TGDT: WCQF - 4/19 Blackhawks (0) @ Blues (1) 2:00PM NBC

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Grimsäväinen" data-cid="226645" data-time="1398020315">
<div>


That's not what the Blues players said............ and you can clearly see Steen looking at a Hawks player and saying "show some fucking class"</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Link?</p>


 </p>


Sorry, but it just makes no sense that you only hear audio from that one guy. He comes through as clearly and loudly as the announcers.</p>

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="226650" data-time="1398020635">
<div>


Link?</p>


 </p>


Sorry, but it just makes no sense that you only hear audio from that one guy. He comes through as clearly and loudly as the announcers.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Blues writers on Twitter last night.</p>

 

[Pez68]

What a great source... Because they heard it on the St. Louis broadcast, it must be true. :icon-lol:</p>


 </p>


All that sounds like to me is someone sitting near one of the mics taunting him. If that was a mic picking up the on-ice audio, we would have heard more than just the one guy. We would have heard Steen screaming, the ref yelling at the players, Toews, etc.</p>


 </p>


P.S. There is no Canadian accent on that voice either. Sounds nothing like Keith.</p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="cplmac" data-cid="226648" data-time="1398020443">
<div>


I'm not trying to justify the hit, read my posts I've said every time it was a bad decision. I'm just saying it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be, he's still probably going to catch a suspension for it whether he should or not is somewhat debatable. The fact that it's debatable is what made it such a bad decision, still not nearly as stupid as the Bickell knee on knee.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Well if the league were smart, they'd use this  suspension as precedence to take "intent" out of their rulings on these types of hits and not have it affect the judgement. Whether or not a player was trying for a head hit, he's got to know better than to make that type of hit. There still needs to be a suspension to send the message clearly.</p>

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

The problem is and will always be, is the league will not be able to be consistent with their rulings. I don't agree with 3 games for a 1st offense.</p>


 </p>


Steen was clearly shown saying EFF YOU but was not heard saying that.</p>

 

[Variable]

Well that speaks to the larger cultural problem in the NHL which is a whole other discussion. I don't know what people would want for a first offense. A fine? 3 games is a good starting point.</p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Spunky Porkstacker" data-cid="226654" data-time="1398022041">
<div>


The problem is and will always be, is the league will not be able to be consistent with their rulings. I don't agree with 3 games for a 1st offense.</p>


 </p>


Steen was clearly shown saying EFF YOU but was not heard saying that.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Exactly. The mic in that video wasn't picking up the on-ice audio. It was picking up the background noise of the fans near the mic... The banging on the glass was REALLY loud, and you don't see anyone banging on the glass near the scrum. It's irresponsible journalism at it's finest. One person goes public saying they think it was Keith taunting him, and all the shit news outlets run with it.</p>


 </p>


Hilarious...</p>


 </p>


From a St. Louis website:</p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">


 </p>


You can clearly hear someone say "wakey wakey, Backey - wakey wakey!" while Backes is wobbling about. Who was it? Greg Wyshynski seems to think that it was Duncan Keith, which seems about right considering, as Wysh points out, Keith's mouth is moving.</p>
</blockquote>


 </p>


What did Greg Wyshsnski actually say?</p>


 </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">


 </p>


So the conventional wisdom since the end of the game is that it was Duncan Keith that uttered this mockery, because his lips are moving and he’s nearby and it sorta sounds like Duncan Keith and he’s the kinda guy that would say it.</p>


I couldn’t confirm it from the clip – hell, it could have been one of those glass-banging Blackhawks fans watching the action for all we know – but I guess that’s what we’re going with.</p>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Yeah, great reporting.</p>


 </p>


What's funny is that this actually works out in the Blackhawks' favor. They may be trying to run Keith the entire game. He's not exactly an easy target to hit.</p>

 

[Variable]

Why? Not like I wouldn't doubt them to play like that anyway, but I figure that if anyone were to know the truth, it'd be the Blues players on the ice.</p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="226659" data-time="1398022980">
<div>


Why? Not like I wouldn't doubt them to play like that anyway, but I figure that if anyone were to know the truth, it'd be the Blues players on the ice.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Because it's public and they may feel obligated to do something about it, since that's what the world is now expecting. Especially their shitty goon players like Reaves, Ott, Lapierre, and Jackman.</p>

 

[jaxhawksfan]

All I can hope at this point is that it is a wake-up and the team starts to play their own game instead of the Blues game.  To lose 2 fucking games in such fashion is like a kick to the gut.</p>

 

[roshinaya]

Nothing from Puck Daddy should be taken seriously.</p>

 

[the canadian dream]

keiths not exactly an angel on the ice and never has been. not sure when fans started putting a halo around duncs head like he plays clean and talks clean. he never has and never will. it what makes him what he is. keith is no stranger to getting his stick on guys or beaking off. he can be a bit of a dick out there. looks good on him. not talking about getting elbows up on guys or two handing them ( although he caught sedin that one time which was funny as hell and well deserved). keiths got spunk and hes a dick. </p>


 </p>


 </p>


retards on cbc last night were getting all up un duncs for doing little slashes off faceoffs and in scrums. accussing him of leading by poor example due to little harmless slashes. what the hell happened to the culture of this game? gets so dumb and obnoxious this pc fucktard crowd. dont like the shit go watch blossom and sing fucking *** coldplay songs. we dont need you and we dont want you. hawks didnt get two modern day cups by not slashing a few guys or saying a few bad words on the ice lmfao. idiots.</p>


 </p>


 </p>


 </p>


backes is a big boy im sure he can handle a few bad words directed his way. **** sakes go baby sit someone else twats. the culture problem in the nhl is its been invaded by a bunch of soft fans with soft ideals of what hockey is and what it should be. was no culture problem in the nhl until those ass burgers showed up and got their noses in everything like they always need to. makes em feel special or smart who the **** knows. all i know is that pc crowd is annoying as all hell with their pretentious obnoxious know shit never played the game attitudes. same people will then insult the players themselves and talk down to them because they are " jocks who have no brains or common sense" so they need someone to speak on their behalf. pure assholes.</p>

 

[Variable]

Oh come on. Of course there's a cultural problem. The Department of Safety being as inconsistent as they are is proof of it, there's already been a couple examples this playoffs alone, never mind the years and years worth of horrible decisions. I'm not talking about trash talking, that exists everywhere.</p>

 

[winos5]

The Blues aren't choir boys.   I think Seabs deserves the suspension but I hardly feel remorse regarding the Blues.   Maybe they should rein in Ott and Reaves if they don't like what happened?</p>

 

[PatrickSharpRules]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="winos5" data-cid="226702" data-time="1398089755">
<div>


The Blues aren't choir boys.   I think Seabs deserves the suspension but I hardly feel remorse regarding the Blues.   Maybe they should rein in Ott and Reaves if they don't like what happened?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Exactly, and Backes himself plays in a much similar fashion not exactly dirty but he's never passed up a hit in his life. I'd like to hear MacKinnons thoughts on the hit?</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="winos5" data-cid="226702" data-time="1398089755">
<div>


The Blues aren't choir boys.   I think Seabs deserves the suspension but I hardly feel remorse regarding the Blues.   Maybe they should rein in Ott and Reaves if they don't like what happened?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Basically my stance on it.  If a guy on the 'hawks took out guys like Cooke or Torres with an illegal play by all means suspend their assess, but it doesn't mean I'll shed a tear.</p>


 </p>


Was not a smart play by Seabs any way you look at it.  Backes on replay was not ducking to any appreciable extent that, had ne not ducked, would have changed the point of contact.  IMHO when I saw it I thought 2-5 games.</p>


 </p>


My opinion though does not mean that the NHL needs to be more consistant, though. Suspend Seabrook for the headshot, fine.  Fine Joel Q. Tugnutt, Fine. But then at least bring Lucic's attempt at shishkabobing someone coinpurse in algnment with all of that.</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="226653" data-time="1398021258">
<div>


Well if the league were smart, they'd use this  suspension as precedence to take "intent" out of their rulings on these types of hits and not have it affect the judgement. Whether or not a player was trying for a head hit, he's got to know better than to make that type of hit. There still needs to be a suspension to send the message clearly.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


I disagree partially--if there is to be discpline, the play in question has to be looked at taking intent and outcome into consideration, but only after act.</p>


 </p>


You gotta look at the act 1st.  If the head was the principle point of contact, or there was spearing, butt-ending, kneeing, etc. then that has to be the baseline.</p>


 </p>


Then you take intent into consideration. If it was an accident they're still fined or suspended.  It it was intentional then they're fined or suspended more.</p>


 </p>


Then you look at the outcome.  I know people don't like my stance on it but I look at it as such--if you light off illegal fireworks and are caught by the cops, you're gonna get fined/charged. If you light off illegal fireworks, and are caught by the cops because you set something on fire with said illegal fireworks, you're gonna get fined more or chargered with a greater crime.  Ditto here.  If the other player is seriously hurt by a suspendable act the suspension should be more than if the player wasn't hurt by a suspendable act.  But the caveat is that the injury should not be the driving force--the act proper should be the driving force--then and only then should intent and outcome come into play.</p>