Jagr probably OK

Status
Not open for further replies.

Coffee and 7's*

Guest
Ruutu is the king. What's this bs there is no place for Ruutu? he did his job, Finland won, alot thanks to him. It's all about winning. :bow:
 

Critter

Registered User
Feb 9, 2006
67
0
Ver said:
Good picture, doom2. After that picture there's no need to argue, was there intent to injure. That was a hit like any other in a hockey game, too bad for Jagr he didn't see Ruutu coming. Good to hear he's OK, it could have been worse with a helmet like that.
Yes. Ofcourse the hit looked dirty, because Jagr droppend on his knees. BUt you can't blaim Jarkko for that. It would have been even worse if Jarkko hadn't hit him. In that case, Jarkko should be on a bench. Jarkko's role is to check in situations like that. BTW, czecks were playing powerplay.
 

Kostik

Registered User
Oct 5, 2005
876
0
Tell me about objective opinion about that cheapshot hit.
Only one's who are advocating ruutu are canucks fans and Finns(and some Jagr haters).
It's useless, i think that ruutu is goon who tryes to injury players and he did it to Jagr yesterday. Thankfully Jagr is ok.
Does hockey need these i'll-try-atleast-injure-star-players-cause-i-can-only-barely-skate?
 

Kostik

Registered User
Oct 5, 2005
876
0
Sorry for my crap english.
Let's move on, let's enjoy some olympic hockey :p:
 

Ver

Registered User
Dec 6, 2005
3
0
Kostik said:
Tell me about objective opinion about that cheapshot hit.
It would be interesting to hear your definition about "cheapshot".

But you're right, penalties have been served and we should move on too and enjoy these great games.
 

Noose

Registered User
Nov 10, 2004
26
0
Kostik said:
It's useless, i think that ruutu is goon who tryes to injury players and he did it to Jagr yesterday. Thankfully Jagr is ok.
Does hockey need these i'll-try-atleast-injure-star-players-cause-i-can-only-barely-skate?

Talk about an objective opinion.

Yes, hockey needs players like Ruutu, because they help the team to win. Finland won yesterday. It's unfortunate that Jagr got mildly injured, but that was pretty much because he ducked and uses a helmet which doesn't meet todays standards.

Hey by the way, has Czech media asked Jagr about the hit? I'd put my money on him saying it was a clean hit.
 

C-J...*

Guest
Wild GM said:
I've had 3 concussions. Never vomited.


There´s a big difference between a minor and a major concussion, I´ve had both so I should know.
 

C-J...*

Guest
dakdak said:
Ruutu is the king. What's this bs there is no place for Ruutu? he did his job, Finland won, alot thanks to him. It's all about winning. :bow:

That smug son of a.....

He´s a disgrace, laughing just after he rammed Jag´s head into the boards, making him bleed all over the ice.
 

Wisent

Registered User
Nov 15, 2003
3,667
2
Mannheim
Visit site
NYIsles1 said:
That's how I saw it, I could care less about the names involved. What was Jagr thinking not wearing the best possible helmet to protect himself?
Gotta say that the helmet looks awesome but I`m with you. Protection should always be optimal. I actually want hockeyplayers to wear the full face mask that the women wear.
 

Critter

Registered User
Feb 9, 2006
67
0
Starshollow said:
He´s a disgrace, laughing just after he rammed Jag´s head into the boards, making him bleed all over the ice.
No chance that Rudi was laughing at Straka? :shakehead
 

Chimpradamus

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
16,634
5,249
Northern Sweden
Caz said:
Look at the video links provided in the game thread.
Then try to explain the word 'dirty' you used according
to the hockey rules.

Now you're crying for blood because Jagr made a childish
mistake of dropping his head.

Cute.
It's very easy to explain the word 'dirty' and Ruutu in the same sentence in this case.

Ruutu's check is nowhere close a clean hit. These are the words from a hockey ref, who know is not active, but still knows the rules. He did not watch the game, neither did he cheer for any team. This is his statement, after watching the replay of the tackle, from several angles:

"The tackle of Ruutu is an obvious boarding, also with the intent to injure.

It is the attacking player who is responsible and shall determine the force in his check. A worsening circumstance in this case is if someone enters as a third man (as Ruutu did). The attacked (Jagr) has as a rule all his focus on the battle along the boards with his closest opponent (and the puck) and is obviously almost defenseless."

Also, Ruutu took 9(!) steps with his skate before hitting. That's 3 more than the rules say is admitted.

All you who say "it was a clean hit, it's Jagrs own fault and he should keep his head up" know nothing of hockey. You are just goons/the mob/whatever who have obviously never played or been a ref yourself.
 
Last edited:

Borlag

Registered User
Jan 27, 2006
1,070
22
Helsinki, Funland
jepjepjoo said:
http://tuomas.kapsi.fi/Kuva1.jpg

Anyone would have hit from that position and the hit itself was clean

Let's just assume for a moment that Ruutu did not charge at him full speed (which he did). Jagr was fighting the puck with another Finn, who had the situation handled. Ruutu was also coming in partly from behind and partly from the side, Jagr didn't even have a chance to see him coming thus it's only natural that he looks down as that's where the puck was, along with the action. There was absolutely 0 need to check Jagr in the first place, all he had to do was go there and grab the puck which would've been extremely easy to do with 2 guys.

And yes, I'm Finnish, granted I'm not a Canucks fan but I am HIFK fan and I also used to play in HIFK (Ruutu's old team before NHL). Ruutu has always been known as a player who can play if he chooses to, but at other times something just snaps and he seems to lose all sense of judgement. This is one of those cases. Did he intentionally try to harm Jagr? I don't believe he did, he's not that dumb. Even when he goes for the cheapshot checks he tends to do it just to piss off the other team or that player so that they get a penalty. That's his style.

As for the smiling while skating away...that makes the whole situation look very bad, but like mentioned by others, he could've just as easily smiled at Straka's attempt to fight him. Anyone who follows hockey knows that Straka would have had his butt handed out to him.

Regardless of that, I saw it as a compeltely unneccessary check that was not just borderline cheapshot nor a borderline illegal hit, it was a blatant charging.
 

Flonaldo

Registered User
Chimp said:
Also, Ruutu took 9(!) steps with his skate before hitting. That's 3 more than the rules say is admitted.
Two. Exactly two. Count 'em, that's two. Two does not equal nine.

If you start counting all the strides players take during their shifts you'll get in to the 50's and every hit is charging. Two strides for the hit, yes, two. And neither was to gain extra speed for the hit, both were to change direction.
 

Flonaldo

Registered User
Borlag said:
Jagr was fighting the puck with another Finn, who had the situation handled. There was absolutely 0 need to check Jagr in the first place, all he had to do was go there and grab the puck which would've been extremely easy to do with 2 guys.
Look at the pic or the vid. Jagr has possession. Ruutu doesn't go for the hit and maybe two seconds from that moment the puck's behind Nitty. As you can see, it's not like Laaksonen is in control.
 

doom2

Registered User
Feb 12, 2005
52
0
Kuopio
Chimp said:
Also, Ruutu took 9(!) steps with his skate before hitting. That's 3 more than the rules say is admitted.

All you who say "it was a clean hit, it's Jagrs own fault and he should keep his head up" know nothing of hockey. You are just goons/the mob/whatever who have obviously never played or been a ref yourself.
What, you count every single step from the start of the shift to the point of impact? That's ridicilous. Ruutu winded up speed for 2 steps just before the hit. You cannot take into account the strides a player takes before he has even thought of checking someone. After Ruutu spots Jagr, and goes for the hit, it's 2 strides, not 9.

And for the record, I have played hockey, and I am a licensed referee as well. That check was clean. But you know, sometimes players get injured in hockey even when no rules are broken. Such cases as this. But I guess I'm still a goon that knows nothing of hockey, unlike you, who know a referee, instead of actually being one.
 

Chimpradamus

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
16,634
5,249
Northern Sweden
doom2 said:
What, you count every single step from the start of the shift to the point of impact? That's ridicilous. Ruutu winded up speed for 2 steps just before the hit. You cannot take into account the strides a player takes before he has even thought of checking someone. After Ruutu spots Jagr, and goes for the hit, it's 2 strides, not 9.

And for the record, I have played hockey, and I am a licensed referee as well. That check was clean. But you know, sometimes players get injured in hockey even when no rules are broken. Such cases as this. But I guess I'm still a goon that knows nothing of hockey, unlike you, who know a referee, instead of actually being one.
That argument is redicilous. Of course you can't count all the steps in the entire shift. You can, however, count all the steps he takes which has an impact on the bodycheck that he will deliver.

Do you think changing direction 30% nullifies all the speed he has picked up? What do you think the rule is there for?
 
Last edited:

Flonaldo

Registered User
Chimp said:
That argument is redicilous. Of course you can't count all the steps in the entire shift. You can, however, count all the steps he takes which has an impact on the bodycheck that he will deliver.

Do you think changing direction 30% nullifies all the speed he has picked up? What do you think the rule is there for?
You of course can, and you seem to. But that's not how the rule read when it was in the book. Ruutu was skating AWAY! from Jagr for those extra strides you seem to be counting...
 

Chimpradamus

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
16,634
5,249
Northern Sweden
This won't go anywhere. You will justify Ruutu's actions no matter what. If he so pulled up a gun and shot Jagr, you would still say it was according to the rules.

You seem to ignore the simple fact that Ruutu is responsible to use his judgement on the situation. He was a third man coming into the situation and he saw that Jagr had all his attention on the battle of the puck with the other Finnish player.

Ruutu didn't use his judgement, he did exactly the opposite.

I didn't cheer for neither the Czechs nor the Finns, I have nothing against Ruutu or any player, but Ruutu's boarding in this game was unforgivable.

It's funny how you use the word "away from Jagr". What do you consider "away"? "Not using all his speed directly towards a player?" Ruutu came in from the Czech goal, made a small turn, then made a turn on about 35 degrees and charged into Jagr. Do you think turning while overskating makes him lose that much speed?
 
Last edited:

doom2

Registered User
Feb 12, 2005
52
0
Kuopio
Chimp said:
That argument is redicilous. Of course you can't count all the steps in the entire shift. You can, however, count all the steps he takes which has an impact on the bodycheck that he will deliver.

Do you think changing direction 30% nullifies all the speed he has picked up? What do you think the rule is there for?

No offense, but if you're actually a licensed referee and think that was not boarding, I wonder how many of those hits you took to the head while playing. Where did you learn the rules of hockey?
I learned the rules of hockey from the IIHF rulebook. It's a book which I encourage you to study as well. The rulebook very clearly states that boarding is checking someone so that the opponent being checked is situated at a distance from the boards, which causes them to fly AT the boards. This rule is to prevent players flying at the boards, which is very dangerous, and players get paralyzed when they fly into the boards head first and break their neck. Jagr is not at a distance from the boards, he is standing right next to them. In fact, his skates are in CONTACT with the boards. This of course means that a boarding offense did NOT occur, since Jagr is in contact with the boards.

Also, I find it slightly amusing, that you, who are even not a licensed hockey referee, and have never taken a rule exam to test your knowledge of hockey rules (and passed), question MY knowledge of hockey rules. Where did YOU learn the rules of hockey?
 
Last edited:

edd1e

Registered User
Sep 11, 2004
2,206
68
Helsinki, Finland
Starshollow said:
That smug son of a.....

He´s a disgrace, laughing just after he rammed Jag´s head into the boards, making him bleed all over the ice.

i seriously doubt that he laughed to that, mayby that hug straka gave him?

You guys are just exaggerate this matter, it was a hit that went wrong from both players. i doubt that Ruutu wanted to get thrown away from an Olympic match.
 

JussiM

Registered User
Feb 1, 2006
724
0
Finland
Kostik said:
Only one's who are advocating ruutu are canucks fans and Finns(and some Jagr haters).
Come on...

Seriously, is it really that you have to be Finnish or a Canucks fan if you disagree? Or if that's not the case, then you're at least a Jagr hater?
 

Chimpradamus

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
16,634
5,249
Northern Sweden
Generally you say three kicks with the skates, but the number of the steps is not decisive. It is how violent the check is performed. If talking about elite players, even with 2-3 kicks, the check can be violent.

Haha, exactly where in the IIHF rulebook have you read ANYTHING about the importance of distance to the boards of the checked player?

Boarding is "A player who bodychecks, elbows, charges or trips an opponent in such a manner that it causes the opponent to be thrown violently into the boards, shall be assessed at the discretion of the referee, a:
- Minor penalty,

- Major penalty + Automatic Game Misconduct Penalty (5+GM)."

http://www.iihf.com/hockey/rules/offrules.htm

I have read the book. Have you? I'm glad I wouldn't have to play having you as a ref. If Jagr wasn't violently thrown into the boards by Ruutu and that wasn't a boarding, nothing is boarding.
 

doom2

Registered User
Feb 12, 2005
52
0
Kuopio
Chimp said:
Generally you say three kicks with the skates, but the number of the steps is not decisive. It is how violent the check is performed. If talking about elite players, even with 2-3 kicks, the check can be violent.

Haha, exactly where in the IIHF rulebook have you read ANYTHING about the importance of distance to the boards of the checked player? Boarding is "A player who bodychecks, elbows, charges or trips an opponent in such a manner that it causes the opponent to be thrown violently into the boards, shall be assessed at the discretion of the referee, a:
- Minor penalty,

- Major penalty + Automatic Game Misconduct Penalty (5+GM).

http://www.iihf.com/hockey/rules/offrules.htm

I have read the book. Have you? I'm glad I wouldn't have to play having you as a ref.
A player who bodychecks, elbows, charges or trips an opponent in such a manner that it causes the opponent to be thrown violently into the boards

Was Jagr violently THROWN in to the boards? No. Jagr could not have been thrown into the boards, as he was already in contact with the boards when Ruutu hit him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->