I don't understand you, the pathology of what it is to be you. I don't understand dropping all these comments like anyone gives any kind of a $hit what you say. Most of us hate the fact that you even exist and yet here you are every day chiming in like everyone is waiting for your opinion. I have no idea what is going on with the Rangers, not one clue, because I don't care one bit. I'm devoted to one team, well 2 to be honest but the second not near as much. Yet here you are every day saying the same dumb thing in the same dumb order like a broken record of a
Song no one wants to hear playing at half the speed it's supposed to be. What makes you tick? How do you have time to go on Rangers boards and spew your moronic opinions that if they could look like something they would look like a 96 year old, decrepid penis ejaculating some kind of moist dust and blood? And then go places you are hated and share your unwanted opinions with people that despise you? And we can't be the only board that you do this to? Do you do nothing else, do you have nothing else? I come on here when I'm having a few drinks and talk about my team that I have loved for 30 years and tell pukes like you to F off. But you will never catch me on the Rangers board because I hate that team and I don't care anything about them. Talking about Girardi and Marchand, I have no idea what happened. I just don't care. Hopefully they killed eachother in some way because they are both talentless hacks but it's not enough to make me care about them. One time I went on the Oilers one and I'll never do it again, not because of what I said or what they said, truth is I didn't even go back and see if anyone replied. I just don't have time to waste like you apparently do. You need attention, you want to feel special. And here you are still pontificating as if the worlds axis is rotated by your thoughts alone? Why? I don't get you, I can't stand you, but I also don't get why? So go ahead and find a picture with someone else's joke on it and say it's about me. It's a shortcut to thinking and you take a lot of shortcuts. You have nothing else going on in your life? This is it for you? That's sad, and pathetic. Go away, and take potato and epilepsy lights picture with you because no one cares about you.
- Dcoms

So further to my comment previously about points for infractions, I just looked at the Stepan hit. Broken ribs. So is everyone ok with that hit? Wasn't in the back, wasn't late according to whatever Swiss time piece was used but Stepan did hit the boards. Did Stepan stay active after the pass - no. Did he think he would get hit - no idea but he's a pro so probably.

Beleskey was not penalised but Stepan broke his ribs. In this scenario the league is saying everything is fine due to no infraction to any rule - what is boarding I cannot tell?

So in a points system there was contact with the boards caused by Beleskey that injured Stepan - 50 points. As discussed above no other offence committed so Beleskey gets 50 points on his total & if he hasn't offended previously he is free to play with no immediate sanction other than his total points added to. If he reoffends those 50 points are added to whatever he does next & maybe he sits a suspension.

The thing is he injured a player & hasn't in this system of points lost any game time. If he is a repeat offender he will eventually pay, but if it were accidental & he doesn't reoffend he is good to go!

Would that scenario pass the 'old hockey hits' test?

So further to my comment previously about points for infractions, I just looked at the Stepan hit. Broken ribs. So is everyone ok with that hit? Wasn't in the back, wasn't late according to whatever Swiss time piece was used but Stepan did hit the boards. Did Stepan stay active after the pass - no. Did he think he would get hit - no idea but he's a pro so probably.

Beleskey was not penalised but Stepan broke his ribs. In this scenario the league is saying everything is fine due to no infraction to any rule - what is boarding I cannot tell?

So in a points system there was contact with the boards caused by Beleskey that injured Stepan - 50 points. As discussed above no other offence committed so Beleskey gets 50 points on his total & if he hasn't offended previously he is free to play with no immediate sanction other than his total points added to. If he reoffends those 50 points are added to whatever he does next & maybe he sits a suspension.

The thing is he injured a player & hasn't in this system of points lost any game time. If he is a repeat offender he will eventually pay, but if it were accidental & he doesn't reoffend he is good to go!

Would that scenario pass the 'old hockey hits' test?
- Aussiepenguin

No because if he were to throw another legal hit where a player happens to get injured and he gets another 50 points then he's suspended due to throwing 2 legal hits?

Like just any stupid picture will do for you huh? Doesn't matter how dumb, childish, or ridiculous if someone puts writing on a photo you post it.
- Dcoms

- smellmyfinger

https://lh4.googleusercon...OoI00g4KdxnQ=w500-h237-nc

Is there any evidence supporting that refs can be trusted these days?
- cygnus41

Haven't you ever read one of Paul Stewart's blogs? According to him, all referees are 100% unbiased and call the games the same regardless of the teams, players, score, or game situation. Except for the cases where he admits he didn't....

Haven't you ever read one of Paul Stewart's blogs? According to him, all referees are 100% unbiased and call the games the same regardless of the teams, players, score, or game situation. Except for the cases where he admits he didn't....
- jmatchett383

What do you think of a points system Matchett man?

What do you think of a points system Matchett man?
- Aussiepenguin

Honestly, there's been a lot (A LOT) of long posts on this blog that I am not interested in enough to read (got about 2 lines into that Dcoms bash novel and just decided it wasn't worth it) so I'm not really getting the concept. Here's my main take on things:

1) Hockey is a physical sport where players occasionally get hurt. If a player is hurt, whether with a bruise on the wrist or a broken leg, on a legal and clean (there is a difference between "illegal" and "dirty") hit, then I have no issue with it.

2) Not every illegal play that results in injury is worthy of a 700-game suspension. The intent and level of carelessness of the offending player should be the barometer for supplemental discipline, not the act or any resulting injury.

3) I do not believe in a "repeat offender" program. I do, however, believe that the discipline for incidents where players show no regard for the safety of other players where causing injury is the main intent (see: Dubinsky on Crosby, every Zac Rinaldo hit ever) should be dealt with in a severe case. If your actions serve no purpose other that try to injure (as opposed to "hurt") a player, then you will miss 20 games. If you do it again, you will miss 20 games.

4) This is the one that I think would serve as a major deterrent: If a player on a team is suspended, that team must dress one less player for the duration of the suspension. If you miss 5 games, your team dresses 19 players for the 5 games that you serve. If a teammate gets suspended in that same time frame, then it's 18 players, and so on. Instead of going after the players' wallets only, make the teams suffer as well.

If you can give me a 5-sentence take on the points, I'll chime in.

And yes, I realize that this is a long-ish post.

Honestly, there's been a lot (A LOT) of long posts on this blog that I am not interested in enough to read (got about 2 lines into that Dcoms bash novel and just decided it wasn't worth it) so I'm not really getting the concept. Here's my main take on things:

1) Hockey is a physical sport where players occasionally get hurt. If a player is hurt, whether with a bruise on the wrist or a broken leg, on a legal and clean (there is a difference between "illegal" and "dirty") hit, then I have no issue with it.

2) Not every illegal play that results in injury is worthy of a 700-game suspension. The intent and level of carelessness of the offending player should be the barometer for supplemental discipline, not the act or any resulting injury.

3) I do not believe in a "repeat offender" program. I do, however, believe that the discipline for incidents where players show no regard for the safety of other players where causing injury is the main intent (see: Dubinsky on Crosby, every Zac Rinaldo hit ever) should be dealt with in a severe case. If your actions serve no purpose other that try to injure (as opposed to "hurt") a player, then you will miss 20 games. If you do it again, you will miss 20 games.

4) This is the one that I think would serve as a major deterrent: If a player on a team is suspended, that team must dress one less player for the duration of the suspension. If you miss 5 games, your team dresses 19 players for the 5 games that you serve. If a teammate gets suspended in that same time frame, then it's 18 players, and so on. Instead of going after the players' wallets only, make the teams suffer as well.

If you can give me a 5-sentence take on the points, I'll chime in.

And yes, I realize that this is a long-ish post.
- jmatchett383

Here's a two sentence take: where do you draw the line between intent to hurt and intent to injure? Barely anyone intends to injure a player, and most injuries result from illegal contact from a player who got carried away trying to grind someone down.

Here's a two sentence take: where do you draw the line between intent to hurt and intent to injure? Barely anyone intends to injure a player, and most injuries result from illegal contact from a player who got carried away trying to grind someone down.
- Victoro311

Yes. I don't know how you can judge what is in someone's mind or heart simply through video. Punishment has to be black and white or we'll be back to the mushy, nonsense explanations that we currently have. Other than that, I think J match's list is good.

By the way, the NHLPA will never let a team play shorthanded for the duration of a suspension. No chance that will ever happen.

Bryan Rust re-assigned to WBS

Yes. I don't know how you can judge what is in someone's mind or heart simply through video. Punishment has to be black and white or we'll be back to the mushy, nonsense explanations that we currently have. Other than that, I think J match's list is good.

By the way, the NHLPA will never let a team play shorthanded for the duration of a suspension. No chance that will ever happen.
- madmike71

It's kind of a paradox really. On the one hand you have to have black and white rules and call them well to have any effect on reducing the amount of bad hits that lead to injury. But then again Machett's point that if you call every little thing you end up with a permi-3 on 3 is well taken. If refs could have better disgression on calling lenient rules that would be ideal but it's not what we have.

Honestly, there's been a lot (A LOT) of long posts on this blog that I am not interested in enough to read (got about 2 lines into that Dcoms bash novel and just decided it wasn't worth it) so I'm not really getting the concept. Here's my main take on things:

1) Hockey is a physical sport where players occasionally get hurt. If a player is hurt, whether with a bruise on the wrist or a broken leg, on a legal and clean (there is a difference between "illegal" and "dirty") hit, then I have no issue with it.

2) Not every illegal play that results in injury is worthy of a 700-game suspension. The intent and level of carelessness of the offending player should be the barometer for supplemental discipline, not the act or any resulting injury.

3) I do not believe in a "repeat offender" program. I do, however, believe that the discipline for incidents where players show no regard for the safety of other players where causing injury is the main intent (see: Dubinsky on Crosby, every Zac Rinaldo hit ever) should be dealt with in a severe case. If your actions serve no purpose other that try to injure (as opposed to "hurt") a player, then you will miss 20 games. If you do it again, you will miss 20 games.

4) This is the one that I think would serve as a major deterrent: If a player on a team is suspended, that team must dress one less player for the duration of the suspension. If you miss 5 games, your team dresses 19 players for the 5 games that you serve. If a teammate gets suspended in that same time frame, then it's 18 players, and so on. Instead of going after the players' wallets only, make the teams suffer as well.

If you can give me a 5-sentence take on the points, I'll chime in.

And yes, I realize that this is a long-ish post.
- jmatchett383

Haha, you said you didn't read his blog novel...then write one ( I didn't read either )

Not making fun of you, just thinks it's funny

Here's a two sentence take: where do you draw the line between intent to hurt and intent to injure? Barely anyone intends to injure a player, and most injuries result from illegal contact from a player who got carried away trying to grind someone down.
- Victoro311

This is where common sense has to come into play. 2 examples of (somewhat) recent memory:

Cooke's hit on Savard: This hit was not designed to separate the player from the puck, it was a hit designed to separate Savard's head from his shoulders. By the rules, it was a legal hit, but it served no purpose other than to cause injury (again, difference between "injured" and "hurt").

Rinaldo's hit on Letang: Again, this was a play where Rinaldo's only intent was to injure Letang. Letang was in a bad position, and Rinaldo boarded him with no care whatsoever for the player's safety and with no care for the puck. Coupled with the fact that this was NOT a legal play, I'd give him 25 games.

But still, you have a gray area: Doan on Letang. In this case, Doan is "finishing his check" on a prone player. Part of the blame is on Letang for leaving himself prone, but Doan could have eased up. He knew that Letang was vulnerable. He did not change his course, leave him feet, or lead with his elbow to the head. However, this was a reckless play. I would have given him maybe 2 games.

Haha, you said you didn't read his blog novel...then write one ( I didn't read either )

Not making fun of you, just thinks it's funny
- annoyed

Which is why I ended with, "And yes, I realize that this is a long-ish post." I was aware of the irony.

This is where common sense has to come into play. 2 examples of (somewhat) recent memory:

Cooke's hit on Savard: This hit was not designed to separate the player from the puck, it was a hit designed to separate Savard's head from his shoulders. By the rules, it was a legal hit, but it served no purpose other than to cause injury (again, difference between "injured" and "hurt").

Rinaldo's hit on Letang: Again, this was a play where Rinaldo's only intent was to injure Letang. Letang was in a bad position, and Rinaldo boarded him with no care whatsoever for the player's safety and with no care for the puck. Coupled with the fact that this was NOT a legal play, I'd give him 25 games.

But still, you have a gray area: Doan on Letang. In this case, Doan is "finishing his check" on a prone player. Part of the blame is on Letang for leaving himself prone, but Doan could have eased up. He knew that Letang was vulnerable. He did not change his course, leave him feet, or lead with his elbow to the head. However, this was a reckless play. I would have given him maybe 2 games.
- jmatchett383

That Doan hit was hardly a gray area. It's a clean hit where Doan is finishing his check. He didn't try to elbow Letang, Letang wasn't blindsided, he wasn't hit in the numbers. You can't suspend that hit.

It's kind of a paradox really. On the one hand you have to have black and white rules and call them well to have any effect on reducing the amount of bad hits that lead to injury. But then again Machett's point that if you call every little thing you end up with a permi-3 on 3 is well taken. If refs could have better disgression on calling lenient rules that would be ideal but it's not what we have.
- Victoro311

I honestly don't think it's that hard. Everybody knows what Dubinskly was doing. Everybody knows what Buff was doing. Everybody knows what Cooke, Rinaldo, Torres was doing.

The problem is the NHL is run largely by neanderthals who really have very little common sense or business sense. They make it obvious that they could care less about player safety.

Like I said yesterday.... I can't wait for the day the owners lose a big money payout as video of some of this stuff becomes exhibits in a law suit. Ask any business owner how much time and effort they spend trying to mitigate risk. These guys act like they can't or won't be sued. It's almost comical.

That Doan hit was hardly a gray area. It's a clean hit where Doan is finishing his check. He didn't try to elbow Letang, Letang wasn't blindsided, he wasn't hit in the numbers. You can't suspend that hit.
- rangerdanger94

The part about the Doan hit was that it was late. I have no problem with hard hits where players get injured. The main issue I have is that the puck was gone. Letang was admiring his pass, was in a bad spot, and Doan finished his check. The thing is, that happens 10+ times per period, this was just a very hard hit on a prone player. My only issue is that Doan knew the player was prone and laid a hard (clean, but late) hit on him. Again, part of the blame lies on Letang on that one as well. I'm torn on it.

I honestly don't think it's that hard. Everybody knows what Dubinskly was doing. Everybody knows what Buff was doing. Everybody knows what Cooke, Rinaldo, Torres was doing.
- madmike71

This. You can't get into the player's head to know 110% what he was thinking, but at some point, you cannot make any case that he wasn't deliberately trying to cause injury. Like when Pronger stomped a guy with his skate blade on when the puck was away: how can you say he was trying to do anything other than to injure the player?

The part about the Doan hit was that it was late. I have no problem with hard hits where players get injured. The main issue I have is that the puck was gone. Letang was admiring his pass, was in a bad spot, and Doan finished his check. The thing is, that happens 10+ times per period, this was just a very hard hit on a prone player. My only issue is that Doan knew the player was prone and laid a hard (clean, but late) hit on him. Again, part of the blame lies on Letang on that one as well. I'm torn on it.
- jmatchett383

I still maintain that if you watch the hit it was neither dirty or illegal. Doan's a hard hitter and he lined up Letang for one of his bone crunchers when Tanger still had the puck. By the time Letang got that puck off Doane was already on his way. Maybe he could have let up a bit but at full speed that would have been difficult and Letang tried to get cute and swivel around the hit rather than bracing himself. Maybe it's a bit of a grey are but definitely not suspendable.

I still maintain that if you watch the hit it was neither dirty or illegal. Doan's a hard hitter and he lined up Letang for one of his bone crunchers when Tanger still had the puck. By the time Letang got that puck off Doane was already on his way. Maybe he could have let up a bit but at full speed that would have been difficult and Letang tried to get cute and swivel around the hit rather than bracing himself. Maybe it's a bit of a grey are but definitely not suspendable.
- Victoro311

Yeah, I'm torn on it. It was just a big hit on a player who put himself into a bad spot. He didn't change his course, but he knew full well that Letang was not ready to absorb it. Like I said, MAYBE 2 games depending on things. I had no problem with no suspension, although it sucked.

I still maintain that if you watch the hit it was neither dirty or illegal. Doan's a hard hitter and he lined up Letang for one of his bone crunchers when Tanger still had the puck. By the time Letang got that puck off Doane was already on his way. Maybe he could have let up a bit but at full speed that would have been difficult and Letang tried to get cute and swivel around the hit rather than bracing himself. Maybe it's a bit of a grey are but definitely not suspendable.
- Victoro311

I agree with this however throwing in the caveat that if there were other measures in place dealing with player discipline, Doan may have not attempted that hit. Its purely skeptical but if the league environment were different perhaps that hit didn't happen. Either way, I have less of an issue with the Doan hit as I do with others.

Some interesting Crosby videos:

https://ca.sports.yahoo.c...allahan-to?urn=nhl-290193

Check it out!

One more:

http://www.mynhltraderumo...le-spear-and-a-slew-foot/

I agree with this however throwing in the caveat that if there were other measures in place dealing with player discipline, Doan may have not attempted that hit. Its purely skeptical but if the league environment were different perhaps that hit didn't happen. Either way, I have less of an issue with the Doan hit as I do with others.
- Reverend Killtaker

That's an interesting point. Guess we'll never know until the NHL joins the 21st century and starts protecting its players.

I think the only thing that will ever make that happen is Crosby, Stamkos, and Toews all getting their careers ended by injury on the same day.