After reading some of the posts on this topic, I have never seen such blatant homerism in my life. After watching the hit a bunch of times, I've changed my opinion on it. It's a tad late and he does launch himself upwards. However, justifying Keith's hit and subsequent short suspension by saying Daniel "hit him first" is disgusting.

I remember JJ saying in his blog that Keith would maybe get 1 or 2 games, most Hawk fans agreed. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, Torres should be lethally injected.

The only thing different between the two hits was that Hossa left on a stretcher. Hopefully he's ok.
- hertzman

I know you post on the Canuck threads, so I know this statement isn't true.

I hate agreeing with a Canucks fan, but I do. Whole-heartedly. The fact that Keith's heinous elbow was retaliation doesn't make it better. It makes it pre-meditated. It was a blatant example of intent to injure, and doesn't belong in the game at all. Torres' hit was also dirty, and is exactly the type of hit that the new rules are designed to remove. He has a history of cheap shots, and as such I'd like to see a 10 game suspension or more... but there is no justifying Keith's elbow.

JJ especially... Hold yourself to a higher standard. That's embarrassing.
- jtommyt

Agrreed 100 percent but the arguement isnt that it makes it OK. Or at least thats not my arguement the arguement is as a HUMAN i understand why he screwed up. You get that?

Its like saying a man shoots anohter man beacuse hes racist and then a man hits another man with a bat for sleeping with his wife which kills him.

Both are horribly wrong and both are murder but at least I could understand why one man was pissed. You get it?

Oh c'mon....then invest and train refs to deal with the complexities and speed of the game!! Require and demand high competency levels!
- bogiedoc

try it once and let me know... not disagreeing but until the human is taken out there will be missed calls, misplaced judgement, whatever... all i'm saying is the game is fast and unpredictable. If reffing was perfect, there would be no need for a Shanahan role as ALL decisions would be done on the ice...

Whose side is the union on here?
- fattybeef

Same side they're always on...the side of union leadership.

I find it stupid that the NHLPA will fight for Torres, when he knocks out another NHLPA member in Hossa.
- hertzman

I know its a bit of a dichotomy. The NHLPA are the ones that initiated the 2500 dollar max fine. If they were concerned with payer safety why would they fight for this.

The refs were a joke. here's a breakdown of a few things:

--Torres hit on Hossa - no call
--Kane blatantly tripped someone at center ice - no call
--Torres trips Blackhawk player (forgot which one) with leg - no call
--Hammer highsticks and draws blood - no call
--Hammer and Doan casually flip the puck at each other - unsportsmanlike conduct for both

WTF!!
- HajdukChicago

add to that the Derek Morris cross-check and subsequent Toews make-up roughing call.

For anybody interested here are some thoughts on current state of NHL discipline:

http://my.hockeybuzz.com/...er_id=25345&post_id=13345

If not, just ignore the post, thanks.

There are plenty of smart opinions in this thread. You just added one of the dumber ones. Congrats.
- moondawg

Im pretty sure hes just trying to throw hand grenades.

Im pretty sure hes just trying to throw hand grenades.
- mvp0207

Fat female doges ?

I dont agree that it makes it worse, it was in retaliation which is explainable. Torres had no reason to do what he did. Keith never hits anyone , Torres is reckless
- mrpaulish

That's the same as me saying, if Shaw didn't going after Smith, Torres wouldn't have gone after Hossa. Torres was simply retaliating, just like Keith.

looks like Hossa's spot is going to come down to Hayes or Morin . WHo would you rather have ? Me, Id give Hayes the first shot and get his big ass in front of the net.
- mrpaulish

>To me, Morin has a much bigger upside: great shot, can shoot the one-timer and has some snarl to his game
>Hayes had a nice little run, but largely disappeared in the games he played in after that: lost nearly every board battle, didn't hit anyone, and his skating seemed to slow down
>Full disclosure: I'm a big Morin fan and think Q pulled the plug on him too quickly last year -- he had several games in a row where he didn't score but was "inches" from potting some nice goals -- think the puck "follows" him, too

Exactly. Becasue the current rules are set up to protect Torres after the hit. If you let players police themselves a little bit more they will be less likely to make a stupid hit. Torres probably knows that anyone that takes a run at him after his hit is going to get tossed or put his team short handed and then he wins
- fiveandagame

Flawed logic. Torres cant know his hit wont be penalized and leave his team shrthnded until AFTER he makes stupid risk. I'd like to think that a vast majority of these hits would be penalized. He won last night by accident.

It is only after the hit that players decide to go after the Torres type. And they usually do-and they usually end up penalized.

Instigator rule or not. If your teammate gets run(legally or not) the teammates usually respond. The rules do not protect YOU from getting your a$$ handed to you after making an illegal check. The rules usually just mean your team may not be AS shorthanded while someone tries to clean the ice with you.

The thing is OUR guys keep getting run WHILE OUR "POLICEMAN" IS ON THE ICE. See: englyund on kruger, reaves on Mayers, and now Torres on Hossa. When Englyund hit Kruger knowing that the baddest guy in hockey would come over and wallop him (which J Scott did) I stopped looking for the Hawks to be tougher, and started wanting them to be better. Absent a TRUE power fwd in the Lucic mold; being tough doesnt prevent your team from being run. It often means you dont have the skill to run 4 lines consistently and will have trouble winning grueling, one goal, ot games.

I hate agreeing with a Canucks fan, but I do. Whole-heartedly. The fact that Keith's heinous elbow was retaliation doesn't make it better. It makes it pre-meditated. It was a blatant example of intent to injure, and doesn't belong in the game at all. Torres' hit was also dirty, and is exactly the type of hit that the new rules are designed to remove. He has a history of cheap shots, and as such I'd like to see a 10 game suspension or more... but there is no justifying Keith's elbow.

JJ especially... Hold yourself to a higher standard. That's embarrassing.
- jtommyt

Nobody is/has justified the Keith elbow. Explaining why someone did something is different than justifying or condoning what he did. We've only pointed out that if the ref had made the right initial call and given Sedin a penalty for his late, high hit on Keith, then Keith's inexcusable retaliation likely never happens. Just like if Shanny had set the punishment bar high enough for some of the nonsense that went on earlier in the playoffs then maybe Torres doesn't run Hossa as violently as he did.

Also, if you don't think Torres hit had every bit as much intent to injure as Keith's elbow, you're fooling yourself.

seriously stop with the my herpes is worse than yours... Keiths was brutal as was Torres, Bertuzzi, McSorley...
- geta02it

Yeah, dirty and illegal is dirty and illegal. I wouldnt defend ANY of 'em.

..i have been told, though, that your herpes is, well, ...ya know...is pretty bad

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=628445

Its a start fellas, lets see where it goes from here.

That's the same as me saying, if Shaw didn't going after Smith, Torres wouldn't have gone after Hossa. Torres was simply retaliating, just like Keith.
- hertzman

Well not really one was one player directly on the other player that was involved in the initial incident. The other is two players completely removed from any incident with EACH OTHER

The better comaprison would be if Smith after being hit by shaw swung his goalie stick which hit shaw in the foot in turn breaking it.

That would be a dirty suspendible despicable play but at least you'd understand why smith was angry. Get it? I dont understand after all these posts how you still dont get it. You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing now.

Both were bad one was a first time offender who made a mistkae cause he lost his cool another was a vicious multiple offender who head hunted one of the more respected players in the game.

I may be late to the party with this as I haven't caught up to the end of the thread yet, but....

Toews shot the puck at Smith a second or two after the horn. A Yote ( I forget who) took exception and a scrum ensued...Kane (of all people) came to Toews defense, Smith took a couple of hacks at Sharpie, Crawford then had words with Smith...basically the kind of after the whistle nonsense that used to be the norm in the playoffs, BS that is...Before Shanahan.

Only thing that makes any sense as to why Toews is the only one who got 2:00 in the sin bin is because he "started it" with his after horn shot on net.
- Ogilthorpe2

thanks for the explanation... pretty consistent then with how things have been all series for the hawks. they have neutered any aggression or anything period after the whistle (flipping pucks?) when it comes to the hawks but the yotes are free to take head shots without finding the sin bin.

Firing Shanny would be a great start.
- philco28

Not unless they replace the puppet masters... otherwise you just have another puppet running the same sh!tt show

But if the NHL wants to water down enforcers roles and REALLY BIG hits go unanswered against star players the NHL will one by one start losing its datsuks Crosbys Millers Toews Vaneks and the list goes on and on.

back in the day if you hits Gretz or Yserman or Hull you had to answer the bell muliple times against multiple teams to the point where it got hard for you to even play the game. NOW NOPE doesnt happen you go after a guy who doesnt want to fight you get a 2 and a 10 do it again and you start looking at suspensions see carkener.

SO if thats the way its going to be these hits need to be policed by the league otherwise thats all it will be BIG HITS. See Cloutiers hockey buzz article yesterday http://www.hockeybuzz.com...No-Game-of-Ball/131/43910

All'd we'd be left with is a good ole game of ball.
- mvp0207

As long as they are clean I don't see the issue with hits. I hate that every time you see a big hit its ends up being a gang rap on the guy! Foligno had a clean clean hit "but also hard" on I believe gunnerson and it turned into a fight which Foligno didn't want in the 1st place. I shouldn't have to watch out for cheap shots just because I gave a big CLEAN hit... Where did the respect go? There used to be a fine line between clean hits and dirty play. Now people put it all together and its turning hockey into a pansy league IMO.