Headshot in NHL....Chitown n Blues

[JustRalph]

I don't follow hockey that close, but this has got to be one of the most brutal shots I've ever seen. Stick with the video and watch it in slow motion. I can't believe he woke up .......but he was unsteady

http://youtu.be/mSNtMDkRjBA

mSNtMDkRjBA

[elysiantraveller]

Should cost him 2-3 games. Was intentionally attempting to maim Backes when he could have just dropped a hip and still laid a pretty good, and legal, wollop on him. As a Wings fan it really pains me cheering for the Blues but the absolute joy I get out of watching the Blackhawks lose, especially the way they have, easily surpasses it.

[headhawg]

Well, Seabrook must have eyes on the side and back of his head. He's not even looking at Backes when he hits him so to say it's headhunting is stupid. Intentionally trying to maim? Typical Wings fan. The NHL had to move Detroit to the East so that they could (barely) make the playoffs.

[woodtoo]

Way over the top,uncalled for even in the heat of the moment.Drags the
game down to the gutter.

To say Seabrook didn't see him is bull. :faint:

[thaskalos]

The smirk on Seabrook's face made me sick. I couldn't be happier when the Hawks lost the way they did.

[cj]

The guy should be suspended for a long time, playoffs and some of next season. But he won't be, because it is the NHL, and they secretly don't mind goonish play.

[Greyfox]

Many arenas around North America are seriously considering a "Look Up Zone" - an orange band painted on the ice 40" wide around the entire rink. The purpose of it is to reduce injuries.

While the concept may not catch on with the pros for awhile, it will certainly reduce some of the anxieties that parents have about entering their kids in hockey.
Hopefully, some day the pros will have it too.

Read more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/sports/hockey/look-up-line-would-warn-dangers-ahead-for-amateur-hockey-players.html?_r=0

[Greyfox]

Seabrooke received a 3 game suspension.

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/24533947/brent-seabrook-suspended-three-games-for-hit-on-david-backes

[elysiantraveller]

Well, Seabrook must have eyes on the side and back of his head. He's not even looking at Backes when he hits him so to say it's headhunting is stupid. Intentionally trying to maim? Typical Wings fan. The NHL had to move Detroit to the East so that they could (barely) make the playoffs.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

At least we know games are "typically" 60 minutes long... not 59:45

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[headhawg]

At least we know games are "typically" 60 minutes long... not 59:45Go Bruins.

[MutuelClerk]

He left his feet and hit him at the same time. Dirty hit. Not a dirty player. Shouldn't matter. I would have given him the rest of the series off. Three games is a decent suspension.

[headhawg]

The guy should be suspended for a long time, playoffs and some of next season. But he won't be, because it is the NHL, and they secretly don't mind goonish play.Seabrook is far from a goon. Watch the video. Backes isn't even ruled out for Game 3. But I guess it's ok for the Blues players to double-team Toews in Game 1's 2nd OT, one with a cross-check (Polak) and then a targeted hit to the head by Reaves. Toews face was bloodied but I guess that's ok because he didn't get a concussion. Video (http://tireball.com/nhl/2014/04/18/jonathan-toews-suffers-bloody-face-after-hit-against-boards/)

[cj]

Seabrook is far from a goon. Watch the video -- he didn't even leave his feet. Backes isn't even ruled out for Game 3. But I guess it's ok for the Blues players to double-team Toews in Game 1's 2nd OT, one with a cross-check (Polak) and then a targeted hit to the head by Reaves. Toews face was bloodied but I guess that's ok because he didn't get a concussion. Video (http://tireball.com/nhl/2014/04/18/jonathan-toews-suffers-bloody-face-after-hit-against-boards/)

I watched the play. I don't follow hockey enough to know his history, but that play was goonish. That was all I said about it. The NHL allows too much of this crap to go on and has for a long time. I can only surmise it is secretly condoned. I guess things are getting better, because it wasn't that long ago it wouldn't have even been a suspension for one game.

[newtothegame]

He (Seabrooke) Braced for the hit (so you cant say he didn't see it), he left his feet (and didn't try to avoid it). He targeted the head area......Blatantly!
If this was center ice or away from the boards it may only taken the StL player off of his feet. This close to the boards, there has to be limits!
This could of actually been worse for the STL player.....IMHO 3 games isn't enough!

[johnhannibalsmith]

I thought 3 games was kind of a lot, yet predictable, but then again, I'm usually in the minority these days on some of these hits.

[Stillriledup]

I see a LOT of hockey and i heard about the hit before i saw it and when i saw it, i didnt think it was as bad as what people were saying. If the guy bounces up and isnt hurt, are we even talking about this as anything more than a rough hit in the corner?

[johnhannibalsmith]

I see a LOT of hockey and i heard about the hit before i saw it and when i saw it, i didnt think it was as bad as what people were saying. If the guy bounces up and isnt hurt, are we even talking about this as anything more than a rough hit in the corner?

Probably.

He did make contact with the head, which in today's game, you just can't do.

But, he tucked his arms and lowered his shoulder and attempted to make what some of us learned as essentially a clean hit, though it probably could have warranted one of a couple minor penalties given the timing and the distance he covered while clearly having him lined up.

I have a hard time hearing that described as goonish. A bit gratuitous perhaps, but the guy on the receiving end is a tough player that plays tough, is a heart and soul sort of guy, and this is the playoffs. You get a chance to steamroll a guy like that, you take it. But, you can't hit him in the head.

[Stillriledup]

Probably.

He did make contact with the head, which in today's game, you just can't do.

But, he tucked his arms and lowered his shoulder and attempted to make what some of us learned as essentially a clean hit, though it probably could have warranted one of a couple minor penalties given the timing and the distance he covered while clearly having him lined up.

I have a hard time hearing that described as goonish. A bit gratuitous perhaps, but the guy on the receiving end is a tough player that plays tough, is a heart and soul sort of guy, and this is the playoffs. You get a chance to steamroll a guy like that, you take it. But, you can't hit him in the head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRkQJjbKTCM

No penalty or suspension for this cheap shot elbow. (above)

This one was a 1 game suspension, not 3, just one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzC05QuAkZ4

[johnhannibalsmith]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRkQJjbKTCM

No penalty or suspension for this cheap shot elbow. (above)

This one was a 1 game suspension, not 3, just one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzC05QuAkZ4



What is the point of posting the two videos?

The first one is hard to correlate to this situation at all and the Pronger hit was, what, six or seven years ago? He'd get a shitload more for that one today than he did then.

[newtothegame]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRkQJjbKTCM

No penalty or suspension for this cheap shot elbow. (above)

This one was a 1 game suspension, not 3, just one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzC05QuAkZ4

After watching both examples you provided, the first wasn't even that serious...open ice and an elbow ( while not even looking back). For all he knew, he could of elbowed anyone....so intent is kind of hard to prove.
The second, although thirteen stitches were needed, it was two players meeting one in the corner ......and if you listened to the analysis, it was the INTENT.
But even with that, I don't think it was as bad as the hit Seabrooke placed on baakes.
Seabrooke went in with the intent to do serious harm......leading, targeting, launching himself to a defenseless player.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
Seabrooke went in with the intent to do serious harm......leading, targeting, launching himself to a defenseless player.

I'd replace "do serious harm" with "lay that son of a bitch out", but otherwise you have it right. And really, I don't have any problem with anything else except for one not mentioned, the fact that his shoulder caught him square in the head.

He was defenseless because he buried his head long enough for Seabrook to literally chart a mental course to impact and Backes still never picked his head up for all six strides from where he began. That's a good way to get destroyed and I'd be surprised if even Backes doesn't know he had a hand in setting up that one. You're taught to time it so your shoulder meets chest on the last stride and to push through - it looks like a launch - you start with a low center of gravity trying to line the guy up while accelerating and then the follow-through forces you up off that back foot as your weight shifts. Even a guy just delivering a strong stand up hit at the line is basically doing the same thing.

It was a mean, nasty hit and if I was on the Blues, I'd surely not be acting like I believe any of what I'm typing. I'd want Seabrooke's head, but mainly because of what Backes is to the team.

Watch this one... listen to the commentary at the end even.

Do you feel the same way about this hit?

aYQf9cxzJFg

[newtothegame]

I'd replace "do serious harm" with "lay that son of a bitch out", but otherwise you have it right. And really, I don't have any problem with anything else except for one not mentioned, the fact that his shoulder caught him square in the head.

He was defenseless because he buried his head long enough for Seabrook to literally chart a mental course to impact and Backes still never picked his head up for all six strides from where he began. That's a good way to get destroyed and I'd be surprised if even Backes doesn't know he had a hand in setting up that one. You're taught to time it so your shoulder meets chest on the last stride and to push through - it looks like a launch - you start with a low center of gravity trying to line the guy up while accelerating and then the follow-through forces you up off that back foot as your weight shifts. Even a guy just delivering a strong stand up hit at the line is basically doing the same thing.

It was a mean, nasty hit and if I was on the Blues, I'd surely not be acting like I believe any of what I'm typing. I'd want Seabrooke's head, but mainly because of what Backes is to the team.

Watch this one... listen to the commentary at the end even.

Do you feel the same way about this hit?

aYQf9cxzJFg

Actually, as tough as a hit as you've shown, I think it is a bit different then being on the boards, looking down for a puck. Although Kozlov may not of seen Stevens coming, there was not the crushing (after the hit) into the boards.
When a guys head is basically pinned between shoulder pads and the boards, add in the force of the blow, and ...well it just can add a different level of injury.
Now granted, the boards can also make hits seem more violent ( due to the crashing and banging). That's where cameras and replays should come into play ( as was done in the st.louis game).
It's really tough to play along the boards, where the puck usually is pinned, having your back to the main ice, then having some guy come flying in with bad intentions. He (Seabrooke) definitely wanted to " (lay that sob out)".
Had he came in with an attempt for the puck, or even tried to avoid the hit, I would think differently as hockey is rough. But I watched it as it happened on television and I even cringed the minute it happened. I am still amazed backes, instinctively was able to find his way to his feet. Even though, it was about he couldn't even tell you what team he played for at that moment. :faint:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Actually, as tough as a hit as you've shown, I think it is a bit different then being on the boards, looking down for a puck. Although Kozlov may not of seen Stevens coming, there was not the crushing (after the hit) into the boards. ...

There's no doubt about that and to the league's credit, it has done a fine job of getting rid of a lot of the hitting from behind into the boards and the rest it punishes pretty severely.

But I can't really see how you can use that to demonize the player making the hit when he waits for the guy to turn literally 180 degrees from that position and is cutting away and towards the middle of the ice. You have to hit that guy if you can (assuming he's carrying the puck or just released, which in this case may be, probably along with borderline charging, the second most egregious act commited). You can't make it so that you can't hit a guy at all just because he's near the boards.

[Stillriledup]

What is the point of posting the two videos?

The first one is hard to correlate to this situation at all and the Pronger hit was, what, six or seven years ago? He'd get a shitload more for that one today than he did then.

My point is why does the guy get 3 games when 1 game was what Pronger got and 3 games less than what Holmstrom got.

Why would a 1 game suspension in 2007 be a 3 games suspension today?

[newtothegame]

There's no doubt about that and to the league's credit, it has done a fine job of getting rid of a lot of the hitting from behind into the boards and the rest it punishes pretty severely.

But I can't really see how you can use that to demonize the player making the hit when he waits for the guy to turn literally 180 degrees from that position and is cutting away and towards the middle of the ice. You have to hit that guy if you can (assuming he's carrying the puck or just released, which in this case may be, probably along with borderline charging, the second most egregious act commited). You can't make it so that you can't hit a guy at all just because he's near the boards.
I agree....but, from what I've seen, these guys have instincts at a top level. They can catch a puck that I can barely see lol. In the Seabrooke hit, the puck was not near backes.
Seabrooke could of easily went lower in my opinion. Hit the guy as hard as ya want shoulder and below....I wouldn't even be opposed to a shoulder ( or lower) hit against the boards. Broken ribs heal with no real lingering lasting effects .....
When he went high, along the boards, that is where my real issue comes in. And, backes, although he did turn...there was no earl way for him to protect himself.

[HoofedInTheChest]

Back in the day that was a clean hit.

After watching the hit several times in slow mo, Seabrook did two things wrong that warranted a penalty/suspension.

- He was charging on his way in, he brought himself up to full speed before contact.
- The principal point of contact was the head, and that is no longer allowed under the new CBA.

A few more observations...

- Brent Seabrook is a clean hockey player. Calling him a goon is just plain ignorant.
- Backes left himself vulnerable, you never skate in one direction while looking back at the play, a defenceman will start to salivate at such an opportunity.
- HE DID NOT LEAVE HIS FEET! His right foot was planted on the ice at the point of contact, you are taught as a minor to lean into a hit, it’s called leverage, that’s why his left skate was slightly off the ice at the point of contact.
- His elbow was tucked into his ribcage before contact, the follow through of the hit opened up his arm. Anyone that calls that elbowing is clueless.
- The crown of his shoulder made contact with his forehead/visor/helmet. If his intent was to seriously injure Backes, he would have lined up his jaw. His Bicep was the main point of contact, i have a hard time believing that was the cause of the concussion.
- Backes hit the back of his head off the ledger board after the contact was made, that is more than likely the cause of the concussion.
- When you target a captain (Toews) in a previous game, you better expect something in return down the road.
- And lastly, he got rocked, Canadian style!

Rule # 1

Keep your head up!

[PaceAdvantage]

- HE DID NOT LEAVE HIS FEET! His right foot was planted on the ice at the point of contact, you are taught as a minor to lean into a hit, it’s called leverage, that’s why his left skate was slightly off the ice at the point of contact.I don't know why multiple people in this thread said he left his feet, when he clearly DID NOT, as you point out.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Back in the day that was a clean hit.

After watching the hit several times in slow mo, Seabrook did two things wrong that warranted a penalty/suspension.

- He was charging on his way in, he brought himself up to full speed before contact.
- The principal point of contact was the head, and that is no longer allowed under the new CBA.

A few more observations...

- Brent Seabrook is a clean hockey player. Calling him a goon is just plain ignorant.
- Backes left himself vulnerable, you never skate in one direction while looking back at the play, a defenceman will start to salivate at such an opportunity.
- HE DID NOT LEAVE HIS FEET! His right foot was planted on the ice at the point of contact, you are taught as a minor to lean into a hit, it’s called leverage, that’s why his left skate was slightly off the ice at the point of contact.
- His elbow was tucked into his ribcage before contact, the follow through of the hit opened up his arm. Anyone that calls that elbowing is clueless.
- The crown of his shoulder made contact with his forehead/visor/helmet. If his intent was to seriously injure Backes, he would have lined up his jaw. His Bicep was the main point of contact, i have a hard time believing that was the cause of the concussion.
- Backes hit the back of his head off the ledger board after the contact was made, that is more than likely the cause of the concussion.
- When you target a captain (Toews) in a previous game, you better expect something in return down the road.
- And lastly, he got rocked, Canadian style!

Rule # 1

Keep your head up!

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

There's the summary.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

Why would a 1 game suspension in 2007 be a 3 games suspension today?

I'd argue that it would be more. It was clear headhunting, from behind, where he drove the man's head into the boards. Back in 2007, the fact that he went for the head instinctively and primarily, didn't mean that act alone warranted discipline. Now it does.

I'm sure you can go to NHL website and watch the suspension videos over and over and see a whole herd of hits that would have been clean hits up until recently. The common denominator in most of them is that very same thing, contact to the head that was avoidable. In the Pronger case, it wasn't just avoidable and he didn't catch himself quickly enough, he was on a mission and fulfilled it when Holmstrom's head went ding and down he went.

[cj]

A few more observations...

- Brent Seabrook is a clean hockey player. Calling him a goon is just plain ignorant.


For the record, again, I never said he was a goon. The play, however, was goon like. I wouldn't judge somebody on one play. But, the league clearly agreed on that one play since he is sitting for three games, right? How is that ignorant.

[johnhannibalsmith]

For what it's worth, I guess, if someone wants to know how the NHL attempts to make distinctions on hits involving the head these days - this is Shanahan's video that attempts to clarify what they are looking at:

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=60&id=237066&lang=en

Of course, I think it's safe to say that maybe it's more art than science in trying to distinguish one gray area from the next and why sometimes you scratch your head looking at the examples of legal hits compared to those that result in suspensions (usually after a guy gets hurt).

This is why I thought 3 games was a lot, but predictable. He does hit him squarely and through the body, unlike the vast majority of the illegal examples where the player misses making any significant contact into and through the body and only connects with the head. The recipient did leave himself vulnerable for such a hit. But, he's a name player and he got knocked loopy by it and the contact to the head was made without Backes dropping his head suddenly or something.

It's hard to play hockey and not wind up concussed at some point. Obviously, there has been a lot of legitimate concern about concussions and the long-term effects in athletes. I understand that it's going to be hard for me to look at hits that were clean, beautiful, hard, nasty, highlight reel type hits suddenly become suspension worthy. But on the other hand, I'm glad that in the case where the hit is not beautiful in any way and the head is clearly targeted in an effort to inflict damage (a la SRU's Pronger) will get looked at and dealt with for the head targeting to get rid of the concussions that were in no way good, clean, honorable hits without the head contact.

[Greyfox]

Obviously, there has been a lot of legitimate concern about concussions and the long-term effects in athletes.

Unfortunately that concern has only been in the last few years and it's only been shown for fear of losing a huge amount of money.

The NFL court case re: concussions has woken the NHL up to fear that they are next in line for a huge suit.
I think that 9 former hockey players are already seeking some type of settlement.
This type of concern should have been shown decades ago.
It's not as if knowledge of concussions hasn't been known for a long time.

I should also add that historically NHL players and management have promoted a culture of violence in the game.
Even the current crop of players needs to be educated on the seriousness of head injuries.
That fact that several Blackhawk players were shouting "Wakey, wakey" to
Backes the other evening, while Seabrook was grinning ear to ear, tells me that these guys need are just not aware of the seriousness of brain damage.
Sick attitudes of that nature are spawned from Junior hockey on, and carry on through the various levels of professional hockey.
I'm told that it is even worse in the American Hockey League, where wannabee fringe players try to get noticed by pushing the envelope of violence.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Unfortunately that concern has only been in the last few years and it's only been shown for fear of losing a huge amount of money.

The NFL court case re: concussions has woken the NHL up to fear that they are next in line for a huge suit.
I think that 9 former hockey players are already seeking some type of settlement.
This type of concern should have been shown decades ago.
It's not as if knowledge of concussions hasn't been known for a long time.

I should also add that historically NHL players and management have promoted a culture of violence in the game.
Even the current crop of players needs to be educated on the seriousness of head injuries.
That fact that several Blackhawk players were shouting "Wakey, wakey" to
Backes the other evening, while Seabrook was grinning ear to ear, tells me that these guys need are just not aware of the seriousness of brain damage.
Sick attitudes of that nature are spawned from Junior hockey on, and carry on through the various levels of professional hockey.
I'm told that it is even worse in the American Hockey League, where wannabee fringe players try to get noticed by pushing the envelope of violence.


I mean, there's really no way to disagree with the gist there.

Looking back now, I am 100% positive that it happened to me over and over and if we were in today's society - most people would have recognized it in an instant. But then... they gave me bifocals for the terrible headaches... haven't worn glasses since about two weeks after I got them... but nobody ever said we need to go see a doctor, it sure seems like a concussion.

So, I have to challenge a bit - using only my experiences anecdotally - the idea that concussions should be dealt with the way they are today was common knowledge forever and essentially suppressed. I genuinely believe that until pretty recently, when you consider the science that looked into the effects of repeated concussions in guys like Probert and Boogard and other high profile deaths that were correlated to CTE, it just wasn't thought to be as serious as we now know that it can be. Then, you just got your clock cleaned.

I just can't see how you will ever substantially get rid of the risk without trying to become international style hockey, which flatly, people don't want to watch and many don't even want to play. We know now. If you still want that North American style of hockey, I think the goal has to be to find the balance between players understanding the risk and the league filtering out to the best of its ability headshots, but not big hits that may result in concussion.

[Greyfox]

So, I have to challenge a bit - using only my experiences anecdotally - the idea that concussions should be dealt with the way they are today was common knowledge forever and essentially suppressed.

Believe what you want, but they knew decades ago.
Every team has had a doctor as long as I can remember.
I've never met a doctor yet who didn't know about the seriousness of concussions (even back in the 1960's).

Let me tell you another anecdotal story.
In 1969 Ted Green was playing for the Boston Bruins.
He became involved in a stick swinging duel with Wayne Maki.
Green was knocked unconscious.
He required surgery and a metal plate was inserted beneath his skull.
He came back to play and went on to ultimately coach the Edmonton Oilers in the early 1990's.
But even that head injury left Green with a somewhat nonchalant cavalier attitude towards head shots.
When coaching the Oilers one of his players, Shaun Van Allen, was knocked into cuckooland and on the bench one of Green's players said:
"Coach....Shaun doesn't know who he is."
Green replied: "Tell him he's Wayne Gretzky."

Today I'm certain that Ted Green would not be so flippant.
He's in his early seventies, he has difficulties with speech , motor muscle coordination, and walking gait.
His medical difficulties today are most likely due to that horrific injury suffered way back in the 1960's.

But the fact is the team doctors knew way back then the short and long term outcomes of concussions.
When the NHL head honchos are saying today that they didn't know until recently, I just can't believe that.
They most certainly knew and chose to ignore that knowledge.

EXoO2QkIlH8

[Rookies]

Should have been a longer suspension for Seabrook. Was it last Season that the NHL said 10% of its players had Concussion injuries? The problem today is that the Players are huge, lightning fast, well trained, in superb (less than 5% body fat) shape and are outfitted like Robocop-Gladiators.

YET, they still play in the small arenas of previous generations, making it easy to crush their opponents. A very violent game played at high speed.

My neighbours' kid plays in the NHL and he has the pest, troublemaker role of impaling somebody into the boards, followed up with a Fighting Major. Unless the NHL takes serious steps, they are going to be on the wrong end of billion dollar liability lawsuits!

[MutuelClerk]

I'll take Seabrook over Matt Cooke any day of the week. He can't help himself. With his past, I hope they throw the book at him.

[HoofedInTheChest]

For the record, again, I never said he was a goon. The play, however, was goon like. I wouldn't judge somebody on one play. But, the league clearly agreed on that one play since he is sitting for three games, right? How is that ignorant.
Your definition of "Goon" is a lot different than mine.

A goon is someone that has no skillset, he is only there to fight and to keep the players honest. To use the word goon or goonish in the same sentence as Brent Seabrook is ignorant, we're talking about an elite level defenceman with a high skillset that has no history of this type of play.

Don't get me wrong, he deserves the suspension, but don't lump him into a pile of players that are mostly considered hacks. I took issue with your choice of words, not your reasoning.

[cj]

Your definition of "Goon" is a lot different than mine.

A goon is someone that has no skillset, he is only there to fight and to keep the players honest. To use the word goon or goonish in the same sentence as Brent Seabrook is ignorant, we're talking about an elite level defenceman with a high skillset that has no history of this type of play.

Don't get me wrong, he deserves the suspension, but don't lump him into a pile of players that are mostly considered hacks. I took issue with your choice of words, not your reasoning.

Again (3x), not what I said. It was one play, and on that one play he was out of line. I never called him a goon, he just made one play that fit the mold. I totally agree that one play shouldn't define somebody as a whole.

[Greyfox]

Your definition of "Goon" is a lot different than mine.

A goon is someone that has no skillset, he is only there to fight and to keep the players honest. To use the word goon or goonish in the same sentence as Brent Seabrook is ignorant, we're talking about an elite level defenceman with a high skillset that has no history of this type of play.

Don't get me wrong, he deserves the suspension, but don't lump him into a pile of players that are mostly considered hacks. I took issue with your choice of words, not your reasoning.

cj clearly said that he wasn't calling Seabrook a goon.

By any rational observers standards his hit was "goonish."

[HoofedInTheChest]

cj clearly said that he wasn't calling Seabrook a goon.

By any rational observers standards his hit was "goonish."
cj is a big boy with a high intellect, he doesn't need your help.

[HoofedInTheChest]

What a lot of you fail to understand is, it was a necessary hit. Some of you bleeding hearts will have trouble with this, mostly because you’ve never played the game, but i will explain it to you.

Ok, a lot of you are missing the underlying story of what transpired before the hit. Jonathan Toews is playing with an injured left shoulder/elbow, he missed the last couple weeks of the regular season. The Blues were targeting the injury in game 1, so much so i spent most of the game cringing knowing full well what he was going through. After a while it became overkill, they were trying to knock him out of the series. If you’ve ever played the game, then i shouldn’t have to explain to you that you protect your captain like it’s your own mother. If the Black Hawks didn’t make a statement in the following game, then that would be saying it’s open season on Jonathan Toews, and the abuse would have continued. I guarantee you before game 2, coach Quennville was telling his players, “the first opportunity you get, i want you to destroy their captain. If they are going to f*ck with our captain, then we are going to eliminate theirs”. The Blues probably thought they could steamroll the Black Hawks, pound the crap out of them until the series was won, but that dynamic was changed in a heartbeat with one hit. The confidence you thought you had is now in question, you’re sitting in the locker room watching your captain talk to tweety bird, it changes your mindset.

More often than not, there is a reason for these types of vicious hits, they just don’t happen out of the blue. Whether it’s for retaliation, policing, to change the momentum of a game or a series, or whatever it may be, there is generally a reason. The game is not for everyone, that is obvious, the tactics used to win championships at times are questionable, but they are affective.

[Stillriledup]

What a lot of you fail to understand is, it was a necessary hit. Some of you bleeding hearts will have trouble with this, mostly because you’ve never played the game, but i will explain it to you.

Ok, a lot of you are missing the underlying story of what transpired before the hit. Jonathan Toews is playing with an injured left shoulder/elbow, he missed the last couple weeks of the regular season. The Blues were targeting the injury in game 1, so much so i spent most of the game cringing knowing full well what he was going through. After a while it became overkill, they were trying to knock him out of the series. If you’ve ever played the game, then i shouldn’t have to explain to you that you protect your captain like it’s your own mother. If the Black Hawks didn’t make a statement in the following game, then that would be saying it’s open season on Jonathan Toews, and the abuse would have continued. I guarantee you before game 2, coach Quennville was telling his players, “the first opportunity you get, i want you to destroy their captain. If they are going to f*ck with our captain, then we are going to eliminate theirs”. The Blues probably thought they could steamroll the Black Hawks, pound the crap out of them until the series was won, but that dynamic was changed in a heartbeat with one hit. The confidence you thought you had is now in question, you’re sitting in the locker room watching your captain talk to tweety bird, it changes your mindset.

More often than not, there is a reason for these types of vicious hits, they just don’t happen out of the blue. Whether it’s for retaliation, policing, to change the momentum of a game or a series, or whatever it may be, there is generally a reason. The game is not for everyone, that is obvious, the tactics used to win championships at times are questionable, but they are affective.


This might be similar to the Moore/Bertuzzi incident. Nobody deserves to have their career ended obviously, but it wasnt like Moore was just "singled out" because of his race, religion or skin color.

[newtothegame]

What a lot of you fail to understand is, it was a necessary hit. Some of you bleeding hearts will have trouble with this, mostly because you’ve never played the game, but i will explain it to you.

Ok, a lot of you are missing the underlying story of what transpired before the hit. Jonathan Toews is playing with an injured left shoulder/elbow, he missed the last couple weeks of the regular season. The Blues were targeting the injury in game 1, so much so i spent most of the game cringing knowing full well what he was going through. After a while it became overkill, they were trying to knock him out of the series. If you’ve ever played the game, then i shouldn’t have to explain to you that you protect your captain like it’s your own mother. If the Black Hawks didn’t make a statement in the following game, then that would be saying it’s open season on Jonathan Toews, and the abuse would have continued. I guarantee you before game 2, coach Quennville was telling his players, “the first opportunity you get, i want you to destroy their captain. If they are going to f*ck with our captain, then we are going to eliminate theirs”. The Blues probably thought they could steamroll the Black Hawks, pound the crap out of them until the series was won, but that dynamic was changed in a heartbeat with one hit. The confidence you thought you had is now in question, you’re sitting in the locker room watching your captain talk to tweety bird, it changes your mindset.

More often than not, there is a reason for these types of vicious hits, they just don’t happen out of the blue. Whether it’s for retaliation, policing, to change the momentum of a game or a series, or whatever it may be, there is generally a reason. The game is not for everyone, that is obvious, the tactics used to win championships at times are questionable, but they are affective.

I agree with the reasoning in most of your post. But there is also one thing you forgot. The blackhawks HAVE TO KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES and where they are in the game.
That penalty, gave STL a two man advantage and ultimately led to the tie score with 6. something seconds left.....end result, now they go two games down. Is the series over? Of course not but, they now have a HUGE hole to dig out from.
So yes, they prove a point and prove that they may ultimately go home now instead of advancing. That was a great decision on their part......:faint:

Edited as the hawks won last night...so only down 2-1.....

[Greyfox]

What a lot of you fail to understand is, it was a necessary hit. Some of you bleeding hearts will have trouble with this, mostly because you’ve never played the game, but i will explain it to you.


1. Thank you for explaining a game that I played for several years.

2. No one questioned whether or not the hit was necessary.
The nature of the hit was "goonish."

[HoofedInTheChest]

What do you know, the Black Hawks go 4-0 after that “vicious hit”, what a shocker. 3 game winning goals from the Winnipeg boy, that’s precisely why you protect your captain.

Backes knew why he was hit, it was evident in the handshake with Seabrook after the elimination game, he probably thanked Seabrook for not targeting his chin.

What a pair of defenseman, Seabrook and Keith combined for 6 points in game 6. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[newtothegame]

What do you know, the Black Hawks go 4-0 after that “vicious hit”, what a shocker. 3 game winning goals from the Winnipeg boy, that’s precisely why you protect your captain.

Backes knew why he was hit, it was evident in the handshake with Seabrook after the elimination game, he probably thanked Seabrook for not targeting his chin.

What a pair of defenseman, Seabrook and Keith combined for 6 points in game 6. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
Hindsight is always 20/20........:lol:

or, were you touting that they would go 4-0 after the hit earlier in the thread?? I missed that part.....:lol:

[HoofedInTheChest]

Hindsight is always 20/20........:lol:

or, were you touting that they would go 4-0 after the hit earlier in the thread?? I missed that part.....:lol:
You can call me Kreskin....... :lol:

[mostpost]

Hindsight is always 20/20........:lol:

or, were you touting that they would go 4-0 after the hit earlier in the thread?? I missed that part.....:lol:
There is precedent. Just last year the Blues won the first two games of the series and the Blackhawks won the last four.

I'm thinking ice hockey is not a big sport in Louisiana. Not a lot of frozen water down there.

[newtothegame]

There is precedent. Just last year the Blues won the first two games of the series and the Blackhawks won the last four.

I'm thinking ice hockey is not a big sport in Louisiana. Not a lot of frozen water down there.

Damn skippy!!! There is a definite reason I live in the south!! :lol:

[Steve 'StatMan']

Louisianna? The Blues are in St. Louis, MO.

[newtothegame]

Louisianna? The Blues are in St. Louis, MO.

I was born in Southern Ill (about 15 mins from St Louis)......:p

[Stillriledup]

Kings in process of epic comeback.....Quick playing like Quick and SJ doesn't seem to have a goalie that's on Quick's level.

Sharks in HUGE trouble, they are on the ropes.