It was the third period which won them the game but the damage came in the second and the controversy too- where to start?
The resilience of these Canucks has been seen for some time but more recently in their third period efforts. After the Canucks took the lead at 6:48 in the third the Blackhawks mustered 4 shots on net. That is 4 shots with the game they 'had to win' on the line. 4 shots in a as near a do or die situation as you can get. Few teams are going to win a game like that and certainly not with Roberto Luongo playing like he was.
Once the Canucks got the, err 'a' PP they followed Chicago's lead in using less than 10 seconds to score and soon after took the lead with Daniel Sedin potting the go ahead goal off a scrambled play whilst driving to the net. For there the Canucks had life where for at least 20 minutes before the period none seemed to exist. The game became tighter and the players driving harder. If it was to get more intense it was when Sharp tied it up and a collective sigh of relief happened in the Madhouse while a gulp came from the Canucks.
The next while it was a battle, and one right through the third until Samuelsson scored. It was finally a series. Finally a chance to see these teams bring the hatred out and battle for a win. It just never seemed to happen and credit the Canucks with their defensive play and awareness to reducing the chances, what few there were, of the Chicago forwards.
I'm not sure where to begin with the Torres hit. Was it clean dirty or a bit of both? While so many cry for a lengthy suspension and question the call on the ice and scream up and down about Rule 48, it seems the more things chance the more they stay the same.
Torres went behind the net gliding in looking to make a hit. He had Seabrook lined up and aimed his shoulder right at him. Where is the problem? It wasn't east/west (whatever that means) it was a 'north south' hit but something doesn't feel right, at least to some.
First- Torres never raised his elbow, nor did he leave his feet, he was perfectly square to a body which started to change it's angle as it played the puck. As Seabrook is called at to play the puck he moves and that is when the impact comes. Is Torres guilty of targeting the head? I don't think so in fact I think it's pretty clear he's trying to make a big hit. Is he guilty of charging, yes. Is he guilty of interference, the call on the ice, probably but is he guilty of rule 48. No.
Here is rule 48.
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principal point of contact is not permitted.
Here is rule 42.
42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.
Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.
A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.
Here is Rule 56.
56.1 Interference - A strict standard on acts of interference must be adhered to in all areas of the rink.
Body Position: Body position shall be determined as the player skating in front of or beside his opponent, traveling in the same direction. A player who is behind an opponent, who does not have the puck, may not use his stick, body or free hand in order to restrain his opponent, but must skate in order to gain or reestablish his proper position in order to make a check.
A player is allowed the ice he is standing on (body position) and is not required to move in order to let an opponent proceed. A player may “block” the path of an opponent provided he is in front of his opponent and moving in the same direction. Moving laterally and without establishing body position, then making contact with the non-puck carrier is not permitted and will be penalized as interference. A player is always entitled to use his body position to lengthen an opponent’s path to the puck, provided his stick is not utilized (to make himself “bigger” and therefore considerably lengthening the distance his opponent must travel to get where he is going); his free hand is not used and he does not take advantage of his body position to deliver an otherwise illegal check.
Possession of the Puck: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.
Here is the Blindside rule.
EW YORK -- Beginning with tonight's games, the National Hockey League will implement a new rule prohibiting "a lateral, back-pressure or blind-side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principal point of contact."
I don't believe Torres targeted the head but I do recognize that head became a resultant casualty in the hit. What does that mean? It means that as long this rule is open to interpretation refs and all officials will get it wrong at some point. Tonight they called a penalty, 2 minutes, and that was enough in my opinion. The league will certainly look at it and it will be interesting to see how they react. Can they really say Torres targeted the head or will they come to my conclusion that to make the hit he had to commit and how Seabrook moved left his head unfortunately vulnerable? It is by no means Seabrook's fault but it isn't entirely Torres' either and there is nothing in the rule which describes how players to proceed when one changes position at the last second.
For an interesting take which I think is important read this:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/510221-nhl-rule-481-why-the-blindside-hit-rule-needs-to-be-revised
Canucks are up 3-0!
www.twitter.com/teddier
Vancouver Canucks Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»