Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Marian Hossa makes miracle recovery, practicing with Blackhawks.


  • Please log in to reply
245 replies to this topic

#91 Spoosh

Spoosh

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,420 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 05

Posted 22 February 2013 - 10:57 AM

I actually don't like the Blackhawks.
  • 3
© 2000, 2014 K'Spoosh Entertainment Ltd.

Misuse of this almost copyrighted information will with near certainty lead to misuse of it.


Posted Image

#92 skolozsy2

skolozsy2

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 09

Posted 22 February 2013 - 11:06 AM

But after the game, Quennville was asked about Hossa and he said something along the lines of "we think he's fine, but we'll know more tomorrow." That doesn't rule out any issues, but it was some evidence the Hawks didn't feel he was injured in any way by the hit, but rather just shaken up.


I feel like you haven't done your due diligence in researching that... :ph34r:


I thought it was 10 minutes?


sarcasm.

Find it funny that if a player leaves a game, and then is able to play three days later, his recovery should be considered a miracle apparently.

Edited by skolozsy2, 22 February 2013 - 11:13 AM.

  • 1

#93 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,654 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 22 February 2013 - 11:38 AM

sarcasm.

Find it funny that if a player leaves a game, and then is able to play three days later, his recovery should be considered a miracle apparently.


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.
  • 3

Posted Image


#94 TheFastOne21

TheFastOne21

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 11

Posted 22 February 2013 - 11:53 AM

Well that was a much needed time off for Hossa to recover......Now as Deb said, Hansen has a bad name (to go along with the general hate for Vancouver) for nothing. This play happens all the flippin time. Two players jump to bat the puck. Hansen was in bad position and made a stupid play and got penalized for a stupid play. I dont see the intent there and i am trying for the life of me to see it from a non-canucks fan pov. I dont see it.
  • 2

#95 Canucks fan in chicago

Canucks fan in chicago

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Joined: 01-January 12

Posted 22 February 2013 - 11:57 AM

Toews probably went home crying to Mother Shanaban that big meanie Hansen gave poor wittle Hossie a boo-boo.

Edited by Canucks fan in chicago, 22 February 2013 - 11:58 AM.

  • 3

#96 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:14 PM

Toews probably went home crying to Mother Shanaban that big meanie Hansen gave poor wittle Hossie a boo-boo.


That made me laugh.
  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#97 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,550 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:22 PM

*
POPULAR

sarcasm.

Find it funny that if a player leaves a game, and then is able to play three days later, his recovery should be considered a miracle apparently.

Thought so, hence the :ph34r: ...

Here was a quote I hadn't seen that I thought a little more telling than Hossa's, "I felt shaky," comment.

Mark Lazerus@MarkLazerus
Hossa: "Felt not like myself for the first half hour." #Blackhawks


If your head doesn't feel right for 30 minutes after a hit (apart from any soreness that might be obvious from contact) then it's probable you have a concussion. You don't have to have loss of conciousness or memory to actually be concussed. Based on that, Hossa's past history with concussions and his likely increased risk of a concussion resulting from another hit so soon after, I'd think it would be extremely wise for the Blackhawks to do the full timeline for concussion recovery.
  • Day of rest
  • Day of light exercise
  • Day of heavier exercise or light skating
  • Day of no contact practice
  • Day of full contact practice
  • If symptoms present at any step, go back to step one
While that's not an official league concussion protocol (only the quiet room assessment after a hit is), most teams follow this or something very similar as it's the widely accepted protocol for gauging recovery from a concussion, even an suspected one.

The Hawks haven't ever really followed this, allowing players back soon after hits to the head only to sit them later for concussion related symptoms. Canucks fans have seen it directly with Seabrook and Bolland in the 2011 playoffs. Toews is another example in 2012, as well as Hjalmarsson and Kruger from that season.

An article from Feb 2012:

Hjalmarsson played Thursday night against Dallas, his first appearance after missing seven games with a concussion. The 24-year-old Swede played just over 16 minutes against the Stars and his performance was described as "fine, steady" by head coach Joel Quenneville.

But Hjalmarsson leaving the team so quickly after coming back begs the question: Did he return from a concussion too soon?
...
Kruger first suffered his concussion when Penguins defenseman Deryk Engelland checked him in the head on Dec. 20. He missed one game, but returned against the Blue Jackets and endured some tough hits. His symptoms returned and he missed the last eight games.

Kruger eventually returned on Jan. 14
...
The Hjalmarsson and Kruger incidents rekindle memories of the hit Brent Seabrook absorbed from Raffi Torres in Game 3 of last year’s opening playoff round.

The hit appeared to knock Seabrook out, but he returned to the contest...only to be held out of Games 4 and 5 after concussion tests determined he shouldn’t play. Seabrook then returned for Games 6 and 7 of the series, at which point the Blackhawks’ concussion protocol was questioned. Former NHLer Keith Primeau took major issue with how the situation was treated.

"He should not have returned to play [in Game 3]," Primeau told CBC. "It’s extremely dangerous. He’s going to need time to recover."


Also from Feb 2012:

After sitting out yesterday against Detroit, Blackhawks captain Jonathan Toews will also miss tomorrow’s home game versus Dallas.

The ‘Hawks are calling it an upper-body injury, which predictably has reporters asking if it’s a concussion.

"It’s upper body, we’ll leave it at that," said coach Joel Quenneville, as reported by Adam Jahns of the Chicago Sun-Times.

However, a source tells ChicagoNow.com that Toews’ injury is indeed a concussion, and another source says it was suffered against the San Jose Sharks on Feb. 10.

If that’s the case, it raises the question, did Toews play five games with a concussion?


And from Nov 2012:

Blackhawks captain Jonathan Toews maintains he was symptom-free and "felt 100 percent" when he returned to Chicago’s line-up for the playoffs after sitting out two months with a concussion.

Except now he admits he wasn’t 100 percent.
...
In February, it was reported that Toews may have hidden his symptoms from the Blackhawks soon after he sustained the injury. And even in today’s concussion-sensitive era, players are going to do that.

But when Toews says, "My balance with my eyes closed and my head turned a certain way was terrible," we can’t help but wonder if Chicago’s medical staff should have been able to identify that.

It always did seem a little curious that Toews was cleared to play just in time for the first game of the postseason.

No other teams have these kinds of concerns with players coming back from head injuries. The Pens would be the next closest since Crosby was so high profile, and other teams have had players not be honest about symptoms hoping to get back and play. But when you have as many instances as the Hawks have had, you'd think they'd take precautions rather than just the player at their word.

EDIT: found the one on Bolland I was looking for:

Dave Bolland is in and Brent Seabrook is out as the Blackhawks try to avoid being swept out of the playoffs in Game 4 Tuesday night in Chicago.

Bolland has been out with a concussion since March 9 and admitted last week he was still suffering post-concussion symptoms. He did not skate Tuesday but head coach Joel Quenneville said he's been ready for "a while."

Seabrook continued to play in Game 3 after absorbing a punishing Raffi Torres hit. Both situations have raised questions about the Blackhawks' concussion protocol.

Asked if it was regrettable that Seabrook continued to play in Game 3, Quenneville said: "He wanted to play."

Seabrook said Monday: "I wanted to play. It's the playoffs and we're all playing through bumps and bruises and I wanted to get back there. I feel good."

Seabrook had concussion tests Tuesday morning before it was determined he wouldn't play.


And don't forget Toews mysterious car crash while he was out with his last concussion:

Wait, but I thought he “refused medical treatment?” That doesn’t sound very ambulance-y-y. I believe that’s the complete opposite of “no medical attention,” unless it was just a quick alternative to a cab. Maybe they took him home?

And I remember that discussion on Twitter that morning, about how gross it was that people were trying to get his autograph while he was being put in an ambulance. But then…apparently he didn’t leave in an ambulance?

The Blackhawks denied it that day, saying Toews didn’t leave in an ambulance (I can’t find their exact statement, but their denial is mentioned on a large number of credible websites, and I believe Kuc confirmed their denial on Twitter).
...
So the club came out and said that he didn’t leave in an ambulance at the time, which came off as even more fishy.
Why were people lying about the ambulance and autographs if the Hawks were being honest? And if the Hawks weren’t being honest, well what the crap was going on there?

To have the Hawks say he refused medical attention and didn't leave in an ambulance (in other words, he's fine) when there were multiple eyewitness accounts of him leaving the scene in an ambulance.

Also the accident itself was involving only Toews' car, no one else except for a pole in the middle of the street that sticks out like a sore thumb which he hit dead center. Toews likely shouldn't have been driving alone in his car while experiencing concussion symptoms anyway, but the resulting accident was suspicious in that there didn't seem to be any reason for it unless he lost control of the car or - more likely - couldn't react in time because he was impaired due to his concussion.

EDIT 2: and sorry for the long post, I'm done now.

Edited by elvis15, 22 February 2013 - 12:51 PM.

  • 5

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#98 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,585 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:24 PM

okay yea i get where you are coming from with that. i will give hossa the benefit of the doubt here because (and i could be wrong here so dont quote me) I don't think hossa is that type of player to fake an injury and show poor sportsmanship. we are not talking about bolland, (and former burrish, eager, ladd etc). none of us know how hossa felt after the hit. he could have been a bit dazed...have you ever had a concussion or been smacked in the back of the head with an elbow pad? yes there is a helmet, but there is still an impact and vibration.

the league has to figure this out. i for one would like to see a penalty for any hit to the head, but thats just me.

am I a die hard hawks fan? no, so im not trolling... i was on this board since 07. I just like toews and kane - whom is playing amazing this season. sorry if that offends anyone, but since burrish, eager, byfuglin, and ladd are not there, I can't really hate the hawks.

and at any rate, if this was reversed, and shaw hit sedin by accident, I kid you not this board would be calling for 5+ games

Don't forget to take into account that Hossa said of Hansen's explanation, "I don't buy it. You don't hit someone that hard when you are reaching for a puck." (or words to that effect).
You tell me, is that good sportsmanship?
And just because this board would be calling for 5+ games doesn't mean it would be warranted, or that I would be calling for it. My feelings on the Hansen hit are entirely uninfluenced by what anyone here has to say about it.
Because a handful of wackos think there is a big conspiracy against the Canucks, many will overlook the inconsistency in officiating. It's a shame, too, because there are some glaring issues that should be taken seriously and won't be until things get really bad.
  • 0

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#99 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,458 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:35 PM

This is EXACTLY why the punishment should be based on the individual act itself rather than relying on the injury history of the player, the supposed intent of the offending player, or the injury resulting from the act.

There is zero incentive for Hossa to NOT embellish there as everyone knows the punishment will be more severe if there is an injury and that is a huge issue with the NHL discipline system.
  • 0

#100 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,550 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:54 PM

Post removed by whiny moderator....inappropriate personal attack

Really, you're going to lead with that?
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#101 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:18 PM

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?


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.
  • 3
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#102 disisdayear

disisdayear

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:23 PM

Really, you're going to lead with that?


Maybe I should edit/reconsider, elvis15...after second thought and after connecting the dots, no, I'm okay with that.
  • 0

#103 thema

thema

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 936 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 12

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:43 PM

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!
  • 2

#104 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,793 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:58 PM

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.


Actually I think it is pretty clear that many folks ARE arguing some sort of conspiracy whether by the league or the Hawks.

Almost no one is arguing that the NHL discipline system IS fair or consistent.... that is where we all agree.

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.

It would be like us taking a Sedin out of the game in order to get Shawn Thornton in trouble... even if you get what you want you lose. It makes ZERO sense.

When players embellish (some of our players are pretty renowned for it), they are trying to draw a penalty that will help them in the short term. They end up maybe missing a shift or two AT MOST so as to not make it clear to the ref that they just tricked them into a call.... but they don't leave the game..

Not only is there no evidence for these silly claims.. but you can't even point to a reasonable motivation or reason for them doing so.

Edited by Provost, 22 February 2013 - 02:16 PM.

  • 2
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#105 Rink on Renfrew

Rink on Renfrew

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,307 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:15 PM

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!


Rome Headshot on Horton???
I think you should watch the video again. Shoulder to chest. You lost all credibility for your rant right there. I'm guessing you agree with that suspension as well.


Hossa should not be playing hockey if a bump in the back of the head, renders you motionless and you feel shaky. Pathetic. Enjoy practice Marian.
  • 0

#106 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,059 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:15 PM

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.
  • 0

#107 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,683 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:19 PM

Be careful Provost...you're going to be accused of being a Hawks troll and anti-Canuck by a whiny moderator for your response.


Classy.
  • 0

#108 MrsCanuck

MrsCanuck

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,629 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 09

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:19 PM

Stop basing suspensions on injuries. Problem solved.
  • 0
Posted Image

#109 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,589 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:24 PM

And people wonder why everyone hates our fans :rolleyes:
It was a 1 game suspension, and that was a fair call. Get over it.

Edited by Jägermeister, 22 February 2013 - 02:25 PM.

  • 2
Posted Image

#110 skolozsy2

skolozsy2

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 09

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:26 PM

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.


Hansen has a blackmark because the NHL deemed his actions reckless, an action that caused another player unable to finish the game, and whatever else Shanny added in his ruling. If you want to make the assumptions beyond that, feel free to do so.

Reading the thread would get you the answers you are looking for, regarding your first paragraph.

Hossa said he was shaky and dizzy when he was on the ice, but still had his memory which he didnt have after the Torres hit. Training staff didnt want to any chances after hearing about the dizziness and took him to the dressing room. Seems like the safe move....agree?

Q after the game said Hossa looked fine but they would know more tomorrow following some tests. Hossa passed the tests he was given and was cleared for skating. He skated and then was given more tests after his workout with an increased heart-rate, which he passed. In this mornings paper, it said Hossa can play tonight as long as he passed more tests today. Alot of tests for someone who was never actually diagnosed with a concussion.....how much more protocol are you looking for?

Now if you really want to think that its all been just an act....that Hossa faked an injury and sat out the 3rd period of a 3-1 hockey game against a rival just to give a 3rd liner a 2-minute minor.....well, whatever floats your boat, cheers to ya.

"Either you're okay, or you're not"......Seriously???? You really think its that easy? Is medicine that clear-cut to you? Is that how your staff handled Daniel....."you okay or not?....get back in there". Or Mason Raymond with his back....."you okay or not?...on your feet, soldier. Is that the protocol you're looking for....an instantaneous determination on whether a person is okay or not?
  • 3

#111 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,793 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:29 PM

Stop basing suspensions on injuries. Problem solved.


We can all agree on that (except the NHL).

If you do the Hansen hit on Hossa 100 times... 99 times the player walks away fine with just a sore head. You probably see a forearm to the back of a player's head 10 times a game (often along the boards and in front of the net).

If you are basing it on the injury, then it is not a deterrent because the odds are good that you will get away with it. If you do the same hit 99 other times and no whistle is blown and you don't get a call from Shanahan... you keep doing the hit.

If you moved to the IIHF rules where contact to the head is an automatic penalty... regardless of intent or injury... then you have a chance at reducing them. It is treated like a high sticking penalty there. Very clear, and not argued very often.

Then add in an automatic match penalty assessed (even if after the fact) or even suspension if later video review shows that you were embellishing. We have seen lots of "phantom high sticks" where a slow mo shows the player wasn't even touched.
  • 1
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#112 disisdayear

disisdayear

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:37 PM

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.


Points taken, Poetica.

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.

One thing I'm certain the league is trying to do is eliminate any, and all head shots, intentional or otherwise. I would agree that sometimes the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and there seems to be too much subjectivity when doling out suspensions but in this case, I'd like to believe that one game for a head shot was fair.

I answer yes to most of the questions you pose...players should only be cleared to play if they can withstand and assume the dangers/risks that are inherent to playing the game. All the more reason I applaud MG for taking measures to protect Manny (quite possibly from himself).
  • 0

#113 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:49 PM

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.


I can't speak to what she thinks, and she's obviously more than capable of speaking for herself, but I will say that I am also one of the people who has spoken out against how the Hawks handled the situation. While I've never said I think Hossa was faking in any way, I do think it looked much worse than it was because he was scared (reasonably so, given his history!) and laid on the ice motionless. The Hawks could have told people that he had not been knocked out as it appeared and was widely reported, only that he was "shaky." I feel they were purposefully misleading, or at the very least failed to correct misinformation that would be used against Hansen.

It would be like us taking a Sedin out of the game in order to get Shawn Thornton in trouble... even if you get what you want you lose. It makes ZERO sense.


No one is implying that they did. I, and I believe Deb as well, said that they did the right thing by sitting him the rest of the game given his history and that he felt "shaky." However, given that they knew he knew he was likely not injured, only shaken up, I don't feel that they did enough to be honest about the situation when their actions, though entirely justified, were based on Hossa's history far more than Hansen's actions. It was unfair for them to not be clear about what actually happened with Hossa rather than allowing Hossa's absence from the rest of the game to be taken as an indication of the damage done by Hansen, as opposed to prudent precaution due to Hossa's history.

I will admit, however, that Elvis pointed to their coach saying "He seems OK, but we'll know more tomorrow." in his postgame interview and that was the first I heard of it. I did look it up and found some US based articles referencing that. So, credit where credit is due for that (though I still don't think it went far enough to clarifying the issue.) Now I'd like to know why that wasn't reported any of the local stories I read, but I guess that's a conspiracy theory for another thread.

Not only is there no evidence for these silly claims.. but you can't even point to a reasonable motivation or reason for them doing so.


Because they could. It's not a conspiracy, just a d*ck move.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#114 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,550 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:51 PM

...
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.
...

I'm not going to quote all of that (and I really hope no one quotes my full post!) but that's pretty much it as far as I'm concerned. I'm not concerned that Hansen got a game as I can see their argument, but I can also see an argument for less considering only fines for Setoguchi on his crosscheck and Giordano on his slewfoot. Both are dangerous, illegal plays, arguably without intent but they're also plays that shouldn't be a reaction of any player in a game, yet they still only got fined while Hansen got a game., so there does need to be some consistency.

I'm pretty sure there are some people claiming that there's a conspiracy, but not everyone is rational. That doesn't mean that the majority or even a fair minority think that. If you want to argue with people like that, then you'll end up still arguing with them multiple pages later and they won't have changed their mind. I've done it (recently even!) but I try and stay out of it.

Just because they're loud, doesn't mean there's a lot of them.

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.


Edited by elvis15, 22 February 2013 - 02:57 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#115 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:57 PM

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.


Fair enough.

Theoretically I would agree. I just think I, and others, have a problem with the fact that punishments aren't theoretical, nor are they handed out with the same philosophy in mind each time. So, it is unfair when one hit, especially one that was likely unintentional, results in a suspension and fine and others, some deliberate, do not.

One thing I'm certain the league is trying to do is eliminate any, and all head shots, intentional or otherwise. I would agree that sometimes the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and there seems to be too much subjectivity when doling out suspensions but in this case, I'd like to believe that one game for a head shot was fair.


I hope you're right. I know the insurance companies are putting pressure on them to address head hits. Personally, I'd have been fine with Hansen getting a 1-game suspension if all head hits actually were punished. But, when they aren't I find it hard to justify this one being one of those cherry picked for punishment. And I still think Shanahan saying Hansen did it deliberately was off the mark, and unnecessarily (and I believe unfairly) tarnished Hansen's reputation.

All the more reason I applaud MG for taking measures to protect Manny (quite possibly from himself).


You and me both!
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#116 Kass9

Kass9

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:57 PM

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.
  • 0

#117 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,793 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:06 PM

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.

Edited by Provost, 22 February 2013 - 03:08 PM.

  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#118 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,792 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:16 PM

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.
  • 0
Posted Image

#119 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:20 PM

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"?
  • 2
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#120 Kass9

Kass9

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:20 PM

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.


1/3 points was 'injury'.. So I don't understand, and clearly, the NHL doesn't either.

Shanahan needs to learn not to contradict himself and clearly state that he DID suspend Hansen because apparently Hossa did suffer an injury (as per Shanahan)

Edited by Kass9, 22 February 2013 - 03:23 PM.

  • 0




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.