EF: (1) Pittsburgh Penguins vs (4) Boston Bruins. (Bruins SWEEP Pittsburgh 4-0!!). - Page 22 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

zamler · 06-01-2013, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

The league is working very hard to eliminate hits from behind. Any hit from behind, regardless of how hard you think he hit him deserves a game misconduct. It seems to be the only way to get the players to take the issue seriously.

Agreed. But the calls are very inconsistent, the players are never going to get the message when the message is confusing as all hell.

CalgaryFan1988 · 06-01-2013, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

The league is working very hard to eliminate hits from behind. Any hit from behind, regardless of how hard you think he hit him deserves a game misconduct. It seems to be the only way to get the players to take the issue seriously.

Ok, so why wasn't Boston's hit from behind (Marchand) deserving of a game misconduct then? In your opinion.

Dion · 06-01-2013, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Ok, so why wasn't Boston's hit from behind (Marchand) deserving of a game misconduct then? In your opinion.

I haven't commented on the hit so how would you know what my stance was?

Marchand should have been kicked out of the game. Zamler said it best with the refs being inconsistant with the calls.

CalgaryFan1988 · 06-01-2013, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaine

Uhhh

ya... you didn't say that at all.

Oh and since you seem oblivious to the rules of the game, "hit him as hard" has no bearing on a hit from behind. It's in the numbers or it's not. Weather it's an average body check or a crushing "Regehr smash" hit, a hit from behind is a hit from behind.

Homer glasses indeed.

**Don't get me wrong, I didn't think it should have been 5 and a game and neither should the Marchand hit, or if they were going to be called as such both should have been. The Cooke "barely" touched him comment tho... wow that was something else.

Uhh what? I said both plays were dirty and deserving of penalties. And yeah, there are different rules for hits from behind, 2 minutes or 5 and a game. So, it sounds like we mostly agree, except for my "barely touched him" comment (which all I meant was that he didn't deserve a game).

CalgaryFan1988 · 06-02-2013, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

I haven't commented on the hit so how would you know what my stance was?

Marchand should have been kicked out of the game. Zamler said it best with the refs being inconsistant with the calls.

I never said what your stance was, I was asking your opinion on why it was ruled differently. At least that's what I meant, and why I said "in your opinion".

Dion · 06-02-2013, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I never said what your stance was, I was asking your opinion on why it was ruled differently. At least that's what I meant.

Ok. Thanks for the clarification

Kaine · 06-02-2013, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Uhh what? I said both plays were dirty and deserving of penalties. And yeah, there are different rules for hits from behind, 2 minutes or 5 and a game. So, it sounds like we mostly agree, except for my "barely touched him" comment (which all I meant was that he didn't deserve a game).

Perhaps we do agree, but honestly take a step back and view that comment from the outside. How do you expect that anyone would see "barely touched him" and connect that to "was a hit from behind but didn't deserve a major, or if he did both did". It was a pretty silly way to try to get your point across and you shouldn't be surprised a few people commented on it.

When people say that someone hardly touched someone, they are usually expressing the opinion that the person in question was undeserving of a penalty at all.

CalgaryFan1988 · 06-02-2013, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaine

Perhaps we do agree, but honestly take a step back and view that comment from the outside. How do you expect that anyone would see "barely touched him" and connect that to "was a hit from behind but didn't deserve a major, or if he did both did". It was a pretty silly way to try to get your point across and you shouldn't be surprised a few people commented on it.

I guess I should have explained myself clearer.

Although, In the same sentence I said "Marchand's hit was just as dirty". So, I was saying that they were both dirty plays.

At least we all sort of agree, I just should have chosen my midnight words wiser.

trackercowe · 06-02-2013, 12:08 AM

It's really a mute point though, Boston got a penalty on the play anyway, so really it was only a 3 minute powerplay. The Bruins only got a minute more on the powerplay due to dirty hits.

Pittsburgh would have lost regardless of how they called both incidents.

Kaine · 06-02-2013, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trackercowe

It's really a mute point though, Boston got a penalty on the play anyway, so really it was only a 3 minute powerplay. The Bruins only got a minute more on the powerplay due to dirty hits.

Pittsburgh would have lost regardless of how they called both incidents.

Yep. The calls were arguably inconsistent (even tho I think they were bad both ways, both teams likely could have had a half a dozen more) but with how disinterested the Pens were in the last half of the game, well let's just say the calls had nothing to do with the outcome.

KootenayFlamesFan · 06-02-2013, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

Marchand should have been kicked out of the game.

Kicked out of the game for that? I totally disagree.

Cooke hit a guy from behind who was squarely facing the boards. Marchand hit a guy from behind (more of a shove imo) who wasn't facing the boards and who went in at an angle.

Cooke hit a guy from behind when he clearly had time to either slow down and rub the guy into the boards or not hit him at all. He chose to hit him anyways without slowing down.

They were not identical hits and didn't deserve identical punishment. I thought both calls were correct.

moon · 06-02-2013, 12:19 AM

Isn't the league trying to get guys to stop turning their backs to draw penalties? Or was that just media members talking about how they should do that?

The 5 was excessive and then giving Marchand 2 was a joke. Any talk if suspension is ridiculous but I think the Pens may be willing to give up Cooke for a few games since Marchand would have to be gone for more having a worse hit.

KootenayFlamesFan · 06-02-2013, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moon

The 5 was excessive and then giving Marchand 2 was a joke. Any talk if suspension is ridiculous but I think the Pens may be willing to give up Cooke for a few games since Marchand would have to be gone for more having a worse hit.

There shouldn't be any suspensions to anyone. The Cooke hit was stupid, but 5 and a game for that hit in a playoff game is enough.

CalgaryFan1988 · 06-02-2013, 12:32 AM

Just my opinion,

Marchand hit (shoved whatever) Neal a few feet from the boards which could have resulted in a serious injury.

Cooke hit a guy who was tight up against the boards and much less likely to result in an injury.

Both dirty, both should have been 2 minutes IMO. Now Cooke will probably end up suspended because of who he is.

If the interference had of been called on Krug 2 seconds before the Cooke hit.......

KootenayFlamesFan · 06-02-2013, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Cooke hit a guy who was tight up against the boards and much less likely to result in an injury.

He wasn't tight up against the boards at all, not even close. Which is why is was dirtier, especially since he had time to slow down or stop and chose not to.

I dislike both players, but Cooke's hit was worse than Marchand's.

The refs called it correctly.

doctajones428 · 06-02-2013, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flameswin

He didn't do the exact same thing.

He hit him in the numbers causing the guy to go head first into the boards.

Same thing

doctajones428 · 06-02-2013, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

He wasn't tight up against the boards at all, not even close. Which is why is was dirtier, especially since he had time to slow down or stop and chose not to.

I dislike both players, but Cooke's hit was worse than Marchand's.

The refs called it correctly.

Neal wasn't right up against the boards either. Because Neal didn't get hurt Marchand's wasn't as dirty?

If one gets 5 and a game, the other should too.

sun · 06-02-2013, 01:40 AM

I guess McQuaid also thought that cooke was a changed man. After all, seems like he shoulder-checked and saw cooke coming, but still put himself in a vulnerable position. Must have thought he was free-and-clear with teddy bear cooke on the ice.

KootenayFlamesFan · 06-02-2013, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctajones428

Neal wasn't right up against the boards either. Because Neal didn't get hurt Marchand's wasn't as dirty?

Cooke lined up a player who was squarely facing the boards. Neal wasn't when he was hit.

Cooke had more time to slow down than Marchand did and chose not to.

Cooke's hit was more of a hit, Marchand's was more of a shove imo.

I've said it before........I really dislike both players, it's not like I'm playing favorites here. The hits were not comparable and Cooke's deserved the stiffer punishment. The refs call it correctly imo.

MrMastodonFarm · 06-02-2013, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trackercowe

It's really a mute point though, Boston got a penalty on the play anyway, so really it was only a 3 minute powerplay. The Bruins only got a minute more on the powerplay due to dirty hits.

Pittsburgh would have lost regardless of how they called both incidents.

Moot.

Unless the point was silent?