Post-Game Talk: GAME 29 - TD GARDEN has become the Leafs BLACK HOLE - BRUINS 6 Hogtown 3 FINAL

[CharasLazyWrister]

Hyman was trying to nail McAvoy all game long and clearly, the only way he could was with a cheap shot.

An obvious and deserved suspension. Late, blindside hit.

The defenses are insane “well maybe McAvoy shouldn’t admire his pass”. Dammit, they’re right. It’s a players responsibility to make sure they expect a dirty hit. f***ing stupid.

 

[Chief Nine]

Hyman was trying to nail McAvoy all game long and clearly, the only way he could was with a cheap shot.

An obvious and deserved suspension. Late, blindside hit.

The defenses are insane “well maybe McAvoy shouldn’t admire his pass”. Dammit, they’re right. It’s a players responsibility to make sure they expect a dirty hit. ****ing stupid.

I couldn't agree with this more. This is nothing but a time worn old time hockey trope that is nothing but an excuse for "Hey I know it was a dirty hit, but you weren't looking". This is the same crap we hear when a guy gets blindsided with an open ice hit "Keep yer head up kid".

 

[Tbrady12]

Yesterday it was Hyman hit was legal but Wagner isn't which was funny

Now the narrative is Wagner "targeted" Rielly. Watching the play it doesn't look like he cared who had the puck, he was going to hit somebody. It turns out it was Rielly who got hit clean with his head down.

 

[KnightofBoston]

I'm going to sneak onto the Leafs board and see their reaction

Many actually agreed it was a bad hit

It was about half and half when I first looked, but the ones that did defend the hit did so pretty shamelessly

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Many actually agreed it was a bad hit

It was about half and half when I first looked, but the ones that did defend the hit did so pretty shamelessly

This shouldn’t come as any surprise.

Half that fan base ruthlessly defended the Kadri hit during the playoffs last year. It was either not a dirty hit or was somehow “instigated” by the Bruins doing other arbitrary dirty things throughout the game. Which of course there is no actual evidence of.

Some people’s homer blindness knows no bounds.

 

[KnightofBoston]

This shouldn’t come as any surprise.

Half that fan base ruthlessly defended the Kadri hit during the playoffs last year. It was either not a dirty hit or was somehow “instigated” by the Bruins doing other arbitrary dirty things throughout the game. Which of course there is no actual evidence of.

Some people’s homer blindness knows no bounds.

It happens with all teams, I think it only increases as the team becomes better, add in decades of drought and mediocrity and you’ve got a dangerous combo of stupidity

 

[shoulders7]

This shouldn’t come as any surprise.

Half that fan base ruthlessly defended the Kadri hit during the playoffs last year. It was either not a dirty hit or was somehow “instigated” by the Bruins doing other arbitrary dirty things throughout the game. Which of course there is no actual evidence of.

Some people’s homer blindness knows no bounds.

Right, exactly like how people on this board defend Marchand. Homer blindness exists on every board

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Right, exactly like how people on this board defend Marchand. Homer blindness exists on every board

I’m not going to argue with that.

 

[SPLBRUIN]

Kassim makes a lot of sense for the B's as we definitely need size and physicality in our top 9. He's also a decent skater and has just enough skill to play on our 3rd line.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Kassim makes a lot of sense for the B's as we definitely need size and physicality in our top 9. He's also a decent skater and has just enough skill to play on our 3rd line.

He has 2 points in 27 games on another team which doesn’t get any contribution aside from their top line. You want more of that kind of thing?

How does this make sense?

Oh, and he’s also a douche.

 

[BRUINS since 1995]

That's funny, because is the fighting thread I've heard that instead of fighting, you should target them with a big, but legal hit.

From my souvenir, it has always been the same. Intimidation, energy players, a fight changing momentum etc... i am not avocating for neither against. And you are probably right, it will come down to a real good clean hit targeting opponents best player. And that is why i am avocating for Bruins to be bigger. My point is most people opinion differs if their team is on the receiving end of a hit or the given side of the same hit. For me, Wagner hit was a targeting vicious hit that if he did succeed could have hurt Reilly. On the given side it is ok, on the receiving side it is dirty. Regarding NHL rules, that hit was meant to hurt in my pov, not just to seperate the puck from the player. Again it is not a shot to Wagner, it is the nature of the game that will always have that type of actions/hits especially between rival opponents and emotion. I prefer Bruins to be on the given end.

 

[LSCII]

He has 2 points in 27 games on another team which doesn’t get any contribution aside from their top line. You want more of that kind of thing?

How does this make sense?

Oh, and he’s also a *****e.

Because he likes to fight? The suggestions the physical crowd always suggest are really stiffs that can do only one thing when you look into it. Zack Kassian is a garbage hockey player. He's about as one dimensional a player as you can get. Wagner has more hits than ZK does this year, and Kuraly and Acciari are all within spitting distance to the point where it would be a marginal increase if Kassian were there instead of one of those guys.

 

[PlayMakers]

Hits should only occur to separate player from puck and for no other reason. Hits should not EVER
have the intention to injure any player. Hard to distinguish, maybe so . But not in the case of Hyman on MacAvoy.

A clean hit is a clean hit, hit that can hurt or not. For me, a viscious hit is illegal, it is intended to hurt, injured and opponent. Hitting in hockey is meant for puck separation from the player.... not to target an opponent and try to hurt him.

I think you guys are kidding yourself if you think players don't hit to punish, intimidate and to create a strategic advantage. What's more, I think the rules are written and enforced to allow this type of physical play.

Again, we saw it frequently with Lucic. A defenseman that gets crushed is going to start getting rid of the puck too soon (creating turnovers) or flat out pull up and let Lucic get to the puck first. I remember Markov doing the latter in the playoffs. We saw Tom Wilson do it to defenseman all through last year's playoffs. Sometimes guys get hurt on those punishing/vicious hits as we saw with Krejci in 2009, but if the hit was within the rules it's clean.

There are no rules that say you can't be mean. There aren't even any rules that are based entirely on intent, there needs to be a second component that crosses the line, like a headshot or an elbow or hitting someone from behind... I forget where it was or what it was for but I once heard the President of an NHL team say at an assembly that "hitting should be used to separate the player from the puck and to discourage the opponent's enthusiasm and comfort level when making plays." That's basically a fancy way of saying intimidate through violence.

That is NHL hockey. It's the same in the NFL. There are tackles that bring a player down and there are "hits" that make the receiver think twice about putting themselves in vulnerable positions to catch the ball.

The NHL may one day get to a place where they legislate out any and all high impact collisions and start punishing players for what they were hoping would happen but they're not there yet.

The fact that Wagner didn't even get a hearing is proof that the NHL is okay with that play.​

 

[jgatie]

From my souvenir, it has always been the same. Intimidation, energy players, a fight changing momentum etc... i am not avocating for neither against. And you are probably right, it will come down to a real good clean hit targeting opponents best player. And that is why i am avocating for Bruins to be bigger. My point is most people opinion differs if their team is on the receiving end of a hit or the given side of the same hit. For me, Wagner hit was a targeting vicious hit that if he did succeed could have hurt Reilly. On the given side it is ok, on the receiving side it is dirty. Regarding NHL rules, that hit was meant to hurt in my pov, not just to seperate the puck from the player. Again it is not a shot to Wagner, it is the nature of the game that will always have that type of actions/hits especially between rival opponents and emotion. I prefer Bruins to be on the given end.

Got news for you, every hit is meant to hurt. The degree of hurt is where they differ. Also, there are far more elements to hitting in hockey than simply "seperate the puck from the player." Hitting can send a message, it can wear a team down, it can intimidate, it can create skating room for others, it can be used in many, many ways beside "seperate the puck from the player". I learned that when I was a Squirt and my brother (played NEJHL and Div 1 college) told me to go out first shift, pick out the biggest guy on the other team, paste him into the boards, and then tell him "Every f***ing shift, bud! Every shift!".

 

[JOKER 192]

I think you guys are kidding yourself if you think players don't hit to punish, intimidate and to create a strategic advantage. What's more, I think the rules are written and enforced to allow this type of physical play.

Every thing you say here is absolutely true. My post was more what I feel it should be than what it is.

Go down the Bruins roster (or any other team's for that matter ) and you will see a high percentage of players that have suffered a concussion. Is checking with any other intention than to separate player from puck really necessary in the game? Teams will do/use whatever they can to gain an advantage as long as it's allowed. As Nords stated in his post, it's all great until it's your player that get's creamed, then it's a dirty hit. Even Bergeron has spoken out about this in the past. Players who aren't particularly good at hockey can play in this league because there is a place for this type of player. I really don't think hockey would suffer at all removing this element from the game.

Years back I played in a no contact beer league. The games were great , players who had puck skills displayed their talent without the worry of getting creamed because they put their head down for a second or two. Plays that we saw on a regular basis were amazing and this is in a beer a league.

I think the amount of players that suffer concussions has reached a ridiculous level. Removing the red line has sped up the game to a dangerous level.

My children are grown men now who have zero interest in hockey. If they had had any interest when they were younger, I would think twice about them participating in a sport were a concussion is highly likely.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Sportsnet guys making excuses for the Laffs performance Saturday night.

I know that it’s Canadian TV, but the ass-kissing of the Laffs is shameless.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Every thing you say here is absolutely true. My post was more what I feel it should be than what it is.

Go down the Bruins roster (or any other team's for that matter ) and you will see a high percentage of players that have suffered a concussion. Is checking with any other intention than to separate player from puck really necessary in the game? Teams will do/use whatever they can to gain an advantage as long as it's allowed. As Nords stated in his post, it's all great until it's your player that get's creamed, then it's a dirty hit. Even Bergeron has spoken out about this in the past. Players who aren't particularly good at hockey can play in this league because there is a place for this type of player. I really don't think hockey would suffer at all removing this element from the game.

Years back I played in a no contact beer league. The games were great , players who had puck skills displayed their talent without the worry of getting creamed because they put their head down for a second or two. Plays that we saw on a regular basis were amazing and this is in a beer a league.

I think the amount of players that suffer concussions has reached a ridiculous level. Removing the red line has sped up the game to a dangerous level.

My children are grown men now who have zero interest in hockey. If they had had any interest when they were younger, I would think twice about them participating in a sport were a concussion is highly likely.

The highest concussion rate in youth sports is girl’s soccer. My son is a sophomore, loves the game, and I love watching him play. IMO, there isn’t another game like hockey.

The thing that is lacking is respect for one another by the players. If that existed, we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

 

[Dr Hook]

The highest concussion rate in youth sports is girl’s soccer. My son is a sophomore, loves the game, and I love watching him play. IMO, there isn’t another game like hockey.

The thing that is lacking is respect for one another by the players. If that existed, we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

Yep- when I was coaching a couple years ago we had to do a lot with concussion training and protocols because it has gotten so bad. At the risk of sounding like an old curmudgeon like my dad (and I am not *that* old) this lack of respect in sports is symptomatic of the lack of respect for others in general these days.

 

[BRUINS since 1995]

I think you guys are kidding yourself if you think players don't hit to punish, intimidate and to create a strategic advantage. What's more, I think the rules are written and enforced to allow this type of physical play.

Again, we saw it frequently with Lucic. A defenseman that gets crushed is going to start getting rid of the puck too soon (creating turnovers) or flat out pull up and let Lucic get to the puck first. I remember Markov doing the latter in the playoffs. We saw Tom Wilson do it to defenseman all through last year's playoffs. Sometimes guys get hurt on those punishing/vicious hits as we saw with Krejci in 2009, but if the hit was within the rules it's clean.

There are no rules that say you can't be mean. There aren't even any rules that are based entirely on intent, there needs to be a second component that crosses the line, like a headshot or an elbow or hitting someone from behind... I forget where it was or what it was for but I once heard the President of an NHL team say at an assembly that "hitting should be used to separate the player from the puck and to discourage the opponent's enthusiasm and comfort level when making plays." That's basically a fancy way of saying intimidate through violence.

That is NHL hockey. It's the same in the NFL. There are tackles that bring a player down and there are "hits" that make the receiver think twice about putting themselves in vulnerable positions to catch the ball.

The NHL may one day get to a place where they legislate out any and all high impact collisions and start punishing players for what they were hoping would happen but they're not there yet.

The fact that Wagner didn't even get a hearing is proof that the NHL is okay with that play.​

That is what i beleive and why i am avocating for Bruins to be bigger. This post started with people calling Kadri and saying Wagner hit was good and Hymann hit was dirty. I am saying they were both retaliation vicious hit. I am saying if you are on the receiving end, your analysis will differ for the same hit then if you had been on the giving end.

Now avocating for NHL hearings regarding a hit does not mean alot. They have been so inconsistant that this does not mean anything. Read post game ON ALL team site, look at how recalling interference goalies call back and how it is difficult to understand their consistancy. Someday when it serve your purpose, NHL decision will be a proof of you were right..., and when you will be in a disagreement with their decision it will be NHL inconsistancy.

 

[BRUINS since 1995]

Got news for you, every hit is meant to hurt. The degree of hurt is where they differ. Also, there are far more elements to hitting in hockey than simply "seperate the puck from the player." Hitting can send a message, it can wear a team down, it can intimidate, it can create skating room for others, it can be used in many, many ways beside "seperate the puck from the player". I learned that when I was a Squirt and my brother (played NEJHL and Div 1 college) told me to go out first shift, pick out the biggest guy on the other team, paste him into the boards, and then tell him "Every ****ing shift, bud! Every shift!".

We just don’t connect. You miss my point.

 

[Sheppy]

Sportsnet guys making excuses for the Laffs performance Saturday night.

I know that it’s Canadian TV, but the ass-kissing of the Laffs is shameless.

It's absolutely brutal.

 

[compan]

It's absolutely brutal.

Yet they will gripe about Jack Edwards lol

 

[jgatie]

We just don’t connect. You miss my point.

No, I got your point. I don't care if a hit is retaliatory, or vicious, or predatory, as long as it is legal. The Wagner hit was legal, in fact it didn't even meet the level of charging, but the stripes were afraid of the game going full Gong Show. The Hyman hit was illegal, very illegal. Both were vicious, both were retaliatory, both were predatory. One guy hit the right way, the other guy didn't and I 100% want the former in the game; vicious, retaliatory, and/or predatory be damned. Let the players deal with whether it is vicious, retaliatory, and/or predatory, as they did on Saturday.

 

[Otherworld]

The Bruins response to the Macavoy hit is exactly how a team should respond. We learned from the Savy hit...

 

[BRUINS since 1995]

No, I got your point. I don't care if a hit is retaliatory, or vicious, or predatory, as long as it is legal. The Wagner hit was legal, in fact it didn't even meet the level of charging, but the stripes were afraid of the game going full Gong Show. The Hyman hit was illegal, very illegal. Both were vicious, both were retaliatory, both were predatory. One guy hit the right way, the other guy didn't and I 100% want the former in the game; vicious, retaliatory, and/or predatory be damned. Let the players deal with whether it is vicious, retaliatory, and/or predatory, as they did on Saturday.

Well written. I don’t disagree with you. But you still miss my point.