Commandant Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Shanahan to NHL Goalies. Welcome to open season on being run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 It's ominous for us, given how crucial Price is to our success. If I'm Martin, I tell Moen, Nokileinen, and some of the other pluggers that if Price is run, their job is to take Thomas's head off. No quarter given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Despite it being a dangerous POV here, I agree with Shanny's decision. He's not saying running goalies is okay, what he's saying is that, if you nail a goalie while trying to make a play on the puck, while it's a penalty, there will be no supplemental decision. Let's be honest here, when Miller went out to play the puck, he could have made a myriad of other choices that wouldn't have ended with the same result. Except for the fact he got a concussion, I suspect everything happened exactly as he was hoping - he was trying to draw a penalty. Sure, he played the puck, but what does he expect when there's a loose puck and he skates out past the circle? Did Lucic press his size advantage and utterly fail to avoid the collision? Absolutely. But when a goalie does something like that, he's only asking for trouble. Watch Lucic, he has his head down and he rushing to a loose puck. When Miller gets there marginally before him, there's not a lot he can do. (If Miller were a skater and not a goalie, that's a completely legal hit, as well, but that's beside the point.) If he tries to dance to the side to avoid Miller, he could very well blow out an ankle or a knee or lose balance and crash head-first into the boards. The safest thing to do is what he did, it's just unfortunate that Miller was concussed. I know we all love to hate Lucic, and usually for good reason, but this one isn't cut and dried. There's no proof the Broon Bum was out to cause damage, other than hit a goalie who was way out of his crease (and for sure, he made sure to get square and finish that check, probably knowing he was going to get two, but it turned the game, and I think Lucic will take that PIM to assure a victory). Turn it around, if it were Patches or Cole doing the same thing, we'd ALL be stating categorically that there was absolutely NO cause for suspension. This is hockey, not dancing and sometimes huge collisions happen. What would you think of Lucic had he pulled up and not gone for the loose puck? What would you think of Patches or Cole if they did the same? I completely get the 'protecting the goalie' thing. I completely get cracking down on plays that can cause concussions. But when a goalie puts himself in a seriously vulnerable position in a fast game like this, then he has to expect there could be trouble. One wonders what kind of fallout this play would have had Miller not been concussed. Sometimes unfortunate things happen, this was one of those times. They both went for the puck, Miller went flying. End of story. Penalty served, game on. Personally (even though I have a serious dislike for Lucic), my issue on the play was with Miller and his attempt to send Lucic to the hospital with the ONLY definitive attempt to injure - when he swung that massive lumber after the hit. THAT was attempt to injure, and I'm surprised the league didn't look at that. Anyhow, as I'll be extremely unpopular with this sentiment for the next while, I shall go back to shutting up. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenadian Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 From the NHL website the article title reads : "Shanahan cites lack of intent in not suspending Lucic " So now he's judging intent? (get outta my head Shanny) How can you do that? Did Lucic break down and start crying and stating his intent? Seems EVERY other suspension (to date) the player pleaded their innocence and it wasn't their "intent" to hit/elbow/run the player............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 From the NHL website the article title reads : "Shanahan cites lack of intent in not suspending Lucic " So now he's judging intent? (get outta my head Shanny) How can you do that? Did Lucic break down and start crying and stating his intent? Seems EVERY other suspension (to date) the player pleaded their innocence and it wasn't their "intent" to hit/elbow/run the player............ This is why I have a problem with it, he smiled after! It seems silly to believe he had no intention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Yeah, it's the re-emergence of the specious 'intent' factor that has me most worried about this. We've been down that road, and it will end with a player dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Yeah, it's the re-emergence of the specious 'intent' factor that has me most worried about this. We've been down that road, and it will end with a player dead. He is saying that because there wasn't intent and it wasn't a head shot that there is no suspension... It is just an ethical thing not to run a goalie like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I know we all love to hate Lucic, and usually for good reason, but this one isn't cut and dried. There's no proof the Broon Bum was out to cause damage, other than hit a goalie who was way out of his crease (and for sure, he made sure to get square and finish that check, probably knowing he was going to get two, but it turned the game, and I think Lucic will take that PIM to assure a victory). Turn it around, if it were Patches or Cole doing the same thing, we'd ALL be stating categorically that there was absolutely NO cause for suspension. This is hockey, not dancing and sometimes huge collisions happen. What would you think of Lucic had he pulled up and not gone for the loose puck? What would you think of Patches or Cole if they did the same? If max or cole did that I would lose a lot of respect for them. It is an ethical thing, you don't tank a goalie like that, THAT is not hockey. Miller played the puck, Lucic looked up saw that, readied himself for a huge hit. He had enough time to skate by him. I who can't skate to save my life could turn and avoid him, that is what any guy on Montreal would do. You just don't do that. I don't think we need to worry to much about teams running goalies like that because well... most players have ethics when they play, that will protect goalies. Its just pathetic, he smiled after to, congrats mr.Lucic you decked a goalie... feel all big and strong now? Miller was didn't even have a chance to ready himself, once he got the puck he didn't have time to move. Lucic knew he was beat. Its sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalerexpert86 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 New disciplinarian, same problem. Boston players getting away with murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Watch Lucic, he has his head down and he rushing to a loose puck. When Miller gets there marginally before him, there's not a lot he can do. Although I do agree that our collective anti-Boston and anti-Lucic biases are completely inseparable from our opinions in this matter, I also believe that Lucic had more than enough time to avoid the collision. He chose to hit Miller, and didn't even make an effort to stop up to lessen the collision. That being said, I'm not sure a suspension should have been warranted; I just think it would be a good precedent to set to protect the league's goalies. At the very least, I think the referees should have given Lucic a major penalty in-game for goalie interference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Although I do agree that our collective anti-Boston and anti-Lucic biases are completely inseparable from our opinions in this matter, I also believe that Lucic had more than enough time to avoid the collision. He chose to hit Miller, and didn't even make an effort to stop up to lessen the collision. That being said, I'm not sure a suspension should have been warranted; I just think it would be a good precedent to set to protect the league's goalies. At the very least, I think the referees should have given Lucic a major penalty in-game for goalie interference. My problem with the Lucic play is exactly that, it wasn't incidental contact, he lowers his shoulder and targets Miller with a body check. This wasn't him going for a loose puck and getting there just a second late... this is going for a loose puck, and when he realizes he won't get it, throwing a hit like he would on a defenceman. That is unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalerexpert86 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Lucic said in his interview he braced himself for the collision. If you have time to brace for collision you have time to change your path and not run over the goalie. But he just continued straight got his body ready for impact, to think he didn't have a chance to get away from it, is crazy. I did see a rule change idea I kind of liked. Make the crease a bit bigger and goalies are untouchable in the crease, fair game out of the crease. And any opponents in the crease are fair game for the goalie. I think that would be fun to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 The thing is, to my recollection no one has ever been suspended for hitting a goalie. I think, to be fair, that Shanahan understood this to fall into a separate category for that reason. This may or may not be valid; think about the can of worms it would open up if, every time a player crashes around or behind the net and bangs into a goalie who is just outside the crease, he were threatened with a suspension. My problem is that if this is the rationale, Shanahan should have said that, not hidden behind the ridiculous smokescreen of 'intent.' IF crashing a goalie is suspendable, then the issue should be whether Lucic had enough time to stop, objectively - not whether he felt he had enough time to stop. If crashing a goalie is not suspendable, then just frigging come out and say so. As for whether Habs players should do this: absolutely not, except in one circumstance - i.e., if a team runs Price. Since the league has made it clear that it views concussing goalies as a non-punishable offence, I would DEMAND that Moen, Nikoleinen, or some other rugged Hab retalitate by deliberately attempting to injure Thomas. If that's how it is, then we are suckers not to play that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 The thing is, to my recollection no one has ever been suspended for hitting a goalie. I think, to be fair, that Shanahan understood this to fall into a separate category for that reason. This may or may not be valid; think about the can of worms it would open up if, every time a player crashes around or behind the net and bangs into a goalie who is just outside the crease, he were threatened with a suspension. My problem is that if this is the rationale, Shanahan should have said that, not hidden behind the ridiculous smokescreen of 'intent.' IF crashing a goalie is suspendable, then the issue should be whether Lucic had enough time to stop, objectively - not whether he felt he had enough time to stop. If crashing a goalie is not suspendable, then just frigging come out and say so. As for whether Habs players should do this: absolutely not, except in one circumstance - i.e., if a team runs Price. Since the league has made it clear that it views concussing goalies as a non-punishable offence, I would DEMAND that Moen, Nikoleinen, or some other rugged Hab retalitate by deliberately attempting to injure Thomas. If that's how it is, then we are suckers not to play that way. Oh yeah, pretty good idea. That would 100% lead to having Price injured too. They have a bonified #2. We don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Oh yeah, pretty good idea. That would 100% lead to having Price injured too. They have a bonified #2. We don't. I'm saying that we RETALIATE after Price has been injured (or they have pointedly attempted to injure him), NOT that we initiate. This has been my position all along. If the NHL is going to reward deliberate attempts to injure, then you are just a sucker if you do not go out and get a couple of Matt Cooke types. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I'm saying that we RETALIATE after Price has been injured (or they have pointedly attempted to injure him), NOT that we initiate. This has been my position all along. If the NHL is going to reward deliberate attempts to injure, then you are just a sucker if you do not go out and get a couple of Matt Cooke types. yeah, and next meeting against the Bruins when Price is back would supposed to go sweet like sugar ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I always love it when the league comes out and said.. I talked to the player, he didn't intend to hit/hurt/drive face into glass". While I fully believe Lucic isn't that bright, few players are stupid enough to say they intended it. So why bother. The video showed me that Lucic had plenty of opportunity to change the outcome of that play, but he chose to take his opportunity. If the league is going to say "players need to police this", then don't suspend the guy who takes out Lucic's knee, or gives Tim Thomas a concussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 yeah, and next meeting against the Bruins when Price is back would supposed to go sweet like sugar ? Well, what's the difference? If the Bruins are gonna put Price out anyhow, the only way to even things up is to take THEIR guy out. Why would they stop at Price, anyway? They already put attempted to murder Paciorettty and laid exceedingly irresponsible hits on Spacek and Halpern last playoff. If the answer is to lie down and allow your players to drop like ninepins while the other team gets to run a full roster, that's no answer at all, it's a white flag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 All I'm trying to say is that over a period of 5 years, Habs can't win the injury games against the Bruins if it keeps going on game after game after game. A white flag after 1 injury is maybe better than after 5 or 6... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Lucic said in his interview he braced himself for the collision. If you have time to brace for collision you have time to change your path and not run over the goalie. I'm not sure he did. Consider that Miller was probably steaming upwards of 15kph and Lucic was most probably going at closer to 40. That's 55 kph towards one another and very little distance between the two when Miller finally got to the puck. Add in the fact that Lucic was bent low while pushing through his stride - somewhat more difficult to manoeuvre than standing up - and getting out of the way was always going to be tough. I'd love to see some physics on that also a demonstration by two other players who had no intention of hitting one another to see if it's possible. Could Lucic have done something more? Maybe, but there's no doubt he took the opportunity to finish the check. Classless maybe, but they won the game. Handily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 It should be noted that Carey Price doesn't think there should be a suspension. http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Lucic+placed+league+tough+spot/5717143/story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Its November 19th and the first overall team in the NHL is The Minnesota Wild Armaggedon is upon us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Its November 19th and the first overall team in the NHL is The Minnesota Wild Armaggedon is upon us. They are tied with Chicago... Armaggedon may be approaching but I think we have some time yet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 They are tied with Chicago... Armaggedon may be approaching but I think we have some time yet! Chicago is losing 8-2. I'm gonna assume thats a loss and minny goes ahead on the tie breaker (less games played). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Chicago is losing 8-2. I'm gonna assume thats a loss and minny goes ahead on the tie breaker (less games played). Never mind then, its raining fireballs next! Take cover! 1 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.