2021-2022 NHL Thread
- Thread starter Kin
- Start date
bustaheims
Active member
herman said:
Yeah, though that was seconds before a shootout the team would have lost any way (they were absolutely terrible at them that season).
Heroic Shrimp
New member
https://twitter.com/ryancopyme/status/1495854043025100802
https://twitter.com/Peter_Baugh/status/1496164331326787587
It's ok, it was an accident.
It's ok, it was an accident.
OldTimeHockey
Active member
Bender said:
Don Cherry Rock em Sock em would love it.
But, no need for it, and no place for it.
bustaheims
Active member
Unnecessarily hard hit considering the situation. You're already down by 3 with less than 5 to go in a largely meaningless regular season game. You can ease up a touch there and still stop the goal.
Guilt Trip
Active member
If it was a clean hit,(looks clean), I have no problem with it. Hitting is still allowed in the NHL and there's no reason to ease up as long as he's not in a vulnerable position. As for the timing and being down by 3 with 5 to go. It's obvious the coach hadn't given up yet or they wouldn't have pulled the goalie.bustaheims said:
Kin
New member
Guilt Trip said:
Not that I particularly want to have this argument for the 10,000th time but it's cleanliness depends entirely on how the incredibly broad definition of charging in the rule book is interpreted. There's really no doubt that the hit was especially violent because of the distance travelled.
Kin
New member
Bullfrog said:
Well, I think something I've learned from the past 9,999 arguments is that the reason the NHL doesn't do that is because they want a broad latitude to decide on what makes a hit legal or not. The vagueness is a feature, not a bug as the kids say.
But I agree. I don't have a problem with the idea of a hit there but I do think that the idea should be, to some extent, to get the checking player to think* "Is the defensive value of this check outweighed by the serious chance I have to injure someone regardless of the rule book" and to err on the side of not hurting the other player.
*with this of course being processed in the short amount of time players make decisions so it's less "think" and more "be part of the way the game is taught so it's a matter of subconscious instinct" but we're going for brevity here.
bustaheims
Active member
Bullfrog said:Nik said:
I do think the NHL needs to seriously revisit the definitions of some of its penalties. I'm ok with a hit there, but not ok with the hit that was delivered. It is excessive and is clearly intended to cause harm.
but i agree on the 10000th argument part.
I agree. No problem with there being a hit, but, as I said, no reason is needs to be such a hard hit.
Peter D.
Moderator
bustaheims said:
It bothers me more that the goalie was still pulled down 3 in a largely meaningless regular season game. I preferred the days when teams would just play out the stretch of minutes if down by more than 2. Not to mention to fact I can't stand seeing goalies being pulled with more than 90 to 120 seconds left to go in the game.
bustaheims
Active member
Peter D. said:
I'm with you on the first part. No sense pulling the goalie when you're down more than 2 unless a playoff berth is on the line or you're facing elimination.
As for pulling the goalie . . . I'm not as on board, especially in one goal games. The longer you have the man advantage, the greater your chances of tying the game. Obviously, the risk of going down by 2 also increases, but I think that's a fair trade off. There's a balance that needs to be struck, obviously, but if a coach feels getting the extra skater out there for 3 minutes or whatever, I say go for it.