I think the team is grittier than we give them credit for.
Bennett and Tkachuk are certainly the leaders of the bunch. Most teams have a Hathaway on the 4th line. Gio and Hamonic on the backend don't instigate much but can certainly respond. Neal hasn't done too much this year but certainly has a gritty/dirty reputation.
But they play larger than their size and rise to the occasions. The Flames have performed best in these nasty games, partly because while the Bennetts and Tkachuks are raising some dirt, the others are making the opponents pay.
So while I agree it's obviously not a full roster of gritty players, I think the team gets itself into many gritty games and performs well as a result.
Agreed.
And with how soft this team had been the past several season I like this new chippy/dirty/rough Flames team.
Keep your heads up out there when playing the Flames!
This has to continue to pay dividends when other teams dmen know that Bennett or Chucky are coming for them so they need to move the puck that split second quicker then normal.
Bennett takes the chop from Dell in the chest (which is the MOST malicious thing that happened this game), no call because ref's decide outcomes of games.
SJ takes liberties pretty much all game with Tkachuk (Jumbo Joe following him around a whole shift, poking and slashing at him for seemingly finishing a check on Karlsson).
Kane coming in as the 3rd/4th man in a scrum and trying to dummy Tkachuk in the back of the head WHILE he's being punched in the face by another player.
Bennett decides to finish a check MILLISECONDS late on a guy who decided to admire a dump pass behind the net and ends up getting laid out by a clean hard hit to the chest.
Dan the incompetent ref decides to try and issue Bennett a MATCH penalty for "intent to injure".
SJ tries to hype up the hit like it was the worst thing we've seen in decades.
League uses its brain (thank god) and disagrees with the decision of Dan the Man and tosses the game sheet straight into the recycle bin.
Makes sense. Great league, great officiating, outstanding accountability here.
Last edited by Royle9; 01-02-2019 at 01:53 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Royle9 For This Useful Post:
Or when the Flames went after Korolyuk for his hotdog empty net goal in 2004. I remember Wilson was reported to have smashed things in the SJ management box at the Dome.
All I remember is that Chris Simon absolutely beat the piss out of someone. Was it Korolyuk or some other innocent bystander? I think it was just some random Shark that was unlucky enough to be paired off against Simon.
I seem to recall a media interview the next day and he had two black eyes.
All I remember is that Chris Simon absolutely beat the piss out of someone. Was it Korolyuk or some other innocent bystander? I think it was just some random Shark that was unlucky enough to be paired off against Simon.
I seem to recall a media interview the next day and he had two black eyes.
Mike Rathje
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tron_fdc For This Useful Post:
- it was an immediate response from a player on the ice
- fights started after big hits have become quite common, so to suspend him for this play would be reaching (although, I’m personally of the opinion that every fight that immediately follows a big hit should come with an instigator because it’s ridiculous).
But some consistency would be nice. It’s unfortunate how much grey area is deliberately written into the rule book.
All correct, but the NHL will never get anything right unless they start calling things the way they've written them. If you let 'maybe I'll get away with it' creep in, you get a goalie taking liberties with his fingers crossed.
As pointed out earlier, they gave Tkachuk 2 games for pestering someone who just ragdolled the defenseman he just dropped... but no discipline for that player coming back onto the ice to fight him (also a suspension). If there was a time to relax on a rule (as they did in the same breath anyway...) that would have been one... but Tkachuk violated a rule and was punished.
If the rule is worth ignoring, it's a stupid rule and should be changed. Right now, it's just wondering if your blind grandmother will notice you sneaking out.
Terrible officiating will lead to an interesting re-match... so there's that!
Don't know where to post this - this thread is as good as any.
On NHL Network, they are discussing the top teams and what they need. With respect to the Flames, obviously they talked goaltending. And one guy says Smith fits the Flames because he is gritty, and that is their identity.
It is amazing how long perceptions can persist, long after they are applicable. How can any professional hockey analyst think the Flames identity is grit?
Did you hear the SJ commentators after the Bennett hit, they referred to it as Flames hockey, something like rough, dirty and edgy. It's like they think this is still the 04 team.
All correct, but the NHL will never get anything right unless they start calling things the way they've written them. If you let 'maybe I'll get away with it' creep in, you get a goalie taking liberties with his fingers crossed.
They are calling them as they are written. The problem is that written in the rule book is a ton of grey area like “unless the league reviews and decides against it”, such as the example I posted.
Did you hear the SJ commentators after the Bennett hit, they referred to it as Flames hockey, something like rough, dirty and edgy. It's like they think this is still the 04 team.
Yes, I was listening to the SJ coverage, and it was hilarious/pathetic. "Flames hockey", "dirty, suspendible play", "certainly a lengthy suspension", etc.
I actually didn't mind their coverage for the first 50 minutes, but did it ever go downhill at the end. First, they never even showed the Dell spear, just carried on like it never happened. Then slowly spiraled downward into a constant stream of "Flames hockey", "taking liberties", etc.
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
If you watched Sam Bennett's dangerous open-ice hit on Sharks' Radim Simek in the final minute of Monday's game, you figured the Flames center would be facing a lengthy suspension.
They are calling them as they are written. The problem is that written in the rule book is a ton of grey area like “unless the league reviews and decides against it”, such as the example I posted.
Whoops! Missed that post (and had different context )
But yeah, this "[...]deems the incident is not related to the score, previous incidents in the game or prior games, retaliatory in nature, “message sending”, etc" must be pretty far-reaching to ever be used.
It just came down to "Bennett started it, and had it coming" - which... is the same for Lomberg. Him coming off the bench is the only difference between the two, and Lomberg served a seperate game for doing that. If Lomberg was already out, it's identical IMO.
Unless, of course, the turtling vs. squaring off influences this as well... in which case we have a Tkachuk example to talk about.
And hell, speaking of Tkachuk... an example only brought up as we see the Red Wings tonight reminded us of when someone else came onto the ice and wasn't suspended. So many (ideally) black-and-white rules that cause more confusion than they ever will deter what they were intended to.
Very easy fixes that seem to be only hampered with the refusal to acknowledge there's a problem
- it was an immediate response from a player on the ice
- fights started after big hits have become quite common, so to suspend him for this play would be reaching (although, I’m personally of the opinion that every fight that immediately follows a big hit should come with an instigator because it’s ridiculous).
But some consistency would be nice. It’s unfortunate how much grey area is deliberately written into the rule book.
This is where the NHL can't get out of their own way. The refs know the consequences of the instigator when there is 5 or less minutes so they often add a roughing instead of the instigator. They don't want to call it on the ice and when they do the DOPS can overrule it.
Also, how did he get concussed if the hit was right in the chest?
Maybe when he hit the ice?
You don’t need to be hit in the head to be concussed.
If a collision is violent enough that your head moves, and your brain bounces off the inside of your skull, you can be concussed. So in the case of trauma due to a whiplash type action, you could be.
Also, how did he get concussed if the hit was right in the chest?
Maybe when he hit the ice?
i think that concussions happen due to brain trauma; ie the brain getting bounced hard enough to hit the inside of the skull.
this isn't something that requires a blow to the head necessarily - though it is quite possible this happened to the SJ player - all it requires is a blow violent enough for the someone's head to snap back quick enough where there brain is impact due to the sudden change of direction.
)
