Canucks Have No Balls

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Tiger » Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:16 am

Strangelove wrote:


I wouldn't knock the methods of the Stanley Cup champs much.

They felt it was time to send a message, who are we to argue? :mex:


Also happened to note... Thomas was not in goal and Boston outshot Canes by a wide margin.. Ward stood on his head to get the win..
Checking the stats for last year.. Bruins were tough but including the regular season took less penalties than the Canucks..

Nope time for the Sedins to get tougher .. they had the worst +/- in the playoffs of any forwards .. not tough enough on the back check either..
2 points in regular season is not equal to 1 Stanley.. sorry girls
" If you cant beat them in the alley - you can't beat them on the ice
User avatar
Tiger
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 7:09 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby coco_canuck » Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:28 am

ClamRussel wrote:
Laughable.


What's laughable, the post or your insistence that Methot's hit was suspendable and on par with Letang's?

Topper nailed it, one key reason is Henrik making a sudden move that put himself in vulnerable position, and the NHL takes that into consideration, especially on non-head-shots, when they dole out suspensions.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Potatoe1 » Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:34 am

Tiger wrote:
Strangelove wrote:


I wouldn't knock the methods of the Stanley Cup champs much.

They felt it was time to send a message, who are we to argue? :mex:


Also happened to note... Thomas was not in goal and Boston outshot Canes by a wide margin.. Ward stood on his head to get the win..
Checking the stats for last year.. Bruins were tough but including the regular season took less penalties than the Canucks..

Nope time for the Sedins to get tougher .. they had the worst +/- in the playoffs of any forwards .. not tough enough on the back check either..
2 points in regular season is not equal to 1 Stanley.. sorry girls


The Canes played the Bruins like a fiddle in that game.

Chirped at them the whole night and watched while Boston imploded taking stupid penalty after stupid penalty.

Stall apparently stated in the second intermission that they going to goad the Bruins.

As far as shots go it doesn't matter.

One team was racking up shots 5 on 5 while the other was getting a string of 5 on 4's and 5 on 3's.
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby ClamRussel » Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:38 pm

coco_canuck wrote:
ClamRussel wrote:
Laughable.


What's laughable, the post or your insistence that Methot's hit was suspendable and on par with Letang's?

Topper nailed it, one key reason is Henrik making a sudden move that put himself in vulnerable position, and the NHL takes that into consideration, especially on non-head-shots, when they dole out suspensions.


Just keep telling yourself that and it will eventually be true. There was no sudden move. By your logic Burmistrov put himself into a vulnerable position, as did Eberle etc. Blame the victim? Henrik turned to play the puck and there was more than enough time for Methot to peel off or not hit him like that. I never said it was on par with Letangs, the inconsistency is that Letang got 2 and Methot didn't get 1. Its illogical to believe Letang's actions warranted 2 games if Methots was only worth a 2min penalty.
"Once a King, always a King"
-Mike Murphy
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3679
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Topper » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:06 am

ClamRussel wrote: I never said it was on par with Letangs, the inconsistency is that Letang got 2 and Methot didn't get 1. Its illogical to believe Letang's actions warranted 2 games if Methots was only worth a 2min penalty.

If the two hits are not on par with each other, then why are you using them as comparables to say the punishments are inconsistent?
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4703
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Potatoe1 » Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:12 am

Sea Weber has a disciplinary hearing today for nailing Hansen last night.

Hansen didn't turn at all, Weber just lined him up and smashed him.

Based on what we have seen I would guess he gets 3 or 4 games. The hit was worse then Letangs as there was basically no movement at all from Hansen.
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby dhabums » Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 am

ClamRussel wrote:Henrik turned to play the puck and there was more than enough time for Methot to peel off or not hit him like that. I never said it was on par with Letangs, the inconsistency is that Letang got 2 and Methot didn't get 1. Its illogical to believe Letang's actions warranted 2 games if Methots was only worth a 2min penalty.


Are you watching the Methot hit in slo mo? There is a world of difference in those two hits, especially the finish.
User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby coco_canuck » Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:23 am

ClamRussel wrote:Just keep telling yourself that and it will eventually be true. There was no sudden move. By your logic Burmistrov put himself into a vulnerable position, as did Eberle etc. Blame the victim? Henrik turned to play the puck and there was more than enough time for Methot to peel off or not hit him like that.


There's no need for self-assurance when the facts are obvious Clam, it's the more strained, conspiracy like conclusions that require a far greater leap of faith and constant reassurance.

You're completely twisting around that logic. Burmistrov made no sudden move to put his back to Letang, he was skating towards the puck by the boards. Strawman it any way you like, but that's a plain and obvious difference between the two hits.

Henrik receives the puck by the boards and as Methot closes in, Henrik turns to move the puck and at the moment his back is turned to Methot, he gets hit. I don't know how that's more than enough time for Methot to peel off, but his bionic muscles must have failed him.

ClamRussel wrote:Its illogical to believe Letang's actions warranted 2 games if Methots was only worth a 2min penalty.


How's that illogical when they're completely different and Henrik put himself in a vulnerable position?

Also, Letang finishes his check high with his hands on Burmistrov's back as he drives him into the boards. Those a two big differences that distinguish the two hits.

Remember Edler escaping suspension for hitting Hall in the head in the pre-season? He got a 2 minute penalty, but no suspension because Hall made a sudden move that put his head in a bad position even though Hall made a play at the puck.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Previous

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests