Phaneuf steamrolls Okposo

Dawg's Wife wrote:
Well don't be surprised if he doesn't get a big suspension. There were 2 players who were leaving the ice, and the NHL will have to prove that he wasn't going on the ice for his shift anyway.

Oops, sorry for smeeking. By the way, that is a weird avatar. Mesmerizing much like Hemlock's stick-man used to be, and nearly as disturbing. Is that Vincent Price?

wprager wrote:

DirtyDave wrote:

wprager wrote:Plus Bell hit a player that's near and dear to our hearts, where's most of us don't even know how to spell Okposo.

excellent point!!! At least Okpoopo had players jump on the ice to stick up for him.

You had to remind me of that, eh?

this year better be different if Yabo sticks around in Bingo, not saying he will make the big club, but he better be the 1st call up for playing the meathead teams.

wprager wrote:

Vandelay wrote:

wprager wrote:

Vandelay wrote:
Ya, I've gotta agree with N4L on this one. If we take your suggestion, you're basically removing body contact from hockey. Penalizing players if their feet leave the ice after a hit means it's now become non body contact hockey. Non body contact usually still has a little nudging and contact along the boards but that's about it because anything more is a penalty...which is basically what you're advocating. Anything heavier than that and you run the risk of your skates leaving the ice due to a slight loss of balance after the hit.

Not sure I would say it was Okposo's fault. He was in a compromising position because he wanted puck pocession and just got nudged by the back checker. Not really anyone's fault. Just a good clean, open ice hockey hit. That said, as was the case with Scott Stevens, you have to know who's on the ice and be prepared for that big hit at all times.

Sorry, Vandelay, but I've got to call a huge BS on that bolded part.

Hahaha...okay, fair enough. Would you care to elaborate?

You are saying that eliminating jump-up hits will remove body contact from the game. And that's BS. What's there to elaborate?

He didnt jump at all man. What Downie did was jump. Phaneuf laid the guy out, that's it. 100% clean. It's not even an opinion, his skates were on the ice.

Here, same thing and totally legal. More than an acceptable hit.

wprager wrote:

Vandelay wrote:

wprager wrote:

Vandelay wrote:
Ya, I've gotta agree with N4L on this one. If we take your suggestion, you're basically removing body contact from hockey. Penalizing players if their feet leave the ice after a hit means it's now become non body contact hockey. Non body contact usually still has a little nudging and contact along the boards but that's about it because anything more is a penalty...which is basically what you're advocating. Anything heavier than that and you run the risk of your skates leaving the ice due to a slight loss of balance after the hit.

Not sure I would say it was Okposo's fault. He was in a compromising position because he wanted puck pocession and just got nudged by the back checker. Not really anyone's fault. Just a good clean, open ice hockey hit. That said, as was the case with Scott Stevens, you have to know who's on the ice and be prepared for that big hit at all times.

Sorry, Vandelay, but I've got to call a huge BS on that bolded part.

Hahaha...okay, fair enough. Would you care to elaborate?

You are saying that eliminating jump-up hits will remove body contact from the game. And that's BS. What's there to elaborate?

No, no. I didn't say that. I said that what you were saying would basically eliminate body contact from the game all together. Don't remember what you said? I kindly bolded it for you in my first post but just to refresh, the quote was:

"Penalize players when their feet leave the ice (both feet) after a hit. Make it illegal "

Allow me to Elaborate for you:
This would be a very difficult rule to enforce, first off. Second, by saying players can't let their feet off the ice at any point after a hit is saying that the player needs to have complete control of the angle they're coming in at, the speed, the arm thrust, and 100% awareness of where the player is at in terms of angle to the checker and body position. If they aren't fully aware of all these things, it won't be perfect contact, thus the chance of losing slight control and feet leaving the ice. In a high speed sport where adrenaline is pounding, that's impossible. We see it all the time...adrenaline and emotion takes precedent over logic.

The result, which you proposed would be to penalize the player, in most cases wouldn't be worth the risk, eliminating contact all together. In a high speed sport where adrenaline is pounding, that's impossible.

Vandy, you're 100% correct man. If you decide that a hit like that is illegal then hitting is illegal.

Wprager, you can say he left his feet all you want or it was dirty, but taking that hit out of the game means body contact is gone, period.

Nah, not buying it (that taking that hit out means taking hitting out).

And "difficult" is not a good enough reason when guys are getting carried out on a stretcher.

You would have loved it back in Roman times.

wprager wrote:Nah, not buying it (that taking that hit out means taking hitting out).

And "difficult" is not a good enough reason when guys are getting carried out on a stretcher.

You would have loved it back in Roman times.

K, don't buy it and be ignorant to the facts. If you dont agree with guys getting injured (and injured badly) while playing hockey, then dont watch. It's part of the game.

What happend there WAS TEXT BOOK BODY CONTACT! If that was any more of a perfect hit God would have been delivering it.

If you want to see glorified shinny, then watch mens league. A lot of skilled guys out there afraid of taking that hit and anything like it.

http://www.odmha.on.ca/

There ya go, if you want to take that hit out of the game, that's where you start on Ottawa

I played top level hockey all the way to Jr. and that's exactly how we were taught to hit. Lower the the shoulder and drive through. That's what Phaneuf did, his momentum carried him over the putz.

If you decide not to write anything to the ODMHA about the hitting, you can always ask them to teach kids to skate with their heads up going through the middle of the ice.

N4L wrote:
K, don't buy it and be ignorant to the facts. If you dont agree with guys getting injured (and injured badly) while playing hockey, then dont watch. It's part of the game.

What happend there WAS TEXT BOOK BODY CONTACT! If that was any more of a perfect hit God would have been delivering it.

If you want to see glorified shinny, then watch mens league. A lot of skilled guys out there afraid of taking that hit and anything like it.

I'll keep telling you over and over again that these little quips aren't necessary in a good hockey convo until eventually you stop.

SpezDispenser wrote:

N4L wrote:
K, don't buy it and be ignorant to the facts. If you dont agree with guys getting injured (and injured badly) while playing hockey, then dont watch. It's part of the game.

What happend there WAS TEXT BOOK BODY CONTACT! If that was any more of a perfect hit God would have been delivering it.

If you want to see glorified shinny, then watch mens league. A lot of skilled guys out there afraid of taking that hit and anything like it.

I'll keep telling you over and over again that these little quips aren't necessary in a good hockey convo until eventually you stop.

That's so not rude or inaccurate in any way. It is absolute ignorance saying something like that when KIDS are taught how to hit like that from the time they are 10 and on. Obviously it's not that vicious of a hit when you're 10 because of the physics of it all, but I take acception to saying "not buying it".

I put up a link, if he wants to educate himself on things, fantastic, but as it stands he doesnt know a thing about body contact in hockey.

N4L wrote:

wprager wrote:Nah, not buying it (that taking that hit out means taking hitting out).

And "difficult" is not a good enough reason when guys are getting carried out on a stretcher.

You would have loved it back in Roman times.

K, don't buy it and be ignorant to the facts. If you dont agree with guys getting injured (and injured badly) while playing hockey, then dont watch. It's part of the game.

What happend there WAS TEXT BOOK BODY CONTACT! If that was any more of a perfect hit God would have been delivering it.

If you want to see glorified shinny, then watch mens league. A lot of skilled guys out there afraid of taking that hit and anything like it.

Hey, the game of hockey doesn't belong to *you*. I have just the same right to say it doesn't belong as you have to saying it does. Saying I'm ignorant of the facts is lame. I disagree with you; you disagree with me. There is no ignorance there.

Just avoid the word 'ignorant' in any way. Trust me, people will respect what you say more.

wprager wrote:

N4L wrote:

wprager wrote:Nah, not buying it (that taking that hit out means taking hitting out).

And "difficult" is not a good enough reason when guys are getting carried out on a stretcher.

You would have loved it back in Roman times.

K, don't buy it and be ignorant to the facts. If you dont agree with guys getting injured (and injured badly) while playing hockey, then dont watch. It's part of the game.

What happend there WAS TEXT BOOK BODY CONTACT! If that was any more of a perfect hit God would have been delivering it.

If you want to see glorified shinny, then watch mens league. A lot of skilled guys out there afraid of taking that hit and anything like it.

Hey, the game of hockey doesn't belong to *you*. I have just the same right to say it doesn't belong as you have to saying it does. Saying I'm ignorant of the facts is lame. I disagree with you; you disagree with me. There is no ignorance there.

If you disagree that hit doesnt belong in the game, thats fine, I can deal with that. Saying it wont effect all body contact in the game is absolutly an ignorant statement.

People make ignorant sound like a bad word, it's a lack of knowledge, that's it. I don't blame you for not knowing, I'm simply telling you that you dont know what kids are taught at the highest levels of hockey. It wont change in the NHL before it changes in minor hockey, I garentee that

We need a customizable filter list in the user options.

N4L wrote:Here, same thing and totally legal. More than an acceptable hit.

To me, that's the same type of hit Phaneuf dished out last night. Didn't leave his skates BEFORE the hit, but they come up naturally with the follow through after.

Clean, hard, devastating.

If you liked that hit, you have to like the Phaneuf hit.

It's what they do.

Absolutely. I'm not trying to be confrintational here, rude, w/e you wanna call it. The SIMPLE fact is that is as text book a hit as you will ever see. If that's not aloud then body contact should not be taught at all to kids or teens.

The word "ignorant" does not mean lacking in knowledge, at least not exactly. There is a further implication that the facts are freely available but the person chooses to ignore them. So, yes, you may not mean to offend but the word is offensive.

Earlier in the thread I agreed that this was 100% the way the kids are being taught to hit since peewee. Yes, I understand that it has to change in the minors. But it's already changed in the OHL, right? Are there no hits in the OHL?