Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

So, did Frans Nielsen's headshot on Kesler even get a look?


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#31 Xanlet

Xanlet

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,096 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 09

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:00 AM

Watch the side view in the gif. Focus on Keslers head and then again on the number on Keslers sleeve. Principle point of contact is the right shoulder. It doesn't matter after that. It's all about principle point of contact when it comes to being suspendable.


You mean the shoulder you can't actually see because Nielsen is in the way from that angle? Yeah, I think the one where you can actually see where the contact is made would be the preferable one.
  • 0

"It was not a distinct kicking motion" - Mike Murphy
NHL Rule 49 excerpt: A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player's skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. Source

73be03d1-011e-4715-af39-a0ef23867b0e.jpg

 


#32 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,008 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:02 AM

I guess we agree, since Nielsen's shoulder/torso hit Kesler in the shoulder in my view too. That's a regular hit but this one is a bit dangerous since he comes from out of Kesler's field of vision. No dive, just surprised by a solid contact.


Although he comes from behind, Nielson is actually a bit ahead of Kesler when contact occurs. It's a clean hit and he could have absolutely creamed Kesler on that play had he really put his shoulder into him..
  • 0
Posted Image

#33 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,008 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:11 AM

You mean the shoulder you can't actually see because Nielsen is in the way from that angle? Yeah, I think the one where you can actually see where the contact is made would be the preferable one.


Believe what you want, most of you do.
  • 1
Posted Image

#34 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:13 AM

Although he comes from behind, Nielson is actually a bit ahead of Kesler when contact occurs. It's a clean hit and he could have absolutely creamed Kesler on that play had he really put his shoulder into him..


agreed completely
  • 0

#35 Nucks2477

Nucks2477

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 13

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:17 AM

It was an elbow - no more no less. 2 minutes was fine.
No diving from Kess.
Definitely not a dirty hit.
  • 0

#36 hockeyville88

hockeyville88

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,495 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 06

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:19 AM

It wasn't a head shot. Warranted a 2 minute boarding penalty and that's it IMO.
Knowing that the NHL gives longer looks to plays where there was an injury, you knew this one wasn't going to get much. Kesler didn't even go to the bench. He was back out for the start of that PP. Hard for the NHL to take that seriously.

I don't think we get treated unfairly when it comes to majors and suspendable offenses. I think it's the minors - hooking, tripping, interference, etc - where the Canucks really don't get any calls in our favour and we get called for a lot of undeserved minors against us.
  • 0
Posted Image
Sig credit: GoaltenderInterference. Thanks!

#37 Lulover88

Lulover88

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,699 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 12

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:24 AM

no suspension .. and guys , I do believe the refs have been horrible towards the canucks , but I also think kesler should stop diving .. it pisses me off to watch this guy hurt this teams reputation ...
  • 0

#38 thaji

thaji

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 07

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:25 AM

Believe what you want, most of you do.


Actually look at the clip between 0:54 to 0:55 and you will see Nielsen is actually a step ahead of Kesler. Nielsen's left skate is ahead of Kesler's right skate and you will notice he never touches Kesler's right shoulder which is behind Nielsen.

When Nielsen comes across he misses Kesler's right shoulder and connects with his head. You can't take the side view as conclusive evidence because in that case it looks like they are side by side only when you look at the front angle you can tell that Nielsen in slightly ahead of Kesler and there is no way he could have connected with the shoulder first.

Re-watch the clip from 0:52 to 0:56 frame by frame and you will see what I mean.
  • 0

#39 higgyfan

higgyfan

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,579 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 12

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:27 AM

Well, Kesler dove so nope.


The players were skating so fast, a 'dive' could have seriously injured Kes. I believe he milked it once he was down and realized he was ok. Most players do that.

Probably not a suspension worthy play, but one that had dangerous possibilities for sure.
  • 0

#40 Xanlet

Xanlet

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,096 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 09

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:29 AM

Actually look at the clip between 0:54 to 0:55 and you will see Nielsen is actually a step ahead of Kesler. Nielsen's left skate is ahead of Kesler's right skate and you will notice he never touches Kesler's right shoulder which is behind Nielsen.

When Nielsen comes across he misses Kesler's right shoulder and connects with his head. You can't take the side view as conclusive evidence because in that case it looks like they are side by side only when you look at the front angle you can tell that Nielsen in slightly ahead of Kesler and there is no way he could have connected with the shoulder first.

Re-watch the clip from 0:52 to 0:56 frame by frame and you will see what I mean.


I think he pretty much captured it in his own post, he is just going to believe what he wants regardless of what the actual video shows
  • 1

"It was not a distinct kicking motion" - Mike Murphy
NHL Rule 49 excerpt: A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player's skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. Source

73be03d1-011e-4715-af39-a0ef23867b0e.jpg

 


#41 Alex the Great

Alex the Great

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,837 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 12

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:00 PM

I think he pretty much captured it in his own post, he is just going to believe what he wants regardless of what the actual video shows

Kind of like you?
  • 0

105uyog.jpg

 

Thanks to KhalifaWiz for the incredible sig!


#42 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,008 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:03 PM

Actually look at the clip between 0:54 to 0:55 and you will see Nielsen is actually a step ahead of Kesler. Nielsen's left skate is ahead of Kesler's right skate and you will notice he never touches Kesler's right shoulder which is behind Nielsen.

When Nielsen comes across he misses Kesler's right shoulder and connects with his head. You can't take the side view as conclusive evidence because in that case it looks like they are side by side only when you look at the front angle you can tell that Nielsen in slightly ahead of Kesler and there is no way he could have connected with the shoulder first.

Re-watch the clip from 0:52 to 0:56 frame by frame and you will see what I mean.


I watched it from all the angles.
  • 0
Posted Image

#43 SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,214 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 08

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:03 PM

Could the hit have been suspendable? Most definitely. I've seen Shanny and company make much more out of much less. There's certainly enough there for the NHL Department of Player Safety to concoct one of there videos making use of carefully selected angles, slow motion clips, and voiceover that would make it seem very clear that Nielsen targeted Kesler's head and intended to injure him with a dangerous and predatory hit.

Like I suggested earlier, I've seen them make much more of a case out of considerably less evidence.

Should it be suspendable? Most definitely not.

However, as with nearly all supplementary discipline over the past several years, there is no benchmark or standard, no set of "rules" that can be relied upon to be followed to the letter, and no understandable system as to how these situations are evaluated and adjudicated.

In this instance, the League got it right. That's a good thing. I wish it happened more often.

Was the decision not to pursue this infraction related to Ryan Kesler being a member of the Vancouver Canucks and a player with a reputation for having an embellishment history? I really don't think that plays into things in this specific case (but it might have if the situation were different).

Would things be more "even" if the Canucks were allowed to benefit from a bad suspension applied to a rival team? As things stand right now, it would "even" things up a little, at least in the short term. But like my Dad always told me: "two wrongs don't make a right." And while it's frustrating to be subjected to the "wrongs" so often (and so few "rights"), I don't believe there's anything to be gained, long-term, by the League becoming even worse at how it manages supplemental discipline and how it enforces the rules.

All we can hope for is that Shanny and his buddies over at Player Safety will get a few more decisions right in the future (and hopefully some of those will directly benefit the Vancouver Canucks). Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in them actually improving their performance. I am hopeful, however, that the seemingly random nature of how they make decisions will, at some point, lead to the Canucks getting a few breaks. After all, with enough coin flips, you eventually come up heads.
  • 1

#44 Joseph StaIin

Joseph StaIin

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 13

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:08 PM

If this happned in Russia, both players would have been shot for this disgrace.

Edited by Joseph StaIin, 25 October 2013 - 12:10 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#45 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,884 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:25 PM

Look at the clip posted in this thread, specifically the 43 second mark. Seems pretty conclusive its directly to the head.

I'd hate to see you as a lawyer. :blink:

That view's not very conclusive at all - in fact it obscures the point of contact and the other views counter the evidence you're presenting.

You mean the shoulder you can't actually see because Nielsen is in the way from that angle? Yeah, I think the one where you can actually see where the contact is made would be the preferable one.

Kinda like the shoulder and head you can't see even worse because Nielsen's in the way from your angle. Keep reaching.

Although he comes from behind, Nielson is actually a bit ahead of Kesler when contact occurs. It's a clean hit and he could have absolutely creamed Kesler on that play had he really put his shoulder into him..

Oh sure, I was just noting Kesler didn't have much forewarning of Nielsen coming in for the hit. It was definitely awkward for Kesler and could have been worse.

For everyone disagreeing, remember this: it's not whether or not the head was contacted but rather that the head was the main point of contact. Since the shoulder was the main point of contact, any contact with the head was incidental. That means the higher percentage and timing of the contact both were to the shoulder rather than to the head, and the contact to the head is very much in question if it happened at all.

Edited by elvis15, 25 October 2013 - 12:26 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#46 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,218 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:28 PM

Anything a Canuck does = suspendable/penalizeable

Anything another player does to a Canuck = Hockey Play

Am I doing it right?
  • 2

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#47 Xanlet

Xanlet

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,096 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 09

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:37 PM

Kind of like you?


The difference is I have the video on my side

I'd hate to see you as a lawyer. :blink:

That view's not very conclusive at all - in fact it obscures the point of contact and the other views counter the evidence you're presenting.


Kinda like the shoulder and head you can't see even worse because Nielsen's in the way from your angle. Keep reaching.


Oh sure, I was just noting Kesler didn't have much forewarning of Nielsen coming in for the hit. It was definitely awkward for Kesler and could have been worse.

For everyone disagreeing, remember this: it's not whether or not the head was contacted but rather that the head was the main point of contact. Since the shoulder was the main point of contact, any contact with the head was incidental. That means the higher percentage and timing of the contact both were to the shoulder rather than to the head, and the contact to the head is very much in question if it happened at all.


I suppose you won't accept the angle at 53-56 seconds either then, huh?
  • 0

"It was not a distinct kicking motion" - Mike Murphy
NHL Rule 49 excerpt: A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player's skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. Source

73be03d1-011e-4715-af39-a0ef23867b0e.jpg

 


#48 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,895 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:42 PM

The difference is I have the video on my side



I suppose you won't accept the angle at 53-56 seconds either then, huh?


it was a 2 min penalty, nothing more, nothing less.
  • 0

#49 NUCKS4CUP 28

NUCKS4CUP 28

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,348 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 08

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:45 PM

If that's a reviewable hit, this league is in serious trouble.


  • 0
Posted Image

Believe in bLUOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

#50 Xanlet

Xanlet

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,096 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 09

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:48 PM

it was a 2 min penalty, nothing more, nothing less.


"it was a 2 min penalty" as in that is how it was called. But if you're talking "should" it be, then there are two things to consider.

First, how have these hits been called in the past/how does the rulebook read? And second, should it actually be called the way the rulebook reads/should the wording and rule be change?

We've seen no real standard. Look at the Edler hit, can any of you say he "should" have received 3 games for that incident? That's what I'm really driving at here, the double standard.
  • 0

"It was not a distinct kicking motion" - Mike Murphy
NHL Rule 49 excerpt: A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player's skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. Source

73be03d1-011e-4715-af39-a0ef23867b0e.jpg

 


#51 Psycho_Path

Psycho_Path

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,723 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 06

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:48 PM

Even from the angle of that .gif it certainly seems like the head reacts to being hit before anything else, and the other angle of the hit certainly shows that the head was a major point of contact if not the principle point. Not really sure how this isn't more of an offense than what Edler did. Can't say I'm surprised.

The dumbest thing is that Kesler is a star in the league based on the points/goals he's produced and where other stars get respect from the league the Canucks' get none.

Edited by Psycho_Path, 25 October 2013 - 12:51 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#52 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:54 PM

It was a little chicken wing elbow to the mouth. Cheap yes but I don't think it's a suspension. That's one you wait and get him back next time. Little stick in the ribs when no ones looking next time we play them. The whole team should just keep it in mind and make his next game vs us a living hell.

I'd also like to add that it was a total dive lol. It wasn't that hard of a hit and Kesler went down like he was shot. It was still a mini elbow to the mouth but a grown man, professional athlete in peak physical condition does not go down that easy. If Kesler still had a chance on that puck, no way he goes down.

Maybe dive is a strong word but he embellished the crap out of it like a soccer player because he knew he lost out on the puck.

The only reason I actually want a suspension because if it was us, we'd have the book thrown at us again.

Edited by thad, 25 October 2013 - 12:56 PM.

  • 0

#53 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,884 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 25 October 2013 - 01:25 PM

The difference is I have the video on my side

I suppose you won't accept the angle at 53-56 seconds either then, huh?

More of that same, you can't ignore one view and present another as conclusive proof. I'm considering the angles you like as well as the others, just noting you ignoring the others for obstructed view also rules out the ones you're parroting as 'proof'.

"it was a 2 min penalty" as in that is how it was called. But if you're talking "should" it be, then there are two things to consider.

First, how have these hits been called in the past/how does the rulebook read? And second, should it actually be called the way the rulebook reads/should the wording and rule be change?

We've seen no real standard. Look at the Edler hit, can any of you say he "should" have received 3 games for that incident? That's what I'm really driving at here, the double standard.

I have yet to hear what rule you're referring to and what you actually think it says. Feel free to reference that specifically, then you can speculate on how this was the same/similar to other hits and then whether or not it should change.

I can see similarities in hits that have been called that don't apply to this based on the standards the NHL have been using for a year or two. Phrases like "main point of contact", "squarely through the body" and "avoid/mitigate contact to the head" are used in the rule and the suspension videos.

Just so you don't think I'm not using specifics, Edler's hit was a suspension because the head was the main point of contact, he didn't hit squarely through the body and didn't attempt to avoid or mitigate contact to Hertl's head. Nielsen's hit on the other hand had the shoulder as the main point of contact, making it different right away, and although he didn't hit squarely through the body having him hit through the shoulder going forward can be seen as trying to avoid contact to the head.

Certainly, Nielsen having hit the body as the main point means any contact to the head is incidental (as I already mentioned and you ignored) so it's not suspendable under the hit to the head rule even if it is enough of an illegal hit to warrant a penalty. I'd be happier from a legal hit standpoint if Nielsen had hit squarely through the body rather than just the shoulder and forward, but it's not worse than the Edler hit, in fact the opposite.

Edited by elvis15, 25 October 2013 - 01:25 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#54 Xanlet

Xanlet

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,096 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 09

Posted 25 October 2013 - 01:30 PM

More of that same, you can't ignore one view and present another as conclusive proof. I'm considering the angles you like as well as the others, just noting you ignoring the others for obstructed view also rules out the ones you're parroting as 'proof'.


I have yet to hear what rule you're referring to and what you actually think it says. Feel free to reference that specifically, then you can speculate on how this was the same/similar to other hits and then whether or not it should change.

I can see similarities in hits that have been called that don't apply to this based on the standards the NHL have been using for a year or two. Phrases like "main point of contact", "squarely through the body" and "avoid/mitigate contact to the head" are used in the rule and the suspension videos.

Just so you don't think I'm not using specifics, Edler's hit was a suspension because the head was the main point of contact, he didn't hit squarely through the body and didn't attempt to avoid or mitigate contact to Hertl's head. Nielsen's hit on the other hand had the shoulder as the main point of contact, making it different right away, and although he didn't hit squarely through the body having him hit through the shoulder going forward can be seen as trying to avoid contact to the head.

Certainly, Nielsen having hit the body as the main point means any contact to the head is incidental (as I already mentioned and you ignored) so it's not suspendable under the hit to the head rule even if it is enough of an illegal hit to warrant a penalty. I'd be happier from a legal hit standpoint if Nielsen had hit squarely through the body rather than just the shoulder and forward, but it's not worse than the Edler hit, in fact the opposite.


I wasn't "ignoring" any angle, simply pointing out there are better angles. In my opinion, all of the angles either show, or suggest, that Nielsen's principle point of contact was Kesler's head.
  • 0

"It was not a distinct kicking motion" - Mike Murphy
NHL Rule 49 excerpt: A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player's skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. Source

73be03d1-011e-4715-af39-a0ef23867b0e.jpg

 


#55 Strawberries

Strawberries

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,563 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 09

Posted 25 October 2013 - 01:37 PM

They probably sat around and laughed at it.


  • 0
Posted Image

#56 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,008 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 25 October 2013 - 01:42 PM

"it was a 2 min penalty" as in that is how it was called. But if you're talking "should" it be, then there are two things to consider.

First, how have these hits been called in the past/how does the rulebook read? And second, should it actually be called the way the rulebook reads/should the wording and rule be change?

We've seen no real standard. Look at the Edler hit, can any of you say he "should" have received 3 games for that incident? That's what I'm really driving at here, the double standard.


With Edler point of contact was the head. Suspendable. Not the case in the hit on Kesler when initial contact is the shoulder. Not suspendable.
  • 0
Posted Image

#57 Xanlet

Xanlet

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,096 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 09

Posted 25 October 2013 - 01:49 PM

With Edler point of contact was the head. Suspendable. Not the case in the hit on Kesler when initial contact is the shoulder. Not suspendable.


That is simply an inaccurate and nonfactual assessment of the situation.
  • 0

"It was not a distinct kicking motion" - Mike Murphy
NHL Rule 49 excerpt: A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player's skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. Source

73be03d1-011e-4715-af39-a0ef23867b0e.jpg

 


#58 Alex the Great

Alex the Great

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,837 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 12

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:05 PM

That is simply an inaccurate and nonfactual assessment of the situation.

Haha oh buddy.

Using big words doesn't make you right.
  • 0

105uyog.jpg

 

Thanks to KhalifaWiz for the incredible sig!


#59 DooBie604

DooBie604

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 09

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:13 PM

I truly hate Vancouver media. It's pathetic how much hate mongering they do on the Canucks and how they try to paint them in such a negative light. During our Stanley Cup run where we were labelled villains, a majority was due to Vancouver media blowing everything out of proportion and turning mountains into molehills. I strongly believe that It is our media that has given the Canucks such a bad reputation. You go anywhere else and the media always backs up their team and it's almost blasphemy to write a negative article about the Toronto Maple Leafs in Toronto.

And yet here in Vancouver, the media sells by writing crap articles purposely trying to rile up fans. It comes as no surprise that every GM who works here gets sick of their trash.

Thanks to our media outlet, we will usually not get the benefit of the doubt because they are the first to call dive or villain and other media outlets follow.

Edited by DooBie604, 25 October 2013 - 02:15 PM.

  • 0

#60 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,008 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:15 PM

Anything a Canuck does = suspendable/penalizeable

Anything another player does to a Canuck = Hockey Play

Am I doing it right?


Partly. That's the way many here think the league calls it,,,,,,


Anything a Canuck does = Hockey Play

Anything another player does to a Canuck = suspendable for life


.....is the way many here believe it always is.
  • 0
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.