Batmania

You do know that trolling is something somebody does on purpose to get a rise out of people? As far as who I don't recall but any Luongo thread ever you and Riviera and Smurf were called trolls. Incorrectly much like you're using it. Also I'm not stubborn. I'll fight to my last breath before you convince me I'm stubborn. You know Nino I don't always agree with you but I'll give you this much; you're a pretty chill guy.Even in disagreement I can usually count on you for a good discussion or for you not to get your feelings hurt and get all whiny like some folks here. As for Gillis. It's not just excuses people that want him to stay give it's also sometimes perspective. Some people have just constantly got a fire somebody campaign going and anytime anybody disagrees with them they go on about how everyone else is stupid. For me I think anybody who thinks Gillis has brought this team down to it's knees doesn't get it. Anybody who thinks Gillis hasn't made any mistakes doesn't get it. I understand your argument about the Luongo deal and while I disagree with it I think you make some good points however I also think with perspective we can see why it was done. We also certainly know that it was well within the rules at the time and that every contract goes through league approval. So suggest Gillis was doing anything but his job on that deal to me is petty. I get the complaint about it but for me that's where it stops.

Simply made a comment. Cool down. There was no insult any more than what you made.

no. That was a pretty specific statement. Also I don't know if you missed it buy whoosh.

The worst fans are the ones that generalize.

You're part of that fan base cheech.

Did you just complain about trolls (something you get called on the regular for dismissing what other people think) and then proceed to end your post with "lololololol... Lmao."

Brace for the hit my arse. Aside from just what his body does his direction changes. There's no hyperbole (I'm not even sure you're using the word correctly to be honest) there's just what happens. The puck doesn't matter in that situation. He has every right to go for the puck without question but that doesn't take away from what happened. As I said imo it didn't deserve a suspension but it deserved to be looked at and I would have said a fine would have been sufficient.

I think this is absolutely correct. I just think part of the problem on the fan side of things is a lack of understanding the equation (every math teacher I ever had that told me I needed to show my work is rolling in their grave right now) I think if there's one thing I would like to see the nhl do better is give the fans more information. It's a million times better than it was but it's certainly not close to perfect.

The puck being there didn't really matter. It still should have only been a fine for being careless but the puck doesn't matter. Also you can't honestly tell me you don't see Edler lean into the hit well before it happened. There's no way you missed that fact.

That's the most important part of what you said and it's something everybody needs to realize.

I think the league has certain things they look for. I actually think they know exactly what they are doing and they do have people other than just the group of former players that help with these decisions. We also have to remember this is how the General Managers wanted thing, the competition committee and the NHLPA. This is right from the CBA which both groups created. 6. Factors in Determining Supplementary Discipline In deciding supplementary discipline, the following factors will be taken into account: a) the type of conduct involved: conduct outside of NHL rules; excessive force in contact otherwise permitted by NHL rules; and careless or accidental contact. Players are responsible for the consequence of their actions. Injury to the opposing Player(s) involved in the incident. c) The status of the offender, and specifically whether he is a "first" or "repeat" offender. Players who repeated violate NHL rules will be more severely punished for each violation. d) The situation of the game in which the situation occurred: late in the game, lopsided score, prior events in the game. e) Such other factors as may be appropriate in the circumstances. All in all there are about 15 people who decide about handing out suspensions.

I wonder how most people here are feeling about the Orpik hit on Toews last night? If that hit happens to a Canucks we most certainly would have a thread about it. Perhaps the problem is our interpretation more than anything else? Are we willing to concede that as a possibility?

perv

Nuck Nit is impervious to facts.

I don't think you know what the word implying means...or oxymoron

nice

bad call but lets take advantage of it.

He doesn't really deserve anything.

Were you pauser/y2kcanucks?

Hobo Meat?

was this a dig at me because I said this should be a suspension given what I've seen.

It is but if the principle point of contact wasn't the head it's not a suspension. Having said that I'd like to see this front angle as well. The two angles posted here force us to use our imagination a bit so I'd like to see one that doesn't. Intent doesn't matter. You bring up Edler and that's a good example of something where intent and common sense from the player being hit don't matter. Point of contact was the head. This hit looks like it is but I want to see this front angle because the two side angles sure look like it. If it's a follow through that makes contact with the head though than it's a legal hit. Just being hit in the head is not a suspension.

If he gets nothing people will complain that he didn't get a suspension and they would be right. If he gets 1 game people will complain that he didn't get 2. If he gets 2 games people will complain that he didn't get 5. If he gets 5 games people will complain that he didn't get 10. If he gets 10 games people will complain that he wasn't killed by a firing squad. If he gets killed by a firing squad people will complain that they weren't allowed to urinate on his corpse.

you just replied to him telling you to put up or shut up by telling him to do the same. Pro tip: if you made the claim the burdon is on you to provide the source. Like the actual source not somebody saying what he thought gillis might have meant. If you have nothing than you have nothing. Just own up to it rather than dance around it.