it would be one thing if he wrote this piece before the incident that happened last night

it's another thing to write this in response to the incident. Because that was all about the headshot
- jimbro83

That's why I edited it. He specifically said, "a legal hit." He goes on to state that last night's play, regardless of the goalie being hit, was a penalty due to where the hit took place. Again, I think the hit just gave him inspiration for a piece. I don't think he ever stated that last night's hit should not have been a penalty, simply that the penalties/lack thereof for hits on goalies should be the same for hits on skaters.

That's why I edited it. He specifically said, "a legal hit." He goes on to state that last night's play, regardless of the goalie being hit, was a penalty due to where the hit took place. Again, I think the hit just gave him inspiration for a piece. I don't think he ever stated that last night's hit should not have been a penalty.
- jmatchett383

That hit should be a penalty at any area on the ice to any player.. Principal point of contact was the head.

That's why I edited it. He specifically said, "a legal hit." He goes on to state that last night's play, regardless of the goalie being hit, was a penalty due to where the hit took place. Again, I think the hit just gave him inspiration for a piece. I don't think he ever stated that last night's hit should not have been a penalty.
- jmatchett383

if the hit gave him "inspiration for the piece" he is more of a moron than I already thought he was

if you aren't aware that the NHL has a mandate against headshots and some very large lawsuits from former players that the league didn't do enough to curb concussions than you have your head in the sand

THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT

That hit should be a penalty at any area on the ice to any player.. Principal point of contact was the head.
- MacT27

Which he states. "Eakin was given a five-minute major for charging and a game misconduct. Supplemental discipline is on the way, and Eakin should receive more than a one-game suspension. It looked like he didn't attempt to avoid a collision and left his feet at the point of contact."

That is what constitutes charging. He doesn't go "This should not have been a penalty because Lundqvist should be able to be drilled in the head since he's a goalie." He simply states that goalies should be fair game just like any skater, but also that last night's penalty for charging was the correct call.

I agree that it should have been met with swift retribution and he should be suspended. But I don't think this article proves that "ESPN has no knowledge of hockey." I do believe that, but I don't think this article is valid proof of that.

if the hit gave him "inspiration for the piece" he is more of a moron than I already thought he was

if you aren't aware that the NHL has a mandate against headshots and some very large lawsuits from former players that the league didn't do enough to curb concussions than you have your head in the sand

THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT
- jimbro83

And he states that the hit to the head constitutes charging, which he was penalized for, along with a game misconduct and that "Eakin should receive more than a one-game suspension."

Again, I don't think he ever stated that last night's hit should have been legal.

And he states that the hit to the head constitutes charging, which he was penalized for, along with a game misconduct and that "Eakin should receive more than a one-game suspension."

Again, I don't think he ever stated that last night's hit should have been legal.
- jmatchett383

he was inspired by a play where a goalie took a head shot to write a piece saying that goalies should be fair game in an effort to increase offense

you don't see a problem with this?

he was inspired by a play where a goalie took a head shot to write a piece saying that goalies should be fair game in an effort to increase offense

you don't see a problem with this?
- jimbro83

It's a bad example, agreed. Still, he does not ever state that last night's hit should become legal.

Which he states. "Eakin was given a five-minute major for charging and a game misconduct. Supplemental discipline is on the way, and Eakin should receive more than a one-game suspension. It looked like he didn't attempt to avoid a collision and left his feet at the point of contact."

That is what constitutes charging. He doesn't go "This should not have been a penalty because Lundqvist should be able to be drilled in the head since he's a goalie." He simply states that goalies should be fair game just like any skater, but also that last night's penalty for charging was the correct call.

I agree that it should have been met with swift retribution and he should be suspended. But I don't think this article proves that "ESPN has no knowledge of hockey." I do believe that, but I don't think this article is valid proof of that.
- jmatchett383

If someone ran over Steve Mason in the same fashion Hank got rolled over, there would be the same argument from you.

Two differences in that scenario, though:
1. Comparing Mason to Lundqvist is laughable, at best
2. Someone from the Flyers would have done something the minute it happened
3. Please trade Simmonds to the Rangers

If someone ran over Steve Mason in the same fashion Hank got rolled over, there would be the same argument from you.

Two differences in that scenario, though:
1. Comparing Mason to Lundqvist is laughable, at best
2. Someone from the Flyers would have done something the minute it happened
3. Please trade Simmonds to the Rangers
- mames11

If someone hits your goalie, regardless of the team, there should be swift retribution and the player should be suspended if it's a dirty hit. Someone/someones should have beaten the piss out of Eakin last night, and he should be suspended. I think I stated that earlier. I still don't think that the article in question ever states that a player should be able to attack a goalie's head with no consequences, which is my point of argument.

So, yes, my argument would be the same.

the writer is implying that goalies should be fair game for head shots apparently
- jimbro83

All these fair game comments are because it Lundqvist, if it's their goalie they whine like no other, (frank)ing trash hypocrite flaming piles of garbage fans in the NHL, mostly Devils, Isles, Flyers and Pens fans

If someone hits your goalie, regardless of the team, there should be swift retribution and the player should be suspended if it's a dirty hit. Someone/someones should have beaten the piss out of Eakin last night. I think I stated that. I still don't think that the article in question ever states that a player should be able to attack a goalie's head with no consequences, which is my point of argument.

So, yes, my argument would be the same.
- jmatchett383

I think the whole point is it is a very poorly timed article. I think we can all agree on that.

For the record, I didn't read it, just going by what you guys have posted.

If someone hits your goalie, regardless of the team, there should be swift retribution and the player should be suspended if it's a dirty hit. Someone/someones should have beaten the piss out of Eakin last night, and he should be suspended. I think I stated that earlier. I still don't think that the article in question ever states that a player should be able to attack a goalie's head with no consequences, which is my point of argument.

So, yes, my argument would be the same.
- jmatchett383

so if Claude Giroux had suffered a nasty headshot on a play that use to be against the old two line pass rule, and a writer was "inspired" by the play to write a piece saying they should bring back the two line pass rule, you'd be ok with that?

If someone hits your goalie, regardless of the team, there should be swift retribution and the player should be suspended if it's a dirty hit. Someone/someones should have beaten the piss out of Eakin last night. I think I stated that. I still don't think that the article in question ever states that a player should be able to attack a goalie's head with no consequences, which is my point of argument.

So, yes, my argument would be the same.
- jmatchett383

Equipment the goalies wear should always keep them from "fair-game" checks. Their equipment is at least 4x heavier than a forwards. More protection...sure, but less balance. The masks they wear significantly reduces the vision they would need to prepare or brace themselves for any hits.

In the end, no matter how you look at it, goalies are more susceptible to severe injuries if they are allowed to be hit.

the writer is implying that goalies should be fair game for head shots apparently
- jimbro83

"A goaltender should be fair game for a legal hit when he leaves the crease."

Clearly what he was saying was that goalies should be fair game for head shots.

All these fair game comments are because it Lundqvist, if it's their goalie they whine like no other, (frank)ing trash hypocrite flaming piles of garbage fans in the NHL, mostly Devils, Isles, Flyers and Pens fans
- HankdaTank

oh, it's all typical anti-NY nonsense, that's what this is

Kreider did the same exact thing to Mason, Flyer fans would be demanding Trump get involved

so if Claude Giroux had suffered a nasty headshot on a play that use to be against the old two line pass rule, and a writer was "inspired" by the play to write a piece saying they should bring back the two line pass rule, you'd be ok with that?
- jimbro83

I wouldn't have a problem with it, no. I don't think I'd agree with him, but I wouldn't say that it proves that ESPN has no knowledge of hockey.

All these fair game comments are because it Lundqvist, if it's their goalie they whine like no other, (frank)ing trash hypocrite flaming piles of garbage fans in the NHL, mostly Devils, Isles, Flyers and Pens fans
- HankdaTank

Well...we an tolerate some of these fans

oh, it's all typical anti-NY nonsense, that's what this is

Kreider did the same exact thing to Mason, Flyer fans would be demanding Trump get involved
- jimbro83

No, because 1 or more players would have beaten the piss out of Kreider.

Equipment the goalies wear should always keep them from "fair-game" checks. Their equipment is at least 4x heavier than a forwards. More protection...sure, but less balance. The masks they wear significantly reduces the vision they would need to prepare or brace themselves for any hits.

In the end, no matter how you look at it, goalies are more susceptible to severe injuries if they are allowed to be hit.
- mames11

I agree. But there is a segment of hockey fans, not confined the the ESPN writing staff, who feels that goalies should be fair game for legal hits when they have the puck. I don't agree with them, but it's not just ESPN who feels this way.

oh, it's all typical anti-NY nonsense, that's what this is

Kreider did the same exact thing to Mason, Flyer fans would be demanding Trump get involved
- jimbro83

Nah...he'd be too busy grabbing the skating girls crotches.

Nah...he'd be too busy grabbing the skating girls crotches.
- mames11

Hank can slash the squeegees out of their hands, and then Trump can grab them when they bend down to pick them up.

For the record, I don't want Donald Trump involved in anything that remotely affects my life. But I'm not moving to Canada so I guess that's happening.

I wouldn't have a problem with it, no. I don't think I'd agree with him, but I wouldn't say that it proves that ESPN has no knowledge of hockey.
- jmatchett383

I understand your sentiment on this. This article is not a referendum on ESPN's knowledge of hockey...that ship has long sailed... but it is a referendum on the tabloidish almost trollish nature of their headlines and timing for ratings and not actual hockey discussion.

Nah...he'd be too busy grabbing the skating girls crotches.
- mames11

I don't know if anybody else noticed, but did anyone else notice all the hot Dallas Stars skater girls with Santa hats on getting out of Lundqvist's way when he had to leave the ice last night

Nah...he'd be too busy grabbing the skating girls crotches.
- mames11

Trump and Giroux would be one hell of a tag team.

"Air Force One grabs the pink, Giroux grabs the stink"

I wouldn't have a problem with it, no. I don't think I'd agree with him, but I wouldn't say that it proves that ESPN has no knowledge of hockey.
- jmatchett383

ESPN has no knowledge of hockey, this article doesn't prove it, its already been proven. Insisting that Barry Melrose and his mullet are hockey "experts" proves this. His claim to fame was having a team with Gretzky that went to a final. Guy is a hack.