Its actually fascinating how outside of Edmonton the collection of supposed "Unbiased" reporters are opining on this. It really shows their true colors.
After repeated viewings myself, the first hit I can see as walking the line. The head wasn't the principal point of contact, but it was collateral damage. The second hit was clean as can be. I can see the danger with its proximity to the boards though.
As far as targeting goes, well yeah it's hard to argue that it isn't, he got him three times. But they were all deemed clean. Since when is targeting taboo? How about the 10 targeted slashes Gaudreau took a few years ago. It's what players will do to win. The referees then have to do their job. Tkachuk obviously went after him because he was ripe for a retaliation penalty. Turns out Tkachuk couldn't have been more right, and the Flames arguably won the game for that reason.
The one narrative on our side of the discussion that I don't agree with is these "Thought experiments" where we are exchanging Tkachuk for McDavid and Kassian for Rinaldo or whoever.
While the horse collar assault it BS Tkachuk plays the game with that edge. He's a smart guy and the reason he's going after Kassian in the first place is because he knows that there's a good chance he's going to retaliate and take a penalty, otherwise why not go after Archibald or whoever else was on that line. Tkachuk, the league and the Flames for that matter know that if he's going to play the way he plays, he has to be able to handle what's coming back at him, illegal or not. Gaudreau, McDavid et al don't play that game. Tkachuk is an all star because he's a heck of a hockey player. But that's where the similarities end.
But man oh man, the takes coming from media all over the continent are fascinating.
The one article from Staples is particularly hilarious. "I'm mad and look at all these people that agree with me!"
"If you don't want to get hit then stay off the tracks."
12 words that pretty much sum up the entire thing.
Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk
|