Hit on a Canuck which angered you the most?

[nuck nit]

Baggins ,you are selling snake oil from your home tv mantle.

I played D at a pretty high level and I can tell you that both Rome and Getzlaf hit because they wanted to hurt.

That is what hitting is all about.

The difference is Rome hit fair and Getzlaf did not.

Open ice is fair game-up against the boards,blind side and skates leaving the ice- is not.

BTW,you are completely full of it when you sell the 'his feet left the ice after contact' spiel.

That is where Getzlaf gets the final nail -and so do you.

[Baggins]

Baggins ,you are selling snake oil from your home tv mantle.

I played D at a pretty high level and I can tell you that both Rome and Getzlaf hit because they wanted to hurt.

That is what hitting is all about.

The difference is Rome hit fair and Getzlaf did not.

Open ice is fair game-up against the boards,blind side and skates leaving the ice- is not.

BTW,you are completely full of it when you sell the 'his feet left the ice after contact' spiel.

That is where Getzlaf gets the final nail -and so do you.

[Mayray2112]

That Kronwall hit was not bad. Clean hit. Kronwall is one of my favourite players because of his hits. I'm not a homer, I respect and do not mind big clean hits on our players. That makes hockey fun. I sometimes want our players to get hit to wake them up in the game.

That is what makes good rivalries and good hockey, big clean hits going both ways. But Keith on Sedin is another story.

[-DLC-]

Please don't resort to name calling, Baggins, it's unnecessary. I've removed the personal - keep in mind that it usually does less to sell your case, as you're resorting to a personal attack and that's a little desperate.

"Watch the video, it's all there for the seeing" is where you've failed to keep an open mind. It's not all there to see - how could it be? Did you see it from the front? (No, you did not - but I sure did). It was an unfortunate incident of the camera not being in the right place at the right time. There was one overhead from behind and one from behind angle - that's it. Because it was behind the net, that's just how it happened. But that doesn't mean there wasn't more to see from another angle (mine and a few others) - and there was.

The puck had already been released, with the ref in position by the f/o circle and, unfortunately, with Bieksa right in front of him (as well as the puck nearby).....so he wasn't focused on the behind the net stuff. How many refs do you see in the clip?....I see one.

The "I was at home, trying to determine through the bad replays" argument just confirms that you aren't really in a position to argue with so much certainty and conviction. But immediately after the hit we (the few of us back there who saw the hit at a different angle) discussed it and it was a consensus - "they need to get that out of hockey". And there was no mistaking how it really played out or in what we SAW. You are basing your argument on what you didn't see, and you lose by default in that.

Here's what I know - not from trying to watch YouTube but from actually being there, 2 feet away from the action. It was a borderline late hit that included a launch and an elbow. But I feel no further need to convince you, as you've just rested my case in the "watched it on TV" declaration.

I would, though, be interested for you to display the "4" different angles you've seen it from?

"I slowed down the hit from four angles, including above"

I'm certain there are two and they're both from behind (one overhead). So don't exaggerate things to sound convincing - can you please show all 4 or, again, it's just blowing smoke?

Now, as you argue it out with others, please don't name call and attack because there's no need to. We're all just giving our opinions and, in that, can share different ones.

[Baggins]

Please don't resort to name calling, Baggins, it's unnecessary. I've removed the personal - keep in mind that it usually does less to sell your case, as you're resorting to a personal attack and that's a little desperate.

"Watch the video, it's all there for the seeing" is where you've failed to keep an open mind. It's not all there to see - how could it be? Did you see it from the front? (No, you did not - but I sure did). It was an unfortunate incident of the camera not being in the right place at the right time. There was one overhead from behind and one from behind angle - that's it. Because it was behind the net, that's just how it happened. But that doesn't mean there wasn't more to see from another angle (mine and a few others) - and there was.

The puck had already been released, with the ref in position by the f/o circle and, unfortunately, with Bieksa right in front of him (as well as the puck nearby).....so he wasn't focused on the behind the net stuff. How many refs do you see in the clip?....I see one.

The "I was at home, trying to determine through the bad replays" argument just confirms that you aren't really in a position to argue with so much certainty and conviction. But immediately after the hit we (the few of us back there who saw the hit at a different angle) discussed it and it was a consensus - "they need to get that out of hockey". And there was no mistaking how it really played out or in what we SAW. You are basing your argument on what you didn't see, and you lose by default in that.

Here's what I know - not from trying to watch YouTube but from actually being there, 2 feet away from the action. It was a borderline late hit that included a launch and an elbow. But I feel no further need to convince you, as you've just rested my case in the "watched it on TV" declaration.

I would, though, be interested for you to display the "4" different angles you've seen it from?

"I slowed down the hit from four angles, including above"

I'm certain there are two and they're both from behind (one overhead). So don't exaggerate things to sound convincing - can you please show all 4 or, again, it's just blowing smoke?

Now, as you argue it out with others, please don't name call and attack because there's no need to. We're all just giving our opinions and, in that, can share different ones.

[Mayray2112]

I agree with Baggins that it wasn't an elbow to the head but I would still argue that it was boarding since his back was turned while Getzlaf hit his back left shoulder then jumped to propel Hamhuis into the boards (violently I may add). The check was avoidable if Getzlaf was about to skate past Hamhuis until he turned right and made contact then jumped.

Also you can see Getzlaf had no intention to play the puck, he just held his stick with 1 hand and tucked in his elbow, saw Hamhuis pass but just wanted to finish his hit. You can see him start to tuck his elbow before he started to turn behind the net too.

I see no comparision to the Rome hit. Rome was a late open ice hit while Getlaf's wasn't a really late hit and Getzlaf's happened near the boards going alot slower.

Just my 2 cents

[Baggins]

I agree with Baggins that it wasn't an elbow to the head but I would still argue that it was boarding since his back was turned while Getzlaf hit his back left shoulder then jumped to propel Hamhuis into the boards (violently I may add). The check was avoidable if Getzlaf was about to skate past Hamhuis until he turned right and made contact then jumped.

Also you can see Getzlaf had no intention to play the puck, he just held his stick with 1 hand and tucked in his elbow, saw Hamhuis pass but just wanted to finish his hit. You can see him start to tuck his elbow before he started to turn behind the net too.

I see no comparision to the Rome hit. Rome was a late open ice hit while Getlaf's wasn't a really late hit and Getzlaf's happened near the boards going alot slower.

Just my 2 cents

[Mayray2112]

Hamhuis' back wasn't turned when Getzlaf was going in on him. Dan turns his back while passing the puck. At that point Getzlaf had already tucked the elbow in and was bracing for contact. He was already committed. It was simply too late for him to change his momentum. The rule is, if the player intentionally turns his back to a hit, it's not boarding. Which Dan did. Boarding is intentionally hitting a player whose back is turned. Meaning the hitter chose to hit a player whose back was already turned to him. It's a fine line at times but in this case it was Dans fault for turning his back with an obvious hit so close.

If you watch that video at the 1:18 mark where it's in slow motion you can see Getzlaf doesn't actually leave the ice until contact is made. Which in fact makes it legal. He really had little choice but to leave the ice. As Dan turns his back Getzlaf leans into him with his shoulder. His right leg winds up lined between Dans legs and he basically has his right side go over Dans hip and butt. This is what sent him off balance after the hit when his elbow comes up. In the above view you can actually see Getzlaf reach out with his stick to try and get the puck. He reachs out with the left side and tucked the right side for impact. But there isn't actually a rule requirement to go after the puck when delivering a hit.

Getzlaf actually did every right in the hit. Where it went wrong was Dan turning his back to the hit (any coach will tell you it's the worst thing you can do when you see a hit coming) and Getzlaf having no time to react and change his momentum. Had Dan not turned his back it would have been a routine rubout along the boards that you see every game. The injury was Dans own fault.

[nuck nit]

Baggins,the longer you argue how clean it is to take out a human being with a head shot,the worse you look as a human being,never mind a fan.

Dan had already released the puck.Getzlaf leaves the ice and Dan's head smashes into the plexiglass.

Dan suffered a brain injury here and it was thought it could end his career and this hit can contribute to an early end to his career-and life.

Having 'lip service' respect for a player is one thing.Showing respect for a player's life is another.

Getzlaf showed no respect and neither have you.Meanwhile a man went down with a brain injury.

You go on and on about how right you think your point of view is as you admonish others but get and show some respect for a player's life and that of his family,man.

[Tortorella's Rant]

Compare to the Rome hit. Go to 1:40 of the video.

Rome is heading towards his own zone. Horton passes the puck to Lucic. Rome can clearly see Horton has passed the puck. Rome stops up after the pass is made and delivers a blindside hit. The puck is on Lucics stick before the hit happens. This was a cheap shot with intent. Rome deserved a suspension. I'm not entirely sold that it deserved four games during a Stanley Cup final, but it definitely deserved a suspension. If that was a Boychuk hit on Kesler people here would be calling for a 40 game suspension and crying about intent to injure.

It not even comparable to the Getzlaf hit. Getzlaf had no opportunity to change his momentum as the puck left Dans stick. He was simply too close and already committed to the hit. Where as Rome didn't even move towards Horton until the puck was off his stick and actually on Lucics stick. That's a very big difference. Another huge difference is Dan looked directly at Getzlaf and knew the hit was coming. Horrton had no idea a hit was coming after he had already passed the puck. Although the results were similar, there is nothing similar in the way the two hits occured.

[nuck nit]

Meanwhile,a period later,the Bruins cheap tactics to win a cup continued.

"Kevin didn't get hit by Peverley, he got a cheap shot in the back of the knee, so that's totally different," Vigneault said. "He went down because of something that obviously you don't want to see in the game."

There have been several slashes in the heated Stanley Cup Finals so far, but none worse in my opinion than this one by Rich Peverley in Game 2.

He waited for Bieksa to turn his back, and for the officials to head up ice, and then he delivered a two-handed slash to the back of the knee.

Bieksa was on the ice being attended to by trainers for a good four or five minutes before he could limp to the bench.

Luckily for Peverley, he wasn't suspended, although he should have been.

In my opinion, this one was worse than any of the hits I showed earlier that went bad (Lucic, Rome and Torres) and resulted in injury, because at least they were intended as hockey plays.

Peverley was just being gutless and attacking Vancouver's best defender behind the play when his back was turned.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/727454-who-is-the-dirtiest-player-in-the-2011-stanley-cup-finals/page/7

[CanucksSayEh]

Rome on Horty was perfect, clean in my books. The Getzlaf on Hammer hit, well, Hamhuis shouldn't have turned his back, he was expecting a hit and hoping for a penalty. Got more of a bump than he was prepared to take, 50/50 blame on both of them.

[nuck nit]

I saw Dan playing the puck and then protecting himself with the time he had left.

Had he been a dirty player without a conscious he could have just put up his butt end of his stick or elbow to ward off Getzlaf and further protect himself.

He also could have ducked-sending Getzlaf precariously and dangerously flying.His instincts were to not hit Getzlaf.

Getzlaf then did what he did with his 6'4" , 225 pound frame.

[Baggins]

I saw Dan playing the puck and then protecting himself with the time he had left.

Had he been a dirty player without a conscious he could have just put up his butt end of his stick or elbow to ward off Getzlaf and further protect himself.

He also could have ducked-sending Getzlaf precariously and dangerously flying.His instincts were to not hit Getzlaf.

Getzlaf then did what he did with his 6'4" , 225 pound frame.

[Baggins]

Why is it a blindside? Because Horton is admiring his pass like an idiot? Any hit by that definition is a blind side then. Romer hits Horton dead on in the chest, you can't make it any more direct than that. And since when is interference a suspension? Because Horton was injured? Then so should have been Chara for taking out you know who. The hypocrisy here is disgusting. The Stevens on Kariya hit is very similar to Rome eliminating Horton and nobody had a problem with that. Funny how it changes when it's the Canucks and journeyman Aaron Rome doing it.

[Baggins]

Baggins,the longer you argue how clean it is to take out a human being with a head shot,the worse you look as a human being,never mind a fan.

Dan had already released the puck.Getzlaf leaves the ice and Dan's head smashes into the plexiglass.

Dan suffered a brain injury here and it was thought it could end his career and this hit can contribute to an early end to his career-and life.

Having 'lip service' respect for a player is one thing.Showing respect for a player's life is another.

Getzlaf showed no respect and neither have you.Meanwhile a man went down with a brain injury.

You go on and on about how right you think your point of view is as you admonish others but get and show some respect for a player's life and that of his family,man.

[-DLC-]

Time to let it go now as it's getting counter productive and we're simply going around in circles...

[Tortorella's Rant]

Romes hit was late. He didn't even move towards Horton until AFTER the pass was made. It was a cheap shot with intent to injure and deserved a suspension. I'd say it falls into the blindside hit category because he came from the blindside well after the pass was made. Horton had no idea a hit was coming nor should have been expecting one at that point. I also thought the Stevens hit on Kariya was a cheap shot. But the rules were different at that time.

I've always disagreed on the Chara hit. It's what should have been a routine rub-out along the boards. Unfortunately it happened at the worst possible spot on the ice. Players have been run into those stanchions every season for years and it took a serious injury for them to finally do something about that danger. I've never seen a player suspended for hitting in that area and thus there shouldn't have been one in this instance. The injury was the result of a flawed arena design that should have been fixed decades ago.

Btw, virtually any penalty type is suspendible. It's dictated by severity and circumstances.

[nuck nit]

Any d man that stands up a forward at the blue line is the same d man that has been doing it since the blue line was placed upon the ice.

Blindside hits are from the blind 'side'-this is a body check conducted in the neutral zone, with a d man coming straight up the middle at you defending his blue line and is as common an occurance as any off side call.

I agree with Tortorella's Rant in that calling Rome's hit 'intent to injure',a 'blind side hit' and that Horton should 'not be expecting to be hit' as hypocritical and I would add irresponsible,as well.

[Psycho_Path]

While all of these have already been mentioned, here's my list.

Boulerice on Kesler

Right at the end of the vid you can see it, but Tootoo crosschecking Bourdon in the face

Moore on Naslund (Probably the most hated of the bunch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owpYYNjWnro

Marchand on Salo

Thomas on Henrik