Kucherov Appears to Intentionally Trip Rasmussen As He Scores

[Hint1k]

Taking a penalty to prevent an EN goal is an automatic goal, you know that right?

You need to actually get a penalty in the first place you know that right?

It is a game, sometimes players managed to stop the other team without taking a penalty by not breaking rules.

Sometimes they get away by breaking rules without punishment.

Sometimes they have one intention but the result is something else.

Just because it is an automatic goal it does not mean the players should stop the game and give the other team a free pass to the net.

 

[Fishy McScales]

You need to actually get a penalty in the first place you know that right?

It is a game, sometimes players managed to stop the other team without taking a penalty by not breaking rules.

Sometimes they get away by breaking rules without punishment.

Just because it is an automatic goal it does not mean the players should stop the game and give the other team a free pass to the net.

So you're saying that not only was it not a dirty play that should lead to supplementary discipline, it was in fact a borderline penalty to begin with?

Is that you, Nikita?

 

[Hint1k]

So you're saying that not only was it not a dirty play that should lead to supplementary discipline, it was in fact a borderline penalty to begin with?

Is that you, Nikita?

No what I am saying is that screaming "murder" over a 2 minutes penalty is stupid.

 

[Fishy McScales]

No what I am saying is that screaming "murder" over a 2 minutes penalty is stupid.

Did you also think McDavid deserved a 2-minute penalty? It was just a cross check.

 

[Hint1k]

Did you also think McDavid deserved a 2-minute penalty? It was just a cross check.

I think I would give him 2 games.

 

[Fishy McScales]

I think I would give him 2 games.

Oh so you do agree that infractions of the same type can be worthy of different punishments on a case-by-case basis, since normally a cross-check renders you a minor penalty, but in this instance it should render you a suspension?

 

[HaNotsri]

Am I a total psycho that thinks one of his teammates should throw an elbow in Kucherov's face? It's an intentional and dangerous play, I wouldn't fight fair to retaliate.

 

[Lshap]

Dirtbag play by a proven dirtbag player. I have no clue why anyone would spin this is being cool or funny.

Kucherov's always been dimwitted. I can't imagine anyone thinking this is 'cool', beyond a 12-year-old working out their own frustration with life.

 

[Fishy McScales]

Sure it depends. But in this topic multiple posters screaming "murder", while the Detroit's player was not even injured.

He was lead down the tunnel.

You're unbelievable.

 

[Soul Assumption]

In the 2nd period, a Detroit player made a blatant trip on Guentzel, but instead of a 5on3 PP, the referees called it embellishment. So I guess Kucherov decided that tripping is allowed in this game, who can blame him?

 

[Hint1k]

He was lead down the tunnel.

You're unbelievable.

He got up from the ice and got to the bench himself. That does not look like a dead body to me.

 

[Fishy McScales]

He got up from the ice and got to the bench himself. That does not look like a dead body to me.

Garland was unhurt, but in that instance injury status doesn't matter I take it?

Your argument is all over the place. It was a dangerous play that had zero bearing on the game, only a non-hockey play that could have ended a guy's career. People kind of think that sucks from Kucherov, that's all there is to it.

 

[WEMCHUD]

He got up from the ice and got to the bench himself. That does not look like a dead body to me.

Garland was mucking it up after getting cross checked by mcd so why'd he get suspended? Your takes are awful btw.

 

[Hint1k]

Garland was unhurt, but in that instance injury status doesn't matter I take it?

Your argument is all over the place. It was a dangerous play that had zero bearing on the game, only a non-hockey play that could have ended a guy's career. People kind of think that sucks from Kucherov, that's all there is to it.

I highlighted the problem that you and multiple other posters here has.

It is a problem because one can go tomorrow outside and a brick can fall down on one's head and kill them.

So you essentially telling not to go outside at all.

That is not how it works normally. What could have happened is not really important.

And the hockey is a dangerous game by default.

Garland was mucking it up after getting cross checked by mcd so why'd he get suspended? Your takes are awful btw.

You are comparing two different cases. That does not work like this. It is always case by case basis.

 

[Fishy McScales]

I highlighted the problem that you and multiple other posters here has.

It is a problem because one can go tomorrow outside and a brick can fall down on one's head and kill them.

So you essentially telling not to go outside at all.

That is not how it works normally. What could have happened is not really important.

And the hockey is a dangerous game by default.

This might be the hardest reach for a bizarre take I've seen on this board.

I don’t think I want to continue this conversation.

 

[WEMCHUD]

I highlighted the problem that you and multiple other posters here has.

It is a problem because one can go tomorrow outside and a brick can fall down on one's head and kill them.

So you essentially telling not to go outside at all.

That is not how it works normally. What could have happened is not really important.

And the hockey is a dangerous game by default.


You are comparing two different cases. That is not how things work. It is always case by case basis.

But cross checking is routinely a 2 minute penalty, so why would he get suspended based on your logic? After all, like you said, hockey is a dangerous sport.

 

[JediOrderPizza]

That bastard.

 

[AD1066]

This is exactly who Kucherov is. All the talent in the world, but a classless loser.

A prior incident of his that seemed to fly largely under the radar, was his hit on Nutivaara in 2019. Nutivaara lost an edge and was on his knees, with his head at dasher level. Kucherov still lined him up and drove him into the boards. No harm was done, but it was an egregious play IMO. If his neck was a little higher, it was a recipe for a career-altering or career-ending kind of injury.

 

[JohanFranzenstein]

Paraphrasing the legendary Ryan Miller:

"I just wanted to say what a piece of shit I think Kuch is"

 

[Hint1k]

But cross checking is routinely a 2 minute penalty, so why would he get suspended based on your logic? After all, like you said, hockey is a dangerous sport.

He was suspended based on the decision made by NHL. My logic have nothing to do with that and I am discussing this case in this topic. If you are so interested in McDavid's case why not discuss it in the specific thread?

And I already said it is pointless to compare cases when it is a case by case basis. A comparison works only when "case by case basis" is not applicable.

 

[The Panther]

It did end badly, Rasmussen went down the tunnel.

So, Rasmussen got hurt and... he went underground to visit some moles?


(Sorry, I just find it funny how "go down the tunnel" has become universal hockey-speak for "got hurt bad enough that he had to leave the player-bench and get checked out in the locker room.")

 

[WEMCHUD]

He was suspended based on the decision made by NHL. My logic have nothing to do with that and I am discussing this case in this topic. If you are so interested in McDavid's case why not discuss it in specific thread?

You said you would have given mcd two games so just trying to understand your logic on why that would be deserving of a suspension when it didn't result in an injury vs this play where the guy went down the tunnel after. Again, they're both regular occurrences worthy of 2 minute penalties.

But fair enough, I doubt you have any explanation based on logic and reasoning based on that asinine analogy you provided.

 

[Hint1k]

But fair enough, I doubt you have any explanation based on logic and reasoning based on that asinine analogy you provided.

I did not provide that analogy. I was asked to answer what kind of panishment McDavid deserved. There is no any analogy between these two cases. Because again, all situations are unique and it is always case by case basis for decisions.

So stop trying to read into my posts something that is not there.

 

[WEMCHUD]

I did not provide that analogy. I was asked to answer what kind of panishment McDavid deserved. There is no any analogy between these two cases. Because again, all situations are unique and it is always case by case basis for decisions.

So stop trying to read into my posts something that is not there.

I was referencing your asinine analogy about someone dying because they stopped for a conversation with someone else.

And ya the situation is kuch made a dirty play that could've potentially resulted in a serious injury.

If all situations are unique then how can you just brush it off as "oh well, trips happen in games so whatevs"

 

[Hint1k]

And ya the situation is kuch made a dirty play that could've potentially resulted in a serious injury.

That again is wrong logic.