Post-Game Talk: 4/1: AV returns to Vancouver (McDonagh injury "not serious")

Status
Not open for further replies.

haohmaru

boomshakalaka
Aug 26, 2009
16,611
10,906
Fleming Island, Fl
Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie 4m
NHL Dep't of Player Safety has reviewed Burrows' hit on McDonagh and does not believe it is worthy of suspension, Post has learned.
 

MysticLeviathan

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jan 7, 2013
17,904
10,369
Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie 4m
NHL Dep't of Player Safety has reviewed Burrows' hit on McDonagh and does not believe it is worthy of suspension, Post has learned.

That's crazy. That was a dirty hit. He was clearly defenseless and he still went after his head. I don't know what the league's thinking...
 

BroadwayHustle

Registered User
Feb 27, 2012
494
141
That's crazy. That was a dirty hit. He was clearly defenseless and he still went after his head. I don't know what the league's thinking...

Im pretty sure they are thinking it was incidental contact, which it might be but the guy lead with his hands way up high towards the head. He shouldn't have been leading with his hands to begin with.
 

gardenparty

Registered User
Oct 21, 2011
209
8
The fact AV didn't send Carbomb or Dorsett on the ice in the last minute to raise hell is not surprising. Let the clock run down, and get out of there with 2 points and no further injuries. That said, expect Burrows or someone on the Canucks to have to answer the bell next time these two teams play (next year).

That is hockey's longstanding unwritten code.
 

Hire Sather

He Is Our Star
Oct 4, 2002
31,741
5,469
Connecticut
1:47PM: A team spokesman tells Steve Zipay that it would be “inaccurate” to describe McDonagh as being “out indefinitely.” (Newsday)
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
31,059
7,851
1:47PM: A team spokesman tells Steve Zipay that it would be “inaccurate†to describe McDonagh as being “out indefinitely.†(Newsday)

That may be the first time Zipay has gotten anything remotely resembling a "scoop"
 
Jun 25, 2013
8,947
1
www.tannerglassisthebest.com
The fact AV didn't send Carbomb or Dorsett on the ice in the last minute to raise hell is not surprising. Let the clock run down, and get out of there with 2 points and no further injuries. That said, expect Burrows or someone on the Canucks to have to answer the bell next time these two teams play (next year).

That is hockey's longstanding unwritten code.

Uh no...not when you hit players who play the game clean and with respect... burrows better be ready to answer the bell the next game van plays
 

Pizza

Registered User
Sep 17, 2005
11,175
563
The fact AV didn't send Carbomb or Dorsett on the ice in the last minute to raise hell is not surprising. Let the clock run down, and get out of there with 2 points and no further injuries. That said, expect Burrows or someone on the Canucks to have to answer the bell next time these two teams play (next year).

That is hockey's longstanding unwritten code.

I'm not being sarcastic when I ask who it is on the Rangers who would challenge Burrows or some of the other tougher Canucks.

The Rangers do not have a response. It is what is. Time to move along and all that. But let's not BS ourselves into thinking the Rangers are capable of initiating retribution or intimidation.

Not gonna happen.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
31,059
7,851
I'm not being sarcastic when I ask who it is on the Rangers who would challenge Burrows or some of the other tougher Canucks.

The Rangers do not have a response. It is what is. Time to move along and all that. But let's not BS ourselves into thinking the Rangers are capable of initiating retribution or intimidation.

Not gonna happen.

Carcillo and Dorsett?

Burrows isn't a tough guy, he's a 4th line agitator exactly like Carcillo or Dorsett and either one of them would be able to challenge Burrows just fine.

And it's easy to see that "intimidation" just does not work in the NHL when it comes to preventing injuries. I don't know why people desperately cling to this idea when you see "tough" teams like the Bruins get cheap shotted just as much as anyone else.

"sending messages" is ********, agitators live to hit guys and get in fights and cause trouble and retribution is just part of the game for them, they're not going to stop playing their game because of it. There is no such thing as protection in the NHL today, people should stop pretending there is
 

jerseyjinx94

I jinx players.
Jan 11, 2012
3,026
2,099
Miami, FL
I'm not being sarcastic when I ask who it is on the Rangers who would challenge Burrows or some of the other tougher Canucks.

The Rangers do not have a response. It is what is. Time to move along and all that. But let's not BS ourselves into thinking the Rangers are capable of initiating retribution or intimidation.

Not gonna happen.

Do you have some insight onto who will be on the Rangers the next time we play Vancouver and whether anyone on the team will initiate retribution?
 

haveandare

Registered User
Jul 2, 2009
18,939
7,468
New York
I'm not being sarcastic when I ask who it is on the Rangers who would challenge Burrows or some of the other tougher Canucks.

The Rangers do not have a response. It is what is. Time to move along and all that. But let's not BS ourselves into thinking the Rangers are capable of initiating retribution or intimidation.

Not gonna happen.

Why could Carcillo and/or Dorsett not challenge them? I'm fairly certain that Carcillo was asking AV to put him out after.

No team ever has a response. There is literally no response that actually makes a bit of difference aside from making your own teammates maybe feel more comfortable or fostering a "we have each others' back" attitude in the room.

Nobody fighting is going to make certain players stop making dumb moves.

The idea that such a thing is even possible hinges on so many assumptions, the first of which is that these hits are premeditated to some degree, that players think "hmm is this team going to come after me if I do this?" then decide, "no, they won't," then make a dirty hit. Sometimes it seems like that might have happened, but I don't see how it could have this time. In addition, it doesn't seem that "tough" teams get less dirty hits against them, which would have to be the case if this logic were true.

Beyond that, nobody ever has to fight. What's the threat exactly? If the hitter thinks they can take the person retaliating, they'll scrum around, the refs will almost certainly get in the way to prevent a fight, and no one is any worse for it. If the hitter doesn't think they can take the person retaliating, they'll just turtle. Nobody is forced to fight in today's NHL - hell, even when there are two completely willing partners, the refs get between them and stop them fairly often. Maybe one out of a thousand times, the fight will actually happen and the guy sticking up for his teammate will seriously do some damage to the guy who threw the dirty hit. Maybe.

If suspensions don't stop these hits and giving the opposition extended PPs, which can cost the game, don't stop these hits - someone who arbitrarily fits the "tough enough" label being willing to fight about it certainly isn't either.
 

Wolfy*

Guest
When Zucc drops the gloves...no more worries. Didn't you see how he slammed Hamhuis into the ice last night? And with one hand...I believe in the Viking ;)
 
Jun 25, 2013
8,947
1
www.tannerglassisthebest.com
I'm not being sarcastic when I ask who it is on the Rangers who would challenge Burrows or some of the other tougher Canucks.

The Rangers do not have a response. It is what is. Time to move along and all that. But let's not BS ourselves into thinking the Rangers are capable of initiating retribution or intimidation.

Not gonna happen.

Toews got knocked out of the game and they didn't answer back...we're not the only team
 

Captain Monglobster

Registered User
Nov 9, 2005
1,772
927
The NHL is soft. You would have to undo many rule changes over the last 2 lockouts to present a game that remotely resembles the players having the ability to police themselves.
 

eco's bones

Registered User
Jul 21, 2005
26,128
12,529
Elmira NY
I think the NHL has ****ed us over numerous times in their decision making--particularly on goals.

As far as a suspension for Burrows they made the right call. At best to me that was a two minute minor. It sucks that McDonagh got hurt but sometimes **** happens. The only reason IMO this was reviewed is because it's mandatory for all non-fighting major penalties.

This wasn't anything like a deliberate knee on knee--or a slew foot--and it's very debatable that Burrows was going for McDonagh's head. I don't like what Burrows did but plays like this happen often they just don't usually end up with someone getting hurt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad