GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADIO: 1

This forum is to discuss game day happenings. New threads will be posted for each game.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADI

Post by dhabums » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:00 pm

Larry Goodenough wrote:
dhabums wrote:
Larry Goodenough wrote: One more time, if that is the Canucks response, then as an opponent, I will slash, punch and hit a Sedin after the whistle every chance I get knowing it will draw a reaction and a penalty.

In today's NHL, few players fear retribution. If they do, it's tempered by the millions of dollars they will earn by being the type of player that runs the Sedins and then puts his team on the powerplay by drawing retribution.
Fighting majors do not result in a PP. I've heard and read today people claiming "it was a close game so nothing could be done". WTH does that even mean? This is where someone should make a pointless reference to the instigator penalty, as if it is relevant.

It appears you are distracted by a recent series of speeding tickets to understand?
I didn't get one, the cops were all reasonable, well-intentioned Canucks fans.

---

I thought there was a injury thread, but didn't look very hard. Sedin missed practice today and is on the injury list with a charley horse. He is likely playing tomorrow. In case anyone was wondering:

The term may date back to American slang of the 1880s, possibly from the pitcher Charlie "Old Hoss" Radbourn who is said to have suffered from cramps.[8] Another story mentions a horse named Charley that used to work at Comiskey Park, the Chicago White Sox's baseball stadium. In those days, an old, retired horse was often called "Charlie."

User avatar
darren
CC Veteran
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:45 am

Re: GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADI

Post by darren » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:43 pm

dhabums wrote:
You discount the effect that physical deterrent has in hockey because you've never played hockey in a league that allowed fighting. Either that or you are the toughest guy in the city and nobody on the ice scared you.
Habums, the thought of being punched is intimidating to mortals like you or me, but the average NHL player is as tough as nails, with a pain threshold beyond the stratosphere. They'd gladly take a few love taps from a middleweight in exchange for an instigator penalty. If the Canucks are running around thinking about killing Methot then they are not thinking about winning the game.

User avatar
darren
CC Veteran
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:45 am

Re: GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADI

Post by darren » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:54 pm

dhabums wrote: Fighting majors do not result in a PP. I've heard and read today people claiming "it was a close game so nothing could be done". WTH does that even mean? (This is where someone should make a pointless reference to the instigator penalty, as if it is relevant.)
Unfortunately, I'm not quite smart enough to follow your reasoning here. Perhaps you can assist. Why is the instigator penalty irrelevant? Both Bieksa and Volpatti seemed to think it was quite relevant.

User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADI

Post by dhabums » Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:06 pm

darren wrote:
dhabums wrote:
You discount the effect that physical deterrent has in hockey because you've never played hockey in a league that allowed fighting. Either that or you are the toughest guy in the city and nobody on the ice scared you.
Habums, the thought of being punched is intimidating to mortals like you or me, but the average NHL player is as tough as nails, with a pain threshold beyond the stratosphere. They'd gladly take a few love taps from a middleweight in exchange for an instigator penalty. If the Canucks are running around thinking about killing Methot then they are not thinking about winning the game.
Ahh yes, the mythical instigator penalty. Your immortalization of NHLers is amusing. Methot has 8 career fights, including junior. That means I've had more and I am no NHLer. Or AHLer. Or ECHLer. He had no interest apparently in fighting last night. Clearly he was ready to go to take a "few love taps". He was prepared though to dole out the cheapshots. And why not?

To make this very clear kids, you can start a fight in hockey and not get an instigator. In fact, I think the refs lets us know last night when they didn't give Russell any extra for CLEARLY starting a fightette with Burrows.

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7928
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADI

Post by Island Nucklehead » Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:17 pm

The Canucks don't need a goon. They do need a guy that will step up. This is the regular season for fucks sake. The Sedins won't last 50 games if we keep letting them get pummeled.

I'm not afraid about getting a whole trio of goons to play shot-for-shot with people. But it would be nice to have someone that wasn't afraid of taking a run at someone or pumping their eyes shut for running over our best players.

User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADI

Post by dhabums » Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:19 pm

darren wrote:
dhabums wrote: Fighting majors do not result in a PP. I've heard and read today people claiming "it was a close game so nothing could be done". WTH does that even mean? (This is where someone should make a pointless reference to the instigator penalty, as if it is relevant.)
Unfortunately, I'm not quite smart enough to follow your reasoning here. Perhaps you can assist. Why is the instigator penalty irrelevant? Both Bieksa and Volpatti seemed to think it was quite relevant.
To make this clear, let's go to the far left. Would you be ok with the Sedins getting run and injured nightly without a response but a PP? If yes, you can stop reading. If no, when do you respond? If the exact same thing happens tomorrow night and it's 5 minutes into the 2nd period do we cower under the threat of a POSSIBLE 2 minute PK? I mean it's 1-1 and we don't want a penalty? Or if Methot does the exact same thing next game in the 3rd period? When is it ok? I am curious. Do you ever say "ok, now it's time to do something." If yes, we clearly agree on what should be done, we just disagree on when.

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 12992
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADI

Post by Hockey Widow » Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:33 pm

So Zach Stortini has been placed on waivers. Do you take a chance and pick him up if you can?
The only HW the Canucks need

BladesofSteel
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: Lower left-hand corner

Re: GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADI

Post by BladesofSteel » Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:05 pm

Yup, I'm wrong. Totally mis-read the box score stats on my 10 min coffee break this afternoon. Man, I'm really slippin these days.

Be that as it may, I'm not jumping on the media/franticfan bandwagon with the whole hype of this club being a bunch of pussies...


...yet. :|

User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
Posts: 3992
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADI

Post by ClamRussel » Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:40 pm

I find it amusing that the general consensus is if you protect stars like the Sedins that you're automatically giving away 2pts and losing the game....esp to a bunch of chumps like the BJs. I saw Burrows bump into Mason and players start crosschecking & punching him....two separate occasions ....once he got 2min alone....nothing to the BJs and the other time he got 4 and the BJ he scrummed w/ got 2. Where's the instigator there? FAct is, it rarely gets called. Since Burrows was getting 2 for goalie interference....once the BJ attacked him should there have been an instigator call and a game misconduct? So how did that thuggery on the part of the BJs result in them losing? Truth is it didn't. The PP goal came when Clitsome was in the box for an unrelated highsticking infraction. Bottom line is something needs to be done before the Sedins end up retiring prematurely. Clearly the NHL has NO intention of ensuring their safety from thugs. Joke.
"Once a King, always a King" -Mike Murphy

User avatar
Per
CC Legend
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADI

Post by Per » Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:10 am

Mondi wrote:Erhoff > Tanev
Rome > Ballard
Kesler > Hodgson
Torres > Weise
Raymond > Sturm
Rome > Volpatti

Its no small wonder they look a little shaky right now. But with the return of Kesler this team will be just about as good as last season. Sturm and Samuelsson will find their legs, no question.

Volpatti and Weise are pretty embarrassing if you ask me.
We had two Romes last season?! :o
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Legend
Posts: 3441
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADI

Post by ukcanuck » Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:11 am

Image

Good thing we didnt panic while the sky was falling!

User avatar
Per
CC Legend
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADI

Post by Per » Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:00 am

UWSaint wrote:But watch other teams play hockey; the Canucks strength is their depth.
Agreed. And that's the main difference that I think MG has brought to the team. Most of the starting lineup was more or less in place when he arrived, but he has added depth, which is invaluable at teh end of a long season.
UWSaint wrote:And one of the best, if not the best, first lines in hockey.
Agreed again. How many teams can field two Art Ross winners on one line... and then bring out a second line centered by last season's Selke winner (well, soon :P )?
UWSaint wrote:3rd period is a charm. Canucks should start home games an hour later so they can close it out in the Second.
LOL! Yup, this team is strong and well conditioned. But it's great that both we, they and the opponents know that this team knows how to come from behind and win. 8-)
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
Per
CC Legend
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADI

Post by Per » Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:12 am

dhabums wrote:Could you at least put the open liquor in the drunk ... ?
:lol:

Priceless! Was he sobering up?
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

User avatar
KeyserSoze
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:39 am

Re: GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADI

Post by KeyserSoze » Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:11 am

dhabums wrote:
Strangelove wrote: Not only did Methot get away with a vicious cheap-shot on our captain, but later showed one way to send a message. The impression was that Burrows had run BJ's goalie... so first chance Methot got he viciously cross-checked Burrows (in the back just after he scored). He didn't receive a penalty on the play and I'm sure AB is still feeling it today.
But we asked Methot to fight, so it's all good.
Doug MacLean makes me laugh.

He has been one of those in the media that has been quite vocal about the Canucks not being tough enough in the SCF and not being tough enough today etc.

BMac brought this up with him yesterday and asked him straight up what he would have liked to see happen in response to the Methot cheap shot on Sedin.

MacLean pauses for a second (as if surprised to be asked that question) and then says he would have liked to see someone go talk to Methot in order to send a message that hits like that will not be tolerated. :eh: In the same conversation he goes on to say that even a shoving match can also be a way to show other teams you are willing to stand up for your team mates.

Hey Doug, both Bieksa & Volpatti asked Methot to fight and there was a shoving match immediately after the hit...so either come up with a real answer or shut your trap already.

I do agree that the media has taken the whole "not tough enough" thing too far, but also feel that plays like the Methot hit deserve more attention/reaction from the Canucks then just perhaps scoring on a 2 min PP. Keep in mind our PK last year was tied for 2nd best in the league, so if you have to take an extra 2 every once in a while when your best player gets run from behind it's probably not going to cost you a playoff spot.

User avatar
darren
CC Veteran
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:45 am

Re: GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADI

Post by darren » Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:01 am

dhabums wrote:
darren wrote:
dhabums wrote: Fighting majors do not result in a PP. I've heard and read today people claiming "it was a close game so nothing could be done". WTH does that even mean? (This is where someone should make a pointless reference to the instigator penalty, as if it is relevant.)
Unfortunately, I'm not quite smart enough to follow your reasoning here. Perhaps you can assist. Why is the instigator penalty irrelevant? Both Bieksa and Volpatti seemed to think it was quite relevant.
To make this clear, let's go to the far left. Would you be ok with the Sedins getting run and injured nightly without a response but a PP? If yes, you can stop reading. If no, when do you respond? If the exact same thing happens tomorrow night and it's 5 minutes into the 2nd period do we cower under the threat of a POSSIBLE 2 minute PK? I mean it's 1-1 and we don't want a penalty? Or if Methot does the exact same thing next game in the 3rd period? When is it ok? I am curious. Do you ever say "ok, now it's time to do something." If yes, we clearly agree on what should be done, we just disagree on when.
Look, there are 29 other teams that would like to beat us. They are going to play the Sedins physically, if they don't then they aren't doing their job. The thought of a knuckle sandwich isn't going to deter them.

I don't think that "doing something" or "responding" (other than scoring on the PP) will have any deterrent effect whatsoever. It makes the fans feel better, but that's it.

As for the instigator penalty, I suspect it is more likely when the fight appears to be premeditated and targeted at a particular player for something that happened earlier in the game, rather than a spur of the moment kind of thing.

edit: And here is what some guy named Daniel Sedin has to say on the matter. I'm not sure who he is...perhaps he's never played competitive hockey either?
“There’s always been that kind of talk: we’re European, we need protection,” Daniel said before the Canucks travelled here for today’s game against the Edmonton Oilers. “I’ve never really understood that. I really don’t understand what they’re talking about. For us, we can take a hit. That hit against Hank [in Columbus on Monday], that’s going to happen in a game. Why do we need guys to step in there and fight him right away? We’re going on the power play and have a chance to score. That’s how you win games. We’re fine getting hit. It’s hockey, not some other sport.”
And some guy named Henrik, who doesn't understand the rules of the NHL obviously.
“Teams go after me and Danny the way they go after Ryan Getzlaf and Corey Perry [in Anaheim] or anyone else like that. The hit in Columbus was not a big deal. We had guys asking their guys to fight, and they said no. That’s fine. I was really proud that the guys didn’t go after [Methot] and take a penalty which would have cancelled our power play.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Sedi ... z1aqt6JlHi

Post Reply