Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Laine gets rocked


Mackcanuck

Recommended Posts

On 1/11/2017 at 2:02 AM, Bitter Melon said:

Clean hit. Pretty disgusted in Scheifele after the play. Its one thing to stick up for your teammates, another thing to mug a guy who isn't ready for it.

 

Maybe he was just frustrated he was the one who gave him the suicide pass.

Excuuuuuuuse me sir? What NHL do you watch? Clean or not guys defend a SUPERSTAR when they get hit like that. It was a clean hit. The idea behind going after a player who goes after a SUPERSTAR is that it will hopefully discourage guys from doing it in the future. We have to protect guys like that. 

 

If Eichel got hit like that from Buff you don't think guys would go after him? This is all part of the game. Nobody knew McCabe was cut after the hit, but regardless its a neccesary reaction.

 

 WAKE UP YOU BIAS BAFOON #sarcasm #butkindaserious #dontbanme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, canuck204 said:

Excuuuuuuuse me sir? What NHL do you watch? Clean or not guys defend a SUPERSTAR when they get hit like that. It was a clean hit. The idea behind going after a player who goes after a SUPERSTAR is that it will hopefully discourage guys from doing it in the future. We have to protect guys like that. 

 

If Eichel got hit like that from Buff you don't think guys would go after him? This is all part of the game. Nobody knew McCabe was cut after the hit, but regardless its a neccesary reaction.

 

 WAKE UP YOU BIAS BAFOON #sarcasm #butkindaserious #dontbanme

All players take punishment.  We shall see how Laine responds.  Does he continue his great play, or does he hide on the perimeter?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, canuck204 said:

Excuuuuuuuse me sir? What NHL do you watch? Clean or not guys defend a SUPERSTAR when they get hit like that. It was a clean hit. The idea behind going after a player who goes after a SUPERSTAR is that it will hopefully discourage guys from doing it in the future. We have to protect guys like that. 

 

If Eichel got hit like that from Buff you don't think guys would go after him? This is all part of the game. Nobody knew McCabe was cut after the hit, but regardless its a neccesary reaction.

 

 WAKE UP YOU BIAS BAFOON #sarcasm #butkindaserious #dontbanme

This is what I hate. A clean hit is a clean hit. Should stars just get a free pass from physical play? If the Canucks are playing Calgary and Gudbranson catches Gaudreau with his head down coming through he neutral zone, I fully expect Gud to lay a huge (clean) hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sean Monahan said:

This is what I hate. A clean hit is a clean hit. Should stars just get a free pass from physical play? If the Canucks are playing Calgary and Gudbranson catches Gaudreau with his head down coming through he neutral zone, I fully expect Gud to lay a huge (clean) hit.

I think players that are looking to hit stars should know that's part of the game. Some guys will do it and know they have to defend themselves. That's a risk they take when they go after a star. Clean or dirty. 

 

Why don't we hear the players talking about this? They know it's a part of the game. I've never heard a player complain of having to defend himself after laying a huge hit on a star player. The only ones that might are the rats that were too scared to defend themselves, in which case it's used to stop them from doing it in the future. It's a necessary balance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, canuck204 said:

 

Why don't we hear the players talking about this? They know it's a part of the game. I've never heard a player complain of having to defend himself after laying a huge hit on a star player. The only ones that might are the rats that were too scared to defend themselves, in which case it's used to stop them from doing it in the future. It's a necessary balance. 

The problem is that McCabe didn't get the opportunity to "defend himself". Scheifele essentially suckerpunched him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bitter Melon said:

The problem is that McCabe didn't get the opportunity to "defend himself". Scheifele essentially suckerpunched him.

When you run a guy like that, again clean OR dirty, and the guy in unconscious on the ice that's a risk you take. It's all a part of the self policing that is necessary in the game. He didn't even actually immediately go for the punch it was more of a forearm if I recall correctly. He was trying to grab him first and clearly got caught with something decent. 

 

I remember a few weeks ago Kassian smoked someone... Can't even remember the team, but as soon as he saw that he hurt their guy, he dropped is gloves and got ready for what was coming. He understands how the game is played. This is obviously a weird circumstance because nobody knew McCabe was injured as well after the play but I don't really care in this case. $&!# happens, he is no worse for ware as he came back with a few minutes to play with some stitches.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, canuck204 said:

When you run a guy like that, again clean OR dirty, and the guy in unconscious on the ice that's a risk you take. It's all a part of the self policing that is necessary in the game. He didn't even actually immediately go for the punch it was more of a forearm if I recall correctly. He was trying to grab him first and clearly got caught with something decent. 

 

I remember a few weeks ago Kassian smoked someone... Can't even remember the team, but as soon as he saw that he hurt their guy, he dropped is gloves and got ready for what was coming. He understands how the game is played. This is obviously a weird circumstance because nobody knew McCabe was injured as well after the play but I don't really care in this case. $&!# happens, he is no worse for ware as he came back with a few minutes to play with some stitches.

 

 

I'm sorry, but no. Cheap shots and sucker punches are not part of the code. The code establishes that you stick up for your team and answer the bell when required. There was no bell. Do you think Keith was right to elbow Daniel in the face in retaliation for a questionable hit because it's part of the code? How about Bertuzzi on Moore?

 

You don't get to act like a dirty thug and do whatever you want because "Hurr durr mah code guyz!!1!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bitter Melon said:

I'm sorry, but no. Cheap shots and sucker punches are not part of the code. The code establishes that you stick up for your team and answer the bell when required. There was no bell. Do you think Keith was right to elbow Daniel in the face in retaliation for a questionable hit because it's part of the code? How about Bertuzzi on Moore?

 

You don't get to act like a dirty thug and do whatever you want because "Hurr durr mah code guyz!!1!"

So Sheifele going after McCabe is the same as Bertuzzi going after Moore? SMH.

 

McCabe needed to answer the bell. Sheifele was sticking up for his teammate. The forearm that hit McCabe when he got grabbed was not the intent.  He was trying to grab him to further beat his ass. Which fits perfectly into your definition of code.  Also if you noticed there was no further attempt at further hurting McCabe because Shef's noticed that McCabe was INJURED. Which even further proves my point.

 

Once again, the largest point of my argument would be as to why are no players complaining about this? Hmm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with canuck204 to a point. I think everyone knows that when you clock a superstar, you'd better get ready to drop the gloves. It's become the new norm in the NHL.

 

I don't like it, but it is what it is. IMO, if the NHL wanted to discourage it, they'd do something. The first guy to go after someone laying a legal hit should get five, a game and a 2 game suspension. The guy defending himself from the attack gets nothing.

 

Maybe the prospect of putting your team shorthanded for five minutes, plus the reality of sitting for the next 2 will make guys more reluctant to jump opponents who have done nothing illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I agree with canuck204 to a point. I think everyone knows that when you clock a superstar, you'd better get ready to drop the gloves. It's become the new norm in the NHL.

 

I don't like it, but it is what it is. IMO, if the NHL wanted to discourage it, they'd do something. The first guy to go after someone laying a legal hit should get five, a game and a 2 game suspension. The guy defending himself from the attack gets nothing.

 

Maybe the prospect of putting your team shorthanded for five minutes, plus the reality of sitting for the next 2 will make guys more reluctant to jump opponents who have done nothing illegal.

That's not really a new norm that's been going since I remember watching hockey in the 90s. What's been more of a new norm IMO and it's getting annoying, is any player who gets hit now seems to start a brawl even if they're not a superstar. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

That's not really a new norm that's been going since I remember watching hockey in the 90s. What's been more of a new norm IMO and it's getting annoying, is any player who gets hit now seems to start a brawl even if they're not a superstar. 

 

I started watching in the 60s. The 90s is "new", to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2017 at 2:50 PM, canuck204 said:

So Sheifele going after McCabe is the same as Bertuzzi going after Moore? SMH.

Going to rebut that or just shake your head? How about my other example of Keith on Daniel?

 

Quote

McCabe needed to answer the bell.

Well, it was a clean hit. He didn't NEED to do anything. It would be foolish of him to not expect some sort of retaliation but whether its valid or not is very much up for debate. This is all aside from the fact that getting jumped is not "answering the bell". 

Quote

Sheifele was sticking up for his teammate

Yes. By being a suckerpunching dirtbag.

Quote

The forearm that hit McCabe when he got grabbed was not the intent

Neither was McCabe's intent to scramble Laine's brains, so its all good, right?

Quote

He was trying to grab him to further beat his ass. Which fits perfectly into your definition of code.

No it doesn't.

Quote

Also if you noticed there was no further attempt at further hurting McCabe because Shef's noticed that McCabe was INJURED.

You are clearly not watching the same video. Here's a link so you can review what actually happened, maybe thats why we're having this disagreement.

 

As you can see, "Shefs" didn't lay off him when he "saw he was injured" he suckerpunched him like a coward, then wailed on him like a deranged chimp until TWO refs intervened. 

Quote

Once again, the largest point of my argument would be as to why are no players complaining about this?

Because thats the litmus test right? Whether or not a player complained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2017 at 4:50 PM, canuck204 said:

So Sheifele going after McCabe is the same as Bertuzzi going after Moore? SMH.

Going to rebut that or just shake your head? How about my other example of Keith on Daniel?

 

Quote

McCabe needed to answer the bell.

Well, it was a clean hit. He didn't NEED to do anything. It would be foolish of him to not expect some sort of retaliation but whether its valid or not is very much up for debate. This is all aside from the fact that getting jumped is not "answering the bell". 

Quote

Sheifele was sticking up for his teammate

Yes. By being a suckerpunching dirtbag.

Quote

The forearm that hit McCabe when he got grabbed was not the intent

Neither was McCabe's intent to scramble Laine's brains, so its all good, right?

Quote

He was trying to grab him to further beat his ass. Which fits perfectly into your definition of code.

No it doesn't.

Quote

Also if you noticed there was no further attempt at further hurting McCabe because Shef's noticed that McCabe was INJURED.

You are clearly not watching the same video. Here's a link so you can review what actually happened, maybe thats why we're having this disagreement.

 

As you can see, "Shefs" didn't lay off him when he "saw he was injured" he suckerpunched him like a coward, then wailed on him like a deranged chimp until TWO refs intervened. 

Quote

Once again, the largest point of my argument would be as to why are no players complaining about this?

Because thats the litmus test right? Whether or not a player complained.

**********************************************************************************************************************************

 

Dude, if someone on the Canucks had any balls I would have loved them to go after Keith. There was probably some sort of attempt but nothing memorable.

 

McCabe knows if hes gonna lay someone out like that he's gonna have to answer for it. Clean or dirty. Its a risk you take.

 

Sheifele barely got anything off with the immediate scramble after the initial impact. Injured or not that doesn't matter. You are crazy to paint Sheifele like some dirty villian this is too funny.

 

He ran into him with intent to &^@# his $&!# up and I wish someone did the same to Keith. It's part of the game. Nothing wrong here, and this is why NOBODY COMPLAINED. No coaches, players, management etc. Nobody whos opinions mattered complained. Just softies like yourself.

 

Hitting someone you are taking that risk. There are tons of hits that don't end in concussions like that which will still lead to a fight. No problem here. Protect your stars.

 

Why the hell should we(couch potatoes) decide how they should play the game/police themselves? 

 

I'm not gonna argue with you about this forever. We can agree to disagree. I've mustered you up to a anti-fighting hockey fan. You probably never even played hockey. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, canuck204 said:

 

I'm not gonna argue with you about this forever. We can agree to disagree. I've mustered you up to a anti-fighting hockey fan. You probably never even played hockey. 

Well I played for 8 years. I had to answer the bell a few times. But yeah, feel free to throw out my arguments if its easier to just chalk me up as an "anti-fighting hockey fan." I'll take your 'agreeing to disagree' and final potshot at me at the end there as you conceding, because thats what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2017 at 7:10 PM, Bitter Melon said:

Well I played for 8 years. I had to answer the bell a few times. But yeah, feel free to throw out my arguments if its easier to just chalk me up as an "anti-fighting hockey fan." I'll take your 'agreeing to disagree' and final potshot at me at the end there as you conceding, because thats what it is.

Man, it's really not conceding. You understand that people are allowed to disagree and have difference in opinion without someone being right and someone wrong... Right? 

 

You think players shouldn't have to answer the bell even when the hit is clean, and I think they have to consider that risk. If you're going to potentially hurt someone (even when clean), or if you even attempt to lay a huge hit on a star player and just clip or even miss that player, you are most likely going to have to stand up for yourself. This has been the way the game has been played forever, and I haven't heard a peep from anyone on either sides of the retaliation. Of course there is going to be an exception. IE: Bertuzzi on Moore. But that is a whole different can of worms to open.

 

My main point is that players do not complain about this so they clearly have no problem with this part of the game, but you sitting at home have a problem with it. Why would I or anyone care what a couch potato like you or me think? The only advantage I have in this debate is that my opinion is the same as the players, who created this code and maintain it.

 

You clearly have some complex with having to be right if you think that me saying "agree to disagree" is me conceding. I would have no problem swaying from my views if you had some compelling information or arguments that you could bring to the table. You don't though. You end up sounding like a armchair GM type and we all know there is 0 credibility there.

 

Also great, you played meaningless hockey for 8 years. I played for 12. Does that make me better than you? No.

 

Once again, I'll give you the opportunity to end this argument with an agree to disagree. There is nothing wrong with that. This isn't about winning or losing an argument lol... Christ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, canuck204 said:

 

You think players shouldn't have to answer the bell even when the hit is clean, and I think they have to consider that risk. If you're going to potentially hurt someone (even when clean), or if you even attempt to lay a huge hit on a star player and just clip or even miss that player, you are most likely going to have to stand up for yourself. This has been the way the game has been played forever, and I haven't heard a peep from anyone on either sides of the retaliation. Of course there is going to be an exception. IE: Bertuzzi on Moore. But that is a whole different can of worms to open.

 

Again, no. That's not my argument at all. Stop strawmanning what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that what Scheifele did was a cheapshot.  You're the one who turned it into an argument of what is and isn't part of "the code", which I never called into question.

 

Quote

My main point is that players do not complain about this so they clearly have no problem with this part of the game, but you sitting at home have a problem with it. Why would I or anyone care what a couch potato like you or me think? The only advantage I have in this debate is that my opinion is the same as the players, who created this code and maintain it. 

 

Are you new to the internet? What exactly do you think forums are for? I'm not saying my opinion carries any weight, I'm simply voicing it. You're the one who has the issue with it.

 

Quote

You clearly have some complex with having to be right if you think that me saying "agree to disagree" is me conceding. I would have no problem swaying from my views if you had some compelling information or arguments that you could bring to the table. You don't though. You end up sounding like a armchair GM type and we all know there is 0 credibility there. 

Mate, you're the one who responded to me. You're the one who called me a "bafoon" (irony). You don't then get to turn around and say "lol lets just agree to disagree" and play the victim.

 

Quote

 

Also great, you played meaningless hockey for 8 years. I played for 12. Does that make me better than you? No.

Once again, you're the one who brought this up. I have no idea where you get off saying "You probably never played", then when I tell you I did you say "So? That doesn't mean anything." Your cognitive dissonance is unreal man.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, canuck204 said:

 

You think players shouldn't have to answer the bell even when the hit is clean, and I think they have to consider that risk. If you're going to potentially hurt someone (even when clean), or if you even attempt to lay a huge hit on a star player and just clip or even miss that player, you are most likely going to have to stand up for yourself. This has been the way the game has been played forever, and I haven't heard a peep from anyone on either sides of the retaliation. Of course there is going to be an exception. IE: Bertuzzi on Moore. But that is a whole different can of worms to open.

 

Again, no. That's not my argument at all. Stop strawmanning what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that what Scheifele did was a cheapshot.  You're the one who turned it into an argument of what is and isn't part of "the code", which I never called into question.

 

Quote

My main point is that players do not complain about this so they clearly have no problem with this part of the game, but you sitting at home have a problem with it. Why would I or anyone care what a couch potato like you or me think? The only advantage I have in this debate is that my opinion is the same as the players, who created this code and maintain it. 

 

Are you new to the internet? What exactly do you think forums are for? I'm not saying my opinion carries any weight, I'm simply voicing it. You're the one who has the issue with it.

 

Quote

You clearly have some complex with having to be right if you think that me saying "agree to disagree" is me conceding. I would have no problem swaying from my views if you had some compelling information or arguments that you could bring to the table. You don't though. You end up sounding like a armchair GM type and we all know there is 0 credibility there. 

Mate, you're the one who responded to me. You're the one who called me a "bafoon" (irony). You don't then get to turn around and say "lol lets just agree to disagree" and play the victim.

 

Quote

 

Also great, you played meaningless hockey for 8 years. I played for 12. Does that make me better than you? No.

Once again, you're the one who brought this up. I have no idea where you get off saying "You probably never played", then when I tell you I did you say "So? That doesn't mean anything." Your cognitive dissonance is unreal man.

 

*******************************************************************************************************************

I responded to your stupid comment about Sheifele lmfao. So if you want to play a "who started it" I mean, wow. lol...

 

It wasn't a cheap shot. Guys go after guys like that anytime a hit like that occurs, if there is someone on the ice with any balls. Sheifele barely got anything off and McCabe should consider himself lucky. He missed a few minutes of that game getting stitched up from the actual hit he laid Laine out with, and has been playing ever since. 

 

I am not new to the internet. I am simply pointing out that I can't find anyone on these boards that agrees with you either. I am also pointing out that you are making an argument that goes against everything pro hockey and pro hockey players stand for. 

 

I have made every valid point that supports my argument and you are simply trying to paint me as some victim and someone who is trying to win over some argument for my ego. I do not care, people will always disagree at the end of the day. Obviously I either haven't made strong enough points in your opinion of you are just too caught up in the cuckery of your soft views on how professional athletes should play the game. I maintain that everything is going well on the self policing front and you seem to think Sheifele should be punished of villianised for his retaliation to his superstar line mate getting knocked out cold which was lackluster at best. 

 

Agreeing to disagree once again buddy, isnt either of us conceding. The fact that you don't understand this makes me question why I ever started this back and forth with you because you don't seem to be a very reasonable person. You seem locked in with your ideas and personally offended by what someone says to you over a message board. 

 

I don't know what the hell you're talking about regarding me painting myself a victim that is hilarious. If I cared enough to count the score on this debate I would certainly be winning but don't worry I'm not getting any pleasure out of this. I have more important things to put my focus into. I hop on here before work and see what is going on and always have a notifiation from you and I always get a chuckle. "Bitter Melon" is literally such a fitting name for you.

 

You keep dissecting the way I write my sentences and the little details. It just shows you're running out of things to talk about. I maintain how I feel about it and so does almost EVERYONE ELSE. 

 

Is everyone else crazy man? Are you one of those people who thinks everyone else is crazy and you're the one guy making sense? Jeeeeeez sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...