I don't agree with twabby about this, but you asked this question to one of like three people here who always makes arguments in good faith. Really, for your own sake, take a hard look at your own posts and try to grasp at whatever fleeting self-awareness you do have to see the irony here.
Are you saying I'm not sincere in my beliefs? I've been consistent and straightforward, haven't I?
Twabby is ignoring legitimate questions and twisting the facts (playing victim and misrepresenting posting rules) while also repeating specious and slanted logic (like the murder vs hockey angle), blatant evasive deflections (inluding pretending he hasn't been all about offense over/AS defense despite the EK and Kuzy stances), or outright falsehoods (such as repeating the lie that TW "clobbered" Carlo's head into the boards with his hands despite being shown that's not the case). He'll then post "told ya so" comments that aren't apt, just to get a rise, and call anyone who notes these behaviors a troll or "bad faith" (same thing).
This is textbook "bad faith" politician behavior, whether or not that's the intent.
Sorry for that remark. Back to topic. Is Florida calling GMBM to overpay for top-10 D in the league to replace Ekblad? They are both right handed, so the fit is perfect.
It's why killing a person while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol is punished more severely than a DUI where nobody is killed, and why a sober person following all traffic laws who runs over and kills a kid who jumps out in front of their car is typically not punished.
Forgetting for a second that law and hockey are not close to the same thing, following your train of thought, intent DOES matter in court. There are different tiers of punishment related to the intent behind a potentially criminal act.
As I and others have said many times, the rules allow for just about any hit to be called illegal, potentially after the fact (as was the case with the Carlo hit).
Another example: The ZAR hit was a mutual collision that was shoulder on shoulder and the force is what ultimately created unintended consequences for ZAR. If someone like Kuzy had initiated that exact same hit then the force probably wouldn't have driven through to ZAR's jaw or caused serious injury. So the MAIN DIFFERENCE there is the POWER behind the hit, not the legality of the technique, unless you fall back on the vague and open-ended wording of the rules that may allow the league to punish more powerful hitters.
You basically admitted Wilson had a case to not be punished at all for the ZAR hit because it could be called legal:
"Incidental" and "accidental" don't matter, Tom Wilson deserves no benefit of the doubt, and Carlo's responsibility for not lowering his head and causing the chain of hands-head-boards is "unreasonable":
Repeat offender Kane KO's Gudas with a blatant elbow that caused injury, was illegal, had intent to injure but you're OK with it being just a fine because Gudas was tough/dumb enough to play the next game through a likely concussion, which you claim to take seriously:
Here you're citing ZAR (mentioned above) and Blais. But iirc Blais did not miss any games for a hit similar to Carlo's, yet Wilson was suspended for 4 games despite not being a repeat offender at the time:
So it seems by connecting the dots you're NOT really focused entirely on legality as the major factor, but rather the severity of the injury, but only if it means missed games (though TW's oft-cited track record includes hits with no injury or missed time).
This all seems somewhat inconsistent whether you realize it or not. You're saying TW can hit legally with full force, but you're also saying he needs to dial it back because he's so powerful. You're saying legality is the key, but dismissing illegal hits, or mitigating with "reputation" and unique power as the deciding factor (though not with other legal moves like slappers).
Regardless, you totally ignored the facts presented to you regarding assumption of risk, and how laws to govern society are not parallel to the rules of a violent sport played by grown professionals. The former is much more complex than the latter, which carries an assumption of risk surrounding violent contact and injury, as well as "accidental" or "incidental" contact that causes injuries which are out of the players' control. Yet those things are "major" factors in punishment.
This does not seem like a fair way to handle things.
Forgetting for a second that law and hockey are not close to the same thing, following your train of thought, intent DOES matter in court. There are different tiers of punishment related to the intent behind a potentially criminal act.
As I and others have said many times, the rules allow for just about any hit to be called illegal, potentially after the fact (as was the case with the Carlo hit).
Another example: The ZAR hit was a mutual collision that was shoulder on shoulder and the force is what ultimately created unintended consequences for ZAR. If someone like Kuzy had initiated that exact same hit then the force probably wouldn't have driven through to ZAR's jaw or caused serious injury. So the MAIN DIFFERENCE there is the POWER behind the hit, not the legality of the technique, unless you fall back on the vague and open-ended wording of the rules that may allow the league to punish more powerful hitters.
You basically admitted Wilson had a case to not be punished at all for the ZAR hit because it could be called legal:
"Incidental" and "accidental" don't matter, Tom Wilson deserves no benefit of the doubt, and Carlo's responsibility for not lowering his head and causing the chain of hands-head-boards is "unreasonable":
Repeat offender Kane KO's Gudas with a blatant elbow that caused injury, was illegal, had intent to injure but you're OK with it being just a fine because Gudas was tough/dumb enough to play the next game through a likely concussion, which you claim to take seriously:
Here you're citing ZAR (mentioned above) and Blais. But iirc Blais did not miss any games for a hit similar to Carlo's, yet Wilson was suspended for 4 games despite not being a repeat offender at the time:
So it seems by connecting the dots you're NOT really focused entirely on legality as the major factor, but rather the severity of the injury, but only if it means missed games (though TW's oft-cited track record includes hits with no injury or missed time).
This all seems somewhat inconsistent whether you realize it or not. You're saying TW can hit legally with full force, but you're also saying he needs to dial it back because he's so powerful. You're saying legality is the key, but dismissing illegal hits, or mitigating with "reputation" and unique power as the deciding factor (though not with other legal moves like slappers).
Regardless, you totally ignored the facts presented to you regarding assumption of risk, and how laws to govern society are not parallel to the rules of a violent sport played by grown professionals. The former is much more complex than the latter, which carries an assumption of risk surrounding violent contact and injury, as well as "accidental" or "incidental" contact that causes injuries which are out of the players' control. Yet those things are "major" factors in punishment.
This does not seem like a fair way to handle things.
None of what you said, especially the bolded, follows from my past quotes that you cited. I never said intent doesn't matter, I said results (injury) also matter. You are arguing against a position I haven't taken.
You and I disagree with the legality of the hit on Carlo. That's fine. I thought Carlo was likely defenseless enough for the hit to be considered boarding, as did the NHL, and you think otherwise. I also said that since there is some level of doubt about the defenseless nature of Carlo, the NHL should not have thrown the book at Wilson (20+ games). And they didn't, they only gave him 7.
Regarding the Wilson hit on ZAR, here's my follow-up post:
I’m satisfied with the decision. The severity of the injury, his repeat offender status, and the video breakdown made it seem like 3 games was appropriate. I initially thought he shouldn’t be suspended but they actually introduced a new angle showing how much of the head he hit on initial contact.
The blue line camera made it clear that he made initial contact through the head of ZAR, not the shoulder. There's really nothing vague about it, and unlike you when I am presented with new evidence I am willing to change my opinion rather than stubbornly sticking with my initial assessment that it was "a mutual collision that was shoulder on shoulder and the force is what ultimately created unintended consequences for ZAR."
It's a really simple: was the hit legal? If so, no suspension. If it was illegal, then yes injury should play a factor. As should past history.
@txpd your “point” in the GDT was that teams aren’t targeting Fox, and you made that “point” by comparing him to a two time Norris finalist. I “ignored it” because you’re blind if you think teams aren’t trying to attack any puck carrying D in the league, and you’re also blind if you think Fox and Mike Green are particularly similar. Fox is an elite player for more than just his point totals, and this isn’t a dig on Green. Fox has taken just one penalty in his past 26 games. He’s incredibly good positionally, and incredibly good in terms of awareness. He doesn’t get himself isolated or caught out of position frequently. Since I know you don’t put any faith in defensive metrics, just watch a couple more Rangers game. The kid is the real deal, and anyone scoffing at that concept is out to lunch.
Opponents adjust. The search for a hole in your game and attack it. In every sport. In almost every case there is a hole there to be exposed. The question always is can the player in question adjust himself. We have seen this with Ovechkin. We have seen this recently with Juan Soto.
Fox is barely over 100 NHL games. He can be both the real deal and be successfully attacked. Time will tell and that is the point.
None of what you said, especially the bolded, follows from my past quotes that you cited. I never said intent doesn't matter, I said results (injury) also matter. You are arguing against a position I haven't taken.
You and I disagree with the legality of the hit on Carlo. That's fine. I thought Carlo was likely defenseless enough for the hit to be considered boarding, as did the NHL, and you think otherwise. I also said that since there is some level of doubt about the defenseless nature of Carlo, the NHL should not have thrown the book at Wilson (20+ games). And they didn't, they only gave him 7.
Regarding the Wilson hit on ZAR, here's my follow-up post:
The blue line camera made it clear that he made initial contact through the head of ZAR, not the shoulder. There's really nothing vague about it, and unlike you when I am presented with new evidence I am willing to change my opinion rather than stubbornly sticking with my initial assessment that it was "a mutual collision that was shoulder on shoulder and the force is what ultimately created unintended consequences for ZAR."
It's a really simple: was the hit legal? If so, no suspension. If it was illegal, then yes injury should play a factor. As should past history.
Totally missed that Bing got suspended for an elbow. Makes the $5K fine for McDavid look even worse. DoPS is worthless. Plus I guess the anti-Caps bias follows guys when they leave.
They haven't really played them poorly either, and many of their games were early in the season when the team was still getting accustomed to Laviolette's system. 3 of their losses were in OT/SO, 1 loss was in regulation, and their two wins were both in regulation.
The Bruins and the Islanders are the likely other playoff teams in the East. I think Boston is vulnerable, but not as much as Pittsburgh, and the Islanders will be the toughest out IMO.
Pittsburgh's blue line also seems by far the weakest of the three other teams likely to make the playoffs in the East
They haven't really played them poorly either, and many of their games were early in the season when the team was still getting accustomed to Laviolette's system. 3 of their losses were in OT/SO, 1 loss was in regulation, and their two wins were both in regulation.
The Bruins and the Islanders are the likely other playoff teams in the East. I think Boston is vulnerable, but not as much as Pittsburgh, and the Islanders will be the toughest out IMO.
Pittsburgh's blue line also seems by far the weakest of the three other teams likely to make the playoffs in the East
Ya I tend to agree. They also tend to put more effort against the Penguins then other teams. If they can get decent goaltending they should be able to get by them pretty easily.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
