Hendricks to have hearing for hit on Aaron Ekblad - Suspended 3 Games

[Replacement*]

What he means is if you brace yourself against the boards as opposed to getting hit into the boards, it's much better. On the other hand, when you skate into an open ice hit, it can be devastating. Because not only do you take the full brunt of the impact, but you have forward velocity to go with it.

Yeah I'm sure it was better for Ekblads mellon that it was propelled with force into the boards thus resulting in an apparent concussion.

Man the guy was half knocked out. Barely made the count.

Would have been much easier to take that hit in open ice. No injury at all I bet in that case.

As per opposing vector forces with velocity. yeah, I think anybody understands that nature of "head on" collision or at least anybody in the real world, for instance driving, should understand that. . I mentioned it in my post.

 

[Narnia]

This isn't mentioned enough times in this thread.

Where was Dumba's suspension in October for a head shot on Korpi causing a concussion. Korpi missed 8 games and Dumba got nothing. Why is the same thing not said when a similar hit on the Oilers player happens and no suspension even if it's an injury like a concussion. What about the time when refs throw a player out of the game for a dirty hit and no suspension and the player misses games. The ref thought the hit was dirty and the NHL does nothing. Then the same player gets suspended and gets only 2 minutes. Where's the consistency. NHL discipline is the reason the Oilers have so many injuries season after season. NHL needs to treat all the teams the same when it comes to suspensions and that includes the Oilers.

 

[Insta]

Yeah I'm sure it was better for Ekblads mellon that it was propelled with force into the boards thus resulting in an apparent concussion.

Man the guy was half knocked out. Barely made the count.

Would have been much easier to take that hit in open ice. No injury at all I bet in that case.

As per opposing vector forces with velocity. yeah, I think anybody understands that nature of "head on" collision or at least anybody in the real world, for instance driving, should understand that. . I mentioned it in my post.

Hence the part where he said "what Ekblad should have done". He shoulder checked and saw a guy skating at him, and instead of making even a small amount of effort to brace himself for the hit, did the opposite and started doing a reverse pass.

 

[oStealthKiller*]

Replacement, quit cherry picking and go look at my edit

 

[Replacement*]

I never once said that Hendricks' hit wasn't wrong and was just like any hit. If you would like to read back, I suggested quite clearly that they both have their part in this situation. I do think the dangerous hit is worthy of a suspension, but 3 games is a bit much for a player who is not a repeat offender, without knowledge that his intent was to injure.

It was not clearly a dirty hit. It is clearly a dangerous hit, and many people in this thread are giving logical explanations as to why there was no intent, you are just ignoring it and brushing it off while using your special method of arguing that makes people want to quit arguing instead of carrying on.

I'm not appealing the suspension with my arguments, I don't need to follow standard protocol set in place to overturn a decision. I am giving my reasoning and explanations as to why I think they are wrong in their decision.

If you want, I can try and find Hendricks and ask him if he had intent to injure - guess what, he'll probably say no, because he isn't a dirty player. But that certainly won't change your mind, and barring telepathy and digging into Hendricks' feelings and inner thoughts, I'm not sure how we could convince you otherwise

Oh wait, from your own post, verbatim;

Every big hit in hockey is an attempt to throw someone off of their game, shake them up, make them play with their head on a swivel, etc etc. And with that comes injury sometimes. But are they intending to injure? Hard to say, but likely not in my opinion.

You've argued multiple times, and even twice in that post that the Hendricks hit was much like any other hit.

This makes it very difficult for the reader to follow that on one hand you are saying "The hit is like any hit" ergo, Hendricks not at fault, with your agreed conclusion that Hendricks should be suspended, to which, I agree.

You're kind of waffling. That comes from trying to cover tracks in your argument.

 

[scb23]

I can't take your rebuttal seriously if you don't have an elemental understanding of physics.

In an open ice hit the potential energy of the hit results in the hit just being one blunt force and with the object being hit able to bounce off into open space. Thus the force of the hit is dissipated somewhat by the object sliding away from the hit.

This is much different than a hit dissipated into the boards which although there is some give still result in a sandwich effect where the full force of the hit is absorbed by the object instead of being able to be bounced off of it. The added thing being that the object being hit is now crunched by two separate force vectors. From the original accelerating object, and from the object (boards) that fixes the hit in one spot.

if you don't follow this consider a fender bender.

One car hits another car which simply glides forward on ice. The injury/damage through that nature of hit is less as the car simply slides forward and so that not all energy of the hit was absorbed. Forward motion dissipates some of the energy of the impact.

In contrast a car hit, and slammed into a car or wall in front of it is going to result in much more damage, and more injury. That car is much more likely to be a write off and will incur damage in front and back.

Finally, anybody that has EVER been in Bumber cars knows exactly what I'm stating. Some bumper car hitting you in open space is nothing. But slam somebody directly into another bumper car or a wall and you have more of an impact. Those are the juicy hits everybody goes for in bumper cars. The kind of hit where the recipient is going to get it both ways. Its like a double hit. That said the hardest hits are also when objects are going at speed in opposing directions. I'll give you that.

Not sure how this isn't clear.

This is the most pseudo-scientific pile of trash I think I've ever read.

I'll let you take your open ice hits if you think they're safer. Necks tend to whiplash on impact and then again hitting the ice.

I'll take an equally intense hit up against the boards all day.

 

[McDraekke]

Where was Dumba's suspension in October for a head shot on Korpi causing a concussion. Korpi missed 8 games and Dumba got nothing. Why is the same thing not said when a similar hit on the Oilers player happens and no suspension even if it's an injury like a concussion. What about the time when refs throw a player out of the game for a dirty hit and no suspension and the player misses games. The ref thought the hit was dirty and the NHL does nothing. Then the same player gets suspended and gets only 2 minutes. Where's the consistency. NHL discipline is the reason the Oilers have so many injuries season after season. NHL needs to treat all the teams the same when it comes to suspensions and that includes the Oilers.

Not sure why you quoted my post... I was just saying that there doesn't seem to be a lot of sympathy for Eklbad's injury is all.

 

[bucks_oil]

My lord what kind of pansy pro sport are they playing if a perfectly executed open ice hit that wasn't dirty in any way, or illegal in anyway is taken out of the game.

Again this is where people are getting stuck in the homer notion. The hit on Hall was 100% clean and Hall wasn't watching. Mostly that's on Hall. He was tracking a puck and not the incoming bus..

Remove this element of hockey and we may as well be playing pansy no contact rules. But who would watch. Checking is an essential part of the game. One hit was clean, totally, the other wasn't. Pretty simple.

We should probably move on from this. Discussion on this gets so circular.

I disagree with this.

In the old days you didn't blindside a player unless you meant it. "Meaning it" meant you were willing to take the doom afterwards. So those that could handle the retribution would throw a borderline, intent to injure, vulnerable, predatory hit. Call it what you want, we all knew what we were talking about... and the policing did its part to curtail those hits, but mostly you had to keep your head up and face the play.

Then we had a rule change, instigator was out and there was no more ability to hold players accountable for plays that were (not yet) illegal, but considered dirty. There has never been a time until the instigator where a star player could get blindsided in the neutral zone without his teammates exacting a pound of flesh... until the instigator.

Blindside hitting went up... injuries happened... advocacy ensued.

And so then we had a rule change, and in its infinite wisdom (and under much pressure, especially from mother advocate groups) the NHL tries to regulate blindside hits... but not all blindside hits, only the ones that were in the numbers and had caused spinal injuries. These were unpalatable and who wants to talk about broken necks.

And blindside hits, equally devastating, can still happen as long as they are in the neutral zone.

And then we learn more about concussions... more advocacy... and more rule changes. Now a blindside predatory hit is not allowed if the head is the primary point of contact. (as though no-one ever lost a career to a concussion where the head was not the primary point of contact).

And still the blindside hits, and confused players who grew up in an era where you just didn't do these things unless you *meant it*.

I just don't see the difference. A defenseless player is a defenseless player. If his ability to make a legal play on the puck means he has his head turned away from the play... why should he be vulnerable to a predatory hit, whether in the numbers or not?

I'm fine with the old school way... I'm not advocating for pansy... just for consistency. If predatory means blindside (because the player is playing the game and playing the game means looking away from the check), then it should be illegal regardless of body position.

Hendricks (and many, many others before him) go for retribution because in the old days players viewed these hits as dirty... rulebook or not... and so they policed the game where the rulebook was out of date.

Now we changed the rules partly to align with the way players policed themselves... but not for the other situations where they ALSO policed themselves... and so what happens?

What happens is in response to Hall you have three choices:
1) Do nothing, the oilers way for many years
2) Take an instigator
3) Exact revenge with your own blindside hit

It's no wonder the players, in exacting revenge, tend to escalate things... I honestly don't think they really see or were brought up in an era where there was a "CODE" difference between leveling a guy with his head down vs leveling a guy behind the net in the numbers?

Maybe I'm wrong...

 

[Replacement*]

Hence the part where he said "what Ekblad should have done". He shoulder checked and saw a guy skating at him, and instead of making even a small amount of effort to brace himself for the hit, did the opposite and started doing a reverse pass.

Does Ekblad spot the shooter on the grassy knoll as well. C'mon.

The NHL would only blame the victim for getting hit if it was so indelibly clear they knew what was coming. Even if Ekblad spotted Hendricks (and we don't know that) he doesn't know Hendricks intent (see what I did there ) to slam him into the middle of next week. For all Ekblad knows its just a forecheck like any other or Hendricks is just trying to close on puck. Again if he even spotted Hendricks.

Without checking it I would imagine theres few precedents where the NHL has blamed the recipient and absolved the hitter. I could be wrong on that.

That raises a question on standard differences between what is simply written, vs how it is operationally applied.

I tend to think there would need to be a lot of incidentals involved for the NHL to determine the recipient was at fault.

 

[McDraekke]

Oh wait, from your own post, verbatim;



You've argued multiple times, and even twice in that post that the Hendricks hit was much like any other hit.

This makes it very difficult for the reader to follow that on one hand you are saying "The hit is like any hit" ergo, Hendricks not at fault, with your agreed conclusion that Hendricks should be suspended, to which, I agree.

You're kind of waffling. That comes from trying to cover tracks in your argument.

The second post that you quoted is actually in response to you suggesting that just because he was looking for a big hit, meant that he was looking to injure. My point was that every big hit in hockey, then, by your assumption, is an attempt to injure. You are taking my words out of context. Go "cherry pick" (to use another's phrase here) where I said that it was a dangerous and unfortunate hit, that Hendricks does have some fault in. But not because of an attempt to injure, only because he failed to allow himself an out for when Ekblad chooses a direction that Hendricks assumed he would not go.

I'm not waffling or backtracking, you are picking and choosing arguments made in response to specific parts of a conversation in order to prove others are wrong. ie, your "special method of arguing" that I mentioned earlier.

My argument that Hendricks did not intend to injure Ekblad and my conclusion that he should still be suspended are not mutually exclusive and that fact that I know you are smart enough to understand this difference, but seem to be ignoring it to support your argument, is what generally offends me about your posting style.

 

[bucks_oil]

I can't take your rebuttal seriously if you don't have an elemental understanding of physics.

In an open ice hit the potential energy of the hit results in the hit just being one blunt force and with the object being hit able to bounce off into open space. Thus the force of the hit is dissipated somewhat by the object sliding away from the hit.

This is much different than a hit dissipated into the boards which although there is some give still result in a sandwich effect where the full force of the hit is absorbed by the object instead of being able to be bounced off of it. The added thing being that the object being hit is now crunched by two separate force vectors. From the original accelerating object, and from the object (boards) that fixes the hit in one spot.

if you don't follow this consider a fender bender.

One car hits another car which simply glides forward on ice. The injury/damage through that nature of hit is less as the car simply slides forward and so that not all energy of the hit was absorbed. Forward motion dissipates some of the energy of the impact.

In contrast a car hit, and slammed into a car or wall in front of it is going to result in much more damage, and more injury. That car is much more likely to be a write off and will incur damage in front and back.

Finally, anybody that has EVER been in Bumber cars knows exactly what I'm stating. Some bumper car hitting you in open space is nothing. But slam somebody directly into another bumper car or a wall and you have more of an impact. Those are the juicy hits everybody goes for in bumper cars. The kind of hit where the recipient is going to get it both ways. Its like a double hit. That said the hardest hits are also when objects are going at speed in opposing directions. I'll give you that.

Not sure how this isn't clear.

Hrmm... not sure this is quite accurate either. In an open ice hit, usually the vectors of force are directly opposed to each other. Player A going north, player B going south. One is going to lose and usually its the player who is i) smaller (F = m x a), ii) has other things on his mind... like receiving the pass , and so can't brace for impact.

A hit on the boards has one player stationary, or moving transverse to the other. He's not adding to the force vectors. If he's paying attention he can use the boards to brace himself for impact. The other player can only plaster him good to the extent he's also willing to come to an abrupt, full stop against the boards/player. The boards are usually therefore on the side of the player receiving the hit.

 

[Replacement*]

This is the most pseudo-scientific pile of trash I think I've ever read.

I'll let you take your open ice hits if you think they're safer. Necks tend to whiplash on impact and then again hitting the ice.

I'll take an equally intense hit up against the boards all day.

Simplistic, also completely wrong. The mechanism of injury which is apparent from the incident is Ekblads head slamming into the boards. Which it is with countless other dirty board hits which are the most dangerous play in hockey and most likely to result in a broken neck and paralysis if not death.

lets be clear here. Both are bad, neither tickle. But given a choice between concussion, whiplash (basic worse result in an open ice hit) and having my neck snapped by solid boards I know what I'm picking.

The NHl agrees. This kind of hit is the most dangerous play in hockey.

 

[Replacement*]

Hrmm... not sure this is quite accurate either. In an open ice hit, usually the vectors of force are directly opposed to each other. Player A going north, player B going south. One is going to lose and usually its the player who is i) smaller (F = m x a), ii) has other things on his mind... like receiving the pass , and so can't brace for impact.

A hit on the boards has one player stationary, or moving transverse to the other. He's not adding to the force vectors. If he's paying attention he can use the boards to brace himself for impact. The other player can only plaster him good to the extent he's also willing to come to an abrupt, full stop against the boards/player. The boards are usually therefore on the side of the player receiving the hit.

Stated by me right in the post you quoted;

That said the hardest hits are also when objects are going at speed in opposing directions

 

[oiLowe]

What I've been arguing is had ekblad played the play correctly, nothing would have happened. Hendricks could do everything exactly the same and not injure him if ekblad didn't make a stupid play. If ekblad doesn't turn, that's a rubout with the glass absorbing most of the impact. Ekblad made the hit bad, not hendricks

He reversed the puck and was illegally hit from behind. 99 times out of 100 the forchecking player is trying to make a play on the puck and not run the guy through the end boards. Hendricks did nothing of the sort and had plenty of time to make a a different decision.

 

[bucks_oil]

Stated by me right in the post you quoted;

yes, right... saw that buried at the end.

I think the point though is that Ekblad didn't use the boards to his advantage, though he could have.

He's 18... he grew up in a different era. Trusted the (new) rule. You'd never have seen Pronger allow that to happen to him.

Hendricks grew up in an era where a blindside hit (rules or no rules) was to be retributed (rules be damned, we know the RULES).

Eberle grew up in an era (or an alter dimension) where forechecking doesn't require hitting.

I think you get my point.

 

[duul]

I still think it was borderline clean. If Hendo hit Brad Hunt into the boards like that nothing happens. If Hendo hits an all-star and he looks woozy after the big hit, he gets suspended. That's it.

Hendricks isn't a dirty player and he made a hit I'm sure the entire team was happy with. We need a lot more of that in our game.

 

[Replacement*]

The second post that you quoted is actually in response to you suggesting that just because he was looking for a big hit, meant that he was looking to injure. My point was that every big hit in hockey, then, by your assumption, is an attempt to injure. You are taking my words out of context. Go "cherry pick" (to use another's phrase here) where I said that it was a dangerous and unfortunate hit, that Hendricks does have some fault in. But not because of an attempt to injure, only because he failed to allow himself an out for when Ekblad chooses a direction that Hendricks assumed he would not go.

I'm not waffling or backtracking, you are picking and choosing arguments made in response to specific parts of a conversation in order to prove others are wrong. ie, your "special method of arguing" that I mentioned earlier.

My argument that Hendricks did not intend to injure Ekblad and my conclusion that he should still be suspended are not mutually exclusive and that fact that I know you are smart enough to understand this difference, but seem to be ignoring it to support your argument, is what generally offends me about your posting style.

Just saying your position hasn't been as clear as perhaps you perceive it and I'm not the only one pointing it out in the exchange. When debating complex positions that are not mutually exclusive (respect for that, and I agree about such nuance being plausible) one should be aware when they are arguing a nuance and be more careful not to say things that sound conflicting. Which to me you were doing. (could be just the way I read it but partly that you are taking what could be considered as opposing positions)

Plus the bolded is nonsense and you know that. Watch Hendricks on the play. He is hunting Ekblad on that play. His one intent is to HIT Ekblad not to miss him. Again something in the way you state that just invokes response. It doesn't matter what way Ekblad turned there Hendricks was seeking the hit. Clearly. That was a dirty hit and in such cases its often just much simpler to reduce to that rather than attempt to argue complexities about he did this, or that and the simplest deduction is that Hendricks nailed Ekblad with the worst he could and meant to do that.

Gotta say it as well. I'm questioning Hendricks on his statement in response to the suspension on "I'm not that kind of player, I don't do that, I never do that, I never seek revenge"

The human experience is such that it actually takes us considerable time to discern that we have actually done something that we proclaim that we would never do. Hendricks did it, and it was conscious retribution, that's why he was chasing Ekblad down on the play and then indicating about equaling the score.

That's exactly what he did. But he did much more than even the score. He injured a player. He could have Severely injured the player.

 

[redgrant]

I still think it was borderline clean. If Hendo hit Brad Hunt into the boards like that nothing happens. If Hendo hits an all-star and he looks woozy after the big hit, he gets suspended. That's it.

Hendricks isn't a dirty player and he made a hit I'm sure the entire team was happy with. We need a lot more of that in our game.

Youre absolutely right about this and I dont mind it. Next time someone hits McDavid wrong they should be taken to the guillotine. League needs superstars playing not on the IR.

 

[McDraekke]

Just saying your position hasn't been as clear as perhaps you perceive it and I'm not the only one pointing it out in the exchange. When debating complex positions that are not mutually exclusive (respect for that, and I agree about such nuance being plausible) one should be aware when they are arguing a nuance and be more careful not to say things that sound conflicting. Which to me you were doing. (could be just the way I read it but partly that you are taking what could be considered as opposing positions)

Plus the bolded is nonsense and you know that. Watch Hendricks on the play. He is hunting Ekblad on that play. His one intent is to HIT Ekblad not to miss him. Again something in the way you state that just invokes response. It doesn't matter what way Ekblad turned there Hendricks was seeking the hit. Clearly. That was a dirty hit and in such cases its often just much simpler to reduce to that rather than attempt to argue complexities about he did this, or that and the simplest deduction is that Hendricks nailed Ekblad with the worst he could and meant to do that.

Gotta say it as well. I'm questioning Hendricks on his statement in response to the suspension on "I'm not that kind of player, I don't do that, I never do that, I never seek revenge"

The human experience is such that it actually takes us considerable time to discern that we have actually done something that we proclaim that we would never do. Hendricks did it, and it was conscious retribution, that's why he was chasing Ekblad down on the play and then indicating about equaling the score.

That's exactly what he did. But he did much more than even the score. He injured a player. He could have Severely injured the player.

By reducing an argument to its simplest level is to ignore so many parts of the situation, one cannot come close to try and deduce a conclusion based on what little information is left over from the reduction.

You CAN'T know his intention. No one can. Not me, not you, not DOPS. One can only use opinion to determine their stance. I'm giving you mine, you are giving me yours. Historically, Hendricks is not that player, so what makes you think that he would all of a sudden become that player? Ignoring past information is folly.

 

[scb23]

Simplistic, also completely wrong. The mechanism of injury which is apparent from the incident is Ekblads head slamming into the boards. Which it is with countless other dirty board hits which are the most dangerous play in hockey and most likely to result in a broken net and paralysis if not death.

lets be clear here. Both are bad, neither tickle. But given a choice between concussion, whiplash (basic worse result in an open ice hit) and having my neck snapped by solid boards I know what I'm picking.

The NHl agrees. This kind of hit is the most dangerous play in hockey.

Another statement deemed false cuz Replacement saaaayz so

Regardless where the hit takes place, the biggest thing one can do to mitigate the impact of a hit is being prepared for the hit. Ek wasn't prepared for that hit and that's the part I still don't understand. It was a common play, he shoulder checked and saw him coming. Assuming a fore checker won't finish a hit when you are RIGHT AGAINST THE BOARDS seems foolishly naive. It's a part of the game. Yes, not finishing the hit would've been the safest play, is that where this is all heading?

 

[Replacement*]

yes, right... saw that buried at the end.

I think the point though is that Ekblad didn't use the boards to his advantage, though he could have.

He's 18... he grew up in a different era. Trusted the (new) rule. You'd never have seen Pronger allow that to happen to him.

Hendricks grew up in an era where a blindside hit (rules or no rules) was to be retributed (rules be damned, we know the RULES).

Eberle grew up in an era (or an alter dimension) where forechecking doesn't require hitting.

I think you get my point.

Oh yeah, and I'm sympathetic to it. In the neck of the woods I learned to play competitive sports you were always looking for incoming. The very nature of how kids used to play. I come from the wrong side of the tracks where the intent to hurt would also be there, and stated. So if you gave a guy half a chance out there...

Well you get the jist.

One thing you haven't covered is that hockey used to be the pro sport domain of the working class kid from the working class neighborhood. The one who knew there would be fights, that you could get jumped at any time, and that that's what life just was like. Its not just on the ice or a football field I would have my head on a swivel. In the neighborhood it was more just a fact of life.

The contrast now being that pro players now largely come from more affluent backgrounds that are not as hard scrabble. So that lifes lessons learned away from the arena equate to the lessons not being learned at the arena.

So that the first time a smiling Sam Gagner, with a quality affluent background encounters a Zack Kassian, they're actually somewhat surprised such actions, people, and players exist.

 

[Narnia]

I still think it was borderline clean. If Hendo hit Brad Hunt into the boards like that nothing happens. If Hendo hits an all-star and he looks woozy after the big hit, he gets suspended. That's it.

Hendricks isn't a dirty player and he made a hit I'm sure the entire team was happy with. We need a lot more of that in our game.

I'm worried that Hendo will now be afraid to hit fearing he'll get another suspension. That's how it all started with Torres.

 

[Replacement*]

Another statement deemed false cuz Replacement saaaayz so

Regardless where the hit takes place, the biggest thing one can do to mitigate the impact of a hit is being prepared for the hit. Ek wasn't prepared for that hit and that's the part I still don't understand. It was a common play, he shoulder checked and saw him coming. Assuming a fore checker won't finish a hit when you are RIGHT AGAINST THE BOARDS seems foolishly naive. It's a part of the game. Yes, not finishing the hit would've been the safest play, is that where this is all heading?

Again I am stating here, clearly, and if you are unclear you should familiarize with the nomenclature that the "mechanism of injury" is clearly the boards. This is indisputable in the incident. From basically any angle you see Ekblads head being pummeled against the boards there. His head literally looks squeezed into the board there with his mellon unfortunately ending up being the crushed focal point resultant of that hit. With the way his head is twisted at impact this is the way serious neck injury can result.

This is an example of why getting slammed into the boards can result in much more severe injury than would typically occur in an open ice hit. Concussions occur in either, yes, but again as stated I would rather have a whiplash or concusion than be paralyzed with a broken neck which can and does occur with such board hits.

 

[Replacement*]

By reducing an argument to its simplest level is to ignore so many parts of the situation, one cannot come close to try and deduce a conclusion based on what little information is left over from the reduction.

You CAN'T know his intention. No one can. Not me, not you, not DOPS. One can only use opinion to determine their stance. I'm giving you mine, you are giving me yours. Historically, Hendricks is not that player, so what makes you think that he would all of a sudden become that player? Ignoring past information is folly.

Oh. This topic is well beyond what should be engaged in the thread but I would have no problem doing it in a pm if you wanted to ask. I can write a book on this subject, be forewarned.

Suffice to say its human nature, with the proviso being any human that isn't socopathic or psychopathic to believe "I am not that kind of person, I'm never the person who has done that"

Yet most of us given the right situation and the right boil are capable of actions that we believe we are not capable of. Withing varying degrees of reason.

But a passionate player like Hendricks, who "plays the game hard" (his own words) is capable of going one step too far on a play even if he proclaims that he never would. This does not mean Hendricks is a bad guy. It means he was angry, it probably got the best of him and he reacted in a way that probably surprised even him. From his interview he's still out of sorts on what occurred. Wouldn't surprise me if he phoned Ekblad or visited him as well. ftr I think Hendricks is a solid stand up guy. But he's a very physical pro hockey player. Not a large leap off the cliff from there.

Finally, Hendricks afairc had fought in this game, ( 1 or 2 fights?) was very physically engaged in this game, and his adrenaline was probably running pretty good out there. That being a powerful drug that can induce..

 

[Replacement*]

I'm worried that Hendo will now be afraid to hit fearing he'll get another suspension. That's how it all started with Torres.

Its only paranoia if its not reality..