There's No Conspiracy Against the Canucks/Mantha's Dirty Hit

[5Fivehole0]

7 hours ago, Dazzle said:

I'm very surprised you'd say this.

 

It's a cross check penalty in the numbers for starters.

 

Also, the principal point of contact is the head.

 

Not sure why you disagree.

 

He didn't have two hands on the stick, so it wasn't a cross check. Though it should have been roughing or possibly a check to the head. 2 mins or no penalty... either way it wasn't that bad.

[cyoung]

7 hours ago, stawns said:

why?  Hockey is a rough game, played on the edge.........as a player and a fan, that's the type of game I enjoy.  You don't, that's your right.

 

It was a modertaley cheap play, but I have no issue with cheap plays in the game and I doubt Giroux gave it 10 seconds of thought.

Lol who said I don't like rough hockey? Im saying that hit was a bitch move. It wasnt crazy or over the top like some people are making it out to be but it's still a dumb play lol

[RRypien37]

15 hours ago, Chris12345 said:

Pretty soft world we live in. No fight after either.

This is a byproduct of the rule changes. You play with fire expect to get burned. Anyone with half a brain and basic hockey knowledge could have predicted what is going on this season. 

[Down by the River]

16 hours ago, stawns said:

I think fans who haven't played much or reffed don't really understand how fast the game is and how quickly things happen.  Again, these are the best officials in the world, so doesn't that tell you that maybe it's a tough, tough job and that accepting that the majority of offenses go unseen is as good as it's going to get? 

 

I will say that officiating is more consistent than it ever has been, by a mile, but it comes with a price.......games decided by special teams, not 5v5 play.  I'd like them to call less, not more.

Being the best in the world does not necessarily mean they are good at what they do. 

 

For what its worth, power play opportunities are much lower than they were 10-15 years ago and yet scoring is up, so games are becoming less and less likely to be decided by special teams. 

[stawns]

35 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

Being the best in the world does not necessarily mean they are good at what they do. 

 

For what its worth, power play opportunities are much lower than they were 10-15 years ago and yet scoring is up, so games are becoming less and less likely to be decided by special teams. 

the point is, they are the best officials out there, it isn't going to get any better.  Additionally, people are whining like this is a new thing, when the reality is that officiating has never been this consistent in the history of the league.  There's 12 players on the ice, skating 30-40 kms/hr, smashing into each other, with weapons, in a 200 ft enclosed space and two referees to try and keep everyone in line.  That they are able to do as good a job as they do is amazing.

[-DLC-]

19 hours ago, stawns said:

that's hockey Deb, it's always been played on the edge.........that's what makes it exciting and that play was hardly even a bump.    

 

FTFY

"that's dirty hockey Deb, it's always been played over the edge......that's what makes it dangerous.  Even bumps into the boards face first from the knees can cause injury.

 

Look, I LOVE tough, physical hockey but, over time, it's being proven that this can leave players with longstanding residue from injury and affect their overall quality of life.  They're on the job, there is a duty to protect them to some degree.  Hitting IS part of hockey, however, at the boards/from behind/with a guy on his knees so the hit is high...that's not supposed to be allowed any longer.

 

I don't love surprise attacks from behind, blindsides, etc. that don't give the recipient a chance to brace or respond.   THAT'S p hockey to me.  Man up and square off...don't pull this crap.

 

If this is your kind of hockey, that's fine.  It's just not for me.   I'm of the "it wasn't too far over the top" but the conversation is an important one.  It isn't "whining"...some people just accept "the best is the best" without question or challenge.  Others demand the best and sometimes challenge and subsequent change is part of that.  Even the best can become complacent over time.  Lazy.  Biased.  Lose their 20/20 eyesight. These are human beings, not robots.  So the best isn't a "guaranteed for life" deal and can come with an expiry date. 

 

These have been deemed the best but whether or not they are is subjective and can expose itself as something different over time.    Your best worker 20 years ago may not be the best worker in the here and now. 

 

When people use "whine" it's a cop out.  This is a valid discussion and there are opinions being presented, yours included.

[Rob_Zepp]

On 2/18/2019 at 8:23 AM, Chris12345 said:

Pretty soft world we live in. No fight after either.

If you played the game, you got even with a big hit versus the staged fights.   Tough isn't having someone fight for you, tough is dusting yourself off and taking a number and getting even later that game or even the next game.   

 

"Soft" is the crap staged fights.

[stawns]

2 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

 

FTFY

"that's dirty hockey Deb, it's always been played over the edge......that's what makes it dangerous.  Even bumps into the boards face first from the knees can cause injury.

 

Look, I LOVE tough, physical hockey but, over time, it's being proven that this can leave players with longstanding residue from injury and affect their overall quality of life.  They're on the job, there is a duty to protect them to some degree.  Hitting IS part of hockey, however, at the boards/from behind/with a guy on his knees so the hit is high...that's not supposed to be allowed any longer.

 

I don't love surprise attacks from behind, blindsides, etc. that don't give the recipient a chance to brace or respond.   THAT'S p hockey to me.  Man up and square off...don't pull this crap.

 

If this is your kind of hockey, that's fine.  It's just not for me.   I'm of the "it wasn't too far over the top" but the conversation is an important one.  It isn't "whining"...some people just accept "the best is the best" without question or challenge.  Others demand the best and sometimes challenge and subsequent change is part of that.  Even the best can become complacent over time.  Lazy.  Biased.  Lose their 20/20 eyesight. These are human beings, not robots.  So the best isn't a "guaranteed for life" deal and can come with an expiry date. 

 

These have been deemed the best but whether or not they are is subjective and can expose itself as something different over time.    Your best worker 20 years ago may not be the best worker in the here and now. 

 

When people use "whine" it's a cop out.  This is a valid discussion and there are opinions being presented, yours included.

players know the risk and take that risk willingly.  I don't feel a lick of sympathy for guys who file suit against the NHL for a risk they knowingly took.  I didn't play pro, but I did play all the way through the W and I played a very physical game and I fought, a lot.  I knew the risk of head injury and I took that risk  willingly........I'm well into double digits in concussions and no one is responsible for that but me.  I have no respect for players who made good money playing a game and then retroactively try to alter their experience.  

 

It is whining (I don't mean from you) when it is during and after every single game.  There will be refs who don't like certain teams or certain players, but it's always been that was..........there is no conspiracy against the Canucks.

 

As far as the refs, you said it best "These are human beings, not robots".

[-DLC-]

24 minutes ago, stawns said:

players know the risk and take that risk willingly.  I don't feel a lick of sympathy for guys who file suit against the NHL for a risk they knowingly took.  I didn't play pro, but I did play all the way through the W and I played a very physical game and I fought, a lot.  I knew the risk of head injury and I took that risk  willingly........I'm well into double digits in concussions and no one is responsible for that but me.  I have no respect for players who made good money playing a game and then retroactively try to alter their experience.  

 

It is whining (I don't mean from you) when it is during and after every single game.  There will be refs who don't like certain teams or certain players, but it's always been that was..........there is no conspiracy against the Canucks.

 

As far as the refs, you said it best "These are human beings, not robots".

But the thing is....they take the risk associated with plays that fall within the rules.....the ones that don't are the league's deal, not theirs.  Remember - this is a workplace.  Especially when they've been promised that dangerous head shots will be taken out of the game....there's an obligation to follow through on that.  It's a fine line, but the general thing (for me) is that the employer has a responsibility to protect the employee when/if possible.  

 

If not, we wouldn't need refs, penalties, etc...just sign on the dotted line and go.  But there are measures in place for enforcement of rules, etc. and I'm sure the accepted level of risk is also reliant on those measures being used to their fullest extent and with consistency.  As in any workplace, that safety measures are being taken to the fullest in order to protect players.  

 

I understand that some players are just now learning that they may suffer lingering and severe effects.  Just like people who work with asbestos, etc. are discovering things after the fact, it's about the employer making sure they eliminate potential threats of injury whenever possible.

 

Come on now, these are human beings with families.

[stawns]

12 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

But the thing is....they take the risk associated with plays that fall within the rules.....the ones that don't are the league's deal, not theirs.  If not, we wouldn't need refs, penalties, etc...just sign on the dotted line and go.  But there are measures in place for enforcement of rules, etc. and I'm sure the accepted level of risk is also reliant on those measures being used to their fullest.  As in any workplace, that safety measures are being taken to the fullest in order to protect players.  

 

I understand that some players are just now learning that they may suffer lingering and severe effects.  Just like people who work with asbestos, etc. are discovering things after the fact, it's about the employer making sure they eliminate things that they can.  

just now learning?  I played in the 80's and early 90's, I knew, full well, what blows to the head meant.  I took that risk because I loved playing more than anything else I'd ever done and, to me, the juice was worth the squeeze.  It's unfortunate that people have life altering after effects, but they knew the risk and no one forced them to take it.

 

Dirty plays and player will never be taken out of hockey, ever.  It's impossible.

[-DLC-]

"Never" fully, sure.

 

Doesn't mean you don't do what you can.  That's seriously lacking at this point, that's all.  

 

 

[Squamfan]

who's remembers the 2013 series vs the sharks, lol i remember in game 3 it was a tie and the canucks had a scramble in front of the sharks net, and the puck was rolling in then a shark think it was desjardes put his glove on it right in front of the ref and a penalty shot was not called.