Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Another Ref Called Out By Vancouver

from Brad Ziemer of the Vancouver Sun,

Move over, Stephane Auger, you’ve got company in the Vancouver Canucks’ refereeing doghouse.

Alain Vigneault met with reporters before Thursday night’s game in Dallas to provide an update on injured forward Daniel Sedin. And without actually naming referee Dan O’Halloran, the Canuck coach clearly indicated he wasn’t happy with the official’s work.

“We got a big two-minute power play off that hit from the same referee — remember last year when Daniel got punched six times in the face in the Boston series?” Vigneault said. “I seem to remember it was the same guy.”

That guy was O’Halloran, who made no call when Boston forward Brad Marchand used Daniel’s head as a punching bag in Game 6 of the Stanley Cup final. On Wednesday night, O’Halloran gave Chicago defenceman Duncan Keith an elbowing minor for his hit to the head on Daniel in the first period of Vancouver’s 2-1 overtime loss to the Blackhawks at the United Center.

continued

Filed in: NHL Teams, Vancouver Canucks, NHL Talk, NHL Officiating, | KK Hockey | Permalink
  Tags: alain+vigneault

Comments

 1 2 >       Next »

Avatar

Shut the f*** up, Alain.

That guy was O’Halloran, who made no call when Boston forward Brad Marchand used Daniel’s head as a punching bag in Game 6 of the Stanley Cup final.

You know what, if someone doesn’t show any retaliation or defend themselves against this kind of nonsense then they deserve what they get.

Posted by godblender on 03/22/12 at 11:04 PM ET

Avatar

Shut the f*** up, Alain

Exactly, after every incident in Vancouver, it is the Ref’s fault. This team is the most dislikable bunch of punks I have ever seen.

Posted by timbits on 03/22/12 at 11:20 PM ET

Avatar

I am not sure that calling a ref out in the media like that is ever a great idea… Pretty sure it’s actually a really bad idea.

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 03/23/12 at 12:02 AM ET

John W.'s avatar

It would be interesting if the Wings and Canucks meet in the playoffs and Danny boy referees some of the games who he would hate more, his favorite whipping boy Holmstrom, or the Canucks.

Posted by John W. from a bubble wrap cocoon on 03/23/12 at 12:08 AM ET

Avatar

Yeah, not trying to defend the Canucks, but every time I see that guy on a Wings game, I throw up a bit…
He’s incredibly horrible, and seens to always miss dirty plays when they happen

Posted by Zqto from Brazil on 03/23/12 at 12:32 AM ET

redxblack's avatar

The worst part is Vigneault is right. He’s a whiner and should not be speaking to the media about this, but he’s right.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 03/23/12 at 01:06 AM ET

Avatar

If no one ever says something, when does the situation change? There doesn’t ever seem to be a place for criticism of how the game is played, how it is officiated, and so on. I wish more coaches would do it.

The NHL clearly has an officiating problem (and I say that without considering this incident). Personally, I’d rather a coach call out the BS that we all see on a nightly basis, instead of sitting back and *hope* that Bettman will, you know, try to improve the product.

Also, if you retaliate you are going to the box too. That clearly shouldn’t be the answer—It does nothing for trying to remove dirty plays from the game, because both teams end up a man short.

Posted by Mike from Toronto on 03/23/12 at 01:57 AM ET

Avatar

You won’t hear that p^$$&  Alain whining about the missed called when the sister hit Duncan Keith in the face.

I have two issues with this:  The officials missed the first cal, which led to the elbow.

The lague has that idiotic instigator rule, which also led to the elbow and keeps punks like Sedin getting away with murder… until someone gets even.  Payback is a bitch, isn’t it diver?

Posted by sean_o_sean on 03/23/12 at 02:10 AM ET

redxblack's avatar

Tough talk at a pro athlete through a computer kinda doesn’t work.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 03/23/12 at 02:22 AM ET

Avatar

You think he will try that on Duncan Keith again?  Call it what you want, but the payback worked and neither Sedin will come within 5 feet of him from now on.  That’s called two for the price of one.

Posted by sean_o_sean on 03/23/12 at 02:29 AM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

Yes we all know Daniel is a vicious headhunter.  Not that you lot would blame anyone else for admiring their pass and receiving incidental contact to the head on clean check.  Not that you lot have constantly accused the Sedins of not body-checking.  I seem to remember that this was their biggest crime, not being physical.  In fact, that’s what the first comment says, punching someone is only a penalty if they punch you back.

1) - elbow to the head
  - charging
  -opponent not looking
  -opponent doesn’t play puck
  -immediate illegal revenge for a legal play

2) -Keith spends the rest of the game hiding.  Pretty courageous.  Taking down a known tough guy.

3) - Canucks now get 5 minors in a row for scrum incidents that the TSN guys can’t even identify, and they also love the Khawks.  Not that I really cared, because they were trying to fight that pansy weasel.  But, as a Nucks fan, this is the only thing that actually matters to me:  What exactly the fvck would constitute a major for elbowing? 

5)  There is this weird concussion problem thing.  No one really knows how it happens or what to do about it.  Should we add a ringette line?  What about rec league icing rules?  What about staged fights?  Larger ice?  We know for sure that hardened pads have nothing to do with it.  I wonder if this

6)  When people discussed the Crosby concussion, it was all about how bad it was for the game.  Everyone, especially non-fans, like to talk about this.  I guess if the reigning Art Ross champion is this different guy, famous for thinking that a roughing penalty could be called in the playoffs, well, no need to protect the product now.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 03/23/12 at 03:24 AM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

You think he will try that on Duncan Keith again?  Call it what you want, but the payback worked and neither Sedin will come within 5 feet of him from now on.  That’s called two for the price of one.

Posted by sean_o_sean on 03/23/12 at 12:29 AM ET

Your fascistic views have in fact been widely marginalized and directly criticized by the league and this guy called Brendan Shanahan.  You guys got last year with Old Boy Coley so you can be happy anyway.  The NHLPA though, has been pretty clear on these issues.  That’s made up of some guys with some rings who you know doubt think are pussies.  I’m sure you think all that union business is hogwash and these guys should go back to making $25,000 bucks a year.  Actually I have no doubt that you would say that - cause I’m assuming you have as sophisticated take on economics as you do on hockey.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 03/23/12 at 03:30 AM ET

Avatar

Besides the fact that your rambling posts are practically incoherant…. I didn’t see Duncan Keith hiding from anyone.  I DID see the pansies try to run Crawford repeatedly and knee Keith in the nuts.  The only thing that did surprise me was the leader of the pack of sissies didn’t try and pull Keith’s hair again.  A real proud moment for Vancouver…. ranks right up there with the riots after you LOST.  That win last night could only have been better if Bobby Lou-long-over-rated was chased.. Again.

Posted by sean_o_sean on 03/23/12 at 03:38 AM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

Posted by sean_o_sean on 03/23/12 at 12:29 AM ET\


Please.  Tell me that you approve of Keith hiding from a fight.  Of course you do.  Cause you think it’s a clean elbow?  Cause you shouldn’t have to fight after a dirty hit either?  He is a coward.  Kind of helps when the zebras got your back of course.  Like in the playoffs when he was skating to the penalty box, stops, turns, goes back kicks Hansen’s feet out from under him - no fvcking call.  Yeah.  You were born too late bro.  The ‘30s are gone and you missed Eddie Shack’s big night.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 03/23/12 at 03:38 AM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

pull Keith’s hair again

Making shit up really improves your case.
I guess you think shoving your finger in someone’s mouth is legit too?

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 03/23/12 at 03:40 AM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

your rambling posts are practically incoherant

Yeah.  You’re not illiterate.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 03/23/12 at 03:41 AM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

Sedin getting away with murder

You actually wrote this.  Murder is being a pansy?  Which is it?

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 03/23/12 at 03:43 AM ET

Avatar

The lague has that idiotic instigator rule, which also led to the elbow and keeps punks like Sedin getting away with murder… until someone gets even.  Payback is a bitch, isn’t it diver?

  Give it a rest Sean. This was a ridiculous hit by Keith. NO EXCUSES. Should have been a match penalty and is definitely worthy of a long suspension.
    I’m not sure if I understand you’re “argument” about Sedin. Is he a pansy or is he getting away with murder? Can’t have it both ways…
    The sedin hit was definitely high but it was a shoulder not an elbow and it was a hockey play. The Keith hit had nothing to do with hockey. It was predatory and premeditated. It was also selfish because now the Blackhawks are going to be without their best defenseman for at least three, and probably more like five, games while they jockey for playoff position.

Posted by From The Hockey Wastelands from Cleveland on 03/23/12 at 08:18 AM ET

Avatar

It was a dirty hit by Keith, but the Canucks are a pretty dirty team too and they’ve shown a tendency to fold up when they have to eat a little of what they try and dish out.

IMO, Sean’s point is that Sedin constantly being borderline dirty is something that will come back to haunt him eventually, and it did.

That doesn’t excuse Keith’s hit, it just points out that when you play a certain way eventually that has a consequence.

There is also going to be a consequence for what Keith did, and that guy isn’t a saint either, but were I a Hawks fan if the end result is Sedin getting backed down, then Keith facing a 1 or 2 game suspension might be worth it.  Maybe.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 03/23/12 at 08:48 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Not that you lot would blame anyone else for admiring their pass and receiving incidental contact to the head on clean check.  Not that you lot have constantly accused the Sedins of not body-checking.  I seem to remember that this was their biggest crime, not being physical.

Yeah, the contact with the head by Sedin is incidental to him lifting his shoulder to pick Keith’s chin with it.  Every bit of that Sedin check is clean except where he unnecessarily hits him in the head.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 03/23/12 at 10:52 AM ET

Avatar

Yeah, the contact with the head by Sedin is incidental to him lifting his shoulder to pick Keith’s chin with it.  Every bit of that Sedin check is clean except where he unnecessarily hits him in the head.

ding ding ding, WE HAVE A WINNER!

Posted by pstumba on 03/23/12 at 11:29 AM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

Sedin constantly being borderline dirty

Perhaps you have even a single example of this awful borderline.

Every bit of that Sedin check is clean except where he unnecessarily hits him in the head.

I’m sure you know that dozens of comparable hits have gone unpunished this year, which is why it won’t even receive a mention from Shanahan and even the anti-Nuck press won’t call for it. 

Wow.  You guys sure are finding neat ways to blame the victim for what is probably the dirtiest play of the year (I can’t think of a worse one).  You sure have a leg to stand on.  Daniel is super “borderline”.  Hey so’s Lidstrom.  What you want me to back that up?  Well….uh….Milbury says so.  This is maybe the first body check of Daniel’s career.  Hey did here the Nucks were kicking puppies around the parking lot?  Not like this media-generated hate is blinding you or anything.  Sure hope clean Keith is allowed to do this to your guys.

“I’m Duncan fvcking Keith, you can’t hit me.”

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 03/23/12 at 12:20 PM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

ding ding ding, WE HAVE A WINNER fvckwad who isn’t familiar with the headshot rules!

Pretty sure that’s what you meant

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 03/23/12 at 12:21 PM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

Every bit of that Sedin check is clean except where he unnecessarily hits him in the head.

Coming from one of Kronwall’s defenders.  Pretty consistent thinking J.J. 



No call.  No suspension.  What do you say J.J., incidental contact to the head?

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 03/23/12 at 12:25 PM ET

Avatar

what you should notice from that pic is:
a. there is no contact of the head by a shoulder
b. there is no contact of the head by an elbow
c. if there is contact of the head by Kronwalls ass it means kesler is small.

Posted by akwingsfan from alaska on 03/23/12 at 12:56 PM ET

Avatar

Perhaps you have even a single example of this awful borderline.

One example?  Um, there’s the video above.  Just scroll up a bit.

What do you say J.J., incidental contact to the head?

Are you kidding?  Show me where in that photo is there evidence that there is even ANY contact to the head….

But yes, when you BACK INTO a player with your BACK TO the player, any contact to the head is incidental because Kronwall doesn’t have eyes on the back of his head.

Posted by Garth on 03/23/12 at 12:59 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from home of the 1925 Stanley Cup Champs on 03/23/12 at 10:25 AM ET

Posted by sean_o_sean on 03/23/12 at 01:38 AM ET

Damn, wish I had brought some popcorn.  Since, ya know, you’re comments are just as over-the-top as a Michael Bay movie.

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 03/23/12 at 01:09 PM ET

Wings_in_NYC's avatar

Keith’s hit was dirty as they come, but that elbow couldn’t have been placed in a better player’s chops.

Posted by Wings_in_NYC on 03/23/12 at 01:36 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from home of the 1925 Stanley Cup Champs on 03/23/12 at 10:25 AM ET

Let’s go over some things to clear up a few misconceptions and possible an intentional case of playing dirty pool:

I’m sure you know that dozens of comparable hits have gone unpunished this year,

Well sure, but I also know of comparable hits which have drawn punishments. 

Wow.  You guys sure are finding neat ways to blame the victim for what is probably the dirtiest play of the year

I know you’re not speaking directly to me, but I want to make it clear that I do not feel that this hit by Sedin warrants the retaliation by Keith. It’s pretty much never ok to do what Keith did.

This is maybe the first body check of Daniel’s career.

That might explain why Daniel Sedin is so bad at laying a clean body check in this situation. First hit or millionth hit, avoidable contact with the head on an otherwise clean body check is a no-no.

ding ding ding, WE HAVE A WINNER fvckwad who isn’t familiar with the headshot rules!

Pretty sure that’s what you meant

Right, except I’m actually paraphrasing directly from Rule 48 in my comments when I say things that are incredibly similar to “the head contact on an otherwise legal body check was avoidable.” And you’re using consonants to call people names.  I’m comfortable with leaving it up to the jury here as to which one of us two actually has a grasp on the head shot rule.

No call.  No suspension.  What do you say J.J., incidental contact to the head?

An ad hominem tactic combined with a strawman.  Well done, buddy!  You’ve managed to try to change the subject from whether Sedin could have avoided hitting Keith in the head (he could have), to talking about me instead.  If I may dip from the same well, I’m going to take a guess that you don’t have an answer for the concept of avoidable contact with the head angle and instead are trying desperately to derail the conversation in order to minimize the impact on the argument that Daniel Sedin laid a headshot on a guy who later returned the favor.

Now on the original topic, that of Duncan Keith, let me clarify once more (since there seems to be a bit of confusion): What Duncan Keith did was despicable. I believe he premeditated a headshot. I don’t believe that what Sedin did (and what the refs didn’t do) is justification enough for planning to and then carrying out with elbowing a guy in the face like Keith did.  I hope the Chicago defender is punished for a long time (8 games or more) to send the message that this will never be acceptable.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 03/23/12 at 01:53 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Keith has made some dirty plays against the Wings, it’s part of his game, a subtle nastiness.  I say let the players sort it out,  Detroit/Denver style.  If they’re going to call it as light as they are, as players they should recognize it and use it when coming back at them.  Play within the bounds of whats being called, not what the rules are. 

This is like crying to mommy.

That all being said.  Dan O’Halloran is a punk and I fuching hate when he’s officiating a Wings game.  I KNOW there’s going to be some SUSPECT calls/non-calls.

Know who’s officiating and what they’re calling and go get’em

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 03/23/12 at 01:58 PM ET

Avatar

I hope the Chicago defender is punished for a long time (8 games or more) to send the message that this will never be acceptable.

while i agree with you in principle(and this is coming from a hawks fan), if you throw the book at keith now, i’m not sure what message you send. Doan just got 3 games and is a repeat offender (keith is no saint, no hockey player is, but has never been suspended). Daniels hit went without a second look, Burrows knee to the groin goes without a second look.

I suspect Keith will get at least 5 games, but looking at a comparable (elbow headshot retaliation) would be the 8 games that wiz got earlier in the year. The difference being though that he is a repeat repeat repeat offender, and his hit was after the whistle (there you go tux, here is an even worse hit). So more than 8 would be quite the mixed signal.

Posted by pstumba on 03/23/12 at 02:30 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Posted by pstumba on 03/23/12 at 12:30 PM ET

I could see that, but I also think Keith’s hit was more premeditated than Wisniewski’s and therefore worse.  This is also the big difference for me between what Doan did (stupid and dangerous) and what Keith did (stupid and malicious).

The first-time offender thing could play well into Keith’s favor.  I think you’re probably much closer to what will actually happen than I am.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 03/23/12 at 02:36 PM ET

Avatar

So more than 8 would be quite the mixed signal.

Well, you could argue that they were trying to send a message with the Wiz suspension and that they feel the message wasn’t received, so they’re going to send another message to a team that is in the playoffs and looking to climb the standings.

Posted by Garth on 03/23/12 at 02:39 PM ET

Avatar

“MO, Sean’s point is that Sedin constantly being borderline dirty is something that will come back to haunt him eventually, and it did.

That doesn’t excuse Keith’s hit, it just points out that when you play a certain way eventually that has a consequence”.

Exactly!  All someone has to do is ask Claude Lemieux what payback is all about.  I will give it to him though for standing up to McCarty off the draw in their next game.  Neither Sedin would EVER do that.

Diving, finger-biting, hair-pulling, knees to balls, bounties, running the goalie and cheap shots all night…. it’s what a Vancouver game is all about.

I just think it’s a shame that Mayers, Carcillo or John Scott (stupid trade) were not out there.  The nucks knew this and stated running around like the a-hoels we all know them to be.  Eventually it caught up to them.  Yes, what Keith did was dirty.. and he did it to a dirty player after a dirty hit that wasn’t called.  Get rid of the instigatror rule and the players will resolve this and prevent a lot of it from happening in the first place.  Sedin would have paid for his cheap shot and had Keith continued it wih his elbow, he too would have paid directly for his.  Instead we end up with more cheap stuff and scuffles for the rest of the game.

Posted by sean_o_sean on 03/23/12 at 03:07 PM ET

Avatar

This is also the big difference for me between what Doan did (stupid and dangerous) and what Keith did (stupid and malicious).

Keith’s is totally worse, I was just going with the whole, you keep doing stupid things over and over you are supposed to get the book thrown at you, cause it was what, like a week since he got fined? Doans play was just dumb and trying to get a piece of the skater, Keith’s play was a murderdeathkill.

I didn’t see the game where wiz got his penalty so i don’t know if his wasn’t as premeditated as Keith’s but I do remember that Clusterfuch had done something to him prior in the game.

Keith has been one of my favorite hawks for quite a while, I’ve been watching him since day one and I can say he isn’t a “dirty” player, but if you do something to piss him off, he definitely goes off. Something he definitely needs to work on.

Well, you could argue that they were trying to send a message with the Wiz suspension and that they feel the message wasn’t received, so they’re going to send another message to a team that is in the playoffs and looking to climb the standings.

I dunno, the only message I think that would be sent if Keith gets more than 8 would be “meet the new sheriff same as the old sheriff” Its quite unfair to penalize other individuals more just because other people kept doing it, especially going into the playoffs. Like “Hey, everyone else got 3-8 games in the middle of the season, but we are going to suspend you for the playoffs for doing the same thing because you didn’t learn from them” What should have been done by making an example out of Wiz(because a lot of people thought thats what Shanahan was doing) is, you do what he did, you get a similar treatment.

Making an example out of people, especially when there is a fairly similar hit, goes against what everybody was clamoring for. Which is consistency in applying the rules.

Also…pleasepleaseplease dont throw the book at him Shanny!!!

Posted by pstumba on 03/23/12 at 03:38 PM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

I hope the Chicago defender is punished for a long time (8 games or more) to send the message that this will never be acceptable.
This is the reasonableness I expect J.J., just surprised that you didn’t want to mention that as you went after the victim.  I’ll leave it to Shanahan to agree with me by not even mentioning Daniel’s hit.

the 8 games that wiz got earlier in the year….(there you go tux, here is an even worse hit).
Yeah, I thought of that this morning.  Can’t think of anything else that’s even close though.  That was actually 8 + 3 exhibition.

An ad hominem tactic combined with a strawman.
Well, my rhetoric is a bit much, admittedly, but it would say it is relevant to talk about avoidable hits to the head that you do support.  That picture, which I cannot believe anyone would defend, clearly shows him flying through the air - he landed on his fvcking head and it is pretty amazing that you don’t believe it just because you don’t have a direct angle on something you can obviously infer.  How ‘bout the Voracek hit?  Also the victim’s fault, of course (maybe you weren’t among the hundred who said so) - but it was way more head contact and considered incidental.

the argument that Daniel Sedin laid a headshot on a guy who later returned the favor
Wait, so you’re not maintaining a distinction between the two?

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 03/23/12 at 04:01 PM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

Play within the bounds of whats being called, not what the rules are.

I don’t disagree, but that’s not how it should be, and it’s certainly not making life easy for the players.

[Diving, finger-biting, hair-pulling, knees to balls, bounties, running the goalie and cheap shots all night
Just make it up man.  Got a video?  Cause there was this elbow that the cameras actually managed to catch.

The nucks knew this and stated running around like the a-hoels we all know them to be
Because none of those pussies would fight them without John Scott out there.

Get rid of the instigatror rule
Cause then Keith wouldn’t hide from a fight?

Yes, what Keith did was dirty.. and he did it to a dirty player after a dirty hit that wasn’t called.
This is the best.  Who here thinks that Daniel Sedin is dirty player.  Honest to fvcking god.  Laughable.  Outrageous.  Clever of Garth to refer to this incident when asked for proof of his dirtiness….kinda highlights the fact that you have zero reason to call him dirty.  Or was it “borderline”?

we end up with more cheap stuff
Wow.  One more generalization you can’t back up with a specific. 
Oh man, I am convinced Sean.  Keith should have done that.  It really makes sense that the dirtiest play of the year would get everyone up in arms at the victims.
Keith is a puss.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 03/23/12 at 04:13 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I’ve already discussed both the Voracek hits and the Kesler hits on this very site.  My opinions are consistent and I don’t feel as though the burden to prove this is on me.  I’d welcome anybody to dig up my old comments and tell me how I felt in regards to those hits. Please be sure to include the link to where I said them so that nothing is taken out of context.

If you want to compare those hits to either the Sedin or the Keith hit, we can do that. Just know that my memory remains that Kesler’s only problem with the Kronwall hit was that he didn’t choose to fight afterwards. Voracek himself said that he put himself in a vulnerable position (therefore making head contact unavoidable, which remains the distinction). If you can find me a quote where Duncan Keith says anything similar to those things, I’ll reevaluate my position.  I’d happily give Kesler credit for not engaging in this level of retaliation, except I also remember that he stuck a knee out on Zetterberg later in that same game.

Like I said, the record of what I’ve said about those hits prior is readily available.

Wait, so you’re not maintaining a distinction between the two?

That’s an interesting read, but it’s not the case. I said in the post where the original video went up that I consider the Keith hit significantly worse.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 03/23/12 at 04:23 PM ET

Avatar

Tux, you may well be the only person on the planet who has (choosen) not to see the video of the nucks finger-biting, hair-pulling, diving, crying, whining and generally acting like a-holes.  I’ve admitted that Keith went overboard and probably deserves a suspension of a couple of games.  But should it be enhanced because now the other sister says a threat was made?  Hmmmnn no video/audio of that, just the sister’s word which doesn’t hold a lot of value siince she’s as big a whiner/diver as the other one.  Sedin had it coming with his cheap shot and now they are just sitting/resting him hoping Keith gets a longer suspension because of it.  Typical low-life, gutless Vancouver style move.  Embarassing !

Posted by sean_o_sean on 03/23/12 at 04:55 PM ET

tuxedoTshirt's avatar

Yeah, you say they are different, and then use a polite form to indicate that it is tit for tat. (Daniel Sedin laid a headshot on a guy who later returned the favor)

Okay, I am pigeon-holing you on the Kronwall stuff - memory does not exactly serve (I kind of recall that you agreed that Kronwall leaping on the hit was a problem, right?), but I guess my comments just refer to the two hundred other Wings fans that defend Kronwall no matter what.

Players comments exonerating a dirty hit are not relevant.  They don’t want to be seen as whining or lobbying.  They aren’t refs.

  The Voracek reference is meant to be an example of a clean hit that includes incidental contact to the head, where “you guys” have said it is A-okay. (I think it should fall under “intent to injure” - which is essentially what Malik said a few weeks ago, but that is neither here nor there).

Now we all know that I am a blow-hard.  Not gonna deny it.  But seriously.  I am really shocked at just how much this bizarre hatred is blinding everyone from the actual issue: the dirtiest hit of the year.  Looking back over it, there was no need to single J.J, out, but you come on and basically back-up Sean’s utter nonsense and ignore the main issue…..I was misled as to your opinion by the fact that you wanted to address Daniel’s hit. 
  If this was a Wings player, there would be 800 rage-posts on here…..so just maybe you can appreciate my feeling about the team’s best player, the Art Ross champ getting bush-league gooned, and having a bunch of Khawk-haters say he had it coming, for totally unsubstantiated crimes. 
Can I think of an example where the shoe was on the other foot?  Oh yeah.  It was from 16 years ago.  From what I gather, the outrage is still pretty fresh.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 03/23/12 at 05:02 PM ET

 1 2 >       Next »

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image