JetsHomer
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2011
- 10,941
- 3,146
Don’t go third man into a scrum if you don’t want to be involved in a scrum.it is a dirty hit and if you think that is a "clean" play then you really are a piece of work.
Don’t go third man into a scrum if you don’t want to be involved in a scrum.it is a dirty hit and if you think that is a "clean" play then you really are a piece of work.
It’s not ok, it’s against the rules. Hence why a 2 min minor was calledWow some people...so what im getting from this thread is as long as a player goes in as the third man its ok to hit him from behind in a very dangerous position. That's a great logic to teach kids...
Its to bad that Donald Brasher wasn't a 3rd man in so at least Mcsorley wouldn't have been suspened for swinging his stick at Brashers head right
Theres so many ways to go after a player whos a 3rd man in, hitting him from behind with your stick isn't one
EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A BAD PERSON AND THAT"S A FACT!!it is a dirty hit and if you think that is a "clean" play then you really are a piece of work.
No it's not ok, it's against the rules. That's why he receieved a penalty on the play.Wow some people...so what im getting from this thread is as long as a player goes in as the third man its ok to hit him from behind in a very dangerous position. That's a great logic to teach kids...
Its to bad that Donald Brasher wasn't a 3rd man in so at least Mcsorley wouldn't have been suspened for swinging his stick at Brashers head right
Theres so many ways to go after a player whos a 3rd man in, hitting him from behind with your stick isn't one
Yes,that was dangerous as hell. Scheifele already threw a late hit. Carrick, pushed him for it and Byfuglien comes in with a hard crosscheck to the back near the neck.
Your comment eludes to the fact that you are perfectly ok with a player cross-checking another player from behind square in the numbers. If you don't see that is a problem then that is an inner issue.EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A BAD PERSON AND THAT"S A FACT!!
lol puh-lease. 2-minute cross-check at the most.
I'm not "perfectly okay" with it. It's against the rules and he received a penalty on the play for the action. Cup-checking someone or slashing someone in the arm on purpose is also not okay, it's a penalty and a player should be penalized for it. Byfuglien cross-checked the guy, cross-checking is a penalty, so he received a penalty....Your comment eludes to the fact that you are perfectly ok with a player cross-checking another player from behind square in the numbers. If you don't see that is a problem then that is an inner issue.
Accidents are ACCIDENTS. He inteneded to hit. Surely he knew what hitting or shoving a player from behind could do, or see how close to the boards he was. There’s really nothing here that makes it anything but a pos moveSure. people speed all the time too and there's a reasonable expectation they won't crash. it SHOULD be one of the things you think about when you enter a scrum even if it's a remote possibility.
The intent was there. A crosscheck from behind into the boards. Well after the whistle I maybe add. This is the most dangerous hit in hockey. Ive seen a player get paralyzed on a hit similar to this.Based on the League’s history of leniency towards hits from behind, but also because I don’t think this was that severe.
Yep. It’s all about PR, they don’t actually care about player safety as much as creating the illusion that they do.The intent was there. A crosscheck from behind into the boards. Well after the whistle I maybe add. This is the most dangerous hit in hockey. Ive seen a player get paralyzed on a hit similar to this.
Thus should be probably be a suspension. But like I said earlier the league is focusing on Tom Wilson. Everything else goes.
Intent to do what, exactly? and how do you know the "intent was there"?The intent was there. A crosscheck from behind into the boards. Well after the whistle I maybe add. This is the most dangerous hit in hockey. Ive seen a player get paralyzed on a hit similar to this.
Thus should be probably be a suspension. But like I said earlier the league is focusing on Tom Wilson. Everything else goes.
I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone say it was okay. It wasn’t. Had Carrick not stuck his nose into someone else’s skirmish, chances are the situation doesn’t escalate. Brashear/mcsorely are red herrings. And completely irrelevant.Wow some people...so what im getting from this thread is as long as a player goes in as the third man its ok to hit him from behind in a very dangerous position. That's a great logic to teach kids...
Its to bad that Donald Brasher wasn't a 3rd man in so at least Mcsorley wouldn't have been suspened for swinging his stick at Brashers head right
Theres so many ways to go after a player whos a 3rd man in, hitting him from behind with your stick isn't one
Alludes...Your comment eludes to the fact that you are perfectly ok with a player cross-checking another player from behind square in the numbers. If you don't see that is a problem then that is an inner issue.
I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone say it was okay. It wasn’t. Had Carrick not stuck his nose into someone else’s skirmish, chances are the situation doesn’t escalate. Brashear/mcsorely are red herrings. And completely irrelevant.
Then what is the point of "Intent to injure" in the rule book if people like you are going to play dumb when you know damn well what their intention was? His intention was to send him head first into the boards because he is a f***ing dirty player.Intent to do what, exactly? and how do you know the "intent was there"?
Phone auto-correct is no buenoAlludes...
Accidents are ACCIDENTS. He inteneded to hit. Surely he knew what hitting or shoving a player from behind could do, or see how close to the boards he was. There’s really nothing here that makes it anything but a pos move
Illegally crosscheck the guy into the boards. It wasnt accidental and it wasnt a hockey play. It was intentional. That's what intent is. Can't believe I had to spell that out for you.Intent to do what, exactly? and how do you know the "intent was there"?