2011 Stanley Cup Champions - Boston Bruins

WEFFPIM · Post #581 » by **WEFFPIM** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 3:32 am

sh00n wrote:His shoulder hits him in the chest/clavicle.

If it's a dirty hit, Scott Stevens should've never been allowed to step on the ice and should've been constantly suspended. He made a career off of hits like that.

His elbow hits his chest and pushes off him. Shoulder is in the head/neck area.

Seriously? You're making this case? I'm floored C_C hasn't started with you yet.

sh00n · Post #582 » by **sh00n** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 3:36 am

I could care less who gets mad at me, the fact that Chara got away clean with his hit on Pacioretty forever tainted the line of clean hit to me.

He hits him flush in the chest and the face at the same time. If you want a headshot, look at Torres on Seabrook, because he hits nothing but the head. Rome hit him square on; had he hit the head only he probably would've killed him. Also, if you notice when Horton hits his head on the ice, his arms lock. That's due to him hitting the back of his head on the ice; it locked the muscles. That's why I said it's clean. He probably did more damage landing on his head than anything else.

Post #583 » by **Celtics_Champs** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 3:41 am

WEFFPIM wrote:
sh00n wrote:His shoulder hits him in the chest/clavicle.

If it's a dirty hit, Scott Stevens should've never been allowed to step on the ice and should've been constantly suspended. He made a career off of hits like that.

His elbow hits his chest and pushes off him. Shoulder is in the head/neck area.

Seriously? You're making this case? I'm floored C_C hasn't started with you yet.

Oh I gave up arguing with sh00n long ago :lol:

You and darth and the rest of the analysts who've all made the case that it was dirty are completely correct. It was dirty, he should and will be suspended.

And if he's not, then, just....smh. I mean this game was so friggen out of hand because burrows wasn't suspended for game 2. Not suspending Rome will just make this series even more tough to control.

sh00n · Post #584 » by **sh00n** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 3:45 am

You know you're my dude, CC. We're just not allowing talking about sports when it involves Boston.

Post #585 » by **Celtics_Champs** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 3:48 am

sh00n wrote:You know you're my dude, CC. We're just not allowing talking about sports when it involves Boston.

I'll let ya fight with that fatty radio guy gresh for that.

Now to lighten the mood

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJsbGZp9bR8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

"YOU'RE SO HOTTTTTT"

:lol:

sh00n · Post #586 » by **sh00n** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 3:48 am

If that isn't targeting the head, neither should Rome's hit.

WEFFPIM · Post #587 » by **WEFFPIM** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 3:50 am

sh00n wrote:I could care less who gets mad at me, the fact that Chara got away clean with his hit on Pacioretty forever tainted the line of clean hit to me.

He hits him flush in the chest and the face at the same time. If you want a headshot, look at Torres on Seabrook, because he hits nothing but the head. Rome hit him square on; had he hit the head only he probably would've killed him. Also, if you notice when Horton hits his head on the ice, his arms lock. That's due to him hitting the back of his head on the ice; it locked the muscles. That's why I said it's clean. He probably did more damage landing on his head than anything else.

First, your first sentence pretty much ruins a lot of the credibility of your argument. You have full right to be pissed at that hit, but for it to cloud your judgment on every hit that has followed is ludicrous.

His shoulder hits his head while his elbow hits his chest. Doesn't take away from the fact his shoulder still hits his head. Just because it doesn't hit only his head doesn't make it any less dirty. And I know what a headshot is, since I was at Game 3 when Torres hit Seabrook.

But now this hit is clean because of the way he landed? He wouldn't have ever landed like that had Rome not launched himself at him and hit him up high like that. So....clearly not clean.

Argue all you want, but if your main bases for your argument is "It wasn't as bad as Chara hitting my Pachey," and "He landed strangely so it's clean," then you have two very flimsy legs to stand on.

Post #588 » by **darth_federer** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 3:50 am

We ve been through this a million times. They talked to over 25 people in hockey ops before saying that Chara would get no punishment.

It didnt help that you live in an echo chamber and the Montreal media is notorious for this kind of stuff too.

sh00n · Post #589 » by **sh00n** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 3:51 am

No, I'm saying they have to be consistent. If Chara got away with it and Torres got away with it, Rome has to get away with it.

WEFFPIM · Post #590 » by **WEFFPIM** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 3:54 am

And I'm saying you shouldn't compare hit to hit to determine how dirty or malicious a hit is. It's not like Aaron Rome was thinking "This isn't as bad as Chara's! I'll get away with it!" while he was careening into Nathan Horton's skull.

He won't because he shouldn't. It's a dirty hit. So very clearly a dirty hit. Your reasoning just sounds petty, honestly.

sh00n · Post #591 » by **sh00n** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 4:00 am

You're not paying attention to the point I'm making, obviously.

If the league picks it's spots on who it suspends and why, it would look really suspicious. Chara's was a controversial hit that didn't get a suspension, Torres' hit was a controversial hit that didn't get a suspension, Rome's was a controversial hit that shouldn't get a suspension. If you're going to let **** slide, you have to do it for everyone. Not just excuse one guy because it's the playoffs or he's a superstar defenseman.

Post #592 » by **wetsthebed** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 4:02 am

Not going to allow that.

Nolan

sh00n · Post #593 » by **sh00n** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 4:03 am

Love you too, bb.

WEFFPIM · Post #594 » by **WEFFPIM** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 4:04 am

No, I get your point, it's still petty because of the main example you're using. It's also wrong because they shouldn't lump hits and incidents together in one giant group. Each one should get separate consideration, because each hit or incident does not feed off the previous one unless it happens in the same game.

Trust me, I understand your point. But you're still wrong.

sh00n · Post #595 » by **sh00n** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 4:05 am

WEFFPIM wrote:No, I get your point, it's still petty because of the main example you're using. It's also wrong because they shouldn't lump hits and incidents together in one giant group. Each one should get separate consideration, because each hit or incident does not feed off the previous one unless it happens in the same game.

Trust me, I understand your point. But you're still wrong.

Having an opinion doesn't make you wrong. If that's the case you wouldn't be right either; sorry.

WEFFPIM · Post #596 » by **WEFFPIM** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 4:07 am

Fine, your opinion is foolish. That work?

sh00n · Post #597 » by **sh00n** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 4:09 am

Sure, still puts us on the same level though!

Post #598 » by **Celtics_Champs** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 4:14 am

Here ya go Sh00n,

viewtopic.php?f=42&t=1117682#p28242456

sh00n · Post #599 » by **sh00n** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 4:19 am

Post #600 » by **OldNo7** » Tue Jun 7, 2011 10:33 am

You also can't compare past hits to current hits because now it is a new regime making the rulings with Colin Campbell out. I expect much more consistency going forward (unless Murphy is still running the show for this series).