I find it hard to believe that I have anything in common with a Leaves fan, but I agree, this was not as bad as the Keith hit. The reason being what you said Jaeckel in the blog. Keith was hit earlier and was literally looking for revenge. Keith was totally premeditated and planned. If we were to compare both pieces of dirty hits to murder charges. Then the Keith hit was like a 1st degree premeditated murder and Torres hit was a 2nd degree unplanned in advance in the moment murder.

This means Jaeckel, that Torres should get at most a 2 or 3 game suspension plus a couple of games for being a repeat offender. Meaning 4-5 games in the playoffs.

Chicago chose to live by the sword and now they get to die by it as Hossa found out to his chagrin.

Keith should have been punished a lot more harshly in order for it to have meant anything.

Regards.
- kaptaan

Keith made a stupid retaliatory hit and was punished - 5 games - more than most suspensions this year.

It's done - it's over - Sedin was concussed, well, as I've said about other situations, the injury / extent of injury / player who was injured / team that was injured shouldn't matter - it was the act - was the act worth 5 games as punishment or deterrent, whether Sedin was injured or not.

Keith's situation is over, Torres' situation is upon us - enough with Keith.

I have to be honest on not on board with the you could crush a goalie out of the net campaign. AS we know I think the shaw deal was completely asinine and complete garbage. But im pretty comfortable with how the rules play out with goalies.

I will say this though although you should not be able to flat out crush a goalie , goalies who likes to play the puck like a dman and exit his net as much as smith should understand sometimes contact will occur. I think refs should notice this also.
- mvp0207

The whole point is goalies shouldn't be able to have it both ways. If they're untouchable because they are so vulnerable that they can't be expected to take the same physical abuse as regular skaters, then they shouldn't be allowed to sometimes participate in the game as if they were a regular skater, i.e. playing the puck outside if the crease. Like I said before, if the et minders are truly "untouchable", why not just have Crawford beat the forecheck by having him just skate the puck out of the D zone?

If Keith had been punished more harshly, like getting 10 games and 2 in the playoffs, then maybe all the bozos would decide that making a dirty hit isn't worth it.

Also, everyone saw that riding a vulnerable player into the boards who doesn't have the puck and isn't near it while breaking the guy's back results in no discipline.

Everyone also saw that punching a hart trophy candidate, lester pearson winner, and the reigning scoring champion in the face 7 times only warrants a two minute minor.

The players are responding to the message that the league is sending out. In the playoffs you can get away with a lot more without any repercussions. You can literally break a guy's back.

regards.
- kaptaan

I can't disagree with this. But why only punish keith? What about Weber? What about Kronwall? Or are you still grinding a Chicago axe?

Meh... Hammer should have eaten that puck in the corner... Tough play and the dude kept them in the game (that they played far from perfect D) so I really cant fault him
- fattybeef

+100

Not for a first time offender and not regarding similar hits

You Canucks fans forget so quick that DAVE BOLLAND was held out of the first few games last year recovering from a concussion and chances are pretty high that if he plays the whole series the Canucks DO NOT get a shot at the Cup.

*** See also Toews missing time this year from getting punched in the back of the head against the Sharks as well as the year he got railroaded by Mitchell***

The Hawks have lived this nightmare the last 2 years.

Read a book... Seriously... And stop making stupid comments

Congratulations to you and your ilk for a blatant lack of intelligence or respect for the current situation.
- fattybeef

See also torres on seabs that went unsuspended. THE WHY was there.

If Keith had been punished more harshly, like getting 10 games and 2 in the playoffs, then maybe all the bozos would decide that making a dirty hit isn't worth it.

Also, everyone saw that riding a vulnerable player into the boards who doesn't have the puck and isn't near it while breaking the guy's back results in no discipline.

Everyone also saw that punching a hart trophy candidate, lester pearson winner, and the reigning scoring champion in the face 7 times only warrants a two minute minor.

The players are responding to the message that the league is sending out. In the playoffs you can get away with a lot more without any repercussions. You can literally break a guy's back.

regards.
- kaptaan

Better worded. Whew and I could agree with some of this.

The whole point is goalies shouldn't be able to have it both ways. If they're untouchable because they are so vulnerable that they can't be expected to take the same physical abuse as regular skaters, then they shouldn't be allowed to sometimes participate in the game as if they were a regular skater, i.e. playing the puck outside if the crease. Like I said before, if the et minders are truly "untouchable", why not just have Crawford beat the forecheck by having him just skate the puck out of the D zone?
- Ogilthorpe2

A frightening thought, given his expertise playing the puck.

Not for a first time offender and not regarding similar hits

You Canucks fans forget so quick that DAVE BOLLAND was held out of the first few games last year recovering from a concussion and chances are pretty high that if he plays the whole series the Canucks DO NOT get a shot at the Cup.

*** See also Toews missing time this year from getting punched in the back of the head against the Sharks as well as the year he got railroaded by Mitchell***

The Hawks have lived this nightmare the last 2 years.

Read a book... Seriously... And stop making stupid comments

Congratulations to you and your ilk for a blatant lack of intelligence or respect for the current situation.
- fattybeef

Wrong. Bolland was given a free pass for the most part as NONE of the Canucks laid into him knowing he was coming off a serious concussion. So maybe the Canucks win the cup by taking out Bolland legally with hard hits and don't have to go 7 games in the first round.

The whole point is goalies shouldn't be able to have it both ways. If they're untouchable because they are so vulnerable that they can't be expected to take the same physical abuse as regular skaters, then they shouldn't be allowed to sometimes participate in the game as if they were a regular skater, i.e. playing the puck outside if the crease. Like I said before, if the et minders are truly "untouchable", why not just have Crawford beat the forecheck by having him just skate the puck out of the D zone?
- Ogilthorpe2

Yep I get it. Its a valid point and well though out. I simply dont agree with it is all.

Meh... Hammer should have eaten that puck in the corner... Tough play and the dude kept them in the game (that they played far from perfect D) so I really cant fault him
- fattybeef

Fatty, I'll go 50/50 with you on this. Totally agree that Hammer should have ate that puck in the corner, but instead, he just kind of poked it into an area where Boeddeker was able to pick it up easily and put it on net. With that said, that is an awful goal and cannot go in. All's Crawford had to do was stand up against the post and he makes the save. He did play great early and kept them in the game. I give him full props for that, but it all gets kind of forgotten when you give up a soft goal like that in OT that costs you a game. Pressure is really on him now for next game. If the Hawks are gonna win, I think it's gonna have to be a 1-0, 2-1 type game which is the type of game they haven't won too often this year. Hawks also need something on the PP this next game.

Wrong. Bolland was given a free pass for the most part as NONE of the Canucks laid into him knowing he was coming off a serious concussion. So maybe the Canucks win the cup by taking out Bolland legally with hard hits and don't have to go 7 games in the first round.
- kaptaan

NOT A CHANCE now you are back in the "what the hell did he just say" column.

You can't really believe this could you? You cant, I will not allow myself to think you are this far off the rocker.

Wrong. Bolland was given a free pass for the most part as NONE of the Canucks laid into him knowing he was coming off a serious concussion. So maybe the Canucks win the cup by taking out Bolland legally with hard hits and don't have to go 7 games in the first round.
- kaptaan

Bullpoop... Bieska overtly boarded him after which Bolland broke his stick on the half boards screaming at the refs.

Get your facts together and know what you're talking about before you start spewing nonsense here.

Sick of all you self righteous Vancouver fans thinking that you know everything with some gross pontification about how the NHL is against you.

Give me a break and get over yourself

Edit: Hamhuis, tough to tell those clowns apart

Wrong. Bolland was given a free pass for the most part as NONE of the Canucks laid into him knowing he was coming off a serious concussion. So maybe the Canucks win the cup by taking out Bolland legally with hard hits and don't have to go 7 games in the first round.
- kaptaan

Hamhuis! But by Canuck fan logic, their players don't do anything wrong! FAIL...

If Keith had been punished more harshly, like getting 10 games and 2 in the playoffs, then maybe all the bozos would decide that making a dirty hit isn't worth it.

Also, everyone saw that riding a vulnerable player into the boards who doesn't have the puck and isn't near it while breaking the guy's back results in no discipline.

Everyone also saw that punching a hart trophy candidate, lester pearson winner, and the reigning scoring champion in the face 7 times only warrants a two minute minor.

The players are responding to the message that the league is sending out. In the playoffs you can get away with a lot more without any repercussions. You can literally break a guy's back.

regards.
- kaptaan

Acceptable , and send a message to the league that shoulders to the head like the one by Sedin on Keith wont be tolerated , and the sugguested remainder of the season plus 2 playoff games for Keith and 4 games for Sedin would have been a good way to send a message by the NHL

Ya very clear... nope never said I was but I've played goal, coached goal and now have kids who play it so lets say i bring a different persprective. Smith is the one who should be suspended for his BS. Shaw maybe two minutes (maybe) for a charge but to say anytime a goalie leaves a crease he should be fair game is just dumb. On the Smith attempted homicide, I'm with you guys, just not on the rest...
- geta02it

No, it's common sense. If you want to play like a 3rd D-man, you get treated like one, don't want to take the risk, stay in the crease. Go to no touch icing, and make goalies outside their crease responsible for their own safety, and both the need for, and frequency with which goalies choose to play the puck will be drastically reduced, as will goaltender injures.

Wrong. Bolland was given a free pass for the most part as NONE of the Canucks laid into him knowing he was coming off a serious concussion. So maybe the Canucks win the cup by taking out Bolland legally with hard hits and don't have to go 7 games in the first round.
- kaptaan

Really? Are you forgetting Hamhuis going for a high hit against Bolland up against the glass one of his first games back?

Fatty, I'll go 50/50 with you on this. Totally agree that Hammer should have ate that puck in the corner, but instead, he just kind of poked it into an area where Boeddeker was able to pick it up easily and put it on net. With that said, that is an awful goal and cannot go in. All's Crawford had to do was stand up against the post and he makes the save. He did play great early and kept them in the game. I give him full props for that, but it all gets kind of forgotten when you give up a soft goal like that in OT that costs you a game. Pressure is really on him now for next game. If the Hawks are gonna win, I think it's gonna have to be a 1-0, 2-1 type game which is the type of game they haven't won too often this year. Hawks also need something on the PP this next game.
- RetiredGoalie

That was not a great play by Hammer. Even going back to the Cup year, small Hawk d-men struggle with clears and try that little poke pass along the wall. Leddy . . . yeesh.

At that point of the game, I give Hammer and Crawford a bit of a pass, both were exhausted. Crawford less so. He has to stop that.

Really? Are you forgetting Hamhuis going for a high hit against Bolland up against the glass one of his first games back?
- MartiniMan

He has forgotten.

Fatty, I'll go 50/50 with you on this. Totally agree that Hammer should have ate that puck in the corner, but instead, he just kind of poked it into an area where Boeddeker was able to pick it up easily and put it on net. With that said, that is an awful goal and cannot go in. All's Crawford had to do was stand up against the post and he makes the save. He did play great early and kept them in the game. I give him full props for that, but it all gets kind of forgotten when you give up a soft goal like that in OT that costs you a game. Pressure is really on him now for next game. If the Hawks are gonna win, I think it's gonna have to be a 1-0, 2-1 type game which is the type of game they haven't won too often this year. Hawks also need something on the PP this next game.
- RetiredGoalie

Which is a problem for Hammer, and other Hawk defenders as well: weak puck plays that get turned over and ultimately put on net, too often to wind up in the net.

Wrong. Bolland was given a free pass for the most part as NONE of the Canucks laid into him knowing he was coming off a serious concussion. So maybe the Canucks win the cup by taking out Bolland legally with hard hits and don't have to go 7 games in the first round.
- kaptaan

So I just read D. Sedin is going to play tonight! Will be interesting to see how physical the Kings play him. If he takes a hit like Henrik took the other night from Brown, he's done, potentially long term.

As a Canuck fan, what do you think of him coming back now, likely a bit too early?

Wrong. Bolland was given a free pass for the most part as NONE of the Canucks laid into him knowing he was coming off a serious concussion. So maybe the Canucks win the cup by taking out Bolland legally with hard hits and don't have to go 7 games in the first round.
- kaptaan

Hamhead #2 tried to rail Bolland in the glass from behind and Bolland did a a great job of elbowing him in the head to defeat the hit from behind.

Amongst all this bullpoop and non hockey talk , Kane turned the puck over at the Phoenix blue line like Satlberg used to do and th epuck ended up in the back of the Hawks net. Sucks.

joining way late here but a couple thoughts:
1) had Shanny started with 10-15 games min on all head shots this year, maybe we'd be in a different place. If they really want this crap out, they need to send a message.

2) I am hoping this series mirrors the Nashville series during the cup run. Hawks start to figure out how to win starting in game 4. Of course, any time B. Campbell wants to insert himself into the lineup, fine by me.

3) Isn't it on Stan that Q doesn't have a 6th dman he could trust with some decent minutes? I know #5 was supposed to be that guy but he was questionable at the deadline. I feel like another dman could have been had and it is costing the hawks now.

4) would like to see more speed on the 4th line. I feel like the Hawks could use that to their advantage. Given that Frolik and Saad are now in the line up, I guess at this point there isn't a viable option to insert anymore (maybe Hayes...or Morin?). I just think that line is too slow with #15 and 52 on it. Nothing against those guys but Hawks could use an extra step or 3.

I can't disagree with this. But why only punish keith? What about Weber? What about Kronwall? Or are you still grinding a Chicago axe?
- John Jaeckel

I don't like anybody giving out dirty hits. I believe all these guys gunning for the head should get an automatic suspension that escalates for repeat offenders.

I'd prefer a clean skilled game which is why I liked for the most part Canucks - Hawks and Canucks - Wings, games. I don't like cheap shot hits and its not just cuz Daniel was hit like that. I'd like to have seen Lucic suspended for what he did to Miller or any number of guys like Weber who deliberately tried to drive Zetterberg's head into the glass. I thought Bertuzzi was a complete buffoon the way he went after Moore so many years ago.

He could have waited until the next season to exact some legal punishment instead of costing the Canucks a shot at the cup that year.

regards.

That was not a great play by Hammer. Even going back to the Cup year, small Hawk d-men struggle with clears and try that little poke pass along the wall. Leddy . . . yeesh.

At that point of the game, I give Hammer and Crawford a bit of a pass, both were exhausted. Crawford less so. He has to stop that.
- John Jaeckel

The entire team looked exhausted and I tend to blame that on Q. You were already down a man in Hossa, but yet he still shortened the bench in the 3rd and in OT. Also, went mostly with 5 d. If you don't have confidence in Olsen, then why play him?" I would have went with Lepisto. Not saying Lepisto is the answer to the problem, but I think Q doesn't give him enough credit. Actually thought he had played pretty well during that 12 to 14 game stretch before he hurt his leg. Sounds like Saad will be playing tomorrow. Not feeling too good about that. I hope they can catch lightening in a bottle, but it seems like a desparate move.