Colorado Avalanche (C1) Vs Seattle Kraken (WC1) | Series Tied 3-3

[lionsDen]

Nice quality post there slim.

Everything I said is true except maybe regarding he knew what he was doing...but again, with all the time he had if he didn't know what he was doing then maybe he is the dumb one.

Todays PSA

Crayons are not meant to be eaten.

And unless you’re the poster duke. I didn’t read what you posted.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

What you described isn't targeting.

Maybe you should look up the definition of "targeting".

 

[DeadGhost]

Maybe you should look up the definition of "targeting".

I did. Twice.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

Todays PSA

Crayons are not meant to be eaten.

And unless you’re the poster duke. I didn’t read what you posted.

I'm not. Maybe you quoted me by mistake with your "slim" post.

I did. Twice.

You need to go back a third time then.

 

[DeadGhost]

You need to go back a third time then.

Still the same definition. I think you might be confusing targeting with carelessness.

 

[lionsDen]

Maybe you should look up the definition of "targeting".

So to be targeting it would have to be contact to the head. Which technically he didn’t target his head

 

[AllAboutAvs]

Still the same definition. I think you might be confusing targeting with carelessness.

Nope.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

So to be targeting it would have to be contact to the head. Which technically he didn’t target his head

Since when does targeting apply only to hits to the head? Any kind of hits can be targeted towards a player.

 

[JoeSakic13]

So to be targeting it would have to be contact to the head. Which technically he didn’t target his head

Dude walk away, you’re not helping your case with these rebuttals.

 

[lionsDen]

Since when does targeting apply only to hits to the head? Any kind of hits can be targeted towards a player.

I’ve read this from 3 different sources

Why did NHL take ‘targeting’ out of Rule 48 illegal check to head penalty?

Rule 48 in the NHL covers illegal checks to the head, and has been touted by the League as means to curb brain injuries and other devastating results from reckless hits. Part of the provision reads: "A hit resulting in … <a...

sports.yahoo.com

Dude walk away, you’re not helping your case with these rebuttals.

Yeah probably not gonna happen bud.

And no I am not. I told duke he couldn’t unless he reads minds that he didn’t intend to hurt him. There are some who thinks he did intend to hurt him. That would make me a hypocrit

 

[DeadGhost]

Since when does targeting apply only to hits to the head? Any kind of hits can be targeted towards a player.

2013

 

[AllAboutAvs]

I’ve read this from 3 different sources

Why did NHL take ‘targeting’ out of Rule 48 illegal check to head penalty?

Rule 48 in the NHL covers illegal checks to the head, and has been touted by the League as means to curb brain injuries and other devastating results from reckless hits. Part of the provision reads: "A hit resulting in … <a...

sports.yahoo.com

Yeah probably not gonna happen bud.

But again you are talking about targeting the head. Nobody has ever said Eberle targeted Cogs' head. I'm saying he targeted the player not his head.

 

[lionsDen]

But again you are talking about targeting the head. Nobody has ever said Eberle targeted Cogs' head. I'm saying he targeted the player not his head.

Since you know the rule. Provide me with the rule you are talking about. This can all be squashed

 

[DeadGhost]

But again you are talking about targeting the head. Nobody has ever said Eberle targeted Cogs' head. I'm saying he targeted the player not his head.

Right. Back to my original point:

They're not going to suspend a vet player with no history for a game 7 on a play that wasn't clear targeting. I don't agree with the lack of suspension but it's probably not the conspiracy theory that you think it is.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

2013

So you are saying that if I skate the entire length of the ice with my only intent is to hit a specific player it is not targeting?

 

[DeadGhost]

So you are saying that if I skate the entire length of the ice with my only intent is to hit a specific player it is not targeting?

That's called charging.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

Since you know the rule. Provide me with the rule you are talking about. This can all be squashed

You are talking about a rule that is specifically addressing hits to the head. This was not a hit to the head. I am talking about the English meaning of the word "targeting".

That's called charging.

Yes with regard to the rules in hockey but I am still targeting the player because he is my target.

 

[DeadGhost]

Yes with regard to the rules in hockey but I am still targeting the player because he is my target.

My point still stands:
They're not going to suspend a vet player with no history for a game 7 on a play that wasn't clear targeting. I don't agree with the lack of suspension but it's probably not the conspiracy theory that you think it is.

 

[lionsDen]

You are talking about a rule that is specifically addressing hits to the head. This was not a hit to the head. I am talking about the English meaning of the word "targeting".

What rule are you talking about? I’ll be glad to look like a dumbass but everything I’ve read is targeting a players head. What rule exactly are you talking about

You are talking about a rule that is specifically addressing hits to the head. This was not a hit to the head. I am talking about the English meaning of the word "targeting".


Yes with regard to the rules in hockey but I am still targeting the player because he is my target.

I think you are arguing nuance.

Not the rule of targeting

 

[AllAboutAvs]

My point still stands:
They're not going to suspend a vet player with no history for a game 7 on a play that wasn't clear targeting. I don't agree with the lack of suspension but it's probably not the conspiracy theory that you think it is.

No it doesn't. Eberle didn't hit Cogs by mistake. He had time to turn away or let up. He didn't do any of those things. He was finishing his check so therefore Cogs was his target on that check.

 

[DeadGhost]

No it doesn't. Eberle didn't hit Cogs by mistake. He had time to turn away or let up. He didn't do any of those things. He was finishing his check so therefore Cogs was his target on that check.

You're missing the point. I said they'd only suspend if it was clear targeting (by league definition).

I agree that the contact was not an accident. I agree that it should have been a suspension. But I've watched this league long enough to understand how DPoS does its suspension math.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

What rule are you talking about? I’ll be glad to look like a dumbass but everything I’ve read is targeting a players head. What rule exactly are you talking about


I think you are arguing nuance.

Not the rule of targeting

Ok I give up. There is no point of continuing this discussion if both of you only look at "targeting" within the rules of hockey. Besides rule 48 that you continuously refer to is specifically regarding hits to the head. Nowhere does it say that the word targeting applies only to hits to the head. That rule does not even mention targeting anymore. They have taken out the wording because I am convinced they were afraid of potential legal issue in the future. A player could possibly sue another player for "targeting" his head in a hit and therefore putting an end to his career.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

You're missing the point. I said they'd only suspend if it was clear targeting (by league definition).

I agree that the contact was not an accident. I agree that it should have been a suspension. But I've watched this league long enough to understand how DPoS does its suspension math.

They didn't suspend him because , regardless of what they say, Cogs came back.

 

[DeadGhost]

They didn't suspend him because , regardless of what they say, Cogs came back.

Yeah, probably a factor too. Avs medical staff is awful.

 

[lionsDen]

Ok I give up. There is no point of continuing this discussion if both of you only look at "targeting" within the rules of hockey. Besides rule 48 that you continuously refer to is specifically regarding hits to the head. Nowhere does it say that the word targeting applies only to hits to the head. That rule does not even mention targeting anymore. They have taken out the wording because I am convinced they were afraid of potential legal issue in the future. A player could possibly sue another player for "targeting" his head in a hit and therefore putting an end to his career.

I have no clue the Leauge a motivations and won’t pretend do so.

I’m not gonna go re-read what you posted but when you say he was targeting like it was a rule. I read the rule. Targeting is going for a players head.

Was a bad hit, deserves a suspension, league is “trying to get rid of that hit”
Like I said you are arguing nuance and not rule.