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

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mikita's Helmet" data-cid="226524" data-time="1397960219">
<div>


I don't agree with that assumption.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Well of course you don't because it destroys your argument.  The only reason he turned in Seabrook's direction was because he missed the puck and was going back for it.  Either way a penalty is coming for that hit.</p>

 

[mikita's helmet]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="226526" data-time="1397960303">
<div>


Well of course you don't because it destroys your argument.  The only reason he turned in Seabrook's direction was because he missed the puck and was going back for it.  Either way a penalty is coming for that hit.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


no it supports yours and it never happened, Backes was skating sideways when Seabs lined him up for his check, he was never, never facing the board, which destroys your boarding argument.</p>

 

[Variable]

They could've called it boarding anyways. Boarding, charging, take your pick, both major penalties. It's just semantics you're arguing at this point. It was a major penalty no matter whether Backes had the puck or not, whether he turned at the last half second or not.</p>

 

[the canadian dream]

Why was he going for that hit on a penalty kill anyways? Fundamentally that hit was bad regardless of it being legal or illegal. By the way Backes didnt even have the puck it was on keiths stick. seriously fundamentally seabs fucked up too.</p>


 </p>


grrrr now im mad again thinking about it.</p>


 </p>


i need to move on. I didn't like anything about that hit and i can't get over it. legal or not. Remember game 7 hawks/wings seabrook...ahhhh yes...better.</p>


 </p>


moved on..game three win big and send a message</p>

 

[mikita's helmet]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="226528" data-time="1397960640">
<div>


They could've called it boarding anyways. Boarding, charging, take your pick, both major penalties. It's just semantics you're arguing at this point. It was a major penalty no matter whether Backes had the puck or not, whether he turned at the last half second or not.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Pot meet kettle.  Charging, when's the last time someone got a charging major? LMAO!</p>


 </p>


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/brent-seabrook-ejected-after-hit-to-head-of-david-backes--video-220125761.html</p>

 

[Variable]

What does it matter? Again, it's semantics. They can call it whatever they want, if that's  not a major penalty, I don't know what is.</p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="226523" data-time="1397960091">
<div>


If he had played the puck successfully his back would've been to Seabrook as he got hit into the boards, and he was going to get hit no matter what as Seabrook had committed to it. What would you have called that?  A legal hit?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Actually, if he doesn't lose the puck, he continues up the boards with his SHOULDERS facing Seabrook. And, like I said, it's shoulder to shoulder. Because he lost the puck, he bends his knees and gets down low, preparing to turn hard back towards the puck. Again, bad timing, bad luck.</p>


 </p>


Backes is 6'4". Seabrook is 6'3". The only way Seabrook's shoulder hits Backes in the head without jumping, is Backes putting himself in that position. Seabrook's feet are on the ice until after he makes contact, and mostly because he's falling after the hit.</p>

 

[supraman]

Here is all I have to say on the seabs hit. It was illegal.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

Backes doesn't change his body position. Seabs launched himself into Backes. Even if Backes kept skating and not start turning for the puck Seabs is going into his head or at least high. Easily a 5 minute major for boarding. The fact that he makes contact first with the head makes it bad.

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Supra" data-cid="226533" data-time="1397961609">
<div>


Here is all I have to say on the seabs hit. It was illegal.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


No question there. So was Steen throwing down his gloves and going after Seabrook. Yet, we didn't see Steen get the usual 2 and 10 that comes along with that instigator, did we? Total bullshit.</p>

 

[Variable]

Pez it would still be boarding. Backes still wouldn't have seen Seabrook coming and would've gone  extremely hard into the boards. Either way that play develops, Seabrook has to know that. He has to know better.</p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="226534" data-time="1397961635">
<div>


Backes doesn't change his body position. Seabs launched himself into Backes. Even if Backes kept skating and not start turning for the puck Seabs is going into his head or at least high. Easily a 5 minute major for boarding. The fact that he makes contact first with the head makes it bad.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


What are you talking about? He is skating straight up the boards, and turns once he realizes he doesn't have the puck. He goes from shoulders pointing straight up the boards, to shoulders pointing straight at Seabrook. In what world does he NOT change body position? You have to watch the entire context of the play.</p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="226536" data-time="1397961735">
<div>


Pez it would still be boarding. Backes still wouldn't have seen Seabrook coming and would've gone  extremely hard into the boards. Either way that play develops, Seabrook has to know that. He has to know better.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Why, exactly, would that be boarding? Backes goes from being right along the boards, facing straight up the boards, to turning right into Seabrook, a dangerous distance away from the boards..... Seabrook doesn't realize he loses the puck, and has no idea he's about to turn hard RIGHT INTO him.</p>

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="226538" data-time="1397961902">
<div>


Why, exactly, would that be boarding? Backes goes from being right along the boards, facing straight up the boards, to turning right into Seabrook, a dangerous distance away from the boards.....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


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>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pez68" data-cid="226538" data-time="1397961902">
<div>


Why, exactly, would that be boarding? Backes goes from being right along the boards, facing straight up the boards, to turning right into Seabrook, a dangerous distance away from the boards..... Seabrook doesn't realize he loses the puck, and has no idea he's about to turn hard RIGHT INTO him.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


It doesn't matter how his body is oriented in this situation, he still wouldn't have seen Seabrook with any amount of time to do anything. He would be in a defenseless position, as he was in the way it ended up happening.</p>


 </p>


I mean, if you agree that the hit was illegal, what are you arguing?</p>

 

[Pez68]

<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>


 </p>


Boarding mostly has to do with their distance from the boards. If Backes doesn't lose that puck, he is likely RIGHT AGAINST the boards. Play out that scenario without Backes losing the puck. It is a hit that happens 10 times a game.</p>


 </p>


He never saw Seabrook coming, as he had his head buried looking for the puck in his feet. He realizes the puck is behind him, turns hard, lowering his head and his body, and boom. Seabrook steamrolls him.</p>

 

[Pez68]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Variable" data-cid="226540" data-time="1397962051">
<div>


It doesn't matter how his body is oriented in this situation, he still wouldn't have seen Seabrook with any amount of time to do anything. He would be in a defenseless position, as he was in the way it ended up happening.</p>


 </p>


I mean, if you agree that the hit was illegal, what are you arguing?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Intent.</p>

 

[Variable]

I don't see anyone here saying Seabrook was trying to hit his head. I think most people could see what happened, especially considering Seabrook has no history of being  a player like that. It still doesn't excuse it though, and it's still a major penalty. Still has to be called every single time,</p>

 

[Pez68]

And it WAS called a major, and it cost the Hawks the game. Which is why I find the arguments of a lengthy suspension fucking laughable. Especially considering St. Louis got away with all that shit after the hit without a single penalty.</p>

 

[Variable]

None of those should factor into a suspension though.  Whether it cost the game for the Hawks or not doesn't, or rather, SHOULDN'T come into play in deciding to suspend a player. Neither should whether or not the penalty was rightly called. I have no idea what to expect the league to do with this, they have no consistency whatsoever, so it's anyone's guess.</p>