Toggle sidebar

NHL: Around the League 52

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
statswatcher said:
so to be clear, nothing you said here contradicted anything i said and it was a major waste of time for you to write it and for me to read it.
Click to expand...
You dont even know who the top line is.

Sorry for your loss.
 
Last edited:
After seeing the Draisaitl high hit on Barkov from several angles, I see that I was wrong in my original statement. He did sneakily get his elbow up and did connect to Barkov's jaw.....very similar to Bennett on Marchand. I didn't see the hit from that angle previously. Draidaitl's clean record probably saved him from worse consequences.

www.sportsnet.ca

How recent history compares to Draisaitl hit, no-suspension decision

Look back over the past couple decades of playoff hockey, and only a few plays that have come amid the consistently physical grind of the Stanley Cup Final have earned supplemental discipline:
www.sportsnet.ca www.sportsnet.ca
 
  • Like
Reactions: statswatcher and x Tame Impala
I think Tab Bamford of Blecher Nation said it best about the Oilers:

"We saw the true character of a poverty franchise last night."

The NHL does not have the guts, but Dresaitl should be suspended after that hit. There is no defense of that hit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BHawks77 and Pez68
BHawk21 said:
You dont even know who the top line is.

Sorry for your loss.
Click to expand...
once again, no argument detected. go on natural stat trick and tell me what edmonton forward has had the most all strengths time on ice with barkov this series besides mcdavid, hyman, and rnh. then note how no other forward has had even 10 minutes on the ice against barkov. then note how these four edmonton forwards with the most time on ice with barkov have one point, a mcdavid assist, collectivley this series. then go look at our mystery player's opposition numbers and note how the only florida forward he's been on ice against more is reinhart, and only by a minute. then cry because once again you don't have any ground to stand on.

"barkov shutting the oiler's top line down" and "the oilers only had 1 goal in ~110 minutes of play to that point" are both objectively true, and looking at the toi numbers makes it even more clear how these two statements connect to why drai decided to goon it up in a game where he was accomplishing nothing otherwise. all you've done here is encourage me to go strengthen my case further, good work. now do the lame cop out where you realize you are wrong and have no argument and act like you are correct because the all-knowing nhl DoPS agrees with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiHawks10, Callidusblackhawk and Pez68
statswatcher said:
once again, no argument detected. go on natural stat trick and tell me what edmonton forward has had the most all strengths time on ice with barkov this series besides mcdavid, hyman, and rnh. then note how no other forward has had even 10 minutes on the ice against barkov. then note how these four edmonton forwards with the most time on ice with barkov have one point, a mcdavid assist, collectivley this series. then go look at our mystery player's opposition numbers and note how the only florida forward he's been on ice against more is reinhart, and only by a minute. then cry because once again you don't have any ground to stand on.

"barkov shutting the oiler's top line down" and "the oilers only had 1 goal in ~110 minutes of play to that point" are both objectively true, and looking at the toi numbers makes it even more clear how these two statements connect to why drai decided to goon it up in a game where he was accomplishing nothing otherwise. all you've done here is encourage me to go strengthen my case further, good work. now do the lame cop out where you realize you are wrong and have no argument and act like you are correct because the all-knowing nhl DoPS agrees with you.
Click to expand...
Those statements being true are not whats in question its you trying to fit those statements in to the narrative that it had anything to do with the hit. You dont understand that. Its partially the reason its not a suspension because there was no intent. You are trying to find intent and making shit up.

(d) The situation of the game in which the incident occurred, for example: late in the game, lopsided score, prior events in the game.

Your concluding that Draisaitl was so mad that RNH-McDavid-Hyman were getting shut down (McDavid already with a point in the game) that it had to be an intentional play to try to hurt Barkov. Thats laughable.

The argument has been said over and over again. There is no history, there was no clear intent to injure.

Think about game situation for one second. Dont try to frame it "Why should it be a suspension?" use reality.

Maybe your looking at too many still pictures and slow mo's. That rule is in place for altercations early in the game or a blowout late in the game. You know that your just are trying to fit your preconceived narrative that it fits a suspension.

Its not a suspension.
 
Last edited:
BHawk21 said:
Those statements being true are not whats in question its you trying to fit those statements in to the narrative that it had anything to do with the hit. You dont understand that.
Click to expand...
i do understand that's what you are trying to say, and i think it's laughable.
BHawk21 said:
Its partially the reason its not a suspension because there was no intent.
Click to expand...
it was not an accident that draisaitl threw his elbow into barkov's jaw in what was otherwise a hockey play. what's more, the question of intent is separate from the question of game context, and doesn't exclusively decide whether or not supplementary discipline is warranted, as we've already been over.
BHawk21 said:
Your concluding that Draisaitl was so mad that RNH-McDavid-Hyman were getting shut down
Click to expand...
i am going to stop this analysis here because you aren't presenting the argument i presented. draisaitl was upset because the florida forward he was playing against the most (before he took him out of the final half of last game's third period that is) was keeping him off the score sheet, as well as keeping his team's top line completely silent except for one 4v4 garbage goal, to which the panthers had posted 2 answering markers already.
BHawk21 said:
The argument has been said over and over again. There is no history, there was no clear intent to injure.
Click to expand...
yes, and the argument is facile. there is history. there need not be intent to injure, the cba only asks if the play itself displayed intent on the part of the player under consideration for discipline. you are muddying the waters between the standards here, putting them together to make standards which do not exist.
BHawk21 said:
Think about game situation for one second.
Click to expand...
the game situation is draisaital suffering in futility at the hands of the best defensive center in the game, so he runs his elbow through the guy's chin like a dumbass. that's not getting your stick tangled in a guy's legs and he falls over. it should be a suspension.
 
statswatcher said:
i do understand that's what you are trying to say, and i think it's laughable.

it was not an accident that draisaitl threw his elbow into barkov's jaw in what was otherwise a hockey play. what's more, the question of intent is separate from the question of game context, and doesn't exclusively decide whether or not supplementary discipline is warranted, as we've already been over.

i am going to stop this analysis here because you aren't presenting the argument i presented. draisaitl was upset because the florida forward he was playing against the most (before he took him out of the final half of last game's third period that is) was keeping him off the score sheet, as well as keeping his team's top line completely silent except for one 4v4 garbage goal, to which the panthers had posted 2 answering markers already.

yes, and the argument is facile. there is history. there need not be intent to injure, the cba only asks if the play itself displayed intent on the part of the player under consideration for discipline. you are muddying the waters between the standards here, putting them together to make standards which do not exist.

the game situation is draisaital suffering in futility at the expense of the best defensive center in the game, so he runs his elbow through the guy's chin like a dumbass. that's not getting your stick tangled in a guy's legs and he falls over. it should be a suspension.
Click to expand...
Oh wait. That changed.

He can make a high hit and not have it be suspension worthy and you dont grasp that. Your trying to grasp at things to make it a suspension worthy play.

(d) The situation of the game in which the incident occurred, for example: late in the game, lopsided score, prior events in the game.

Hypothesizing that he was frustrated doesnt fall under that. Maybe if the game was 5-1 your case would be stronger.
 
BHawk21 said:
Oilers first line?
Click to expand...
full sentences please my friend. also quotes would be helpful. i used "oiler's top line" as shorthand for the first line including draisaital, who i also referred to as a "top line player". i then presented you with a litany of toi data to show you more concretely what i was saying, and you decided it would be really cute to ignore it and pretend that you've won on a technicality.
 
statswatcher said:
full sentences please my friend. also quotes would be helpful. i used "oiler's top line" as shorthand for the first line including draisaital, who i also referred to as a "top line player". i then presented you with a litany of toi data to show you more concretely what i was saying, and you decided it would be really cute to ignore it and pretend that you've won on a technicality.
Click to expand...
Im not ignoring it. Your making declarative statements and then having to walk them back and I am just trying to find what you are trying to say.

Ok not first line but the forward with the 4th most time on ice against.

Hear me out. What if he was forechecking at the end of the game and was reckless and high arms came up higher than they should have?
 
BHawk21 said:
Those statements being true are not whats in question its you trying to fit those statements in to the narrative that it had anything to do with the hit. You dont understand that. Its partially the reason its not a suspension because there was no intent. You are trying to find intent and making shit up.

(d) The situation of the game in which the incident occurred, for example: late in the game, lopsided score, prior events in the game.

Your concluding that Draisaitl was so mad that RNH-McDavid-Hyman were getting shut down (McDavid already with a point in the game) that it had to be an intentional play to try to hurt Barkov. Thats laughable.

The argument has been said over and over again. There is no history, there was no clear intent to injure.

Think about game situation for one second. Dont try to frame it "Why should it be a suspension?" use reality.

Maybe your looking at too many still pictures and slow mo's. That rule is in place for altercations early in the game or a blowout late in the game. You know that your just are trying to fit your preconceived narrative that it fits a suspension.

Its not a suspension.
Click to expand...
Maybe you are just blind or a homer. Guy launched his elbow jumping into barkovs head and it was easily a suspendible hit. Doesn’t matter that the league is cowardly and hypocritical no matter how much of an authority they are in your life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Callidusblackhawk, swerdnase, Pez68 and 3 others
Crow said:
Maybe you are just blind or a homer. Guy launched his elbow jumping into barkovs head and it was easily a suspendible hit. Doesn’t matter that the league is cowardly and hypocritical no matter how much of an authority they are in your life.
Click to expand...
Right. If this isn't the SC Final, I'd say it's almost a guarantee he would have been suspended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swerdnase, statswatcher and Crow
BHawk21 said:
Hear me out. What if he was forechecking at the end of the game and was reckless and high arms came up higher than they should have?
Click to expand...
then he should be suspended for a reckless play that took the other guy out. how is it that tens of high intensity forechecking hits get thrown in third periods galore without someone's "high arms" (sic) coming up "higher than they should have"? keep your elbows down. it's not that hard.

and no, it is not equivalent to, e.g., a shoulder check to the head of a guy whose positioned unfortunately, and an otherwise normal hockey check ends with an injury. in that context you would have an argument that it was an unfortunate and unintentional accident. in this situation, dude drives through a check with a chicken wing through the jaw. that doesn't happen because the absent minded millionaire veteran of 9 nhl seasons just made an oopsie. get real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiHawks10
Crow said:
Maybe you are just blind or a homer. Guy launched his elbow jumping into barkovs head and it was easily a suspendible hit. Doesn’t matter that the league is cowardly and hypocritical no matter how much of an authority they are in your life.
Click to expand...
I have never said it was a legal hit. If it was easily suspensible they would have done it. Pietrangelo got a game last year on a easily suspensible play..

Also homer?
 
ChiHawks10 said:
Thanks Captain Obvious. The point is that whether it's the SC Final or not shouldn't matter. A suspension worthy hit is a suspension worthy hit no matter the circumstances. It's an indictment on the NHL and the DoPS.
Click to expand...
Sorry man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom