-
Posts
11,793 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Baggins
-
He was roughing Bure up with contact but isn't that what good checkers do? Particularly in the playoffs. Burrows and Kesler both played hard and dished out extra digs and whacks and were hated around the league as "dirty players". They're the players you love on your team and hate on other teams. Welcome to hockey.
-
The league standard for sufficient reaction time to change the course you're on is 5/10 of a second. Rome during his 8/10 actually changed course to make the hit whereas the league .5 is sufficient time to change an already chosen path. It doesn't matter that he hit chest first, and I did say it would have been a perfectly legal hit if timely, what matters is how late it was and that he actually changed direction to do it when he had more than enough time not to do so. He had the time to make a better decision is what it came down to. I don't understand how anybody could defend it. Rome chose what he did just as Bure did.
-
Neither is a player without the puck not even looking in your direction. Dirty plays are dirty plays, but all dirty plays are not created equal. You have to be able to actually review them to be able to fairly judge them. For example Rome's cheap shot was dirty. Bure's elbow was dirty. Rome wasn't actually headhunting and if more timely would have been perfectly legal. What made it dirty was the fact that it was late and he had the time not to do it. Bure's on the other hand was pure dirt and illegal no matter how you cut it. So Bure's was the dirtier of the two. This can be seen in the video evidence. Without video evidence how can you judge level severity? Wouldn't that also be true of somebody in the stands? Even more so as what they saw was in an instant whereas video can be slowed and viewed multiple times.
-
You're creating your own story here. I did call it dirty. That's exactly what a cheap shot is. But are all cheap shots equal in severity? Was it a bump, or was it vicious? The two are not equal. Bure's elbow is pretty easy to judge through the video evidence. It was dirty and vicious. The hit on Linden while down I can't judge as there is no video to see exactly what occurred. That's not the same as defending it at all. I simply can't judge it any further than calling it cheap or dirty without seeing it. As I stated earlier headhunting will generally be at the top of the dirty spectrum for me.
-
So now I'm a troll? Headhunting is excusable.... as long as it's done by a Canuck.... All Robson said was "he hit Linden again" which I acknowledged. I also referred to it as a cheap shot (I'm such a troll). But is a cheap shot worse than than headhunting? Without seeing it I can't judge it. The initial hit on Linden, although a cheap shot, wasn't worse than direct intentional headhunting regardless of who the target is. The second hit on Linden can't be judged without the video. Read the quote in my sig. It's why I will take video evidence over fan perception every single time.
-
I don't care Deb. There's so many die hard homers I'll only take the word of video replay. You'll believe in what you want, particularly with the pro-Canuck viewpoint as you're a self professed homer. Homers loved the Churla elbow, I don't fall in that category. I hate that type of play regardless of player or team. I've cheered for the Canucks since joining the league but won't defend dirty.
-
Dirty absolutely. But without seeing it tough to judge. For all we know it could have been little more than a bump. Straight up headhunting an unsuspecting player is pretty easy to judge though. I think you're downplaying how dirty Bure's elbow was and I'd wager you'd be leading the lynch mob if that elbow was on any Canuck.
-
I disagree. Was Churla "actively playing hockey" by simply being on the ice without the puck? Well the same would apply to Linden then. Churla had no more reason than Linden to expect a cheap shot away from the play. Both were dirty opportunistic plays on unsuspecting players and neither led to suspension. I would say Bure's was worse as his was pure intentional headhunting on an unsuspecting player. Linden's initial injury was from a full on body check away from the play. A body check that would have been perfectly legal had he had the puck. The Messier hit while Linden was down was never seen but my guess would be a crosscheck, at worst, to put him back down but we'll never know as all Robson says is "Messier hit him again while he was down". Both despicable but I put intentional headhunting higher on the despicable list than pretty much anything else.
-
The problem with Woodley's comment is it isn't even a rumor or hearsay but is being construed as such. It says "he doesn't believe" meaning it's pure opinion rather than something from an actual inside source. Otherwise he would say he was told this by an "inside source". People have a tendency to skip the "in my opinion" and "I believe" when these guys say things and take it as true inside information rather than pure speculation. His belief likely has more to do with his opinion of Holtby than anything factual.
-
I loved at the end when Petey says, "I don't even know the Swedish songs."
-
Well that seals the deal. No way he opts out if he has to pay his bonus back.
-
The problem with concussions imo is early you can see signs a person is concussed but as healing progresses the medical staff depend a great deal on the player being honest about how he's feeling.
-
He did bring that history with him. As I said though, insurance companies will insure a player but exempt a specific injury from the policy if there is repeat history of that injury type. So even if Ferland was insured it would very likely exclude concussions from the policy due to that history. What I read is teams typically only insure 4 to 8 players as it's quite expensive.
-
It also occurred to me nobody would demand number 11 again as it would look like skunk stripes on the back.
-
So you're saying grizzlies don't live in the city? No good then. I really do get why you chose your user name. Must... clutch... straws... Best solution rebrand the team the Vancouver Skunks and switch to black/white uniforms. They're certainly common in the city and could make for a great logo and mascot. Pepe Le Pew anybody??? It would have been perfect through the rebuild... "We stink, but we will find love..."
-
Considering how little Ferland played last season, and how quickly he was re-injured when he tried, I do think his career may be done. You never know though. At one point I thought Crosby was likely done. Same with Mitchell. I thought LA really rolled the dice signing Mitchell. Almost nine months after his concussion he still wasn't cleared for contact when they signed him. LA won that roll of the dice. I didn't like the term of Ferland's contract because I felt they were rolling the dice on him. Well, we lost the roll of the dice. Maybe a season off will sort things out for Ferland.
-
Did I say somewhere teams don't have to pay a player under contract? But players are required to play for their salary or prove they can't to collect injury pay. As it's the team that places the player on LTIR they have every right to ensure the validity of the injury. Teams can't force a player to retire and I never said they could otherwise Eriksson would have been gone long ago. What I was referring to, that you bolded, was Fred's idea Luongo could have gone on LTIR and saved us the cap hit. But why would Florida, or an insurance company (if he was insured), pay a player without confirming his inability to play? Try that trick with WCB. And why would a team prefer to pay Luongo for LTI when he wants to retire which costs them nothing? What Fred was suggesting was beyond silly. With LTI the league also has the right to send the player to a league doctor if they feel the injury is questionable and/or there's cap or waiver shenanigans going on. It's extremely rare but they can. No courts are required by team, insurance company or the league. The player can't just say I'm going on LTIR. It doesn't work that way with any employer. Btw, I already stated LTIR counts against the cap and only means the cap can be exceeded by the players salary. As to Ferland, not all players on a team are insured as it's quite expensive. Even if insured, companies typically exempt certain injuries if the player has a history of an injury type. So even if the Canucks insured him I highly doubt it would include concussions due his history. So it's highly likely the Canucks are on the hook for his salary playing or not. He could let the team off the hook by retiring but given how much money is on the table it's a rare breed that would be willing to do it when legitimately entitled to it due to injury..
-
It's not as simple as just putting him on LTI as somebody has to pay his salary. Either the team is paying him or an insurance company. Why would the team pay him if they don't have to when he just wants to pack it in? If insured that company will want him checked to verify injury. They don't pay on policies out of the goodness of their heart. Even then, if the league has any doubts, they can send him to a league doctor to verify he can't play. Btw, even players on LTI count towards the cap. It just means a team can exceed the cap by that players salary.
-
It's certainly better than the running man but I still prefer the Orca.
-
Wouldn't be appropriate as Gizzlies don't live in the city....
-
Again, you're not peeing DIRECTLY on the other person. Is some protection not better than no protection?
-
Being about 12% native I get to offend myself. I'm outraged at me!!!
-
Poseidon....
-
Well it was a highly offensive term to French Canadians at one time. I've been told there's still some oldtimers in Quebec that still view it as offensive. As the logo issue failed miserably on to phase 2... the team name.