Now that's letting the hate flow! He does look and play like Kenny Linesman! Good onedamonberryman wrote:If we had Pronger we would have won the Cup. As far as hate goes I got Marchand in my heart. His abuse of Sedin and his comment about 'cause I felt like it" will always be a prize winner. To bad the little douch bag did not add the truth about he feels like it when they do not punch back. Come the next Bruin game I sure hope one of ours tells AV to get stuffed and runs the little shit into the boards. He cannot get any uglier. What are they doing in Nova Scotia? Putting radioactive material in the formula for babies to drink? Jesus he is a goony looking POS. I would really like to see him get carried off on a board. HE reminds me of Linesman of the "RAT' fame.
Players You Hate
Moderator: Referees
- Cousin Strawberry
- MVP
- Posts: 12923
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
- Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl
Re: Players You Hate
If you need air...call it in
Re: Players You Hate
I don't hate him per se, but after having the misfortune of catching a few Duncan Keith interviews over the years, I do believe he is certifiably retarded. This is not meant as an insult, I am actually convinced that he should be helmeted and accompanied by a handler at all times.
Also, I would enjoy watching Shia Labeouf and Patrick Kane exchange eyes-closed-purse-slaps outside the Roxy.
Also, I would enjoy watching Shia Labeouf and Patrick Kane exchange eyes-closed-purse-slaps outside the Roxy.
Chairman of the Jim Benning Appreciation Society
Re: Players You Hate
+1Rumsfeld wrote:
Also, I would enjoy watching Shia Labeouf and Patrick Kane exchange eyes-closed-purse-slaps outside the Roxy.
Re: Players You Hate
I remember when Markus Naslund took an elbow/shoulder to the head that knocked him out and NO penalty was called because it as deemed a clean hit. I hope we continue to have discussions based on decade old rules.Uncle dans leg wrote: I remember Patrick Roy getting thumped hard like that and there wasn't an inquisition over it, just a penalty.
- Carl Yagro
- MVP
- Posts: 5058
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:33 pm
- Location: On wide shoulders...
Re: Players You Hate
Looch La Douche
Brad I.M. Awsome
Captain "RU Fukin'" Serious? <- I used to like this guy
20 Cent's mouthguard
Dave "Can't Touch Me or I'll Cry" Bolland
Pierre-Marc Douchehard
Meek O Koivu
Cal Clusterfuck
Drew Pouty
Jackass Johnson
Sloppy Seconds
Celine Dion Phaneuf
PKock Subban
Brad I.M. Awsome
Captain "RU Fukin'" Serious? <- I used to like this guy
20 Cent's mouthguard
Dave "Can't Touch Me or I'll Cry" Bolland
Pierre-Marc Douchehard
Meek O Koivu
Cal Clusterfuck
Drew Pouty
Jackass Johnson
Sloppy Seconds
Celine Dion Phaneuf
PKock Subban
- Cousin Strawberry
- MVP
- Posts: 12923
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
- Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl
Re: Players You Hate
So you think Miller should be protected completely in that situation? He has to be responsible, to some degree, for his position especially when he's out of the paint. Yes its a penalty but to suspend Lucic for that hit...no way. Maybe for being such a dick head after the game in the interview but not the play on the ice.dhabums wrote:I remember when Markus Naslund took an elbow/shoulder to the head that knocked him out and NO penalty was called because it as deemed a clean hit. I hope we continue to have discussions based on decade old rules.Uncle dans leg wrote: I remember Patrick Roy getting thumped hard like that and there wasn't an inquisition over it, just a penalty.
I don't think the rules regarding this have changed in the past 10 years but please someone step in if they have.
If you need air...call it in
Re: Players You Hate
I think if Miller is in any way impeding the progress of Lucic towards the puck he better get out of the way.Uncle dans leg wrote:So you think Miller should be protected completely in that situation? He has to be responsible, to some degree, for his position especially when he's out of the paint. Yes its a penalty but to suspend Lucic for that hit...no way. Maybe for being such a dick head after the game in the interview but not the play on the ice.dhabums wrote:I remember when Markus Naslund took an elbow/shoulder to the head that knocked him out and NO penalty was called because it as deemed a clean hit. I hope we continue to have discussions based on decade old rules.Uncle dans leg wrote: I remember Patrick Roy getting thumped hard like that and there wasn't an inquisition over it, just a penalty.
I don't think the rules regarding this have changed in the past 10 years but please someone step in if they have.
Players get 2 minutes for brushing a goalie. Hank got 2 for spraying a bit of snow. (which by the way feels great when you are hot) and now Lucic gets 2 for injuring Miller. There is no point in trying to get to a goalie via "nudging" or "bumping" him, might has well just freight train him then tell Shanahan you weren't trying to hit him, you just had your head down trying to get the puck.
And yes, I do think he should be protected in THAT situation. Goalies are not padded for or prepared for hits like that. A mask ain't a helmet. If the league wants to change that, they should. But as it sits now, the rule states otherwise.
What is most confusing about this call is Shanny's inconsistency. He went on a rampage in the preseason. The only real solution to this is somebody demolishing Thomas. I hope the Sabres have a couple of assclowns in the AHL to bring up.
Re: Players You Hate
Fair enough. I think any 'Hawk is pretty much fair game in Vancity, but Captain Serious's holier-than-thou attitude is hard to take on the best of days. I'm not sure how Vancouver can be "the most hated team in hockey" when you look at many other teams' rosters (*cough* Hawks, Philly, Boston, etc. *cough*).Uncle dans leg wrote:I'm suprised there's so little hate for Jonathan Toews! After the "exposing them for what they really are" comments and then actually doing it(almost) last year, he's pretty well at the top of my list.
To ukcanuck's comment about hating the Sabres just as much for the Lucic-Miller hit... To be brutally honest, that's the kind of lack of response that lost us the you-know-what last spring. Injuries be damned, I have a hard time criticizing a team that basically did the same thing (nothing?) we did a few months ago, and in a mean-nothing game to boot. Seems hypocritical, although I would have loved to have seen a line brawl come of it.
- Cousin Strawberry
- MVP
- Posts: 12923
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
- Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl
Re: Players You Hate
I wonder how Shanny and the NHL would deal with a Nick Kypreos on Grant Fuhr play today...
If you need air...call it in
Re: Players You Hate
DHB, from the video I saw Miller had cleared the puck to the boards long before Lucic got to him. Lucic outright lied when he said he "just put his head down and went after the puck". His head was up and he had a lock on Miller like an Israeli missle on an Iranian nuclear production site. in. He had plenty of opportunity to stop or change direction. He hit Miller with his shoulder and his arms came up as well.
I don't quite get Shanny's explanation that he didn't feel he had the "mandate" to suspend under the present ROE.
I don't quite get Shanny's explanation that he didn't feel he had the "mandate" to suspend under the present ROE.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt "
Re: Players You Hate
Sorry, but I don't the present ROE applies to the Bruins. It was well demonstrated in the last year SCF.Listercat wrote:DHB, from the video I saw Miller had cleared the puck to the boards long before Lucic got to him. Lucic outright lied when he said he "just put his head down and went after the puck". His head was up and he had a lock on Miller like an Israeli missle on an Iranian nuclear production site. in. He had plenty of opportunity to stop or change direction. He hit Miller with his shoulder and his arms came up as well.
I don't quite get Shanny's explanation that he didn't feel he had the "mandate" to suspend under the present ROE.
- LotusBlossom
- MVP
- Posts: 2460
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:53 pm
- Location: Metro Vancouver
- Contact:
Re: Players You Hate
Jovocop wrote:Sorry, but I don't the present ROE applies to the Bruins. It was well demonstrated in the last year SCF.Listercat wrote:DHB, from the video I saw Miller had cleared the puck to the boards long before Lucic got to him. Lucic outright lied when he said he "just put his head down and went after the puck". His head was up and he had a lock on Miller like an Israeli missle on an Iranian nuclear production site. in. He had plenty of opportunity to stop or change direction. He hit Miller with his shoulder and his arms came up as well.
I don't quite get Shanny's explanation that he didn't feel he had the "mandate" to suspend under the present ROE.
The more that is said about Lucic, the more I dislike the kid. I was a big fan of his when he was Giant, but these days, I think he's a fucking douche.
That smirk he had in the interview after the hit says it all. He knew what he was doing, and he could have stopped. I don't buy it and unlike Shanny, I don't drink Campbell koolaid.
parfois, je veux juste laisser tinber un coude volant sur le monde
Re: Players You Hate
Thanks to Mëds and KeyserSoze for the illumination. Now I can see why the Lucic penalty is most likely justified, though it'd be tough to apply a suspension imo.
At the same time though, I've gotta say the NHL's rule book has some ambiguous language on this point. For example, the rule does in fact expressly permit contact when the goalie leaves his crease to play the puck. That language IS in there: "... incidental CONTACT, at the discretion of the referee, will be PERMITTED when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease ...".
Now, the rules also declare that the goalie is "not fair game" and I do recognize that the intent of this ill-defined rule IS to protect goalies from getting Loochiched. But like I said, there is also some serious ambiguity there, some wiggle-room that really ought to eliminated.
My personal preference ... would be for them to clarify the rule in the opposite direction. If a goalie leaves his crease to "play the puck" (you know, like a "player"), then he should know that he exposes himself to the kind of contact to which players are exposed. A player should not have to put on the brakes, back-off, or stop at the blue line like a Tampa Bay forechecker just cuz a masked man decides to venture onto the battlefield. If you're a goalie and you don't want to maybe get hit, then don't put yourself in harm's way. Just stay in your crease. I think that's more reasonable than asking all the skaters to respect an invisible crease that travels with the goalie no matter how far he skates from his net. I hate to use the "f" word, but that just seems fair to me.
At the same time though, I've gotta say the NHL's rule book has some ambiguous language on this point. For example, the rule does in fact expressly permit contact when the goalie leaves his crease to play the puck. That language IS in there: "... incidental CONTACT, at the discretion of the referee, will be PERMITTED when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease ...".
Now, the rules also declare that the goalie is "not fair game" and I do recognize that the intent of this ill-defined rule IS to protect goalies from getting Loochiched. But like I said, there is also some serious ambiguity there, some wiggle-room that really ought to eliminated.
My personal preference ... would be for them to clarify the rule in the opposite direction. If a goalie leaves his crease to "play the puck" (you know, like a "player"), then he should know that he exposes himself to the kind of contact to which players are exposed. A player should not have to put on the brakes, back-off, or stop at the blue line like a Tampa Bay forechecker just cuz a masked man decides to venture onto the battlefield. If you're a goalie and you don't want to maybe get hit, then don't put yourself in harm's way. Just stay in your crease. I think that's more reasonable than asking all the skaters to respect an invisible crease that travels with the goalie no matter how far he skates from his net. I hate to use the "f" word, but that just seems fair to me.
Re: Players You Hate
I had originally thought Burrows or Kesler, a search shows it was Hordi
http://youtu.be/FtN3EPUXI8c
No league wide uproar over that one.
http://youtu.be/FtN3EPUXI8c
No league wide uproar over that one.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
Re: Players You Hate
Topper the difference with the Turco bump was that Turco still was in possesion of the puck and Hordichuk spun off of him to chase the puck. No high elbows on that hit.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt "