|
Post by PantherTom on Dec 30, 2011 22:33:07 GMT
I thought this was the correct decision at the time and after watching the sky show I definatley stand by this.. Blatant vicious check from behind! How people can call it a dives. Don't know!
|
|
|
Post by heja on Dec 31, 2011 3:42:22 GMT
I think people are confusing dive with looking for it. Fox was certainly looking for king to hit him like that.
Similar to what Finnerty always does, he's one of the strongest on the boards in the league but he looks for the hit from behind and when he feels a push will throw himself into the boards knowing its an automatic 2 plus 10 which I think is stupid anyway. As 90% of hits from behind happen when the guy getting hit turns to the boards at the last second meaning it's unavoidable
|
|
|
Post by james1977 on Dec 31, 2011 4:27:42 GMT
........I think is stupid anyway. As 90% of hits from behind happen when the guy getting hit turns to the boards at the last second meaning it's unavoidable Well I'm glad you don't make the rules. Boarding is treated seriously because of the very real potential for major injury. Checking against the boards is a very different beast from boarding, with the latter often being described as "driving or pushing an opposition player into the boards violently, usually at a distance of 4 to 5 feet from the boards" or words to that effect. The penalty on King was as clear cut as they come both due to the distance from the boards (which ruled out it being a legal check against the boards) as well as the motion that King used (using his stick across Fox's shoulders to push him forward and down into the boards). The right call was made. King was reckless, was solely interested in playing the player rather than the puck and did so in a both a dangerous manner and position. Whilst some Steelers fans would argue that he wasn't injured as he came out on his following shift the ref had to make the call there and then, not wait a while and see what happens. Given the manner by which Fox's head hit the top of the boards and the way he left the ice a game misconduct was the logical call. Who are we to say he wasn't actually hurt? Hockey players are notorious for playing through pain.
|
|
|
Post by cooperphil156 on Dec 31, 2011 7:30:59 GMT
Make up yor own minds
As far as I am concerned King blatantly pushes Jordan Fox into the boards head first. I think Steelers fans who have queried this should have a good look.
|
|
Shorty
Paul Adey
Still here for Private Messages
Posts: 6,636
|
Post by Shorty on Dec 31, 2011 8:35:40 GMT
You might as well protest against it getting dark at night when it comes to matters like this with Steelers.
If it had been Lepine hitting Legue like that, he would have already been handed a hefty suspension.
|
|
Zukiwskyfan
Simon Hunt
ENL heavyweight champ
Posts: 1,115
|
Post by Zukiwskyfan on Dec 31, 2011 8:53:40 GMT
I think 2+10 for this would be harsh. If he had put his stick a cross the top of his shoulders and drilled him into the boards then it would be a different story but this was a little shove in the back after 2 players had battled for the puck. Fox defo sold this one but in the modern game that's the smart play.
|
|
Ghost
Matt Myers
Posts: 1,698
|
Post by Ghost on Dec 31, 2011 9:18:33 GMT
Is the whole highlight show on YouTube yet? Can't seem to find it.
|
|
|
Post by coxy100 on Dec 31, 2011 10:30:12 GMT
I needn't have watched the video and should have just posted exactly the opposite opinion to PantherTom.
Wow, that's never a 5+game. At the very worst it's a 2+10.
|
|
seedy
Pat Casey
Posts: 330
|
Post by seedy on Dec 31, 2011 10:44:55 GMT
Fox sold it, a bad push made worse by Fox IMO, worthy of a boarding call but not the extra game.
|
|
|
Post by GuinnessMan on Dec 31, 2011 10:56:05 GMT
My thoughts at the time was that is was worth more than a 2min penalty. I would have been happy with 2+10 - absolutely ecstatic to see King leaving the ice though. Its happened to us often enough that the penalties have been over zealous, so no qualms in taking one back.
|
|
|
Post by PantherTom on Dec 31, 2011 11:02:17 GMT
I needn't have watched the video and should have just posted exactly the opposite opinion to PantherTom. Wow, that's never a 5+game. At the very worst it's a 2+10. Ha. If you did that in the NHL you'd get at least a 3 game suspension
|
|
|
Post by sparkymark75 on Dec 31, 2011 11:27:04 GMT
Peacock hit Cohen and was given a 2+10 at the time, Cohens been out ever since. Inconsistency with reff'ing calls strikes again.
|
|
5+game
Terry Kurtenbach
Posts: 2,974
|
Post by 5+game on Dec 31, 2011 11:29:36 GMT
oh well it evened up the rediculous game penalty against Heerema in an earlier match.
2+10 was proably enough but he suffered because of the name on his back i guess.
|
|
|
Post by panthermatt on Dec 31, 2011 11:48:32 GMT
Completely agree with the last post about the ridiculas game penalty that Hareema was assessed against the Steelers. I for my point feel as though the call was absolutely correct but can see why the Steelers fans may be unhappy. But hey what goes around comes around. If the elite league used their super duper slow mo thing like they did with the Lepine hit on Globke last season then he could have a longer ban to endure just my take on the hit is was a dirty hit.
|
|
warx
Robert Lachowicz
"Fear the Beard"
Posts: 521
|
Post by warx on Dec 31, 2011 12:32:40 GMT
5+game for that? Bit soft if you ask me, the only reason he gets it in my opinion is how Fox sells it afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by texpef on Dec 31, 2011 12:35:35 GMT
And of course Warx the fact a massive 6'5" tank of a fella, a known thug, is the one doing the offence... If it had Molen i dont think any more than 2 mins but the brick outhouse can do considerably more damage than a lightweight forward...
|
|
|
Post by sambo79 on Dec 31, 2011 13:49:20 GMT
Doesn't look as bad as it sounded.
|
|
warx
Robert Lachowicz
"Fear the Beard"
Posts: 521
|
Post by warx on Dec 31, 2011 14:51:44 GMT
And of course Warx the fact a massive 6'5" tank of a fella, a known thug, is the one doing the offence... If it had Molen i dont think any more than 2 mins but the brick outhouse can do considerably more damage than a lightweight forward... Well #1- King is 6'2" not 6'5", but yes he is a tank of a man. I wouldn't call him a thug either, he plays on the edge, but more often than not he toes the line well. Often you will see bans/penalties handed out in hockey based on what happens to the other player, if it's a poor play and the other player is hurt you're more likely to see a 5+game and/or a suspension. Now King had no right to do what he did to Fox, he was a player in a vulnerable position and shouldn't have been touched as his numbers were showing. That said he made a meal of it, but wasn't hurt because he returned to the game and played it out. To me that's gamesmanship and what caused the 5+game. For me a 2+10 for checking from behind would suffice.
|
|
|
Post by coxy100 on Dec 31, 2011 15:06:14 GMT
I needn't have watched the video and should have just posted exactly the opposite opinion to PantherTom. Wow, that's never a 5+game. At the very worst it's a 2+10. Ha. If you did that in the NHL you'd get at least a 3 game suspension You make me laugh with your over-exaggerations. You can't even get calls right with video evidence. You say that was a "vicious" check but it was hardly that. That's never a 3 game suspension even in the "new" NHL.
|
|
|
Post by cooperphil156 on Dec 31, 2011 15:10:34 GMT
Warx "That said he made a meal of it, but wasn't hurt because he returned to the game and played it out. To me that's gamesmanship and what caused the 5+game." There also seems to be an opinion that Fox knew what was coming went with the hit and then play acted. Unless he had sensed that a huge mass with great centrifugal force was about to hit him or he had eyes in his backside I cannot see that that knew it was coming. His head was piled into the boards, which I think might hurt and would at least shake someone up badly and make it impossible to continue immediately. I dont think you are going to encourage someone ploughing your head into the boards. Another sentiment seems to be that King did not think that if he pushed Fox that this would cause any or much harm. He brought his on himself and surely deserved what he got. For something of an enforcer it doesn't seem a particularly brave act not doing something like this face to face. At the best it was dangerous and at the worst it had the potential to cause serious head injury. Regarding Elite TV programme I would think that it is now on the Elite league website.
|
|
warx
Robert Lachowicz
"Fear the Beard"
Posts: 521
|
Post by warx on Dec 31, 2011 15:33:23 GMT
A lot of players now seem to position themselves like that now to draw the penalty in the first place, Finnerty does it, as do others around the league.
Now Fox should have expected some kind of physical contact, they were all over each other just before that, he has however positioned himself so that either he doesn't get touched, or if he does, it's a penalty.
As for it hurting, well of course, I remember being kneed right in the forehead really hard by a stage diving drummer and that almost KOed me and left me woozy for the rest of the day. Getting your head (all-be-it inside a helmet) is going to hurt and leave you feeling down. I still think that his reaction is some gamesmanship though, looking to make sure King received the full penalty.
I'm not criticising Fox as such though, I'm sure Finnerty would have done the same, as would many other players around the league.
|
|
|
Post by cooperphil156 on Dec 31, 2011 15:46:51 GMT
Warx - very simple - don't do it - its avoidable. If Fox was looking for someone to hit him - would he have his head down so close to the boards? Its a matter of discipline - which brings me to Nielsons stupid penalty at Dundee in their 6 - 4 win - revenge for him - chasing after the player without even a hockey stick, but it could have cost us a silly point or 2.
|
|
|
Post by Rob #12 on Dec 31, 2011 15:48:52 GMT
Why should Fox be worried about keeping King in the game. King's a silly person anyway so he got what he deserved. How many games has be been kicked out of now against us?
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Dec 31, 2011 15:50:45 GMT
For me a 2+10 for checking from behind would suffice. Except that a) it was clearly a Boarding penalty and b) for Boarding, there is no option for 2+10... From the IIHF Rulebook:- www.iihf.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Sport/rulebook2010/Rulebook_52_101_-_30_September.pdfIf it was deserving of anything more than a 2min minor on its own, then 5+Game it had to be. And if Hicks decided that Fox was injured - whether he returns later in the game or not - then the minimum penalty applicable was 5+Game. He could always have given King a Match penalty... now that would have had you lot howling!
|
|
5+game
Terry Kurtenbach
Posts: 2,974
|
Post by 5+game on Dec 31, 2011 16:23:09 GMT
A lot of players now seem to position themselves like that now to draw the penalty in the first place, Finnerty does it, as do others around the league. Now Fox should have expected some kind of physical contact, they were all over each other just before that, he has however positioned himself so that either he doesn't get touched, or if he does, it's a penalty. What a complete and utter load of crap!!! Try watching the video and taking the teal tinted glasses off. Fox doesnt position himself so he can draw a penalty. The puck comes free and runs along the boards Fox turns to the boards and plays the puck (he couldnt play the puck if he doesnt face them). Fox has no idea that King is going to push him into the boards why would he its a stupid thing to do. He gets up and skates off the ice and down the tunnel. its not like he spends ages writhing around on the floor selling it. if you dont want to be thrown out the game then dont push soneone head first in to the boards its simple. if one of our players had done it i would have no sympathy for them either.
|
|