Spring Forward!
by PPP on Mar 14, 2010 8:00 AM EDT
in From The Branches
131 comments
This is the worst morning of the year. We all lose one hour of sleep but that's not even the worst part. The next two days will feature forgotten appointments, dangerously sleepy people using dangerous machinery (including cars), and messed up PVRs. That last one is the worst.
But while you think about how terrible this morning is keep in mind that the best solution is to read all of these links:
- I forgot to post this earlier but in honour of Friend of the Blog Pat Quinn's first return to Toronto here is the interview that landed him the title.
- Junior shines a bright light on Tyler Bozak.
- Once upon the Oilers were good. It's true!
- One time I was playing laser tag at Canada's Wonderland and running around (not allowed) when I ran into a brick wall. Turns out it was this guy.
- Brian Burke Binoculars. Are you telling me that you wouldn't buy a pair?
- Do you prefer countless mini-scrums or a few real bouts?
- LOLHabsFans. So so dumb.
- This kind of reads like Goofus and Gallant from Highlights. And only idiots didn't want the Sedins to sign this summer.
- Bob Probert does not understand how the ninth step works.
0 recs |
131 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Spam filter: priceless.
jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog
"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator)
by jrwendelman on Mar 14, 2010 10:01 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
I’d like to see someone do a photoshop of what the game looks like through them. Also.. NICE!
Phaneuf Phever, an upgrade in skill and alliteration!
It looks like there’s six Wendel Clarks on the ice at once, and instead of hockey sticks they’re all holding claymores.
Can it before I drive this truculence through your faceulence and put you in an ambulance.
by Brunswick Bruiser on Mar 14, 2010 10:58 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I don't know...
Burke was looking at Colton Orr with them, and I hear that if you do that with real truculence magnifiers, it causes them to explode.
Phaneuf Phever, an upgrade in skill and alliteration!
Sorry, everyone else. Chances are your GM sucks compared to Brian Burke.
Hahaha this made me laugh.
Leafs Nation: A drinking team with a hockey problem.
I would rec that line if it was rec-able. So good.
Phaneuf Phever, an upgrade in skill and alliteration!
New video up.
It revolves around Bob Probert reading letters to the people he wronged over the years. I’m thinking of making
it a weekly thing so if you get a chance let me know what you think.
Anywhoo….if you could toss it up on tomorrow mornings links I would be forever in your debt.
http://www.blogesalming.com/2010/03/ninth-step-with-bob-probert-episode-1.html
Thanks guys,
Jeff
Works now
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
See what happens when you let a monkey play with the internet…
by Bloge Salming on Mar 14, 2010 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions
if you let a thousand of them play with it, they’ll create a blog about shakespeare.. and your keyboards will be covered with bananas and feces
Dmitri Yushkevich was so tough, he once blocked a Chuck Norris kick with his teeth and finished the shift.
by AkiSchennberg on Mar 14, 2010 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
it only takes one to create a video blog that has videos that are marked private…
by Bloge Salming on Mar 14, 2010 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
who the fuck is jeff.. i thought you were bloge
Dmitri Yushkevich was so tough, he once blocked a Chuck Norris kick with his teeth and finished the shift.
by AkiSchennberg on Mar 14, 2010 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
that looks like i’m angry but it was meant to be a tim brent joke
Dmitri Yushkevich was so tough, he once blocked a Chuck Norris kick with his teeth and finished the shift.
by AkiSchennberg on Mar 14, 2010 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Awesome video
I like it because I still find it hilarious, even though I was too young to remember any of these things happening. Bob’s crappy monotone reading is a really nice touch.
Phaneuf Phever, an upgrade in skill and alliteration!
I laughed, and even though I know the flaming shit part isn’t true, a part of me believes it could be.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Mar 14, 2010 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Awesome...
Thanks for the responses guys….im on the fence whether I’m going to continue the series.
I got 4 separate emails telling me I crossed the line again this one.
by Bloge Salming on Mar 14, 2010 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
joke em if they cant take a fuck
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
“one person writes a letter means a billion people believe the same”
great line – Simpsons or Family Guy or something.
personally I found it funny as hell.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Mar 14, 2010 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
NBC’s commentary on the Ovechkin boarding penalty today was an absolute joke.
He picks up a major and misconduct, but they kept going on about how it just shows how strong he is.
Apparently the boy can do no wrong.
"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into Iraq"
- Major Mike Shearer
I don’t think it was that bad, it was a lot like the habs one last week (can’t remember who because their players are all unremarkable), which I also thought was fine.
Phaneuf Phever, an upgrade in skill and alliteration!
The Lapierre one against the Sharks?
At least Ovechkin had the good grace not to find it funny.
I just don’t think a commentator should use ‘getting tossed out of the game’ as a reason to praise a player.
"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into Iraq"
- Major Mike Shearer
Yeah that one. Both were just weak little shoves where the player slides into the boards, the Ovechkin one wasn’t really even from behind, it was half from the side. I think hits like Cooke on Savard are a lot worse and more dangerous than these, where its simply a case of a player being off balance when he is shoved.
Phaneuf Phever, an upgrade in skill and alliteration!
middle of the ice, sure a little push means nothing but a guy swiming on his stomach, near the end boards it is dangerous as hell, I don’t know if you’ve ever hit the boards at half speed when prepared, but even that jars you a little, face first at full stride it is life and career threatening
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 15, 2010 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
That call is bullshit. Campbell looked over his shoulder, saw him coming and turned his back anyway. That’s totally on him.
bullshit, I dont care if Campbell dared ovechkin to hit him from behind and called his mother a terrorist
You do not hit someone like that.ever.
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes you do. =P When people turn their backs to create an advantage for themselves (as Campbell) knowing he wasn’t going to get clocked….I have no problem with someone ramming his head through the boards.
Players should not be allowed to abuse the rules.
Bah…terrible grammar in that post =D
Anyway, my attitude towards diving is similar. You want to go down to get a call….let me give you something to go down over.
there is a difference between turning your back and turtling, and trying to make a play with the puck, So what if Campbell turned his back so he wouldnt get drilled, it doesnt make ovie drilling him ok.
If campbell had turned at the last second and Ovie had not the time to stop himself, oh well thats life, but that’s not the case. Sure keeping your back to the pursuing player isnt the bravest or most manly way to go into the corner, but it is smart in a hockey sense because Campbell can more effectivly move and distribute the puck if he doesn’t get totally destroyed.
And just because someone takes the “chicken” way out doesnt make them fair play for a hit that could end someones career
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Don’t buy it for a second.
Campbell saw Ovie coming. Campbell chose to make a choice. Campbell accepted the risk. Nail him.
It’s like yesterday. Kessel saw someone coming. Kessel chose to make a play and pass the puck. Kessel got nailed.
make the choice (decision would be a better word) not a choice =D
Don’t make a play on the puck if you don’t want to accept the risks of making that play. Just give it to the other team.
actually Ovie is the one who made the choice. He chose to ignore the fact that he was clearly throwing a dangerous hit on a vulnerable opponent. He chose not to let up. He chose to endanger another player when he could have let up even the slightest .
Hitting from behind is dangerous, stupid and in cases like this inexcusable.
Campbell didn’t feel like getting hit, so what? Thats like saying Moore not turning around and fighting Bertuzzi was all on Moore and he deserved it for not taking his face to face beating like a man.
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m inclined to agree with jared. Campbell put himself in a vulnerable position, but Ovechkin had enough time to react and not throw him into the boards. He saw that he was vulnerable and threw a dangerous hit anyway.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Or in other words why should Campbell turning his back result in an advantage to the Hawks in the game.
Unfortunately, there is no penalty for “Putting yourself in a vulnerable position” like there is for diving. So players have to police themselves to make sure no one is taking advantage.
Campbell took advange and I’m glad he got what was coming.
People should play fair =P
so using your brain and preventing an opposing player from getting the puck is cheating?
that is pretty fucking ridiculous man
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Unfortunately, there is no penalty for "Putting yourself in a vulnerable position" like there is for diving.
Riiiiiiiight.
It’s rather disappointing people never grow out of the ‘it was his own fault’ defence.
Whether Campbell did it deliberately or not, he was in a vulnerable position and Ovechkin should have known better.
There’s a difference between getting hit becasue you’re admiring a pass and getting boarded because a forward can’t be bothered to stop in time.
"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into Iraq"
- Major Mike Shearer
My defense isn’t that it was Campbell’s fault, merely that he saw Ovechkin coming/accepted the risk and shouldn’t exploit the rule. They’re two different things =)
/facepalm
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
No.
You’re saying that Campbell is responsible for what happened. Which is the same thing as saying it’s his own fault for being boarded by Ovechkin.
"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into Iraq"
- Major Mike Shearer
Usually the fault argument is used for blindside hit or hits people didn’t see coming.
My argument is different from that. If Campbell hadn’t seen Ovechkin coming, then I would definitely have a problem with the hit from a player safety standpoint.
the fact that he saw him coming has no bearing on anything,
hitting from behind is illegal and dangerous. thats why you don’t do it. the fact that Campbell put himself in that situation means jack fuck all
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
agree.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure it does. As I mentioned in an earlier post it has a bearing on Fair Play.
And again as I mentioned in an earlier post, we disagree on where the line should be drawn between Fair Play and Player Safety.
If you had simply read that post, you might not be wasting so much of your breath. =P
it only has bearing on fair play if Ovie cannot stop in time
ovie had more than a fair chance to do something other than risk breaking campbells neck
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
No it has a bearing on Fair Play because Campbell felt he could exploit the rule to make a play without suffering the consequence of making that play.
you arnt even making an argument anymore you are just stating the same crap over and over again
that doesnt make it right
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Since you never rebutted the original argument, I continue to make it.
As I already stated, we’re arguing from different perspectives. As such, you have never actually tried to rebut my argument, only said that your respect for player safety over playing fairly should trump my respect for playing fairly over player safety.
There was never an argument for me to rebut.
my argument is that he IS playing fairly
he did not do anything outside the rules, Ovie had a chance to not hit him from behind, I dont see h ow that is not fair.
so far your counter argument is that it is unfair because it is unfair
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Fair play doesn’t just mean following the rules Jared. It also means not exploiting the rules and not taking advantage.
For example, if there is a girls soccer league but they don’t expressly have a rule against not having male players, it would still be unfair to field an all-male team, even if it weren’t against the rules.
It would be perfectly fair, and it would be very smart.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
No it wouldn’t.
It would be exploiting the rules to win and would violate the spirit of the rules and of the league.
no it wouldnt,
it cant be against the rules if there is no rule
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
There’s no rule that it is exploiting, and it violates nothing.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually there is =)
And you’re lucky the justice system doesn’t view things the same way you do and can account for quite a number of people who try to finangle their way out by claiming they didn’t break any rule =P
Enough with the emoticons they are driving me insane.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
if there was no rule against male players than no one would have the right to bitch about signing one up.
The Pens having Crosby Malkin Staal as their three centers compared to Bozak, Grabbo and Wallin is unfair to the Leafs
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Unfair in what way?
Did they acquire them unfairly? Or do you mean unfair when we play them because they’ll likely beat us.
I think you’re confusing meanings of the word unfair.
There’s a name for that fallacy, but I can’t remember what it is.
well they are all better than the leaf players
in your situation, i assume you ment that the mens team in the “womans only” league were better than all the women. there is no rule against better skilled players, so it isnt illegal in either case
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions
The team was better yes.
But the problem with the team isn’t that it’s better. It’s that they’re men in a league made for women.
if it was a league made for women, it would have a “women only” rule
till then, it is a co-ed
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
But in a league made for women with no rule prohibiting men from playing.
They would obviously have a rule preventing men from playing because it would be detrimental to the game. Just like the nhl has rules against hitt guys from behind because it’s really dangerous.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
You two assume that every possible contingency is covered in a rule book.
In fact the best rule books are those which have general rules and don’t cover specific contingencies.
I bet that all those movies with animals playing in sports leagues drive you absolutely crazy.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
because Campbell doing that doesn’t endanger anyone’s health.
Why should players who are faster get to use that speed to their advantage? Why should Phil Kessel get to use his superior shot to score goals? Why should Crosby get to use his superior hockey sense to get open and create offensive plays? That is just unfair! they should all be smacked in the head with sticks when they are doing it because it gives them an advantage!
Ovechkin is one of the best hockey players in the world. Campbell is not, I am sure Ovie could have done something other then potentially cripple a guy because he had an “advantage”
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
No. The choice here is Campbell’s. If Campbell did not see Ovie coming, then it’s Ovie’s choice to make and he has to make a judgment call. Here Campbell clearly told Ovie that he accepted that Ovie might hit him and gave Ovie the OK to make the play.
Rules are not made to be abused. The hitting from behind rule is in place to prevent people from getting injured since they are in a vulnerable position. If you purposefully put yourself into a vulnerable position knowing someone’s coming…it’s on you.
No…that’s a flawed analogy. =P
Campbell had already played the puck, Ovechkin had time to let up, and instead chose to push him into the boards.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Hey and guess what…in most regular checks the person had already played the puck and the player has t ime to let up! But they don’t.
The only difference here is that Campbell chose to purposefully put himself in a vulnerable position to try to draw a penalty or avoid getting hit.
I’m not going to cater to him.
Here’s something simple
It is never ok to hit someone from behind.
Period
Done
Argument over no matter what your opinion is about it.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Mar 14, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
What we’re really disagreeing about is where the line should be drawn between Fair Play and Player Safety. =)
You think Campbell should be allowed to make the play because his safety is more important than his playing within the rules without trying to exploit them.
I think if you exploit the rules like he did, you accept a certain level of risk and deserve whatever happens. I err on the side of making the game fair and unbiased.
What rule did he exploit?
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions
thats like saying by going out today not wearing a bullet proof vest that I was exploiting gun laws
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
that is a pretty good analogy actually. see guns are illegal, so is shooting people, just like hitting from behind. now you see, i COULD wear a bullet proof vest, but by not I am in so fact taking a risk thinking that someone wont pull out a gun and putt two into my rib cage, just like campbell took a risk by thinking no one will hit him from behind because it is illegal.
and thus an analogy was born, sure it is the extreme end of the spectrum but sometimes you have to pull out the extremes to show people that they are arguing a foolish point
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
er….Campbell IS playing within the rules. Ovie is not. And yes his safety is FAR more important than some bullshit “man code” of taking a hit.
I don’t know how you can determine that anything Campbell did is unfair. It is hockey, it is part of the game. Its the same reason you dont stick out your knee when someone dodges you body checking them instead of taking the hit.
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
No…he knew Ovie was coming and he purposefully turned his back with the puck knowing that it was against the rules for Ovie to hit him if he had his back to him.
That is exploiting the rules. Hundreds of players do it throughout the season. They see someone coming, so they turn their back and try to draw a penalty or try to avoid getting hit.
I was very glad to see him leave the game.
every single good play in hockey is exploiting something, that is the nature of the game, you need to exploit situations to win the game
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Following this argument….people should try to dive to draw penalties.
I don’t subscribe to that theory.
diving is illegal and is subject to penalization, and thus your comparison is null and void
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
No…because you should try to exploit situations. Situations like the fact that diving is rarely ever called or penalized.
That’s what you said.
the fact that diving is punishable by infraction is the point. The refs not using it properly is not.
When someone cheats, IE dives to give their team a two minute advantage it is despicable because they are breaking the rules.
I have no idea what the hell that has to do with positioning yourself so another player cannot hit you to make a play with the puck.
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
“every single good play in hockey is exploiting something, that is the nature of the game, you need to exploit situations to win the game”
Your defense was that Campbell should turn his back to exploit the rule that Ovechkin shouldn’t hit him from behind.
My claim is that using that argument it would be ok for players to try to get diving calls and exploit that situation.
Now you’re saying that players shouldn’t dive and yet by your very own argument, they should be trying to exploit it.
I don’t understand the hypocrisy. =P
you are putting words in my mouth and twisting the ones I am saying.
I never said a player should dive, in fact i demeaned it by calling it cheating, as it is illegal and against the rules.
blocking a player from the puck with your body or “turning your back to the on coming checker” is not illegal, it is not against the rules and it is infact a good way to protect the puck and make a play.
You dont like it because you seem to think it is cheating of sorts when in fact, according to the rules of the NHL, it is not.
If diving was legal, i’d say it was a good way to gain the advantage, it doesnt mean i support diving but it would still be good hockey because it wins hockey games, or at least helps.
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I put no words in your mouth, nor twisted any of the ones you wrote. I simply applies your theory to a different situation.
In short the problem is that you didn’t properly flesh out your theory so it was and remains ambiguous ;)
theory?
I dont know what is so hard to grasp about “hitting a player from behind is a stupid fucking play and should be punished even if the player who is hit got a phone call two weeks ago telling him it was going to happen”
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
This theory
"every single good play in hockey is exploiting something, that is the nature of the game, you need to exploit situations to win the game"
that was one statement in the whole argument that hardly was the be all end all
but tell me how any competitive sport is not two players or teams looking for weaknesses to exploit so they can win. As long as those exploitations are within the rules of the sport, it is all fair game
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I was rebutting that comment because it made no sense to me….that’s why I used the reply feature to that particular comment.
I thought that’s what the reply feature was for =P Gah!
well there, it is explained in all its glory for you, happy now?>
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
ha. I don’t really get why you’re defending Ovie so much. Campbell’s play was within the rules, Ovies was not. Whether or not you feel that Campbell made the right play is irrelevant. Campbell had his back turned Ovechkin saw this, disregarded it, and shoved him into the boards headfirst. Campbell was trying to avoid the forecheck and move the puck forward at the same time. If Ovechkin doesn’t level him he’s skating back up ice with Ovechkin caught behind the play. Instead he’s lying in a heap on the ground because Ovechkin didn’t let up.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
It amounts to the same thing.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
There isn’t an issue if Ovechkin lets up, by placing blame on Campbell you remove it from Ovechkin which amounts to condoning his actions.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
No, it doesn’t.
In defending Ovechkin’s action, I would be defending Ovechkin.
By attacking exploitations of the rules, I am attacking Campbell, but I’m also attacking turning your back to checks, diving and any other times players try to use the rules to their advantage. =P
There’s a difference in scope. My scope is much broaded than Ovechkin.
turning your back at the very last second when the checking player has no chance to stop is stupid and dumb and those players deserve to get smashed
turning a fair distance away from the boards when the checker has ample opportunity to stop and or figure another way to remove the player from the puck is perfectly legal and a good hockey play
man you must have loved teh kostopalous hit on VanRyan last year
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
But you are supporting him; by taking the onus away from the player throwing the check. You are saying that if players put themselves in vulnerable positions, either accidentally, or to make a play, they deserve what they get.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I never said anything about accidentally putting yourself in a vulnerable position =P
I only referred to doing what Campbell, which is look at Ovechkin and then decide to turn his back for the sole purpose of avoiding a hit.
There were many other ways Campbell could have made a play. He could have dumped the puck off or he could have done a quick turn, made a quick pass and gotten absolutely rocked by Ovechkin while doing so. Instead he tried to take advantage of a rule to gain an advantage for his team. That I have a problem with, same as I have a problem with diving or any other exploitation of the rules.
Diving is breaking a rule.
Turning your back to an opponent is not.
It might not be the smartest thing in the world or the most honourable, but it is still within the rules of the game to do so. If he did it so that Ovechkin had no time to stop or avoid him it would be a whole other conversation. The bottom line is that Ovechkin had time to make another play and he chose not to.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I already stated long ago there was no penalty for putting yourself in a vulnerable position and that players needed to police themselves to ensure no one was abusing the rule so that the game could be played fairly.
sure, players not putting them self in that position would be dandy, but the much bigger problem is the players taking advantage of the vulnerable players.
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
They’re both problems.
If the NHL would man up and draft a proper set of rules, this shit wouldn’t happen =P
a “no turning your back on other players” rule would be fucking stupid
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually a penalty for purposefully putting yourself in a vulnerable position to avoid getting hit or to draw a penalty
would be a nice rule to have on the books.
Even if they didn’t let the refs call it, but only allowed suspension to be handed out by the league upon review.
I’m done, this is getting rediculous
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
you are really bad at this
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
how would you ever know if someone turned their back on purpose?
How would Campbell even know that Ovie planned to drill him into the boards?
Look over my shoulder “ovie’s coming I better move this puck”
Look back to the puck, move it and then get creamed? Seriously, if you are advocating this you really need to learn some priorities about personal safety.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Mar 14, 2010 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions
and dont count your chickens before they hatch….
what the hell baring did that have on anything?
Who wants to go to the Olive Garden?
by JaredFromLondon on Mar 14, 2010 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn’t say that there were only two possibilities.
I guess I should replace “Ovechkin” with player who throws illegal hit.
If you place the blame one the receiver you are taking it away from the person who throws the hit.
Also, you flatter me by calling me Dr. Gray.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Because there were two people involved.
It’s either Campbell deserved what he got because he exploited the hitting from behind rule.
Or you are not allowed to hit a player from behind.
In this situation it seems to me as though it has be either Ovechkin or Campbell that is to blame.
Or you could blame the nhl for not having a rule to prevent what Campbell did, which seems to be the argument you are making. But that would be an extremely ambiguous rule that would undoubtedly lead to more hits from behind.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Can’t you blame both though and say Campbell shouldn’t be trying to exploit rules and maybe Ovie should have been nice and not nailed him. =P
If the NHL would actually enforce a rule against doing things like what Campbell did they could.
It’s not about Ovie being nice, it’s about him breaking the rule and endangering another player.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Mar 14, 2010 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Agree
It was terrible. Full of excuse making.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
Scoring Chances against Edmonton,
Scoring Chances for Oilers-Leafs game. The total was 36-22 in favour of Toronto, by far the most chances I’ve recorded in a game this season.
by Slava Duris #24 on Mar 14, 2010 2:31 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Video: Sidney Crosby homers out of Pittsburgh's PNC Park
- Fantasy Hockey Philosophy: Rob Higgins vs. unbearable expectations
- Bourne Blog: At contract time, players roll dice on hockey future
- NHL 2010-11 Season Preview: Wrestling with Colorado Avalanche
- Pass or Fail: Buffalo Sabres' new road, alternate jerseys for 2010-11
SBNation.com Recent Stories
StatCounter
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
