- Joined:
- May 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 47,886
- Liked Posts:
- 26,376
Have to agree with Variable here....</p>
</p>
I expect a ton of minuses for this post.</p>
</p>
I expect a ton of minuses for this post.</p>
TGDT: WCQF - 4/19 Blackhawks (0) @ Blues (1) 2:00PM NBC
- Thread starter Chief Walking Stick
- Start date
Pez68
Fire Waldron
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2014
- Posts:
- 5,020
- Liked Posts:
- 838
I gave you one just for the hell of it. 
</p>
</p>Ton
New member
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,991
- Liked Posts:
- 124
- Location:
- Park Ridge, IL
Intent or not, it was a bad hit. I expect at least two games. It cost the Hawks the game and potentially the series.</p>
</p>
I don't think Seabrook intended to injure Backes, but it happened and now the Hawks have to deal with the DOPS and further consequences.</p>
</p>
I don't think Seabrook intended to injure Backes, but it happened and now the Hawks have to deal with the DOPS and further consequences.</p>
Shantz My Pants
New member
- Joined:
- Dec 10, 2014
- Posts:
- 3,923
- Liked Posts:
- 787
I meant his upper body position/height. He doesn't go from standing to all of a sudden full knee bend. Where Seabs was going, it was head high no matter what. If he would of his Backes shoulder, there still would of been a ugly collision.
- Joined:
- Dec 10, 2014
- Posts:
- 7,876
- Liked Posts:
- 1,107
- Location:
- Anacortes, WA via Glenview, IL
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Grimsäväinen" data-cid="226539" data-time="1397961956">
<div>
Boarding can be called no matter which way he is facing from what I understand. I've seen boarding called when a player has his back to the boards.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-style:inherit;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Rule 41 - Boarding</span></p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact. However, in determining wheter such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing� or “off-side� play which results in that player hitting or impacting the boards is “boarding� and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.�</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">-----------------------------------------------</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Backes put himself in a vulnerable position, when skating with his shoulders parallel to the boards, he suddenly turned/veered left towards Seabrook while simultaneously lowering his head. Seabrook was already preparing to check him, shoulder on shoulder, and it was too late for him to avoid or minimize contact, thus making the hit unavoidable.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">That's my take on the play.</p>
<div>
Boarding can be called no matter which way he is facing from what I understand. I've seen boarding called when a player has his back to the boards.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-style:inherit;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Rule 41 - Boarding</span></p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact. However, in determining wheter such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing� or “off-side� play which results in that player hitting or impacting the boards is “boarding� and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.�</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">-----------------------------------------------</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Backes put himself in a vulnerable position, when skating with his shoulders parallel to the boards, he suddenly turned/veered left towards Seabrook while simultaneously lowering his head. Seabrook was already preparing to check him, shoulder on shoulder, and it was too late for him to avoid or minimize contact, thus making the hit unavoidable.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">That's my take on the play.</p>
- Joined:
- May 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 47,886
- Liked Posts:
- 26,376
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mikita's Helmet" data-cid="226554" data-time="1397963682">
<div>
<span style="font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-style:inherit;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Rule 41 - Boarding</span></p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact. However, in determining wheter such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing� or “off-side� play which results in that player hitting or impacting the boards is “boarding� and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.�</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">-----------------------------------------------</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Backes put himself in a vulnerable position, when skating with his shoulders parallel to the boards, he suddenly turned/veered left towards Seabrook while simultaneously lowering his head. Seabrook was already preparing to check him, shoulder on shoulder, and it was too late for him to avoid or minimize contact, thus making the hit unavoidable.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">That's my take on the play.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
More fucking gray area.</p>
<div>
<span style="font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-style:inherit;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Rule 41 - Boarding</span></p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact. However, in determining wheter such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing� or “off-side� play which results in that player hitting or impacting the boards is “boarding� and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.�</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">-----------------------------------------------</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Backes put himself in a vulnerable position, when skating with his shoulders parallel to the boards, he suddenly turned/veered left towards Seabrook while simultaneously lowering his head. Seabrook was already preparing to check him, shoulder on shoulder, and it was too late for him to avoid or minimize contact, thus making the hit unavoidable.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">That's my take on the play.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
More fucking gray area.</p>
Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mikita's Helmet" data-cid="226554" data-time="1397963682">
<div>
<span style="font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-style:inherit;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Rule 41 - Boarding</span></p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact. However, in determining wheter such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing� or “off-side� play which results in that player hitting or impacting the boards is “boarding� and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.�</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">-----------------------------------------------</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Backes put himself in a vulnerable position, when skating with his shoulders parallel to the boards, he suddenly turned/veered left towards Seabrook while simultaneously lowering his head. Seabrook was already preparing to check him, shoulder on shoulder, and it was too late for him to avoid or minimize contact, thus making the hit unavoidable.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">That's my take on the play.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Again, would Backes had been in anything other than a defenseless position had he not turned around after he missed the puck? He still wouldn't have seen Seabrook coming. The only way to argue against that is Seabrook wouldn't have made that hit if Backes had the puck. Which is ridiculous of course. We're talking about a time span of not even a second.</p>
<div>
<span style="font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-style:inherit;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Rule 41 - Boarding</span></p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact. However, in determining wheter such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing� or “off-side� play which results in that player hitting or impacting the boards is “boarding� and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.�</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">-----------------------------------------------</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">Backes put himself in a vulnerable position, when skating with his shoulders parallel to the boards, he suddenly turned/veered left towards Seabrook while simultaneously lowering his head. Seabrook was already preparing to check him, shoulder on shoulder, and it was too late for him to avoid or minimize contact, thus making the hit unavoidable.</p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);"> </p>
<p style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px;color:rgb(0,0,0);">That's my take on the play.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Again, would Backes had been in anything other than a defenseless position had he not turned around after he missed the puck? He still wouldn't have seen Seabrook coming. The only way to argue against that is Seabrook wouldn't have made that hit if Backes had the puck. Which is ridiculous of course. We're talking about a time span of not even a second.</p>
Ton
New member
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,991
- Liked Posts:
- 124
- Location:
- Park Ridge, IL
My thoughts so far on this series right here: http://www.indianheadnation.com/main/featured/game-day/post-game/game-two-cements-another-blackhawk-disappointment</p>
</p>
I don't think it's a popular opinion, but it's the truth.</p>
</p>
I don't think it's a popular opinion, but it's the truth.</p>
CLWolf81
Fan Captain
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,107
- Liked Posts:
- 96
- Location:
- Chicago, Illinois
Am I hearing this right.... We haven't come back from an 0-2 deficit since 1995? </p>
- Joined:
- May 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 47,886
- Liked Posts:
- 26,376
But they came back from a 3-1 deficit last year.</p>
</p>
So as long as they win on Monday, we're good.</p>
</p>
So as long as they win on Monday, we're good.</p>
- Joined:
- May 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 47,886
- Liked Posts:
- 26,376
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tony DeFrancesco" data-cid="226562" data-time="1397965012">
<div>
We came back 0-3 last year vs the Wings...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Wasn't it 3-1?</p>
<div>
We came back 0-3 last year vs the Wings...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Wasn't it 3-1?</p>
Ton
New member
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,991
- Liked Posts:
- 124
- Location:
- Park Ridge, IL
We came back 0-3 vs the Wings...</p>
CLWolf81
Fan Captain
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,107
- Liked Posts:
- 96
- Location:
- Chicago, Illinois
Just making sure .... cause NBCSN just said that..... lol I was like .... they don't remember the Wings, do they?</p>
- Joined:
- May 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 47,886
- Liked Posts:
- 26,376
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tony DeFrancesco" data-cid="226565" data-time="1397965063">
<div>
We came back 0-3 vs the Wings...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Nope Blackhawks won game 1 butthead.</p>
<div>
We came back 0-3 vs the Wings...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Nope Blackhawks won game 1 butthead.</p>
Ton
New member
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,991
- Liked Posts:
- 124
- Location:
- Park Ridge, IL
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Grimsäväinen" data-cid="226564" data-time="1397965031">
<div>
Wasn't it 3-1?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Stupid mod tools.</p>
</p>
I thought it was 3-0 Wings. I could be wrong, but didn't we rip off 4 in a row?</p>
<div>
Wasn't it 3-1?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Stupid mod tools.</p>
</p>
I thought it was 3-0 Wings. I could be wrong, but didn't we rip off 4 in a row?</p>
- Joined:
- May 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 47,886
- Liked Posts:
- 26,376
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="CLWolf81" data-cid="226566" data-time="1397965094">
<div>
Just making sure .... cause NBCSN just said that..... lol I was like .... they don't remember the Wings, do they?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Blackhawks won game 1 4-1.</p>
<div>
Just making sure .... cause NBCSN just said that..... lol I was like .... they don't remember the Wings, do they?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Blackhawks won game 1 4-1.</p>
Ton
New member
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,991
- Liked Posts:
- 124
- Location:
- Park Ridge, IL
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Grimsäväinen" data-cid="226569" data-time="1397965153">
<div>
Blackhawks won game 1 4-1.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Well then, I stand corrected. Either way, the Hawks come home, all they have to do is win one game away and win the rest at home. It's not impossible, but as they currently stand I can't see them pulling it off.</p>
</p>
Bottom line is, who cares about history. This team can make history... if they clean it up.</p>
<div>
Blackhawks won game 1 4-1.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Well then, I stand corrected. Either way, the Hawks come home, all they have to do is win one game away and win the rest at home. It's not impossible, but as they currently stand I can't see them pulling it off.</p>
</p>
Bottom line is, who cares about history. This team can make history... if they clean it up.</p>
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,460
- Liked Posts:
- 40
- Location:
- Section 325 - Row 12
My favorite teams
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tony DeFrancesco" data-cid="226560" data-time="1397964703">
My thoughts so far on this series right here: http://www.indianheadnation.com/main/featured/game-day/post-game/game-two-cements-another-blackhawk-disappointment
I don't think it's a popular opinion, but it's the truth.</p></blockquote>
It is, but I'm sure there are Seabrook apologists that will whine.
My thoughts so far on this series right here: http://www.indianheadnation.com/main/featured/game-day/post-game/game-two-cements-another-blackhawk-disappointment
I don't think it's a popular opinion, but it's the truth.</p></blockquote>
It is, but I'm sure there are Seabrook apologists that will whine.
- Joined:
- May 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 47,886
- Liked Posts:
- 26,376
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tony DeFrancesco" data-cid="226570" data-time="1397965269">
<div>
Well then, I stand corrected. Either way, the Hawks come home, all they have to do is win one game away and win the rest at home. It's not impossible, but as they currently stand I can't see them pulling it off.</p>
</p>
Bottom line is, who cares about history. This team can make history... if they clean it up.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Speaking of which....</p>
</p>
Seabrook has a phone hearing so it will be less than 5 games.</p>
</p>
I expect him to sit out the rest of the first round.</p>
<div>
Well then, I stand corrected. Either way, the Hawks come home, all they have to do is win one game away and win the rest at home. It's not impossible, but as they currently stand I can't see them pulling it off.</p>
</p>
Bottom line is, who cares about history. This team can make history... if they clean it up.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Speaking of which....</p>
</p>
Seabrook has a phone hearing so it will be less than 5 games.</p>
</p>
I expect him to sit out the rest of the first round.</p>
Pez68
Fire Waldron
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2014
- Posts:
- 5,020
- Liked Posts:
- 838
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tony DeFrancesco" data-cid="226560" data-time="1397964703">
<div>
My thoughts so far on this series right here: http://www.indianheadnation.com/main/featured/game-day/post-game/game-two-cements-another-blackhawk-disappointment</p>
</p>
I don't think it's a popular opinion, but it's the truth.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Don't agree at all. The Hawks were not in this game until they started finishing checks and forcing turnovers. They've made some poor decisions in the last two games, but in all honestly they should be up 2-0. Mental lapses have cost them these first two games. They aren't gooning it up, they're just making poor decisions and their coaching staff is borderline incompetent.</p>
</p>
That, and an impotent power play.</p>
</p>
I just have to LOL at the "without Crawford, the Hawks are blown out in both games". Hilarious. He had some highlight reel saves, but only because he was so fucking far out of position in the first place. The goals he has given up haven't been anything spectacular. Including two today.</p>
<div>
My thoughts so far on this series right here: http://www.indianheadnation.com/main/featured/game-day/post-game/game-two-cements-another-blackhawk-disappointment</p>
</p>
I don't think it's a popular opinion, but it's the truth.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
Don't agree at all. The Hawks were not in this game until they started finishing checks and forcing turnovers. They've made some poor decisions in the last two games, but in all honestly they should be up 2-0. Mental lapses have cost them these first two games. They aren't gooning it up, they're just making poor decisions and their coaching staff is borderline incompetent.</p>
</p>
That, and an impotent power play.</p>
</p>
I just have to LOL at the "without Crawford, the Hawks are blown out in both games". Hilarious. He had some highlight reel saves, but only because he was so fucking far out of position in the first place. The goals he has given up haven't been anything spectacular. Including two today.</p>