguably lazy and stupid, not malicious and intentional.

So based on that, I say this was the worst suspendable offense so far this season. That's not taking in to consideration who it targeted or the hate between the teams, or possible revenge factor, which make it even worse.


I agree. At this point, even Marchand's claim that he was protecting himself is more credible than whatever crap Keith decides to feed Shanahan.

#64 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 23 March 2012 - 12:26 AM

ok I rip on plenty of 'Nuck fans for being total "homers" when it comes to hits, refs, etc. But after watching the two different hits, the biggest difference (that I can see) more than anything is Keith putting his elbow up for contact. You clearly see Daniel's elbow "tucked" as he's coming up to Keith (which is how a check should be made.) Had Keith just kept his elbow down, it would be more of a "eye for an eye" type of hit. Mind you, I didn't try to "time" the lateness of Daniel's hit... I'm just looking at the actual check from both players.

At most, Daniel might have been given a 2 minute penalty (and had Keith kept his arm down, that's probably all he would have been given as well.)

#65 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 23 March 2012 - 12:37 AM

ok I rip on plenty of 'Nuck fans for being total "homers" when it comes to hits, refs, etc. But after watching the two different hits, the biggest difference (that I can see) more than anything is Keith putting his elbow up for contact. You clearly see Daniel's elbow "tucked" as he's coming up to Keith (which is how a check should be made.) Had Keith just kept his elbow down, it would be more of a "eye for an eye" type of hit. Mind you, I didn't try to "time" the lateness of Daniel's hit... I'm just looking at the actual check from both players.

At most, Daniel might have been given a 2 minute penalty (and had Keith kept his arm down, that's probably all he would have been given as well.)

#66 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,451 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 23 March 2012 - 01:37 AM

Point one: no penalty was called on the play. The United Center scorekeeper didn't register it as a hit! I've taken the trouble to look through all the comments on the ESPN, SBNation, hfboards, and so forth game feeds. NOT ONE SINGLE COMMENT by anybody on that hit by Sedin until AFTER TSN talked about it. When it actually happened not a single person out of all the Canucks haters that think our guys should be suspended if they sneeze even noticed it!


Using that standard Keith wasn't given a major or game misconduct therefore it wasn't intent to injure nor suspendable. The call on the ice isn't always correct.


The media/hockey fan community narrative on this situation is an abomination! The double standard against the Canucks is out of control! Do y'all realize that the last time a Canuck received supplemental discipline was Rome on Horton? KEITH'S ELBOW WAS WAY WORSE THAN THAT! That was a hockey hit that was half-a-second late. This was a deliberate intent to injure on the reigning Art Ross/Pearson winner! Away from the puck, as revenge for a clean hit! That got four SCF games, but people are saying Keith should get less than five? IT SHOULD BE MORE THAN TEN! If it isn't after what Rome got, THAT'S A DISGRACEFUL DOUBLE STANDARD.


Not sure what you're going on about. The media bringing up Daniels, which could very well have been called, as a reason for Kieth going after Sedin actually adds creedence to a longer suspension as it shows it was retaliatory with intent. It's actually a good thing it's been pointed out. Methinks you're overly sensitive with rosie homer glasses firmly in place.

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#67 Armada

Armada

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,116 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 23 March 2012 - 01:42 AM

It was literally a hit to the chest just under the chin. I don't understand what some of you are watching.

Sure 2 minutes for being late but otherwise nothing more.
Posted Image
______________Eat, Sleep,Posted ImageRave, Repeat




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.