Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Hit on a Canuck which angered you the most?


  • Please log in to reply
171 replies to this topic

#121 magoomba

magoomba

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 08

Posted 10 September 2012 - 10:35 PM

Clearly the Game 6 hit on Linden from Messier.
Puck no where nearby.
Then he nails him again. Without a doubt he was looking to hurt and main Linden.
I really lost respect for Mess that day. What an absolutes disgrace.
  • 0

#122 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,881 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 11 September 2012 - 02:40 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fDdmneUnyU


That hit was about as clean as they come. Had Hamhuis not turned his back at the last moment there wouldn't have been an injury on the play.
  • 1
Posted Image

#123 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,881 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 11 September 2012 - 02:47 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DJTe5iSvWE

stupid lispy f@g brown


Homer? It's the explanation for complaining about a clean hit.
  • 0
Posted Image

#124 CanuckRow

CanuckRow

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,993 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 07

Posted 11 September 2012 - 04:22 AM

That hit was about as clean as they come. Had Hamhuis not turned his back at the last moment there wouldn't have been an injury on the play.

lol
  • 1

15yezck.jpg

 

 @Chel24Seven


#125 Sugar baby watermelon

Sugar baby watermelon

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,347 posts
  • Joined: 15-September 11

Posted 11 September 2012 - 04:30 AM

Malkin hit on Mitchell or the Keith hit on Sedin
  • 0

#126 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,881 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:27 AM

lol


You disagree? Watch it again without your homer glasses on. Getzlaf almost gets his stick on the puck. So it wasn't a late hit by any stretch of the imagination. He coasted from high slot. So it certainly wasn't charging. The hit was shoulder to shoulder. So it wasn't a high hit. So by what standard is it a dirty hit? it shows the homerism here that many see this as a dirty hit yet felt Romes hit was clean.

Hamhuis broke one of the golden hockey rules: Don't turn your back on a hit. Sometimes when players get hurt it's simply their own fault.
  • 1
Posted Image

#127 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,554 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 12 September 2012 - 07:05 AM

^ Been through this before but, unfortunately, fans (you) did not get the angle that showed this as a vicious/targeted elbow to the head. It was, by no means, "shoulder to shoulder" - at all. Getzlaf launched and his elbow got him in the front side/cheek, but the angles all showed the back. He basically lined him up and the front on shot clearly showed that. If you take off the PC glasses, you'll see the elbow up in the follow through.

Because it was behind the net, facing the glass, there wasn't one single camera that caught it head on. But I did (as well as the security guy behind me, who winced and immediately said "they've gotta get this out of the game"). We were ice level, on the glass to the right of the zamboni door on folding chairs. That's actually me in the white scarf in the still of the video - couldn't get a better vantage point than that....where were you situated? And, notice the camera guy?...he's BEHIND the play and got it from the back, but it doesn't show the elbow so you can't rely on what was shown on TV. But, as an eye witness who not only saw but FELT that hit, it was not as you describe it. It was right in front of me/us and even the fans in the stands couldn't see it, as it was right on the glass. Awful to see. Not a homer statement - but one that was from a view that wasn't captured in pictures or on camera, so you had no way of knowing, but it was brutal and dirty, but only visible to a few. They came straight at me, in full frontal view, to watch as it unfolded. Now, do I think Getzlaf intentionally tried to elbow him in the face? - possibly, no. But at the very least it was a careless, reckless, over eager launched hit where (likely partly due to his size and the fact that he did jump into it) he did connect elbow to face. And you can't do that, because guys get seriously hurt, especially when it's into the glass. Back turned or not, the direction of play was going that way so, obviously, Hamhuis was following the direction of the puck.

That one made me feel sick.

Also, the Messier disgusting "drive by" on Trevor. As a hockey player, you leave the game behind when a player is crawling on the ice, injured. Most (with any sense of integrity/ethics) skate over to make sure the guy is ok, but not Messy-eh? It becomes a matter of human beings at that stage and the level of disrespect shown in that was despicable. Hated him after that, as a low life piece of scum. Took him to a new level of fat head.

Also, the hit on Raymond that broke his back - mostly, because the clueless fans cheered and jeered. Classless.
  • 3

Posted Image


#128 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,881 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 12 September 2012 - 11:09 AM

^ Been through this before but, unfortunately, fans (you) did not get the angle that showed this as a vicious/targeted elbow to the head. It was, by no means, "shoulder to shoulder" - at all. Getzlaf launched and his elbow got him in the front side/cheek, but the angles all showed the back. He basically lined him up and the front on shot clearly showed that. If you take off the PC glasses, you'll see the elbow up in the follow through.


Yes we have been through it before. You "believe" you saw an elbow to the head because his elbow came up after the hit. Just as a ref calls a goal because he "believes" the puck crossed the line. That's where video review comes in. Refs can be wrong just as you were wrong. I slowed down the hit from four angles, including above, and you can see Getzlaf tuck his elbow into his side and drop his shoulder prior to the hit. Your phantom elbow never happened. You simply choose to "believe" what you "think" you saw live over the video evidence of what actually happened.


Where is Getzlafs elbow?
Posted Image

The frame immediately before contact...do you see where their shoulders are?
Posted Image

Edit:

After contact...still no elbow.
Posted Image

And finally the phantom elbow appears....
Posted Image

What you saw was his elbow come up after the hit and mentally assumed it was up through the hit. There was no elbow to the head. Which is why there was no suspension. Getzlaf actually did everything right on the hit. He coasted in, tucked his elbow and dropped his shoulder. Hamhuis turned his back to the hit. The only wrong thing about the hit was Hamhuis turning his back.

Edited by Baggins, 12 September 2012 - 11:18 AM.

  • 3
Posted Image

#129 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,554 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:26 PM

You keep on referring to the from behind pictures to make your case. But I was there and don't have to dissect a frame by frame camera angle that didn't capture it because of how it was placed.

I know what I saw and the reaction of the other people around me supported it. But you keep going on "I can clearly see...." (nothing).

There was no suspension because this is what they had to rely on....the shots from overhead/behind and directly behind that did not give a clear view.

At work, but I'm not done with this one yet..... :)
  • 3

Posted Image


#130 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,138 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:04 PM

You keep on referring to the from behind pictures to make your case. But I was there and don't have to dissect a frame by frame camera angle that didn't capture it because of how it was placed.

I know what I saw and the reaction of the other people around me supported it. But you keep going on "I can clearly see...." (nothing).

There was no suspension because this is what they had to rely on....the shots from overhead/behind and directly behind that did not give a clear view.

At work, but I'm not done with this one yet..... :)


I agree with you, Deb, that it was a clear shot to the head, but I don't think he hit Hamhuis with an elbow. The way his elbow juts out after the hit is shown (in both the replay from behind the net as well as in front) clearly says that Getzlaf meant to throw the elbow, but did it too late.

He did, however, make contact with Hamhuis' head with his shoulder, which is CLEARLY shown in all video you, me, or anyone will watch. Which, Mr. Bagginsis, violates Rule 48: Illegal Check to the Head.

Hamhuis' head was (considering Getzlafs demeanor) the target, and the principle point of contact. Violating the rule.

Edited by Burr2Hank2Dank2Net, 12 September 2012 - 01:05 PM.

  • 3
CANUCKS TILL I DIE

#131 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,318 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:04 PM

Doesn't have to be illegal to piss me off.
  • 0

#132 winacup

winacup

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 12

Posted 12 September 2012 - 03:07 PM

this one cuz we just rolled over:

Posted Image
  • 0
Posted Image

#133 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,495 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 12 September 2012 - 04:11 PM

As a d man you have to make the play or risk losing the puck.

Hamhuis makes a clean play and Getzlaf makes him pay.

Getzlaf has left the ice at impact (despite being 3" taller than Hamhuis),clearly targetting the head with his hit.

This violates NHL rules and policy.

This also violates fair play,common sense and any support for this player.
  • 2

#134 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,554 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 12 September 2012 - 07:11 PM

You still haven't answered one fairly significant question, Baggins - where were you situated in order to be so certain of how it played out? Because if you're relying on the few grainy pictures from behind and behind the play video clips, those angles haven't captured the entire picture.

This:

"Getzlaf actually did everything right on the hit. He coasted in, tucked his elbow and dropped his shoulder."

is the exact opposite of what actually happened but, again, relying on a few poorly placed cameras to assess things isn't really allowing for the entire picture for you. So let me help with that, as I was there and know how it really happened.

He was coasting in, after skating from the other end of the ice, so had a little momentum behind him. He lined Hammy up, who'd retrieved the puck behind the net and was, in fact, passing the puck away in the other direction. What else should he do? - pass it to Getzlaf? Leave it there and jump out of the way? No, he played the puck as he was well within his rights to do.

Getzlaf followed through, with a bit of a launched hit. Can't deny that and, if you do, I'll show you the shots with his skates off the ice during the hit. No need for that, afterall, we're just coasting here, remember? So he went for it.

Then he also follows through with his elbow up....this picture demonstrates that - blurry, but the white blur that you see is his arm/elbow up. Shoulder isn't tucked in, as you suggest.
Posted Image
(hmmm, my copy is bigger...but you see where the number 15 and name ends?....above that and Dan's helmet is Getz's arm extended, elbow up....the blurred white to the right of Dan's helmet is part of his arm. What do you think it is?...a flying dove? No - it's the arm in Dan's face that wasn't visible in any of the camera angles and was, therefore, missed by most. And FTR, the ref was watching the puck and recipients, not Dan. But, from the angles YOU saw, it looked tucked in....because there was no camera placed in front to capture it. This happened directly in front of me and there's no denying what I/we saw)


And this one?
Posted Image

Unless you try to tell me that during this picture (taken before Dan hits the ice and directly after the hit), Ryan was actually trying to fly away? Doing the funky chicken? I'm pretty sure he was involving his elbow. Remember, it's a split second thing and Dan hit the ice, out cold. So it's not like he floundered, face on glass and this is an after shot. This is directly after impact, before Dan even went down.

The elbow's there. It was an over enthusiastic, launched hit into the boards, face first. Not cool, no matter how you try to justify it. And, by no means, the innocent play that you're trying to sell.



So before you argue this any further - where were you seated? Or are you simply relying on a few stills from a bad camera angle behind the play?

Because you can't definitively argue your point like it's absolute without considering that another angle may have shown something missed here. And that was the case...it looked innocent enough from behind but was clearly a hit with a bit too much emphasis considering the guy had just passed the puck away and was on the boards. Unnecessary to have put the extra "ommmf" in there for sure.
  • 3

Posted Image


#135 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,881 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:15 PM

You keep on referring to the from behind pictures to make your case. But I was there and don't have to dissect a frame by frame camera angle that didn't capture it because of how it was placed.

I know what I saw and the reaction of the other people around me supported it. But you keep going on "I can clearly see...." (nothing).

There was no suspension because this is what they had to rely on....the shots from overhead/behind and directly behind that did not give a clear view.

At work, but I'm not done with this one yet..... :)


Why is there video review again? Even from the behind view, never mind the above view, you can see Hammers head the whole time and there is no contact to it with Getzlafs elbow. It's physically impossible to elbow somebody in the head when that elbow is pinned between your body and the targets body. Which is where it was upon contact.

Like a ref making the wrong call, you simply believe what you thought you saw. Which was incorrect.
  • 0
Posted Image

#136 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,881 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:20 PM

You still haven't answered one fairly significant question, Baggins - where were you situated in order to be so certain of how it played out? Because if you're relying on the few grainy pictures from behind and behind the play video clips, those angles haven't captured the entire picture.

This:

"Getzlaf actually did everything right on the hit. He coasted in, tucked his elbow and dropped his shoulder."

is the exact opposite of what actually happened but, again, relying on a few poorly placed cameras to assess things isn't really allowing for the entire picture for you. So let me help with that, as I was there and know how it really happened.

He was coasting in, after skating from the other end of the ice, so had a little momentum behind him. He lined Hammy up, who'd retrieved the puck behind the net and was, in fact, passing the puck away in the other direction. What else should he do? - pass it to Getzlaf? Leave it there and jump out of the way? No, he played the puck as he was well within his rights to do.

Getzlaf followed through, with a bit of a launched hit. Can't deny that and, if you do, I'll show you the shots with his skates off the ice during the hit. No need for that, afterall, we're just coasting here, remember? So he went for it.

Then he also follows through with his elbow up....this picture demonstrates that - blurry, but the white blur that you see is his arm/elbow up. Shoulder isn't tucked in, as you suggest.
Posted Image
(hmmm, my copy is bigger...but you see where the number 15 and name ends?....above that and Dan's helmet is Getz's arm extended, elbow up....the blurred white to the right of Dan's helmet is part of his arm. What do you think it is?...a flying dove? No - it's the arm in Dan's face that wasn't visible in any of the camera angles and was, therefore, missed by most. And FTR, the ref was watching the puck and recipients, not Dan. But, from the angles YOU saw, it looked tucked in....because there was no camera placed in front to capture it. This happened directly in front of me and there's no denying what I/we saw)


And this one?
Posted Image

Unless you try to tell me that during this picture (taken before Dan hits the ice and directly after the hit), Ryan was actually trying to fly away? Doing the funky chicken? I'm pretty sure he was involving his elbow. Remember, it's a split second thing and Dan hit the ice, out cold. So it's not like he floundered, face on glass and this is an after shot. This is directly after impact, before Dan even went down.

The elbow's there. It was an over enthusiastic, launched hit into the boards, face first. Not cool, no matter how you try to justify it. And, by no means, the innocent play that you're trying to sell.



So before you argue this any further - where were you seated? Or are you simply relying on a few stills from a bad camera angle behind the play?

Because you can't definitively argue your point like it's absolute without considering that another angle may have shown something missed here. And that was the case...it looked innocent enough from behind but was clearly a hit with a bit too much emphasis considering the guy had just passed the puck away and was on the boards. Unnecessary to have put the extra "ommmf" in there for sure.


Both images are AFTER contact. You can clearly see his elbow tucked in before contact and see it come up after he's past Hamhuis in the video. You can clearly see Hammers head the whole time. The concussion came from being spun into the glass. Show me one image from any angle showing contact to the head. You can't because it never happened.
  • 0
Posted Image

#137 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,495 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:56 PM

Gotta love how the NHL gives Rome the longest suspension in NHL playoff history for a split second late hit and here we have Baggins supporting an opposition player that has left the ice for contact in a late head hit to a beloved Canuck.

Hamhuis does not have the puck,his head is turned away from the accused and he suffers a serious brain injury.

Why does Getzlaf have to leave the ice when he is already three inches taller than Hamhuis? Baggins?

If Hamhuis had decided to not play the puck fairly and instead put up his stick and cross checked Getzlaf in the face for coming at him I could see supporting Getzlaf.

I see no reasons to support Getzlaf in any manner when the NHL has clearly ruled that not having possession of the puck and getting hit in the head is clearly worthy of a suspension for the rest of the playoffs (Rome) or a lengthy term suspension in the regular season.Add to it that Hamhuis was not facing the perpetrator,Getzlaf,when hit.

Blind side hit,skates leave the ice,head shot result.

I think it is pretty fair to state that Hamhuis is a clean player that does not intentionally hurt others with his play.
What does Dan say of the play? :

"I don't think it was a real dirty, dirty hit, but at the same time I think it was unnecessary," said Hamhuis. "The puck was definitely off my stick and I was probably in a bit of a vulnerable position there."

Horton could be saying the exact same thing and yet Rome received the longest suspension in NHL Finals history.

Edited by nuck nit, 13 September 2012 - 01:38 AM.

  • 1

#138 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,554 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 13 September 2012 - 12:47 AM

Both images are AFTER contact. You can clearly see his elbow tucked in before contact and see it come up after he's past Hamhuis in the video. You can clearly see Hammers head the whole time. The concussion came from being spun into the glass. Show me one image from any angle showing contact to the head. You can't because it never happened.


Where were you sitting? You've avoided that question.

And now Hamhuis spun? No - sorry. Wrong again.

I was there, in the best possible spot to catch exactly HOW it happened (head on). Unfortunately, it was isolated so that not many had that luxury (including you). But that's how it happened.

See the picture, below - where I am, in the best place possible to view what happened...and yes, as you see, I'm paying attention. Now, notice where the cameraman is situated (hint, behind the play)...that's why you didn't get the shot on replay or TV (where you assessed things), because he didn't capture it from a vantage point that allowed to see properly.
Posted Image

And let's forget the elbow then - he left his feet^^, is that ok by you?

And take a look at where the puck is (below....see it through the net?)...already gone. Which is why many (including the ref) DID miss it...they were watching the play and this was behind it by that point.
Posted Image

So, should he still have followed through on the hit? Remember, according to you, he's coasting so should be able to glide right on by. And if he tucked in his elbow, where is his right hand/glove?....you'd think we'd see a bit of it?

And remember that "after the hit" shot with the elbow up?....so how did we go from a nice shoulder down, tucked in elbow to that?

I really need to know where you watched from, as I believe you are basing your decision off what you saw in replays and pictures. But you didn't see an elbow because it wasn't shown via any of the footage. That doesn't mean it didn't happen - it just means they didn't catch it on film. And, at the very least, it was a late hit where he launched himself at a player on the boards. You keep defending that then....
  • 0

Posted Image


#139 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,881 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 13 September 2012 - 01:52 AM

Where were you sitting? You've avoided that question.

And now Hamhuis spun? No - sorry. Wrong again.

I was there, in the best possible spot to catch exactly HOW it happened (head on). Unfortunately, it was isolated so that not many had that luxury (including you). But that's how it happened.

See the picture, below - where I am, in the best place possible to view what happened...and yes, as you see, I'm paying attention. Now, notice where the cameraman is situated (hint, behind the play)...that's why you didn't get the shot on replay or TV (where you assessed things), because he didn't capture it from a vantage point that allowed to see properly.
Posted Image

And let's forget the elbow then - he left his feet^^, is that ok by you?

And take a look at where the puck is (below....see it through the net?)...already gone. Which is why many (including the ref) DID miss it...they were watching the play and this was behind it by that point.
Posted Image

So, should he still have followed through on the hit? Remember, according to you, he's coasting so should be able to glide right on by. And if he tucked in his elbow, where is his right hand/glove?....you'd think we'd see a bit of it?

And remember that "after the hit" shot with the elbow up?....so how did we go from a nice shoulder down, tucked in elbow to that?

I really need to know where you watched from, as I believe you are basing your decision off what you saw in replays and pictures. But you didn't see an elbow because it wasn't shown via any of the footage. That doesn't mean it didn't happen - it just means they didn't catch it on film. And, at the very least, it was a late hit where he launched himself at a player on the boards. You keep defending that then....


I was sitting comfortably at home Deb. So what? A ref standing behind or beside the net gets it wrong. Why? Because what he believes he saw happened in a blind of the eye. Which is why there is video review. I don't doubt for a minute you believe you saw an elbow to the head. But it never happened. I'll believe what I see from four angles slowed down over what you believe you saw from one angle in the blink of an eye. Just as I do with the refs calls.

Edited by Baggins, 13 September 2012 - 02:20 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#140 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,881 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 13 September 2012 - 02:15 AM

Gotta love how the NHL gives Rome the longest suspension in NHL playoff history for a split second late hit and here we have Baggins supporting an opposition player that has left the ice for contact in a late head hit to a beloved Canuck.

Hamhuis does not have the puck,his head is turned away from the accused and he suffers a serious brain injury.

Why does Getzlaf have to leave the ice when he is already three inches taller than Hamhuis? Baggins?

If Hamhuis had decided to not play the puck fairly and instead put up his stick and cross checked Getzlaf in the face for coming at him I could see supporting Getzlaf.

I see no reasons to support Getzlaf in any manner when the NHL has clearly ruled that not having possession of the puck and getting hit in the head is clearly worthy of a suspension for the rest of the playoffs (Rome) or a lengthy term suspension in the regular season.Add to it that Hamhuis was not facing the perpetrator,Getzlaf,when hit.

Blind side hit,skates leave the ice,head shot result.

I think it is pretty fair to state that Hamhuis is a clean player that does not intentionally hurt others with his play.
What does Dan say of the play? :

"I don't think it was a real dirty, dirty hit, but at the same time I think it was unnecessary," said Hamhuis. "The puck was definitely off my stick and I was probably in a bit of a vulnerable position there."

Horton could be saying the exact same thing and yet Rome received the longest suspension in NHL Finals history.


Unlike many here I'm a Canucks fan and a hockey fan. I'm not a homer when it comes to calls.

Rome was a day late and didn't even move towards the player until the puck was long gone. As a matter of fact the recipient had travelled about six to 8 feet with the puck before Rome delivered his hit. That's very late. It was a dirty hit and I have no problem saying that about a Canuck any more than I would any other player in the league. Getzlaf on the other hand did everything right on his hit. Thus I have no problem with it.


Now try watching the Hamhuis hit without your homer glasses on. Hamhuis actually looks over at Getzlaf coming at him. Getzlaf actually came close to getting his stick on the puck. His hit wasn't late at all as it came within 1/10 of a second (the standard is 1/2 of a second or less being clean) after the puck left Hammer turned hit back to the hit as he passed the puck. By that time Getzlaf already had his elbow tucked in and his shoulder dropped. In other words: to late to change what was already in motion. Btw, his feet left the ice after contact.
  • 0
Posted Image

#141 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,495 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 02:38 AM

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.

Edited by nuck nit, 13 September 2012 - 02:44 AM.

  • 2

#142 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,881 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 13 September 2012 - 03:24 AM

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.


Watch the video. It's all there for the seeing.

Edited by debluvscanucks, 13 September 2012 - 07:12 AM.
Removed personal attack

  • 0
Posted Image

#143 Mayray2112

Mayray2112

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Joined: 26-July 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 06:29 AM

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.


how is this a popular comment? Its obviously not as dirty as others but he jumps, kronwall jumps and how can you like those hits? if you're going to hit someone, then hit them. Don't hit with your back and jump
  • 0

#144 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,554 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:11 AM

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.
  • 2

Posted Image


#145 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,881 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 13 September 2012 - 09:56 AM

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.


I find it difficult to believe calling somebody "a homer" is considered a personal attack. But that's your call Deb.

The angle doesn't matter. You can see him tuck the elbow in. It's physically impossible to elbow somebody in the head when it's at your side upon contact. His elbow comes up when he's past him and he's pasted into the glass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fDdmneUnyU

Go to about 28 seconds for two of the better views, above and behind. In both you can see Getzlaf tuck his elbow right into his waist. Right at the 30 second mark the puck is still on Hammers stick and the blade of Getzlafs stick is only about two feet away from it. By the time the puck leaves Hammers stick the blade of Getzlafs is almost on the puck. Which is to say the hit was not late at all. Physically impossible to change your momentum at that close of a range. He's already braced for contact.

Then go to 1:18 for a slow motion view (ignore Garretts homer commentary). In slow motion you can clearly see Getzlaf tuck the elbow in, make contact with his shoulder, and then the elbow comes up as he's off balance past his body. You can see Dan's head the whole time. There is no elbow to the head. It's physically impossible the way Getzlaf goes in with the elbow tucked. From above or behind you'd have to see the elbow come up to strike the head which is visible the entire time.

Now go to 2:12 for another angle in slow motion. Again you can see Gelzafs elbow is down going in and contact is made with the shoulder. Again, it's impossible to elbow somebody in the head when it's at your side at the moment of shouder to shoulder contact. It was literally trapped between their bodies. It comes up when he's off balance past Dan's body. In the given amount of time (less than a tenth of a second) his elbow would have to be on it's way upwards prior to contact and it clearly isn't.


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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUYqTE3cnuQ

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.
  • 0
Posted Image

#146 Mayray2112

Mayray2112

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Joined: 26-July 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 10:34 AM

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

Edited by Mayray2112, 13 September 2012 - 10:35 AM.

  • 0

#147 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,881 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:07 AM

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


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.
  • 0
Posted Image

#148 Mayray2112

Mayray2112

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Joined: 26-July 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:27 AM

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.


you can argue both sides. He span his body to make the pass and wasn't expecting to get hit since he passed the puck and thought getzlaf would chase the puck instead of hit him which made him vulnerable, The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact. Getzlaf didn't minimize or avoid the contact. its not like Hamhuis dumped the puck then turned around and faced the boards. I think Getzlaf had time to move but just wanted to finish his hit

Now you could argue that Getzlaf didn't have time to move and Hamhuis shouldn't of turned like that. Both are debatable, I think both are to blame. Hamhuis for putting himself in that position and Getzlaf for not easing up on the hit.

But the topic is "Hit on a Canuck that angered you" doesn't have to be a penalty. My vote is still Raymond getting his back broken when the puck was long gone
  • 2

#149 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,495 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 04:42 PM

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.

Edited by nuck nit, 13 September 2012 - 05:31 PM.

  • 2

#150 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 04:55 PM

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUYqTE3cnuQ

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.




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.
  • 1
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.