Location: Chicago Native relocated to the stinking desert of Utah
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FAN
Keith reputation as a dirty player is certainly growing. Keith is a very good player. There's no need to make him into a saint.
Keith a dirty player? Disagree. If you were a forward, heading into a scrum along the boards, would you be afraid that Keith was gonna cripple you with a Kasparitis-like cheap shot?
Not likely.
Now if you took a cheap shot at Keith...like this guy...
And you thought you got away with it...then, I would expect retaliation.
I don't condone it, but, like the slashes from Carter, Keith seems to get provoked to retaliate....many players take the "eye for an eye" approach
If all retaliation is dirty...then the bulk of players in the NHL have been dirty now and then.
__________________ "If the wine's not good enough for the cook, the wine's not good enough for the dish!" - Julia Child (goddess of the kitchen)
Last edited by thefoss1957; 06-07-2013 at 02:27 AM.
Things that happen during a professional playoff hockey game are directly relatable to the same events happening as you go about your daily activities.
Because we are all children, and incapable of understanding context.
__________________
I am a lunatic whose world revolves around hockey and Oilers hate.
Keith a dirty player? Disagree. If you were a forward, heading into a scrum along the boards, would you be afraid that Keith was gonna cripple you with a Kasparitis-like cheap shot?
Not likely.
Now if you took a cheap shot at Keith...like this guy...
And you thought you got away with it...then, I would expect retaliation.
I don't condone it, but, like the slashes from Carter, Keith seems to get provoked to retaliate....many players take the "eye for an eye" approach
If all retaliation is dirty...then the bulk of players in the NHL have been dirty now and then.
Umm... okay. I don't want to get into an argument over semantics. So are you saying Keith's penchant for retaliating cheap elbows to the head and sticks to the face doesn't make him a dirty player? Would you say he's a stupid player then? A nasty player? Sound better to you?
Dreger showed a video clip of Keith high sticking Sobotka "Repeat Offender". About a 1:10 into the video. What do you think? http://www.tsn.ca/story/?id=424836#
And what do you think of Chris Simon's two-handed slash to the face? Let me guess, not dirty because it was retaliation?
Just like in real life if a guy comes at you and swings at your face and misses. You pull out a gun and shoot him. That guy that swung was looking for trouble. The guy found the trouble.
Now one man is dead and let that be a reminder not to take a wing at a person. The other man is in prison and let that be a reminder that you can't just shoot people even if they are trying to take a swipe at you.
This neanderthal thinking is what gives hockey a bad name and why people like my wife (yes it's a battle) don't even want our kids to play hockey.
You accuse other people of Neanderthal thinking, but don't understand the difference between a busted lip vs wanton acts of murder?
__________________
I am a lunatic whose world revolves around hockey and Oilers hate.
Location: Chicago Native relocated to the stinking desert of Utah
Exp:
Fan...I just don't see Keith as instigating the events, he reacts. Undisiplined or careless? Sure. Can be goaded into retaliation? Certainly. But not "Dirty"...like a Torres or a Kasparitis where you had to question "intent to injure" in unprovoked actions.
__________________ "If the wine's not good enough for the cook, the wine's not good enough for the dish!" - Julia Child (goddess of the kitchen)
Last edited by thefoss1957; 06-07-2013 at 06:52 AM.
Fan...I just don't see Keith as instigating the events, he reacts. Undisiplined or careless? Sure. Can be goaded into retaliation? Certainly. But not "Dirty"...like a Torres or a Kasparitis where you had to question "intent to injure" in unprovoked actions.
He carelessly elbows and slashes people in the head and you don't consider that an attempt to injure? In two years the guy had pretty much cemented his reputation as a cheap player, who while one of the more talented players in the league, is one who shouldn't receive the benefit of the doubt. He obviously doesn't have the history of Cooke or Torres but he is making a name for himself regardless.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mean Mr. Mustard For This Useful Post:
Fan...I just don't see Keith as instigating the events, he reacts. Undisiplined or careless? Sure. Can be goaded into retaliation? Certainly. But not "Dirty"...like a Torres or a Kasparitis where you had to question "intent to injure" in unprovoked actions.
Even if you point about reactionary is true, his reactions are cheap. He doesn't deal up or react to things he doesn't like in an above the board manner, he acts cheap. If he didn't like what Carter did, go deal with him, drop the gloves and pound him. He's choosing to take cheap shots, where you think a reaction is warranted or not.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cleveland Steam Whistle For This Useful Post:
Location: Chicago Native relocated to the stinking desert of Utah
Exp:
Mustard and Cleve...in neither case did Keith initiate the course of events...which is my point...it was tit for tat retaliation. Carter takes a couple of swings, and gets a one hander in return...Attempt to injure?
The hit on Sedin was a targeted head, yes, but so was the hit BY Sedin on Keith.
I don't condone the retaliation...but I do understand the mind set in play.
You say...chase Carter down and drop the gloves? Ok...the idiot officials refused to call the multiple slashes by Carter...and you want DK to take a 2,5, and game for instigator?
Observers and fans have long said that a player must "stand up for themselves" Many players are called "soft" for NOT retaliating...and Keith is labled "dirty" FOR retaliating. Double standards seem to be in play.
For me, and I admit bias, I would like to see the damn rule book enforced Puck Drop to final whistle, pre to post season. And the need to retaliate gets greatly reduced.
In the event, Keith served both suspensions...and is targeted by Shanaban moving forward. I have said that the suspensions were deserved...but would have liked to see, at least, the actions of the instigator to the series of events that led to the retaliation reviewed also. The incidents with Keith did not occur in a vacuum.
__________________ "If the wine's not good enough for the cook, the wine's not good enough for the dish!" - Julia Child (goddess of the kitchen)
Last edited by thefoss1957; 06-07-2013 at 11:52 AM.
Stand up for yourself by making a clean hit, not by tick for (significantly worse) tack. That is the part that you may be missing, in both those cases the player who was the target of a Keith cheap shot did something to precipitate the incident but at the same time Keith's reaction was significantly worse than that of the original incident, both in terms of the action and in terms of the injury caused (the Carter slash could have been much, much worse).
Standing up for yourself doesn't entitle a player to run around, elbowing, slashing, and delivering dirty hits to everyone who the player thinks has wronged him in the past.
Also the hit that Sedin put on Keith happens in every single game, the hit that Keith put on Sedin doesn't. The hitting of a glove away (which I think Carter was trying to do) isn't something inherently violent and happens often when a player is attempting to pick up a stick (you rarely see someone drop a glove). If a suspension or a fine was given on either play it would be a joke and would have occurred only due to Keith's dirty response.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Mean Mr. Mustard For This Useful Post:
Mustard...in the Sedin case...the Puck was long gone...Keith's head was targeted...IMO, suspendable...
In the Carter case, they missed a minor...so yes, overreaction by Keith.
The only reason that people noticed the Sedin hit was afterwards when Keith went out of his way and elbowed him in the face.
As for the puck being long gone, it was maybe a half second after the puck had left Keith's stick at most, it wouldn't have been an interference call. A high hit, yes. A maliciously dirty hit, not by any stretch. If Sedin were to receive one game for that hit Keith should have received 20 for his in my opinion... just look at the injuries inflicted on the play, the speed of both players and the legalities of the hit. Keith's was significantly worse, significantly dirtier and it goes to show his reputation as a cheap player, one that can't be ignored by stating that he was prevoked into acting like a goon.
Regardless we likely won't agree, so I will leave it at that.
Fan...I just don't see Keith as instigating the events, he reacts. Undisiplined or careless? Sure. Can be goaded into retaliation? Certainly. But not "Dirty"...like a Torres or a Kasparitis where you had to question "intent to injure" in unprovoked actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefoss1957
Mustard and Cleve...in neither case did Keith initiate the course of events...which is my point...it was tit for tat retaliation. Carter takes a couple of swings, and gets a one hander in return...Attempt to injure?
So as long as it's retaliation it isn't dirty? So say a player like Marchand gets hit hard by what he felt to be a dirty hit. The next time the player comes at him he ducks and flips the guy over. The player lands hard and breaks his spinal cord. Not dirty because it was retaliation? What if Keith was on a breakaway and Daniel Sedin slashes him on the wrists. Keith turns around and slashes Sedin in the face. Not dirty? What if Keith gets hip checked and is flipped over in what Keith thought was a hit at the knees. Next time that player comes near him with the puck Keith sticks his knee out and takes out that player's knee. Not dirty because it was retaliation? Like I said, does it make you feel better if we called Keith vicious or nasty instead?
Did you watch the Dreger clip of Keith highsticking Sobotka? Keith received a hard hit and deliberately high sticked Sobotka in the face. Did you watch the Chris Simon clip I posted? Simon went face first into the boards on a questionable hit from behind and Simon sought his revenge with a two-handed slash to the face. Not dirty? What if Bertuzzi's sucker punch of Moore came in the same game Moore laid that hit on his buddy Naslund? Not dirty because it was retaliation for injuring his best friend?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefoss1957
Observers and fans have long said that a player must "stand up for themselves" Many players are called "soft" for NOT retaliating...and Keith is labled "dirty" FOR retaliating. Double standards seem to be in play.
You retaliate or exact revenge by fighting back. Drop the gloves. Take the instigator penalty if you have to. You don't slash someone in the face with your stick. Challenging the player to a fight, respond by throwing a hard hit back, scoring a goal and winning the game for your team are all acceptable ways to exact revenge.
Location: Chicago Native relocated to the stinking desert of Utah
Exp:
I never said that the retaliation was clean...I said it was provoked, and I understand the macho retribution thing, not condone it...as far as being a "dirty player", Keith may be one of the most unphysical defensmen in the league, and extremely unlikely to take cheap shots in the normal course of play, say, scrumming for pucks on the boards.
As others have posted, Keith is not "dirty" the way Cooke or Torres are...but he does overreact to provocation...
And Fan, what would the odds be against getting a Sedin to sack up and drop them? I can't ever recall that kind of event!
__________________ "If the wine's not good enough for the cook, the wine's not good enough for the dish!" - Julia Child (goddess of the kitchen)
Location: Chicago Native relocated to the stinking desert of Utah
Exp:
Watch again Blaster...the puck is gone...Interference at the least...head targeted, to boot...I don''t see where admiring a pass is against NHL rules...Sedin's hit was NOT clean.
__________________ "If the wine's not good enough for the cook, the wine's not good enough for the dish!" - Julia Child (goddess of the kitchen)
Last edited by thefoss1957; 06-14-2013 at 11:21 PM.
I never said that the retaliation was clean...I said it was provoked, and I understand the macho retribution thing, not condone it...
So if the retaliation isn't clean... is it dirty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefoss1957
as far as being a "dirty player", Keith may be one of the most unphysical defensmen in the league, and extremely unlikely to take cheap shots in the normal course of play, say, scrumming for pucks on the boards.
I don't understand this logic. Being nonphysical doesn't make you immune to cheap shots or make cheap shots any less likely than a player who plays clean and physical. Keith is a star player. That makes him susceptible to cheap shots. And umm... there's little correlation between a physical player and being dirty or being a nonphysical player and being a clean player. If anything, players who aren't physical usually resort to dirty tactics either to retaliate or to protect themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefoss1957
As others have posted, Keith is not "dirty" the way Cooke or Torres are...but he does overreact to provocation...
So pot is saying the kettle is blacker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefoss1957
And Fan, what would the odds be against getting a Sedin to sack up and drop them? I can't ever recall that kind of event!
What's your point? By your analogy, the Sedins may be the most "unphysical" forwards in the league, and extremely unlikely to take cheap shots in the normal course of play so why would they get into a fight?
Location: Chicago Native relocated to the stinking desert of Utah
Exp:
Again, I never said that the retaliation was "CLEAN", I said it was "PROVOKED"...not to excuse it. In neither case (Sedin or Carter) was Keith the INITIATOR of the sequence of events, and my beef was the lack of sanction, i.e. penalty against that initiator, that could have defused the need for retaliation, under the neanderthal "code", that appears to be in play, even among NHL players beyond Keith.
I truly feel that, lacking provocation, Keith does not routinely play "dirty" hockey.
__________________ "If the wine's not good enough for the cook, the wine's not good enough for the dish!" - Julia Child (goddess of the kitchen)
Last edited by thefoss1957; 06-15-2013 at 11:16 AM.
Again, I never said that the retaliation was "CLEAN", I said it was "PROVOKED"...not to excuse it. In neither case (Sedin or Carter) was Keith the INITIATOR of the sequence of events, and my beef was the lack of sanction, i.e. penalty against that initiator, that could have defused the need for retaliation, under the neanderthal "code", that appears to be in play, even among NHL players beyond Keith.
I truly feel that, lacking provocation, Keith does not routinely play "dirty" hockey.
That part doesn't matter
99% of players take hits like Keith does (if you even want to call the Sedin one dirty) or get 'provoked' like Carter did
they don't then go throw flying elbows at a guys head, or slash another guy in the face
Keith gets the red mist when he gets hit and reacts to it with dirty plays
how many times is a guy 'not that kind of player' before he becomes 'that kind of player'?
that's two clear incidents of extremely dirty hits, with no grey area about them being accidental or a 'hockey play'
he's a dirty player
The Following User Says Thank You to d_phaneuf For This Useful Post:
