GoteamVenture: Obsolete Contraption!: All I know is the Devils better win tonight.

please make it so

With the way things are going Florida winning fits the trend

ontariolightning: GoteamVenture: Obsolete Contraption!: All I know is the Devils better win tonight.

please make it so

With the way things are going Florida winning fits the trend

game 5 was so awful. Clean up the penalties and they should be ok. The PP for Florida has been unstopable. Hopefully NJ keeps that unit to a minimum for ice time.

ontariolightning: Here is another blatant elbow to the head
Keith on Salei

Link

To the f'n idiots who think Keith only has one bad hit go farking fark yourselves
you don't know shiat about what you're talking about you goons

Is that even a horse still? We get it, you hate Keith, and think he's a dirty player. Unfortunately for you, reality indicates that his hit on Daniel Sedin was his first reviewable offense. He's not the first defenseman to make a bad hit or get his elbow up, but you seem to want any penalty to result in a suspension, at least for him. Good luck with that. Here's my take on the 3 you posted.

First one (Cooke): Keith got interference for making contact when Cooke didn't have the puck, but his skates are on the ice, and he keeps his elbow down. If Cooke had the puck, that's a clean but unfortunate hit, since Cooke turns into it immediately prior to the hit with his head down low.

Second one (Benn): It's clearly shoulder-to-shoulder, and his elbow stays down at contact. Questionable from that clip whether or not his skates are off prior to contact or as a result. It's a charge, but probably not a suspension since he made full body contact.

Third one (Salei): Should have been 4 mins, though I could see an argument for 5. Probably not a suspension.

TJWitz: ontariolightning: Here is another blatant elbow to the head
Keith on Salei

Link

To the f'n idiots who think Keith only has one bad hit go farking fark yourselves
you don't know shiat about what you're talking about you goons

Is that even a horse still? We get it, you hate Keith, and think he's a dirty player. Unfortunately for you, reality indicates that his hit on Daniel Sedin was his first reviewable offense. He's not the first defenseman to make a bad hit or get his elbow up, but you seem to want any penalty to result in a suspension, at least for him. Good luck with that. Here's my take on the 3 you posted.

First one (Cooke): Keith got interference for making contact when Cooke didn't have the puck, but his skates are on the ice, and he keeps his elbow down. If Cooke had the puck, that's a clean but unfortunate hit, since Cooke turns into it immediately prior to the hit with his head down low.

Second one (Benn): It's clearly shoulder-to-shoulder, and his elbow stays down at contact. Questionable from that clip whether or not his skates are off prior to contact or as a result. It's a charge, but probably not a suspension since he made full body contact.

Third one (Salei): Should have been 4 mins, though I could see an argument for 5. Probably not a suspension.

You had a tiny tiny bit of credibility but you have none now
those head shots were all blatantly on purpose

You are either for getting rid of head shots or you're not

There is no farking middle ground here

The Rangers just need to win this one at home.

The only team in this playoffs I was worried about was the Senators, and we've pushed game 7. Win, and I think we can take the East. We can beat the Flyers, Jersey, Florida, Bruins or the Caps.

I think the Caps will beat the Bruins. it will be hard, but I think the Caps have enough. And I think the Rangers will meet the Caps assuming they win Game 7, which I think they can.

Rwa2play: Yanks_RSJ: Rwa2play: If the Sens O is all about crashing into Lundquvist for the whole of Game 7, the Rangers can get into trouble.

The amazing part of Game 6 was the inconsistency, which I guess comes with the territory when Tim Peel is involved. I thought the interference call on Foligno was awfully weak, yet Chris Neil pushed Henrik out of the way to "score" the 2nd goal with nothing called. I realize they were at two different times of the game, but still.

Then there were the dueling cross checks involving Brandon Prust - he got called (legitimately) in front of Lundqvist, then get knocked down in front of Anderson like 5 minutes later with nothing.

And Neil is basically allowed to do whatever he wants apparently, thus the blatant uncalled trip of Brad Richards, moments after he took a post-whistle run at him.

That last goal was a joke; a damn joke. Neil kicks the damn puck with the intent of putting in the back of the net and the home office in Toronto still calls that a goal.

Idiots. The lot of them.

/hopes someone on the Rangers does the ritual thing and checks Neil into next season.
//cleanly
///just so the Sens won't biatch about it

Yeah, that should not have been a goal. It was kicked, but they're probably saying it wasn't conclusive. Yet, there was a nationally televised game earlier in the season where there was no conclusive evidence to overturn a no goal call, but there was enough to assume the puck was hit legally into the goal and they overturned the call. So who knows what the criteria is anymore?

Bubba Watson fits. I think I see Niemi sitting in the FARKING BUNKER.LIKE WHERE THE FARKING PUCK WAS FOR 9/10 of the FARKING SERIES!

/What do you call a Vikings/Twins/Sharks fan? A YEAR-ROUND ALCOHOLIC!
//Fark choking. They decided the best way to get to the links faster was to just start knocking the puck back into their own zone for half-a-period, wasting a very good chance and oipportunity to at least give us the good ol' "Sharks in 6" line.

ontariolightning: You had a tiny tiny bit of credibility but you have none now
those head shots were all blatantly on purpose

So after 7 years in the NHL, this is the best you can come up with on keith? Despite the fact that the NHL disciplinary committee agrees with me, I'm the one with a credibility problem?

ontariolightning: You are either for getting rid of head shots or you're not

There is no farking middle ground here

Translation: you want soccer on ice. Even good clean hits will result in head trauma, either from full-body contact or incidental contact, and except in egregious cases of recklessness (Shaw) or malicious intent (Torres, Keith'shiat on Sedin), supplemental discipline isn't necessary. The only way to remove head contact in a game this fast, with the physiology of the game (players bent over, puck at their feet, etc...), is to remove all contact.

TJWitz: ontariolightning: You had a tiny tiny bit of credibility but you have none now
those head shots were all blatantly on purpose

So after 7 years in the NHL, this is the best you can come up with on keith? Despite the fact that the NHL disciplinary committee agrees with me, I'm the one with a credibility problem?

ontariolightning: You are either for getting rid of head shots or you're not

There is no farking middle ground here

Translation: you want soccer on ice. Even good clean hits will result in head trauma, either from full-body contact or incidental contact, and except in egregious cases of recklessness (Shaw) or malicious intent (Torres, Keith'shiat on Sedin), supplemental discipline isn't necessary. The only way to remove head contact in a game this fast, with the physiology of the game (players bent over, puck at their feet, etc...), is to remove all contact.

Translation of your translation: TJWitz = Tool. Taking out hits to the head doesn't make the sport soccer on ice, that is a moronic statement. What ontario did was show you several examples of Keith targeting another player's head, all of which went unpunished.

change1211: TJWitz: ontariolightning: You had a tiny tiny bit of credibility but you have none now
those head shots were all blatantly on purpose

So after 7 years in the NHL, this is the best you can come up with on keith? Despite the fact that the NHL disciplinary committee agrees with me, I'm the one with a credibility problem?

ontariolightning: You are either for getting rid of head shots or you're not

There is no farking middle ground here

Translation: you want soccer on ice. Even good clean hits will result in head trauma, either from full-body contact or incidental contact, and except in egregious cases of recklessness (Shaw) or malicious intent (Torres, Keith'shiat on Sedin), supplemental discipline isn't necessary. The only way to remove head contact in a game this fast, with the physiology of the game (players bent over, puck at their feet, etc...), is to remove all contact.

Translation of your translation: TJWitz = Tool. Taking out hits to the head doesn't make the sport soccer on ice, that is a moronic statement. What ontario did was show you several examples of Keith targeting another player's head, all of which went unpunished.


Yes!!

change1211: TJWitz: ontariolightning: You had a tiny tiny bit of credibility but you have none now
those head shots were all blatantly on purpose

So after 7 years in the NHL, this is the best you can come up with on keith? Despite the fact that the NHL disciplinary committee agrees with me, I'm the one with a credibility problem?

ontariolightning: You are either for getting rid of head shots or you're not

There is no farking middle ground here

Translation: you want soccer on ice. Even good clean hits will result in head trauma, either from full-body contact or incidental contact, and except in egregious cases of recklessness (Shaw) or malicious intent (Torres, Keith'shiat on Sedin), supplemental discipline isn't necessary. The only way to remove head contact in a game this fast, with the physiology of the game (players bent over, puck at their feet, etc...), is to remove all contact.

Translation of your translation: TJWitz = Tool. Taking out hits to the head doesn't make the sport soccer on ice, that is a moronic statement. What ontario did was show you several examples of Keith targeting another player's head, all of which went unpunished.

Unfortunately the league office is on my side on this one. Keep pretending that you're right though

TJWitz: change1211: TJWitz: ontariolightning: You had a tiny tiny bit of credibility but you have none now
those head shots were all blatantly on purpose

So after 7 years in the NHL, this is the best you can come up with on keith? Despite the fact that the NHL disciplinary committee agrees with me, I'm the one with a credibility problem?

ontariolightning: You are either for getting rid of head shots or you're not

There is no farking middle ground here

Translation: you want soccer on ice. Even good clean hits will result in head trauma, either from full-body contact or incidental contact, and except in egregious cases of recklessness (Shaw) or malicious intent (Torres, Keith'shiat on Sedin), supplemental discipline isn't necessary. The only way to remove head contact in a game this fast, with the physiology of the game (players bent over, puck at their feet, etc...), is to remove all contact.

Translation of your translation: TJWitz = Tool. Taking out hits to the head doesn't make the sport soccer on ice, that is a moronic statement. What ontario did was show you several examples of Keith targeting another player's head, all of which went unpunished.

Unfortunately the league office is on my side on this one. Keep pretending that you're right though

Those weren't body on body hits that they want to keep
those were body/elbow/shoulder to head blindside hits

ontariolightning: TJWitz: change1211: TJWitz: ontariolightning: You had a tiny tiny bit of credibility but you have none now
those head shots were all blatantly on purpose

So after 7 years in the NHL, this is the best you can come up with on keith? Despite the fact that the NHL disciplinary committee agrees with me, I'm the one with a credibility problem?

ontariolightning: You are either for getting rid of head shots or you're not

There is no farking middle ground here

Translation: you want soccer on ice. Even good clean hits will result in head trauma, either from full-body contact or incidental contact, and except in egregious cases of recklessness (Shaw) or malicious intent (Torres, Keith'shiat on Sedin), supplemental discipline isn't necessary. The only way to remove head contact in a game this fast, with the physiology of the game (players bent over, puck at their feet, etc...), is to remove all contact.

Translation of your translation: TJWitz = Tool. Taking out hits to the head doesn't make the sport soccer on ice, that is a moronic statement. What ontario did was show you several examples of Keith targeting another player's head, all of which went unpunished.

Unfortunately the league office is on my side on this one. Keep pretending that you're right though

Those weren't body on body hits that they want to keep
those were body/elbow/shoulder to head blindside hits

hiat on benn was body/body. Show me an angle on the Benn hit where we see head contact first, if you can find one. Salei was clearly an elbow as I said before. Cooke was incidental head contact due to him turning into it. Yes it was head contact, but it's not the type you'll never get rid of as long as there is contact. The hits on Benn and Cooke are hockey plays. Both deserving of penalties in game, but not supplemental discipline. You'll need to do better than 1/3

Keith leaps at Ben with his elbow, you can clearly see that .. body on body my ass
Link

as for Cooke at 1:30 in the video its clear that Cooke was targeted in the head area and that was not incidental contact to the head as the only part of the body that Keith got was Cookes head

Link

you're quite the homer TJ

TJ, this is what a clean body on body hit looks like

Link

TJWitz: ontariolightning: TJWitz: change1211: TJWitz: ontariolightning: You had a tiny tiny bit of credibility but you have none now
those head shots were all blatantly on purpose

So after 7 years in the NHL, this is the best you can come up with on keith? Despite the fact that the NHL disciplinary committee agrees with me, I'm the one with a credibility problem?

ontariolightning: You are either for getting rid of head shots or you're not

There is no farking middle ground here

Translation: you want soccer on ice. Even good clean hits will result in head trauma, either from full-body contact or incidental contact, and except in egregious cases of recklessness (Shaw) or malicious intent (Torres, Keith'shiat on Sedin), supplemental discipline isn't necessary. The only way to remove head contact in a game this fast, with the physiology of the game (players bent over, puck at their feet, etc...), is to remove all contact.

Translation of your translation: TJWitz = Tool. Taking out hits to the head doesn't make the sport soccer on ice, that is a moronic statement. What ontario did was show you several examples of Keith targeting another player's head, all of which went unpunished.

Unfortunately the league office is on my side on this one. Keep pretending that you're right though

Those weren't body on body hits that they want to keep
those were body/elbow/shoulder to head blindside hits

hiat on benn was body/body. Show me an angle on the Benn hit where we see head contact first, if you can find one. Salei was clearly an elbow as I said before. Cooke was incidental head contact due to him turning into it. Yes it was head contact, but it's not the type you'll never get rid of as long as there is contact. The hits on Benn and Cooke are hockey plays. Both deserving of penalties in game, but not supplemental discipline. You'll need to do better than 1/3

Seriously. These guys are often skating at 25+ mph, it's not a simple task and sometimes downright impossible to avoid contact to the head when the other player changes route or if you happen to lose control. Most top defensemen are going to have some bad hits that are deserving of penalties and sometimes minor suspensions, however most of the time these are not deemed intentional headshots and are dealt with accordingly. There are some players, ie Raffi Torres, who are repeat offenders and are CLEARLY aiming to injure the other guy.

SlagginOff: TJWitz: ontariolightning: TJWitz: change1211: TJWitz: ontariolightning: You had a tiny tiny bit of credibility but you have none now
those head shots were all blatantly on purpose

So after 7 years in the NHL, this is the best you can come up with on keith? Despite the fact that the NHL disciplinary committee agrees with me, I'm the one with a credibility problem?

ontariolightning: You are either for getting rid of head shots or you're not

There is no farking middle ground here

Translation: you want soccer on ice. Even good clean hits will result in head trauma, either from full-body contact or incidental contact, and except in egregious cases of recklessness (Shaw) or malicious intent (Torres, Keith'shiat on Sedin), supplemental discipline isn't necessary. The only way to remove head contact in a game this fast, with the physiology of the game (players bent over, puck at their feet, etc...), is to remove all contact.

Translation of your translation: TJWitz = Tool. Taking out hits to the head doesn't make the sport soccer on ice, that is a moronic statement. What ontario did was show you several examples of Keith targeting another player's head, all of which went unpunished.

Unfortunately the league office is on my side on this one. Keep pretending that you're right though

Those weren't body on body hits that they want to keep
those were body/elbow/shoulder to head blindside hits

hiat on benn was body/body. Show me an angle on the Benn hit where we see head contact first, if you can find one. Salei was clearly an elbow as I said before. Cooke was incidental head contact due to him turning into it. Yes it was head contact, but it's not the type you'll never get rid of as long as there is contact. The hits on Benn and Cooke are hockey plays. Both deserving of penalties in game, but not supplemental discipline. You'll need to do better than 1/3

Seriously. These guys are often skating at 25+ mph, it's not a simple task and sometimes downright impossibl ...

duncan keith was aiming to hurt Sedin, Cooke, Benn, Salei

Salei was bad, I'll give you that. Sedin was retaliatory and although that shouldn't be an excuse you have to protect your teammates.

The other two are just you being a complete anti-Keith homer. Did the guy fark your girlfriend or something?

SlagginOff: Salei was bad, I'll give you that. Sedin was retaliatory and although that shouldn't be an excuse you have to protect your teammates.

The other two are just you being a complete anti-Keith homer. Did the guy fark your girlfriend or something?

keith wasnt defending his teammates when he viciously elbowed sedin
he was upset that sedin hit him high the shift prior

SlagginOff:

The other two are just you being a complete anti-Keith homer. Did the guy fark your girlfriend or something?

Just call it how I see it

ontariolightning: Just call it how I see it

You should comb all 82 regular season games of the 2011-2012 season, for all 30 teams and hunt down hits to the head that weren't called. Make a sweet youtube video and prepare a report for the NHL brass. Unless you think Keith was the only one to do such dirty deeds.

WhiskeySticks: ontariolightning: Just call it how I see it

You should comb all 82 regular season games of the 2011-2012 season, for all 30 teams and hunt down hits to the head that weren't called. Make a sweet youtube video and prepare a report for the NHL brass. Unless you think Keith was the only one to do such dirty deeds.

The guy is quite obviously picking and choosing which points he wants to argue.

WhiskeySticks: Nana's Vibrator: nerdy yes, but if you like Rush that much it sounds like a good time. Assuming you're not a Leafs fan.

Hawks fan living in Wisconsin. I've always wanted to make it to a home game of each of the Original 6, this would be my first border crossing.

Hawks fan from Madison here. Huge Rush fan as well.

Been to games in Chicago, Detroit, Phoenix, and St Louis. We may go to Toronto to see Rush in October, but not sure if we'll get to a Leafs game or not.

WhiskeySticks: ontariolightning: Just call it how I see it

You should comb all 82 regular season games of the 2011-2012 season, for all 30 teams and hunt down hits to the head that weren't called. Make a sweet youtube video and prepare a report for the NHL brass. Unless you think Keith was the only one to do such dirty deeds.

of course not, don't be asinine, a few farkers were claiming duncan keith is a clean hitter, all I did was prove them bozos wrongzos

ontariolightning: WhiskeySticks: ontariolightning: Just call it how I see it

You should comb all 82 regular season games of the 2011-2012 season, for all 30 teams and hunt down hits to the head that weren't called. Make a sweet youtube video and prepare a report for the NHL brass. Unless you think Keith was the only one to do such dirty deeds.

of course not, don't be asinine, a few farkers were claiming duncan keith is a clean hitter, all I did was prove them bozos wrongzos

Considering your definition of a clean hitter means that no NHL player is a clean hitter, I guess you win?

TJWitz: ontariolightning: WhiskeySticks: ontariolightning: Just call it how I see it

You should comb all 82 regular season games of the 2011-2012 season, for all 30 teams and hunt down hits to the head that weren't called. Make a sweet youtube video and prepare a report for the NHL brass. Unless you think Keith was the only one to do such dirty deeds.

of course not, don't be asinine, a few farkers were claiming duncan keith is a clean hitter, all I did was prove them bozos wrongzos

Considering your definition of a clean hitter means that no NHL player is a clean hitter, I guess you win?

LOL, no, that is not true. But there are at least 5 headshots on youtube of Keith
just in the last few years
Its not like hes done it only once
hes like Torres except he barely gets susp since hes a star

ontariolightning: TJWitz: ontariolightning: WhiskeySticks: ontariolightning: Just call it how I see it

You should comb all 82 regular season games of the 2011-2012 season, for all 30 teams and hunt down hits to the head that weren't called. Make a sweet youtube video and prepare a report for the NHL brass. Unless you think Keith was the only one to do such dirty deeds.

of course not, don't be asinine, a few farkers were claiming duncan keith is a clean hitter, all I did was prove them bozos wrongzos

Considering your definition of a clean hitter means that no NHL player is a clean hitter, I guess you win?

LOL, no, that is not true. But there are at least 5 headshots on youtube of Keith
just in the last few years
Its not like hes done it only once
hes like Torres except he barely gets susp since hes a star

I'm really impressed at how well you're doing against such homerism.

change1211: ontariolightning: TJWitz: ontariolightning: WhiskeySticks: ontariolightning: Just call it how I see it

You should comb all 82 regular season games of the 2011-2012 season, for all 30 teams and hunt down hits to the head that weren't called. Make a sweet youtube video and prepare a report for the NHL brass. Unless you think Keith was the only one to do such dirty deeds.

of course not, don't be asinine, a few farkers were claiming duncan keith is a clean hitter, all I did was prove them bozos wrongzos

Considering your definition of a clean hitter means that no NHL player is a clean hitter, I guess you win?

LOL, no, that is not true. But there are at least 5 headshots on youtube of Keith
just in the last few years
Its not like hes done it only once
hes like Torres except he barely gets susp since hes a star

I'm really impressed at how well you're doing against such homerism.

Doing well, in 3 easy steps!

1) Find a youtube video that says 'headshot' in the title. Specific frames that demonstrate your argument aren't necessary.
2) Don't bother linking to specific frames, just insist that you're right, and ignore any comments that don't agree with you.
3) Call the other guy a homer, and chalk up a win. Who cares what that pesky NHL disciplinary thinks - you're an armchair hockey expert!

Rofl so your argument is since the NHL didn't punish the hits
they don't count as head shots?

And you are implying the nhl disciplinary is uh consistent?

you must be the only one who thinks that

TJWitz: change1211: ontariolightning: TJWitz: ontariolightning: WhiskeySticks: ontariolightning: Just call it how I see it

You should comb all 82 regular season games of the 2011-2012 season, for all 30 teams and hunt down hits to the head that weren't called. Make a sweet youtube video and prepare a report for the NHL brass. Unless you think Keith was the only one to do such dirty deeds.

of course not, don't be asinine, a few farkers were claiming duncan keith is a clean hitter, all I did was prove them bozos wrongzos

Considering your definition of a clean hitter means that no NHL player is a clean hitter, I guess you win?

LOL, no, that is not true. But there are at least 5 headshots on youtube of Keith
just in the last few years
Its not like hes done it only once
hes like Torres except he barely gets susp since hes a star

I'm really impressed at how well you're doing against such homerism.

Doing well, in 3 easy steps!

1) Find a youtube video that says 'headshot' in the title. Specific frames that demonstrate your argument aren't necessary.
2) Don't bother linking to specific frames, just insist that you're right, and ignore any comments that don't agree with you.
3) Call the other guy a homer, and chalk up a win. Who cares what that pesky NHL disciplinary thinks - you're an armchair hockey expert!

So you say that discipline in the NHL is consistent and always correct? Even under Mr.Campbell?

Are you insane?

change1211: change1211

So you say that discipline in the NHL is consistent and always correct? Even under Mr.Campbell?

Are you insane?

That seems to be what he is saying..

ontariolightning: hes like Torres except he barely gets susp since hes a star

Nothing like Torres. Torres is a punk biatch. This theory was developed while he was in Vancouver, well before the hit.

If you can't provide better screenshots of the hit on benn, I can't help you. I did my best Shanahan impression on the cooke hit, but then again, you're bringing up hits prior to rule 48 being implemented. Obviously the Salei hit and the Sedin hit were bad elbows; the Sedin one being especially malicious

The problem is that your arguments on the other two hits are just as inconsistent as the NHL office at this point.

TJWitz: If you can't provide better screenshots of the hit on benn, I can't help you. I did my best Shanahan impression on the cooke hit, but then again, you're bringing up hits prior to rule 48 being implemented. Obviously the Salei hit and the Sedin hit were bad elbows; the Sedin one being especially malicious

The problem is that your arguments on the other two hits are just as inconsistent as the NHL office at this point.

They do a close up of the hit (if you watch the whole video) it shows his skates off the ice before impact and into the head area

I have no more concern for your homertastic posts though
good life sir