NHL 2010-2011: Rick Rypien

Roke wrote:
Mimble wrote:
Dysplastic wrote:

Listen, nothing justifies Rome's hit, but if you're Boston, you live by the sword, well, you die by the sword too. What irks me is that when Boston plays violent, dangerous hockey, it's justified as "strong hockey play", but if it gets turned on them it's murder. At least have some consistency.

I think this is true of most teams - a hit (dirty or not) on your favourite team and people call for blood. A hit on the other guy? That's just awesome hockey and everyone cheers.

Last night when Horton went down, fully half the patrons in the bar I was at, cheered. And when they replayed the hit in slo-mo, and the crowd watched his head bounce off the ice, they cheered again. I was thoroughly disgusted with them for that. A possible head and neck injury is not worthy of cheering for, but that's the mentality among a good deal of the fans out there: violence is alright so long as it's not your team taking the hits.

I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert on hockey, so I have no idea if Rome deliberately hit him (a high hit coming too late) or if he really believed that Horton was about to have the puck passed pack to him, and hit him not realizing Horton couldn't see him coming and react. At those speeds it must be hard to make good decisions quickly and even watching the replay, I still couldn't quite grasp what had happened.

I just hope the injury isn't a permanent one and that it triggers more consistent calls and enforcement of the rules - regardless of things like home advantage and who the player is.

It's a (disgusting) part of the culture in hockey Mimble. Zdeno Chara got a standing ovation in his first game back in Boston after the hit on Pacioretty. If in a game against Montreal Milan Lucic suffered the same injury Horton or Pacioretty received I guarantee there would be idiots standing up and whooping in the stands...

...Heck, in the Montreal-Boston series Pk Subban laid a massive hit on a Bruin (I think it was Marchand) in the corner that hit got a tremendous cheer and was on the highlight reels. It was a very dangerous hit, and excessive, but the "right way" to play the game...

Things have changed in a big way and they need to change to make things safer, especially to prevent brain injuries. Some of the recent studies about the effects of concussions are scary. Frankly, unless there are changes from top to bottom in hockey I do not believe I can in good conscience allow my children (if I have any) to play the sport and if it's not safe enough for them to play, I don't know how I could watch it with them either.

It's stuff like that makes me ill - when deliberately hurting another player gets nearly the same reaction as a scoring a goal, I feel kind of sick. maybe I'm a pansy, maybe there is some my tribe vs. your tribe psychology behind this sort of vicious pleasure in other people's pain that I just don't understand, or am not wired for, but when I see a guy take a nasty hit - especially where those hits are deliberate and malicious - I feel anything but psyched up and excited.

And this "right way" to the play game crap! Really? Making the game safer so the game can be about hockey and not punching someones lights out is "pansification of hockey"? I'd rather watch them play a good clean game than fight and shout obscenities at each other. If I want to watch two dudes deliberately hurt each other, I'll watch UFC - at least they know that's the sole purpose of the thing.

I'd like to see some of those games from the 60's, just to see the difference, because I've never really seen anything other than the nasty "kill the other guy" type of hockey. I wonder what it will take for changes to be made to the way the game is played - and I wonder if comments like Mike Milbury's are the reason it hasn't changed significantly already to make it safer. I suppose it would be hard to be the guy who made hockey a game for "pansies", but I think the people who have sustained injuries from dirty hits would be supportive.

Mimble wrote:

I'd like to see some of those games from the 60's, just to see the difference, because I've never really seen anything other than the nasty "kill the other guy" type of hockey. I wonder what it will take for changes to be made to the way the game is played - and I wonder if comments like Mike Milbury's are the reason it hasn't changed significantly already to make it safer. I suppose it would be hard to be the guy who made hockey a game for "pansies", but I think the people who have sustained injuries from dirty hits would be supportive.

I don't want to paint the 50s/60s as some glory days everyone played clean and nothing bad happened. It's a lot harder to compare since fewer games were televised, but stick-swinging was a lot more common back then and you had Maurice Richard running around going insane once in a while (as good of a player The Rocket was and as admired as he is, I can't say I'm comfortable with his violent on-ice actions... even as a Habs fan... Beliveau is more my type of guy). In the few games I have seen though, body-checking was at least a lot less violent than it was today.

Also, reading my post in quoted text I need to clarify something. When talking about Lucic getting hit I referred to "idiots standing up and whooping in the stands" I was referring to Habs fans... it might have seemed like I was referring to fans in Boston there.

In other news, I am so so sorry to any Carolina Hurricane fans: http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=368156

Dave Lewis is easily the worst coach I have ever seen at the professional level.

I've heard good things about him as an assistant coach.

I was kind of hoping Rome would get an inverse suspension ; make him play all 60 minutes of each remaining game. That would go a long way towards evening out the loss :p

Koz wrote:
In other news, I am so so sorry to any Carolina Hurricane fans: http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=368156

Dave Lewis is easily the worst coach I have ever seen at the professional level.

How so?

The NHL doesn't want me to watch game four, apparently, since it's only on Versus. Do Canadians get more games on broadcast than we do?

Mimble wrote:
And this "right way" to the play game crap! Really? Making the game safer so the game can be about hockey and not punching someones lights out is "pansification of hockey"? I'd rather watch them play a good clean game than fight and shout obscenities at each other. If I want to watch two dudes deliberately hurt each other, I'll watch UFC - at least they know that's the sole purpose of the thing.

Plus one million.

I'm not going to come out against hitting but I do think the NHL should really look into instituting full-face shields as standard since there is good evidence suggesting they help significantly reduce concussion, as well as investing heavily in pushing development of better protective technologies. In the long run the investment would pay off by keeping players healthy.

The lack of sense in that area lies as much with the players as the league, though - ever since helmets were introduced a lot players have resisted the introduction of additional protection. Someone above mentioned shoulder pads which is another example. However I think the age of eschewing the best protection available in an effort to appear tough needs to pass.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
The NHL doesn't want me to watch game four, apparently, since it's only on Versus. Do Canadians get more games on broadcast than we do?

We get every single game on Broadcast through CBC for the finals, and about half of them on broadcast beforehand. CBC also streams them, which is nice.

Mimble wrote:
And this "right way" to the play game crap! Really? Making the game safer so the game can be about hockey and not punching someones lights out is "pansification of hockey"? I'd rather watch them play a good clean game than fight and shout obscenities at each other. If I want to watch two dudes deliberately hurt each other, I'll watch UFC - at least they know that's the sole purpose of the thing.

Plus two million. I honestly think the biggest thing here is applying harsher and more consistent suspensions for dangerous and violent plays. Right now the league is all over the place so players might feel that such play is somewhat tolerated. The league needs to send a clear signal that it is absolutely not. When Rome's agent talks about appealing the suspension, citing precedent, I can absolutely see where he's coming from.

They have to start somewhere. I hope they realize that Rome's hit was the final straw. No more crap like that. I will trust Shanahan on this until he gives me reason not to believe him.

Dysplastic wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
Mimble wrote:
And this "right way" to the play game crap! Really? Making the game safer so the game can be about hockey and not punching someones lights out is "pansification of hockey"? I'd rather watch them play a good clean game than fight and shout obscenities at each other. If I want to watch two dudes deliberately hurt each other, I'll watch UFC - at least they know that's the sole purpose of the thing.

Plus one million.

Plus two million.

Plus one... hundred... billion!

Does the CBC region-lock its streams? If not, our American friends could watch via that.

Morro wrote:
Does the CBC region-lock its streams? If not, our American friends could watch via that.

It's region locked. Sorry, Americans, you'll have to live with Versus.

nihilo wrote:
It's region locked. Sorry, Americans, you'll have to live with Versus.

There are also a number of sites that offer pirated live streams, if you absolutely can't get it locally. (I'm traveling right now, and did this for the last game...)

Dysplastic wrote:
Mimble wrote:
And this "right way" to the play game crap! Really? Making the game safer so the game can be about hockey and not punching someones lights out is "pansification of hockey"? I'd rather watch them play a good clean game than fight and shout obscenities at each other. If I want to watch two dudes deliberately hurt each other, I'll watch UFC - at least they know that's the sole purpose of the thing.

Plus two million. I honestly think the biggest thing here is applying harsher and more consistent suspensions for dangerous and violent plays. Right now the league is all over the place so players might feel that such play is somewhat tolerated. The league needs to send a clear signal that it is absolutely not. When Rome's agent talks about appealing the suspension, citing precedent, I can absolutely see where he's coming from.


I think the argument is that, by de-emphasizing fighting so heavily, you break the game at some essential level. I mean, this is a game where 250lb men get up to 40+ km per hour and smash each other into hard wooden walls. It's naive to think that such a game can continue to exist without an outlet for the emotions it produces, or without a way for players to enforce a system of retribution for the abuses it allows. Honestly, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that the near-ban on fighting the league is trying to institute will directly lead to more injuries of the dirty-hit variety. Let the players get their emotions out, and put more of the control of the players into the players' own hands. The refs should not be directing the emotional leanings of the entire league; that's not what they exist to do. It's not about pussification, it's about a total disregard for the reasons these practices entered the game, in the first place. The league can't survive by ignoring its own basic nature just to make it more mom-friendly for ratings.

[edit]

nihilo wrote:
Morro wrote:
Does the CBC region-lock its streams? If not, our American friends could watch via that.

It's region locked. Sorry, Americans, you'll have to live with Versus.


justin.tv it is!

Ranger Rick wrote:
nihilo wrote:
It's region locked. Sorry, Americans, you'll have to live with Versus.

There are also a number of sites that offer pirated live streams, if you absolutely can't get it locally. (I'm traveling right now, and did this for the last game...)

I live in Detroit, so we get CBC

Morro wrote:
I think the argument is that, by de-emphasizing fighting so heavily, you break the game at some essential level. I mean, this is a game where 250lb men get up to 40+ km per hour and smash each other into hard wooden walls. It's naive to think that such a game can continue to exist without an outlet for the emotions it produces, or without a way for players to enforce a system of retribution for the abuses it allows. Honestly, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that the near-ban on fighting the league is trying to institute will directly lead to more injuries of the dirty-hit variety. Let the players get their emotions out, and put more of the control of the players into the players' own hands. The refs should not be directing the emotional leanings of the entire league; that's not what they exist to do. It's not about pussification, it's about a total disregard for the reasons these practices entered the game, in the first place. The league can't survive by ignoring its own basic nature just to make it more mom-friendly for ratings.

This is what I don't get, though. Why hockey? Are other major league team sports not physical or emotional enough to justify fighting, the condoned and encouraged fighting in the NHL? Football, rugby, basketball? International hockey, European hockey, Olympic hockey?

The "essential level" you cite is, I think, one composed of a thin layer of manure. Bullsh*t. The players are paid professional athletes; if they can't figure out how to get their emotions out appropriately, then they don't deserve to be playing at national and international levels.

To me it simply smacks of appeal to tradition and the audience's bloodlust. I don't believe there's some unique, intrinsic reason why fighting should be allowed in the NHL.

carrotpanic wrote:
Ranger Rick wrote:
nihilo wrote:
It's region locked. Sorry, Americans, you'll have to live with Versus.

There are also a number of sites that offer pirated live streams, if you absolutely can't get it locally. (I'm traveling right now, and did this for the last game...)

I live in Detroit, so we get CBC :)

But not the stream on the website, correct? I thought you needed a Canadian ISP for that.

Gravey wrote:
Morro wrote:
I think the argument is that, by de-emphasizing fighting so heavily, you break the game at some essential level. I mean, this is a game where 250lb men get up to 40+ km per hour and smash each other into hard wooden walls. It's naive to think that such a game can continue to exist without an outlet for the emotions it produces, or without a way for players to enforce a system of retribution for the abuses it allows. Honestly, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that the near-ban on fighting the league is trying to institute will directly lead to more injuries of the dirty-hit variety. Let the players get their emotions out, and put more of the control of the players into the players' own hands. The refs should not be directing the emotional leanings of the entire league; that's not what they exist to do. It's not about pussification, it's about a total disregard for the reasons these practices entered the game, in the first place. The league can't survive by ignoring its own basic nature just to make it more mom-friendly for ratings.

This is what I don't get, though. Why hockey? Are other major league team sports not physical or emotional enough to justify fighting, the condoned and encouraged fighting in the NHL? Football, rugby, basketball? International hockey, European hockey, Olympic hockey?

The "essential level" you cite is, I think, one composed of a thin layer of manure. Bullsh*t. The players are paid professional athletes; if they can't figure out how to get their emotions out appropriately, then they don't deserve to be playing at national and international levels.

To me it simply smacks of appeal to tradition and the audience's bloodlust. I don't believe there's some unique, intrinsic reason why fighting should be allowed in the NHL.


Having played football, rugby and hockey, I can say that a hockey hit is by far the most... insulting. It's one thing to be tackled to grass, it's another to be smashed into a wall, especially with the kind of unstoppable momentum that skating adds to the equation. As to other hockey leagues, they are not as violence-free as people seem to think. The Olympics are a special case, because they are so short-lived and nationalist. That set-up could not last much longer than it does, and even at that length the later games of Olympic eliminations are ALWAYS more aggressive and violent than the earlier ones.

Putting my impartial hat on for the moment.

Okay Marchand, I know you're angry about the injury, don't be an asshole at the end of a game you have clearly won.

And Kesler... you've been a total prick in the last 2 games and it totally is not working for you. Do something else, the act is getting old.

So bets... VAN starting goalie for game 5?

This seems a little... one-sided.

Every now and then some writer will come out with a "This will get me internet famous!" column of record stupidity. Remember none-too-long-ago some dude wrote a column essentially blaming the SF Giants fan who got beaten into a coma for bringing it upon himself by having the temerity to wear a Giants jersey to a Dodgers game.

When you're talking about dudes who use sticks to knock objects across a plane of ice for a living, you have to dress things up a little bit.

imbiginjapan wrote:

And Kesler... you've been a total prick in the last 2 games and it totally is not working for you. Do something else, the act is getting old.

Only 2 games? You're being way too nice

What has surprised me in games 3 & 4 is the Canucks seeming inability to bring the game back to their style of play - something the Lightning and Montreal were both able to do nearly to the point of winning those series. That will be key in my mind to them being able to solve the Bruins. I think the Bs have found the game they will try to stick with for the remainder of the series, and it will come down to whether Vancouver can force the game to be played to their strength.

Vancouver has been in the habit of playing to their opponents for quite a while. That's why, for example, the Nashville series was as close as it was.

4xis.black wrote:
Vancouver has been in the habit of playing to their opponents for quite a while. That's why, for example, the Nashville series was as close as it was.

Indeed. The series is really in a lot of ways the "final boss" for Vancouver. It's presenting all the challenges the Canucks have overcome in the mini-bosses of the previous series—the series-changing meltdown, the seemingly unsolvable goalie, the goading into becoming undisciplined, playing down to the other team, not having the killer instinct. After winning those three series it seemed like the Canucks had learned everything they would need to win the Cup. Everything they need to beat Boston they've shown they can do. Now it's a best-of-three, so here's hoping they can get back into it.

nihilo wrote:
carrotpanic wrote:
Ranger Rick wrote:
nihilo wrote:
It's region locked. Sorry, Americans, you'll have to live with Versus.

There are also a number of sites that offer pirated live streams, if you absolutely can't get it locally. (I'm traveling right now, and did this for the last game...)

I live in Detroit, so we get CBC :)

But not the stream on the website, correct? I thought you needed a Canadian ISP for that.

I haven't checked, but I'm sure you're right. We get CBC on cable and broadcast here.

Gravey wrote:
4xis.black wrote:
Vancouver has been in the habit of playing to their opponents for quite a while. That's why, for example, the Nashville series was as close as it was.

Indeed. The series is really in a lot of ways the "final boss" for Vancouver. It's presenting all the challenges the Canucks have overcome in the mini-bosses of the previous series—the series-changing meltdown, the seemingly unsolvable goalie, the goading into becoming undisciplined, playing down to the other team, not having the killer instinct. After winning those three series it seemed like the Canucks had learned everything they would need to win the Cup. Everything they need to beat Boston they've shown they can do. Now it's a best-of-three, so here's hoping they can get back into it.

Well..... I don't agree with the phrase "playing down" to Boston. Boston has dictated a more physical game and with good goaltending has spanked the Canucks pretty hard. In football terms it'd be taken out of your game plan.

SwampYankee wrote:
Gravey wrote:
4xis.black wrote:
Vancouver has been in the habit of playing to their opponents for quite a while. That's why, for example, the Nashville series was as close as it was.

Indeed. The series is really in a lot of ways the "final boss" for Vancouver. It's presenting all the challenges the Canucks have overcome in the mini-bosses of the previous series—the series-changing meltdown, the seemingly unsolvable goalie, the goading into becoming undisciplined, playing down to the other team, not having the killer instinct. After winning those three series it seemed like the Canucks had learned everything they would need to win the Cup. Everything they need to beat Boston they've shown they can do. Now it's a best-of-three, so here's hoping they can get back into it.

Well..... I don't agree with the phrase "playing down" to Boston. Boston has dictated a more physical game and with good goaltending has spanked the Canucks pretty hard. In football terms it'd be taken out of your game plan.

You're right, I couldn't think of exactly what I meant when I was writing it. Let's say instead, "let the other team dictate how the game is played". The Canucks definitely played down to lesser teams in the regular season, but I think this better describes what happened against Nashville and now here.