There is something seriously wrong with the culture of this team.

[Megaterio Llamas]

What does Kotkaniemi being 18 have anything to do with this?

And "attack" is a broad term. Is a face wash an attack? Jersey grab? Scrum? No one is advocating taking a two hander to his head. Well, most aren't, anyway.

Yeah exactly. I think people would just like to see some emotion when the franchise gets wrecked instead of Brandon Sutter's philosophical takes.

And yes if an 18 year old isn't an adult what they hell is he doing in the NHL? What're you supposed do with him exactly? Not advocating beating him up, but just blowing it off again was extremely discouraging...

 

[bandwagonesque]

You are proceeding to beg the question your way through this. It's simple, when someone makes the claim, "we know X player's intent was to...", they are wrong. I'm addressing the claim here. You're not wrong, but you aren't referencing the initial claim.





What does Kotkaniemi being 18 have anything to do with this?

And "attack" is a broad term. Is a face wash an attack? Jersey grab? Scrum? No one is advocating taking a two hander to his head. Well most aren't, anyway.

If we say we know anything with certainty we're wrong. It's a non-sequitur. We don't look for that standard anywhere in life. We're on a hockey message board, not in a physics classroom. We make inferences and debate whether they are likely to be true. The standard you're proposing is nonsensical and you know it.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

If we say we know anything with certainty we're wrong. It's a non-sequitur. We don't look for that standard anywhere in life. We're on a hockey message board, not in a physics classroom. We make inferences and debate whether they are likely to be true. The standard you're proposing is nonsensical and you know it.

To me it looked like a standard body lock and outside trip takedown and the legs were just tangled unfortunately. Leg injuries are fairly common on the mat in grappling competitions with this type of takedown as the legs do tend to get tangled up.

 

[Bleach Clean]

If we say we know anything with certainty we're wrong. It's a non-sequitur. We don't look for that standard anywhere in life. We're on a hockey message board, not in a physics classroom. We make inferences and debate whether they are likely to be true. The standard you're proposing is nonsensical and you know it.

It's the same standard you claim to employ here. If we are being precise, don't say "know". Infer, interpret, guess, but don't say you know. It's quite simple. Follow your own alleged method here, be precise. Or, don't dare call out others here for a lack of precision. That type of stance wreaks of hypocrisy.

When we are not begging the question on our way to a rationalization: People are welcome to completely appeal to Pettersson's interview. I do not begrudge them that inference. I'll appeal to the Botchford/Paterson take. In that sense, I am not 100% sure that there was no ill-intent whatsoever in Kotkaniemi's mind at the time of the incident. I'm prepared to accept that as my best guess.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

 

[Cancuks]

Benning will be in for an eye opener if this team does manage to sneak into the playoffs. We'll get steamrolled and beat down. Then we'll be hearing all summer about how we need more toughness and we need to play the Winnipeg or Nashville "model" and I'm sure we'll see some boneheaded trades for some big bodies. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Kimota]

You are proceeding to beg the question your way through this. It's simple, when someone makes the claim, "we know X player's intent was to...", they are wrong. I'm addressing the claim here. You're not wrong, but you aren't referencing the initial claim.





What does Kotkaniemi being 18 have anything to do with this?

And "attack" is a broad term. Is a face wash an attack? Jersey grab? Scrum? No one is advocating taking a two hander to his head. Well most aren't, anyway.

Or you just let it go cause it's a nothing play. I mean at a time when there was more goonery in this league in the 90s, hooking was rampant and you would see players get tangled all the times like this and players would fall and get injured and I have never seen retaliation on stuff like that. It's part of the game. This is not a hit or anything like that.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

powerbombs

 

[mossey3535]

It’s interesting hearing Green talk. When @sting101 pointed out that he's heard that this is a top down directive, I did some digging. I found the post Matheson hit video where Green is "just as upset as the fans". Here it is:

In this video, Green stops short of saying that they chose to focus on winning the game instead of exacting a toll on the opposition.

- First, he says the players didn't know what happened.
- Then he says that he couldn't find his Ipad to see the hit.
- Then he says they scored.
- After that, it's platitudes "team plays to win the game" "winning teams are hard to play against" "hard to play against is a burning desire to win" etc...
- "Oh, and I want our group to stick up for each other"
- "I'm as mad as anyone, but I stick by what happened the other night" (no push back)
- "Not going to comment on retribution" (obviously)

So even when he's allegedly irate, he's going to push for the win. That means no needless penalties. Draw your conclusions from there...

Angry or compassionate, Green will push the team to win, first and foremost. The "stick up for your teammates" part is secondary.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

Or you just let it go cause it's a nothing play. I mean at a time when there was more goonery in this league in the 90s, hooking was rampant and you would see players get tangled all the times like this and players would fall and get injured and I have never seen retaliation on stuff like that. It's part of the game. This is not a hit or anything like that.

Don't recollect seeing you here before fren.

Welcome to the Canucks board

 

[Kimota]

Don't recollect seeing you here before fren.

Welcome to the Canucks board

Alright cool.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Or you just let it go cause it's a nothing play. I mean at a time when there was more goonery in this league in the 90s, hooking was rampant and you would see players get tangled all the times like this and players would fall and get injured and I have never seen retaliation on stuff like that. It's part of the game. This is not a hit or anything like that.

That play was suspect. Kotkaniemi wants to engage out of the play and he reaches across to pull Pettersson down. He then slashes Hutton who is coming over. It's not completely innocent. Then again, I don't think it's as overtly malicious as a Cooke blind side hit. It's just... suspicious.

Now, suspicious doesn't warrant a beating. Neither does the injury. A scrum would have sufficed. A face wash. A talking to. Something. Or, just completely let it go and try to win the game straight up - which they did. I would prefer the Canucks to just pick a mode and stick to it. That is more the criticism I have.

Kotkaniemi is more or less window dressing to the larger discussion at hand. This has happened before with this team.

 

[Kimota]

That play was suspect. Kotkaniemi wants to engage out of the play and he reaches across to pull Pettersson down. He then slashes Hutton who is coming over. It's not completely innocent. Then again, I don't think it's as overtly malicious as a Cooke blind side hit. It's just... suspicious.

Now, suspicious doesn't warrant a beating. Neither does the injury. A scrum would have sufficed. A face wash. A talking to. Something. Or, just completely let it go and try to win the game straight up - which they did. I would prefer the Canucks to just pick a mode and stick to it. That is more the criticism I have.

Kotkaniemi is more or less window dressing to the larger discussion at hand. This has happened before with this team.

It's a nothing play. Of course guys want to go hard at each other, doesn't mean there was intent to injure. Again with all the hooking that used to happen in the 90s, plays like that would happen all the time cause interference would never be called, you could actually touch guys. So now we are gonna go crazy cause guys are touching each other? Aren't these men?

 

[Intangibos]

Why are people seemingly unaware that finishing your checks and playing a bit of a physical chippy game is different than hunting down and murdering an 18 year old?

 

[xtra]

So those saying you can’t pushback on an 18 year old can you clarify what age is it ok to push back on?
19?
20?
21?
22?
Etc?

If you can’t define a line then throwing out that he’s 18 is kinda pointless

 

[SillyRabbit]

Why are people seemingly unaware that finishing your checks and playing a bit of a physical chippy game is different than hunting down and murdering an 18 year old?

It’s the same kind of blind homerism that causes people to defend Benning.

Some people cannot accept that their team or franchise is capable of any wrongdoing.

Therefore, whatever they did, or didn’t do, has to be the correct move.

Canucks didn’t respond? It’s because no response was necessary.

Benning hasn’t rebuilt the team properly and has pissed away assets like they’re candy? It’s because he was given absolutely nothing to work with and those assets had no value anyway.

Some people are just not capable of the objective thinking necessary to criticize and critique their favourite team. To them, blindly supporting every action or inaction is what makes them a true fan.

 

[Intangibos]

It’s the same kind of blind homerism that causes people to defend Benning.

Some people cannot accept that their team or franchise is capable of any wrongdoing.

Therefore, whatever they did, or didn’t do, has to be the correct move.

Canucks didn’t respond? It’s because no response was necessary.

Benning hasn’t rebuilt the team properly and has pissed away assets like they’re candy? It’s because he was given absolutely nothing to work with and those assets had no value anyway.

Some people are just not capable of the objective thinking necessary to criticize and critique their favourite team. To them, blindly supporting every action or inaction is what makes them a true fan.

It's like not wanting to have picked Virtanen or Juolevi will make you Benning haters/Gillis lovers even if you were fans of the Pettersson/Hughes picks.

Always need to claim irrationality and get a little meaningless quip that is borderline off-topic to the discussion rather than stay on point and attack the argument

 

[ErrantShepherd]

Man, strawmen and completely off-topic diatribes towards various bases that may or may not be my base are fun.

Anyways, culture or lack of culture exists, sure. But do we actually have a sense of this team's culture from three separate incidents this season with Matheson, Martel and Kotkaniemi? Doubtful. This isn't the same core, or same team from years past, so claiming it to be just more of the same is conflating past experience with this, and just a little reactionary. But that's just my opinion.

Kudos to the people trying to actually have a discussion about this even if our opinions differed.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Thats the gritty character guy Klingberg responding to a pretty clean hit on Benn.

 

[Svencouver]

Ok, so a big clean hit warrants a retaliation. Why? Why is a clean hockey play deserving of retaliation? This is the hypocrisy I find with the "deserves" portion of this argument. A clean hit does not deserve retaliation. It is a hockey play. If you want to call the Kotkaniemi/Pettersson play a hockey play, an accident that is just part of the game, then you must relinquish your fervor if/when Pettersson gets absolutely demolished by a hockey hit... But we know this to be near impossible to do. You have highlighted this yourself. This is why "deserve" has very little to do with the expected reaction.

If you can't assume Kotkaniemi's intent, stop doing so.

I don't care about Kotkaniemi's intent. I will never know it, and neither will you. Hell, Matheson says that his intent was not to harm Pettersson. You believe him? Your interpretation of intent is irrelevant. Intent does not matter. This isn't a murder trial, it's hockey. If the action is perceived to be dubious or overt in any fashion, this team must act.

Some parts of this team are built to retaliate. If those parts do not react, these additional aspects like leadership, toughness, etc... are of no tangible value in the game. Get rid of them for this reason. On the other hand, I'm perfectly content watching a team that chooses to turn the other cheek every time, like the 2011 Canucks. Just build the team accordingly. That is my frustration.

I literally explained why a clean hit would have been worthy of physical retaliation in my post. If someone shows the intent of "I want to hit your star players hard", even if its cleanly, you don't just lie down and play a passive game in response. You have to play to their physicality so you dont get rolled over. This is what it means to stick up for your guys. The difference with the KK incident is that there is more than likely nothing to react to in the first place. As I said before, would you expect this team to "react" if Pettersson just fell down on his own and twisted his ankle?

The strange thing about this whole discussion is that we've literally seen the team react in the precise way you want it to when Stecher got hit by Martel. Do you know why the team reacted then and not now? Because there was actually something there in the first place to react to. The lightning were sending a message with their play and we responded. I simply do not understand how we can ignore this incident while condemning this one.

 

[Bleach Clean]

It's a nothing play. Of course guys want to go hard at each other, doesn't mean there was intent to injure. Again with all the hooking that used to happen in the 90s, plays like that would happen all the time cause interference would never be called, you could actually touch guys. So now we are gonna go crazy cause guys are touching each other? Aren't these men?

So a scrum is now "going crazy"? Aren't these men?

I don't think there was an intent to injure by Kotkaniemi, but I do think there was an intent to be a stupid fool. This is just from analyzing what happened. If he's smarter there, that play doesn't happen. There's no reason for him to try and get tangled up there. He's being stupid. Do stupid plays happen? Yes. Scrums, shouting at the bench, getting in the face of the goalie, face washes, grabbing jerseys etc... also happen. Why say that the stupid Kotka play is the only stupid play that should happen? Why not let it all happen? These are men, right?

I think you need to let go of the fact that not everyone sees that play as you do. I'm quite familiar with 90s hockey. I'm also familiar with what is interference now. Yet, we don't have the same opinion on this play... fascinating.

I literally explained why a clean hit would have been worthy of physical retaliation in my post. If someone shows the intent of "I want to hit your star players hard", even if its cleanly, you don't just lie down and play a passive game in response. You have to play to their physicality so you dont get rolled over. This is what it means to stick up for your guys. The difference with the KK incident is that there is more than likely nothing to react to in the first place. As I said before, would you expect this team to "react" if Pettersson just fell down on his own and twisted his ankle?

The strange thing about this whole discussion is that we've literally seen the team react in the precise way you want it to when Stecher got hit by Martel. Do you know why the team reacted then and not now? Because there was actually something there in the first place to react to. The lightning were sending a message with their play and we responded. I simply do not understand how we can ignore this incident while condemning this one.

It's very obvious: Consistency. What did the team do after the Matheson hit? Borowecki? After Boeser got hit last year? Nothing.

I know you explained why you think a clean hit deserves a response. I completely understood that explanation. In fact, I expected you to respond in that way. What you are not understanding is that the question was meant to show you why consistency is more important than subjectivity.

I'll explain: You're saying that there was nothing to react to with the Kotka hit. Ok. I disagree. We are two fans that see it differently. However, can we agree that it may have been suspicious? That there was at least a reason to look for the video post-hit? If you're saying no, then you are answering in a way not even consistent with the way the players answered. They all looked at the video. So did the coach. And so, if it's enough to seek out clarification post-hit, to me, it's enough to scrum over. It's enough to get in the guys face over. That's what I'm saying.

People that think that only the plays that outright "deserve" a reaction should be addressed are misaligned with how the league actually works. There has never been a one to one correlation between deserves and response. Exhibit A: Matheson. So why worry so much about deserves? You think a clean hit deserves a retaliation. I bet you there are many old-schoolers that would disagree with you. Clean is clean. It was only in the new era that players started fighting over clean hits. You see? There will always be a difference in perception. But I'm more OK with this team reacting to anything suspect first, and then hashing out the court of public opinion later.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

There’s nothing wrong with turning the other cheek, it’s a different culture than most NHL teams have had historically but it’s not “wrong” it’s acually classy and progressive and it personifies the legacy the Sedins left. If you don’t like it then maybe watch WWE instead because hockey is hockey not boxing or MMA.

 

[MadaCanuckle]

There’s nothing wrong with turning the other cheek, it’s a different culture than most NHL teams have had historically but it’s not “wrong” it’s acually classy and progressive and it personifies the legacy the Sedins left. If you don’t like it then maybe watch WWE instead because hockey is hockey not boxing or MMA.

If your GM didn't traded for someone to make a safe environment to your prospects, you could say that (it would be stupid but at least it would made some logic). But can we go back and get the introductory press conferences after trading for Gudbranson and Sutter, to name a few? Roussel does ring any bell? Beagle? You are really saying that after those press conferences, or the Sutter statement some time ago? Pathetic.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

If your GM didn't traded for someone to make a safe environment to your prospects, you could say that (it would be stupid but at least it would made some logic). But can we go back and get the introductory press conferences after trading for Gudbranson and Sutter, to name a few? Roussel does ring any bell? Beagle? You are really saying that after those press conferences, or the Sutter statement some time ago? Pathetic.

The NHL is clearly transitioning to a more progressive outlook on body contact and fighting. Benning is smart enough to know this so when he went and got tough guys like Gudbranson and Dorsett and Roussell he made sure they had speed and skill so they could play hockey too when the time came that their fighting isn’t needed as much anymore.

Lots of Benning haters try their best to make it seem like Benning contradicts himself but there’s no contradiction here. Even if there was, which there isn’t, adapting to new developments in the league is exactly what a good manager does.

 

[pgj98m3]

The NHL is clearly transitioning to a more progressive outlook on body contact and fighting. Benning is smart enough to know this so when he went and got tough guys like Gudbranson and Dorsett and Roussell he made sure they had speed and skill so they could play hockey too when the time came that their fighting isn’t needed as much anymore.

Lots of Benning haters try their best to make it seem like Benning contradicts himself but there’s no contradiction here. Even if there was, which there isn’t, adapting to new developments in the league is exactly what a good manager does.

Did you really use the words speed and skill referring to Gudbranson.....that is the stupidest thing anyone has said.