poetica Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 POST WAS REMOVED, HOWEVER, I'M LEAVING SOME CONTENT THAT YOU'VE ADDRESSED IN YOUR POINT - WHINY MODERATOR The NHL is trying to get rid of all head shots, whether they are intentional or accidental. Shouldn't life just go on without accusations of a conspiracy against the Canucks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disisdayear Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Really, you're going to lead with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 lol at all the wannabe MD's here (especially since Dr. Recchi is so popular around here). Here we are once again at CDC where one of our players (my favorite Canuck btw) has done a dumb thing and once again clocked an opponent from behind in the head causing a player to leave the game with an injury and the choir is clamouring that the injured party is faking it because they weren't taken off the ice in a bag and had to miss a year of hockey. The ultimate case of this was, of course, Steve Moore who is to this day accused of faking an injury and symptoms for something like EIGHT YEARS just to squeeze a few million bucks out of Saint Todd Bertuzzi. Similar instances were when Torres clobbered Eberle and Rome laid his headshot on Horton. In every case this board has exploded with accusations of fraud against the victims ("look, he was able to take a sip from his water bottle at the press conference", "look he was able to celebrate his team's Stanley Cup win from the sidelines" etc. etc.). I guess the mindset here is that in order to offset the misdeeds of your chosen team you must cast aspersions of the character of the victims while painting a portrait of an innocent victim of circumstance ("he was just defending his captain", "he was trying to get at a loose puck" or my personal favorite "that was just a hockey play"). Is it any wonder that the rest of the hockey world views Canuck fans is the most uncomplimentary light possible? We screwed up; man up, take your medicine and move on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I don't think you've read this thread carefully enough if that's what you think is going on here. I don't think most people are arguing any kind of conspiracy against the Canucks. Mostly, people are lamenting the unfairness inherent to a system that penalizes results rather than actions. As Deb pointed out, it is unfair to penalize a player because of another player's history or to expect them to tailor their game to the individualized health history of every opponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rink on Renfrew Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 lol at all the wannabe MD's here (especially since Dr. Recchi is so popular around here). Here we are once again at CDC where one of our players (my favorite Canuck btw) has done a dumb thing and once again clocked an opponent from behind in the head causing a player to leave the game with an injury and the choir is clamouring that the injured party is faking it because they weren't taken off the ice in a bag and had to miss a year of hockey. The ultimate case of this was, of course, Steve Moore who is to this day accused of faking an injury and symptoms for something like EIGHT YEARS just to squeeze a few million bucks out of Saint Todd Bertuzzi. Similar instances were when Torres clobbered Eberle and Rome laid his headshot on Horton. In every case this board has exploded with accusations of fraud against the victims ("look, he was able to take a sip from his water bottle at the press conference", "look he was able to celebrate his team's Stanley Cup win from the sidelines" etc. etc.). I guess the mindset here is that in order to offset the misdeeds of your chosen team you must cast aspersions of the character of the victims while painting a portrait of an innocent victim of circumstance ("he was just defending his captain", "he was trying to get at a loose puck" or my personal favorite "that was just a hockey play"). Is it any wonder that the rest of the hockey world views Canuck fans is the most uncomplimentary light possible? We screwed up; man up, take your medicine and move on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I don't have a problem with the one game suspension. Hansen's intent can't be assumed - whether he was going for the puck or not, his elbow wound up in the back of Hossa's head. Like an unintentional high stick, the stick is still the responsibility of the player holding it - in this case it was unfortunate for both players, but Hansen has to bite the bullet for the fact his elbow was up and struck Hossa. What I do have a problem with is the leniency in a case like Keith's obvious intent to injure Daniel Sedin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Be careful Provost...you're going to be accused of being a Hawks troll and anti-Canuck by a whiny moderator for your response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsCanuck Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Stop basing suspensions on injuries. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 And people wonder why everyone hates our fans It was a 1 game suspension, and that was a fair call. Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skolozsy2 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 This is different than a knee or groin or something. We're talking concussion history and a player who was face down on the ice for a period. Of course, everyone gasped because this is a serious situation and the fact that he lay pretty much motionless until staff got out to him would indicate that there was something wrong. Was he in pain? Dizzy? If so, then I would think that the protocol would be a period of rest and assessment. If he's skating a day and a half later, it would indicate that everything was clear - A-OK. So what was that time spent on the ice about? Either you are ok or you're not. His actions spoke that he was not. But we learn he is. So yeah, that's suspect. And now Hansen has a black mark on his name for simply engaging in a hockey play (yes, players bat down pucks all the time) because someone in a delicate state had us in a "hold" status while his teammates pleaded his fractured case. It worked. If he'd skated to the bench to catch his breath, there'd be no hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Stop basing suspensions on injuries. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disisdayear Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I don't think you've read this thread carefully enough if that's what you think is going on here. I don't think most people are arguing any kind of conspiracy against the Canucks. Mostly, people are lamenting the unfairness inherent to a system that penalizes results rather than actions. As Deb pointed out, it is unfair to penalize a player because of another player's history or to expect them to tailor their game to the individualized health history of every opponent. Should players be suspended if they hit Kesler and it hurts his shoulder because they should have known about his medical history, or should Kesler not be playing until he's ready for the rigors of the game of hockey and ready to assume all of the risk himself? Likewise, shouldn't players with head injuries only return to the game once they are fully ready to play the game and able to assume all risks from normal play? Why should the responsibility be on other players? Of course, no one is arguing players should have to be responsible for dirty hits made against them, only that a player's medical history isn't an excuse to automatically assume someone else's guilt and need for punishment just because they get hurt on a play that wouldn't have likely hurt any other player. Punish the action because it's forbidden, not the outcome because it's sad. And rather than arguing "they're all against us," people (like Elvis, who offered impressively detailed evidence) are expressing their concern for the athletes who play in Chicago due to what seems like a club history of behaving recklessly in regard to the health of their own players. We're not whining the league is against the Canucks, we're saying the league is not behaving in the best interest of ALL of the players when they deliberately create grey areas so that players don't know what is legal and what's not because only the unknowable outcome of a hit will be the deciding factor. Frankly, an international sports league making billions of dollars a year should be held to a higher standard than a group of 4-year-olds, so telling them "it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt" doesn't cut it. I said it before and I'll say it again: By definition, discipline should hold someone accountable for their actions at all times, not just the outcome sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Deb, who you quote, seems to be 100% under the impression that the Hawks and Hossa faked the extent of his injury as a conspiracy to get Hansen supplementary discipline. That simply doesn't make sense because even IF the NHL suspended Hansen... the Hawks still come out behind in that balance by losing their best player for the remainder of the game to a "pretend" injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 ... And rather than arguing "they're all against us," people (like Elvis, who offered impressively detailed evidence) are expressing their concern for the athletes who play in Chicago due to what seems like a club history of behaving recklessly in regard to the health of their own players. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 The action in this case is Hansen made contact with Hossa's head, and whether it was intentional or not (and given Hansen's history, I would say it was 100% unintentional), I'm of the opinion that action is punishable (even if the refs missed the call), regardless of Hossa's history or Hossa laying on the ice. I am also of the opinion that the one game suspension Hansen received was based on the action as opposed to the results of seeing Hossa laying on the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kass9 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Since that Feb 1st game, I started gaining a little respect for the Blackhawks as it seemed that our rivalry grew more but also that the competition seemed a bit respectful at times, you know what I mean? Then Hossa had to ruin it, and I'm glad I've got that same hatred for them again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger For those who believe Shanahan suspended Hansen based on Hossa injury...he didn't. NHL knew he wasn't severely hurt. Suspended based on act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 If Hossa was really 100% fine, he would have come back and finished the game. He was the most dominant player on the ice that night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I just saw that Dreger tweet too, but I call BS. Not only is it interesting that it came out today, when Hossa's suposed to play tonight and not on the day that the Hansen's suspension was handed out, but it's in direct contradiction to Shanahan himself says in the video. The very first sentence of the video is, "Tuesday night in Chicago, Vancouver foreward Jannik Hansen delivered a blow to the back of the head of Blackhawks foreward Marian Hossa causing an injury." Later in the video, while explaining the 3 "key points" for the suspension Shanahan says, "Hossa suffered an injury as a result of the hit and did not return to the game." So, Shanahan's own words prove he did in fact base the suspension in part on the belief that Hossa was injured. If he didn't, why didn't he say "it was a dangerous/reckless play that could have led to an injury" instead of "caused an injury"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kass9 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger For those who believe Shanahan suspended Hansen based on Hossa injury...he didn't. NHL knew he wasn't severely hurt. Suspended based on act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.