Blackhawks @ Bruins IGT 12/11 @ 6:00 p.m.

Seidenberg is a clean player with no reputation for what happened.

Click to expand...

I think this doesn't matter at all though. To me this sort of invalidates what you're saying in that if it would have been a dirty player that made the hit then we could discuss it. That's how I read your reaction. We're being homers because it was a bad hit from a good player. You are saying we're reacting to the type of hit, and you seem to reacting to the type of player who gave the hit. I'm just looking at it from a pure danger standpoint and the fact to me is that this sort of thing is becoming more prevalent and whether or not he should be punished is ancillary to the point that each year more and more of these boarding injuries are happening and the NHL only seems to care if 1.) It impacts a star player and thus revenue or 2.) if it would require a star player to receive a suspension. The fact that it seems to be happening more doesn't seem to be making into the new saftey rules headlines. Especially when disciplinary actions are so wildly different and can be dependent on the history of a player. Which to me is wrong. Sure I get the punish the repeat offender more theory, but at the same time who is giving the hit doesn't actually make it better or worse.

HawkWriter said:

It shouldn't be that hard to put your fandom aside and look at what actually happened. No reason to call for his head. Blackhawks don't have to be thrilled with the hit but this is the game of hockey. It is a fast paced, hard hitting type of game. Seidenberg is a clean player with no reputation for what happened. The fans tend to overreact when Toews, Kane, etc is touched or even breathed upon.

Click to expand...

Exactly. That hit was dangerous, but not malicious/dirty.

That's why a two minute boarding penalty is in the game.

MassHavoc said:

I think this doesn't matter at all though. To me this sort of invalidates what you're saying in that if it would have been a dirty player that made the hit then we could discuss it. That's how I read your reaction. We're being homers because it was a bad hit from a good player. You are saying we're reacting to the type of hit, and you seem to reacting to the type of player who gave the hit. I'm just looking at it from a pure danger standpoint and the fact to me is that this sort of thing is becoming more prevalent and whether or not he should be punished is ancillary to the point that each year more and more of these boarding injuries are happening and the NHL only seems to care if 1.) It impacts a star player and thus revenue or 2.) if it would require a star player to receive a suspension. The fact that it seems to be happening more doesn't seem to be making into the new saftey rules headlines. Especially when disciplinary actions are so wildly different and can be dependent on the history of a player. Which to me is wrong. Sure I get the punish the repeat offender more theory, but at the same time who is giving the hit doesn't actually make it better or worse.

Click to expand...

Not at all. If it were Seidenberg or someone else, it still wouldn't be suspension worthy in my eyes. However, when taking a look at the hit, you have to factor in everything that goes into that hit. The player delivering it is part of it. Definitely not the whole part, but still part of it.

The hit isn't as bad as people are making it seem. It just isn't. The end result, as of now, is an unfortunate one, but that's hockey. Things happen.

Hell, I think Rozsival's elbow against the Blues was worse than the hit last night...but you won't hear anyone around here talk about it.

HawkWriter said:

It shouldn't be that hard to put your fandom aside and look at what actually happened. No reason to call for his head. Blackhawks don't have to be thrilled with the hit but this is the game of hockey. It is a fast paced, hard hitting type of game. Seidenberg is a clean player with no reputation for what happened. The fans tend to overreact when Toews, Kane, etc is touched or even breathed upon.

Click to expand...

Think about how penguins fans are with Crosby lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HawkWriter said:

Not at all. If it were Seidenberg or someone else, it still wouldn't be suspension worthy in my eyes. However, when taking a look at the hit, you have to factor in everything that goes into that hit. The player delivering it is part of it. Definitely not the whole part, but still part of it.

The hit isn't as bad as people are making it seem. It just isn't. The end result, as of now, is an unfortunate one, but that's hockey. Things happen.

Hell, I think Rozsival's elbow against the Blues was worse than the hit last night...but you won't hear anyone around here talk about it.

Click to expand...

I guess I just think it's more black and white that that. Intention or note. Player or not, out come or not, the reasons for punishment (and I know we are singling out this instance but I'm venting more about these incidents in general with they way they are handled in the NHL) is as much about what actually happened. The punishment needs to be consistent and hold players accountable no matter who it is, how serious it was or what the result was. It's as much about preventative punishment as it is about being meaningful toward that play. It's the gray area's the the NHL front office has created in these kinds of things that I hate seeing because it leads to more of these types of incidents that players don't think twice about because it's a roll of the dice as to how they'll be punished. To me it's as unsafe to not have repercussions for these types of incidents that lead to more large scare problems. I'm not saying a 20 suspension for every elbow or every hit like this but it needs to be recognized. Logged, tagged, whatever you want to do make it formal because guess what, the next time Seidenberg has an incident like this his sheet is still clean so you're still looking at a first offense guy. Hell... there was a lot of talk about that when Carcillo came the first time and hadn't had an "Incident" in like two years before his first bad hit, when in reality he hadn't changed much to that point just toned it down.

I think that in the big picture, Shaw did the correct thing. Sometimes you have to make the other team know that there are consequences to cheap shots like they give out a lot(Boston).

True... but I'm pretty sure somewhere in this conversation you need to call me an asshole at least once and let me know that I'm not a real fan because I'm new... then I'll feel at home.

The Hawk said:

I think that in the big picture, Shaw did the correct thing. Sometimes you have to make the other team know that there are consequences to cheap shots like they give out a lot(Boston).

Click to expand...

He sure tuned up Lucic good.