Habitforming Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Where did I try to justify biting? I was simply saying a lot of stuff was happening in those scrums from both sides that the refs didn't call. The point I was debating was that Sweden got away with a ton and Canada was somehow facing an uphill battle vs. the refs... which I did not find to be true at all. I also said you can't even see the guy biting Hickey on camera. You see Hickey's reaction, but not the action itself. Sweden was obviously going in with the attitude that they wouldn't be pushed around, since that's Canada's strategy in every single WJHC final. They were overzealous in their actions, as could be seen right from the first penalty by Backlund on the first shift of the game. It cost them. Of course you don't see it, that's the way it was intended. There are loads of angles on the web trying to find a clear shot but sadly none can. Either way, I highly doubt as Hickey was kneeling in the crease with Anderson that he thought to himself... "hmmmm, what can I do right now that might get a penalty called on them?....I got it!!!!....biting, that will work!" You don't need video evidence to see what really happened there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Of course you don't see it, that's the way it was intended. There are loads of angles on the web trying to find a clear shot but sadly none can. Either way, I highly doubt as Hickey was kneeling in the crease with Anderson that he thought to himself... "hmmmm, what can I do right now that might get a penalty called on them?....I got it!!!!....biting, that will work!" You don't need video evidence to see what really happened there. My point was that you can't call what you can't see. The cameras can't even pick up the biting, so how are the refs supposed to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habitforming Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 My point was that you can't call what you can't see. The cameras can't even pick up the biting, so how are the refs supposed to? This whole issue was never about calling a penalty... (There isn't a 2 mins for biting rule ) Just about the dirty BS the Swedes pulled Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 You can't deny any of what I wrote...it happened, it's all on film. How is that homerism? The time he got hit on his way to the bench wasn't a dive - it was a pure cheap shot by the Canadian, I forget who it was (Della Rovere?). Had he done that in an NHL game he would have gotten his head taken off by the other team's enforcer. He's lucky there's no fighting in the WJC. That being said, Markstrom fell down 4 or 5 times in the game and at least 2 or 3 of them were pure dives. He also went after every Canadian who came close to his crease. So no props to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habitforming Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) The time he got hit on his way to the bench wasn't a dive - it was a pure cheap shot by the Canadian, I forget who it was (Della Rovere?). Had he done that in an NHL game he would have gotten his head taken off by the other team's enforcer. He's lucky there's no fighting in the WJC. That being said, Markstrom fell down 4 or 5 times in the game and at least 2 or 3 of them were pure dives. He also went after every Canadian who came close to his crease. So no props to him. I thought it was a cheap shot at first as well, but when I watched the replay Markstrom looked at the player coming and then threw his legs out from under himself when the contact happened and flopped, a pure dive. It doesn't matter anyway, just another classless punk As for the Hickey "biting" thing, you couldn't actually see that the player did that, all that you could see was Hickey's reaction, which was embellishment even if he was bit. No way does it hurt that badly if a guy with a mouthguard on bites down on a heavily padded glove. Care to recant or was Andrew Peters embellishing as well? Edited January 7, 2009 by Habitforming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Care to recant or was Andrew Peters embellishing as well? I saw that and knew you'd respond. Just so you know, mouthguards aren't required in the NHL, and I doubt a yapper like Ruutu wears one, so it'd hurt more. That being said, yeah, Peters did sell it, like how most players try and sell high-sticks. Embellishments happen all over the place. Of course there's no place for biting. But every time it happens (which isn't often in hockey), it's a reactionary measure that isn't thought out at all. Just be thankful you're not a rugby fan... biting and nut-shots happen all the time in their pile-ups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habitforming Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 I saw that and knew you'd respond. Just so you know, mouthguards aren't required in the NHL, and I doubt a yapper like Ruutu wears one, so it'd hurt more. That being said, yeah, Peters did sell it, like how most players try and sell high-sticks. Embellishments happen all over the place. Of course there's no place for biting. But every time it happens (which isn't often in hockey), it's a reactionary measure that isn't thought out at all. Just be thankful you're not a rugby fan... biting and nut-shots happen all the time in their pile-ups. I kinda figured you'd expect me to respond after that. Afterall how could I resist, the timing was too perfect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenadian Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 http://www2.sportsnet.ca/gallery/2009/Janu...ages/wjhc14.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.