Quote:
Originally Posted by terryclancy
It is amazing (well, not really) that Vancouver Canuck fans can look at that Sedin clip and, in one case, deny it was a hit to the head of a defenceless player, and, in another case, rationalize it by saying that if the hit had been a bit lower, it wouldn't have been a hit to the head.
If I'd picked the correct numbers in the last 6-49, I'd be a gazillionaire. But I didn't.
|
I differentiate between penalties and cheap shot plays based on whether the play resembled a hockey play that was either badly or recklessly executed. The closer it is, the more sympathy I have for the fact that it's a fast game and being off by a couple of inches or tenths of a second is attributable to error rather than malicious intent. You get a penalty for those. In cases that look more reckless, a fine or short suspension.
On the opposite side, some plays look nothing like anything you'd do in hockey - that is what the phrase "doesn't belong in our game" should be reserved for, because it literally isn't hockey. Kneeing a guy, cross checking him from behind into the glass, elbowing him in the face, stomping on his foot with your skate... garbage like that.
Daniel's high hit resembled a hockey play, but wasn't executed properly - his shoulder should have been lower. Keiths looks nothing like a hockey play. At no point in hockey do you stick your elbow straight out at a guy's face. There was no minor adjustment that could've been made there to make that look like a legal check.
It's for the same reason that I never thought that Torres hit that caused Hossa's concussion symptoms in the first place was a particularly dirty play. I would prefer to see the big suspensions handed out for plays like this which are clearly intentional and have nothing to do with the game:
or this:
or this: