GDT: wascar | Game 4 ECQF

Surrounded By Ahos

Las Vegas Desert Ducks Official Team Poster
Sponsor
May 24, 2008
26,373
81,525
Koko Miami
Caps players, coaches and fans should just shut up now with this "intent to injure" nonsense.

Let's review all 4 prior ganes and hand out punishment then. Start here.....


The only difference is that Faulk wasn’t Bambi on skates, so he didn’t go into the boards and break his collarbone.
 

ONO94

Registered User
Jan 18, 2010
821
1,457
Caps players, coaches and fans should just shut up now with this "intent to injure" nonsense.

Let's review all 4 prior ganes and hand out punishment then. Start here.....



Well, Faulk actully hadn't touched the puck yet--and never did touch the puck--so that's different. And Wilson came from the blue line to make the hit on somebody he wasn't engaged with--so that's different. And really--according to Caps fans--Faulk is supposed to face up to Wilson to allow himself to be checked--even though he had not actually played the puck or even stopped Wilson from actually playing the puck--so that's different.
 

My Special Purpose

Registered User
Apr 8, 2008
8,151
21,787
Caps players, coaches and fans should just shut up now with this "intent to injure" nonsense.

Let's review all 4 prior ganes and hand out punishment then. Start here.....



I'm as big a Canes homer as anyone here, but this isn't a bad hit in any way, shape or form. Faulk knows the hit is coming, sees the hit coming, tries to brace for a "reverse hit," but loses to a guy with way more momentum, and ends up spinning off the hit into the boards. It wasn't a hit from behind, wasn't a head hit, wasn't boarding, nobody left their feet. You *could* make a case for charging, but with what's going on in this series, I don't think either team would want anything called on this play.
 

NotOpie

"Puck don't lie"
Jun 12, 2006
9,259
17,782
North Carolina
I'm as big a Canes homer as anyone here, but this isn't a bad hit in any way, shape or form. Faulk knows the hit is coming, sees the hit coming, tries to brace for a "reverse hit," but loses to a guy with way more momentum, and ends up spinning off the hit into the boards. It wasn't a hit from behind, wasn't a head hit, wasn't boarding, nobody left their feet. You *could* make a case for charging, but with what's going on in this series, I don't think either team would want anything called on this play.
The puck was no where in the vicinity and he hadn't even recently played it during the sequence. I think one of either charging or interference would have been the appropriate call. Given that Faulk was essentially facing him, the rest of the assessment seems accurate.
 

My Special Purpose

Registered User
Apr 8, 2008
8,151
21,787
The puck was no where in the vicinity and he hadn't even recently played it during the sequence. I think one of either charging or interference would have been the appropriate call. Given that Faulk was essentially facing him, the rest of the assessment seems accurate.

It was actually a *puck battle*. Faulk was protecting the puck. He actually made a play on the puck -- and a good one -- as he hit the boards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VAcaniac

TheBigKahuna

Registered User
Dec 6, 2010
3,814
4,001
Canes Country
I'm as big a Canes homer as anyone here, but this isn't a bad hit in any way, shape or form. Faulk knows the hit is coming, sees the hit coming, tries to brace for a "reverse hit," but loses to a guy with way more momentum, and ends up spinning off the hit into the boards. It wasn't a hit from behind, wasn't a head hit, wasn't boarding, nobody left their feet. You *could* make a case for charging, but with what's going on in this series, I don't think either team would want anything called on this play.
You're wrong, but that's ok.

If that's a perfectly good hit, then everyone just needs to shut up about Foegeles hit. It was much less dirty.
 

NotOpie

"Puck don't lie"
Jun 12, 2006
9,259
17,782
North Carolina
It was actually a *puck battle*. Faulk was protecting the puck. He actually made a play on the puck -- and a good one -- as he hit the boards.
Right, my characterization of "no where in the vicinity" was inaccurate. The point still remains, he hadn't played it yet. And you're also right about the good play he made on the puck.

As hard as we've all been on Faulk, he played a pretty great game last night.
 

WreckingCrew

Registered User
Feb 4, 2015
12,245
37,685
I'm as big a Canes homer as anyone here, but this isn't a bad hit in any way, shape or form. Faulk knows the hit is coming, sees the hit coming, tries to brace for a "reverse hit," but loses to a guy with way more momentum, and ends up spinning off the hit into the boards. It wasn't a hit from behind, wasn't a head hit, wasn't boarding, nobody left their feet. You *could* make a case for charging, but with what's going on in this series, I don't think either team would want anything called on this play.
Why wouldn't it qualify as boarding? It doesn't have to be a hit from behind...
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,351
97,869
So I re-watched part of the game. There was a stretch in the 1st, where the Canes, inexplicably played for probably 20 seconds with only 4 guys on the ice. Staal and Foegele were out there and I think Williams had gone off, but nobody came on (not sure about that as it was shortly after a Canes PP). Finally, Patrick Brown jumps over the wall and races in just in time to lift the stick of a guy taking a shot. John and Tripp were oblivious to the fact that the Canes only had 4 players on the ice they rave about the play Brown made and Tripp says "Talk about starting on-time". LOL, as it was exactly opposite of what happened (assuming Brown was the guy that was supposed to be on the ice). That was right before the too many men penalty so things on the bench were obviously messed up for a bit there.

And then later Tripp doubled down by saying "you won't see a better change than the one by Brown though."
 

Svechhammer

THIS is hockey?
Jun 8, 2017
23,749
87,415
So I re-watched part of the game. There was a stretch in the 1st, where the Canes, inexplicably played for probably 20 seconds with only 4 guys on the ice. Staal and Foegele were out there and I think Williams had gone off, but nobody came on (not sure about that as it was shortly after a Canes PP). Finally, Patrick Brown jumps over the wall and races in just in time to lift the stick of a guy taking a shot. John and Tripp were oblivious to the fact that the Canes only had 4 players on the ice they rave about the play Brown made and Tripp says "Talk about starting on-time". LOL, as it was exactly opposite of what happened (assuming Brown was the guy that was supposed to be on the ice). That was right before the too many men penalty so things on the bench were obviously messed up for a bit there.

And then later Tripp doubled down by saying "you won't see a better change than the one by Brown though."
Brown just waited for his moment

8KO9Gs1.jpg
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad