Friday, April 04, 2008

Bell hits Alfredsson


UPDATE "After the hit there were a couple of purse-swingings that didn't amount to much," Paul Maurice said. "No offence, ladies."

Labels: , ,


At 4:33 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger kanadienkyle said...

It looked a little late to me. Not sure if he was targeting the head, but #11 was certainly in an awkward position. Split second judgment call I suppose...

At 4:39 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger Adam C said...

Two words: El Bow

The third word (suspension) would only apply to a league with a long enough attention span to remember that at the beginning of the season, they were trying to get rid of head hits.

At 4:49 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger J.R. said...

Easy: Cheap and classless.

Enjoy the links Tee-oh.

At 4:52 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger jon k said...

In my estimation it's as clean a hit as the Neil hit on Drury last season.

That being said, the league could do worse than deem blind hits from the side to be illegal in nature.

Though there will be cries for suspension given the nature of the game (late in the season from a team out of the race), I don't think that should be a consideration. Hockey is a tough game and letting something like that influence the decision-making process of Campbell would be equivalent to suggesting that Toronto should lay down and play out the string.

Tough loss for the Sens, but no suspension is necessary in my opinion.

At 4:52 p.m., April 04, 2008, Anonymous Dave said...

It was not late. It was not an elbow. His elbow was up after the hit, he didn't hit him with his elbow.

If Ottawa has any complaint at all, just compare this to Neil's hit on Drury last year. Murray actually blamed Drury!

At 4:54 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger murph said...

Elbow. Break out the banhammer and suspend Bell for some games next season.

At 4:55 p.m., April 04, 2008, Anonymous Jay said...

I don't think it was particularly late or cheap.

Nice to see Tucker, the talentless goon held in high esteem by idiot Leaf fans from coast to coast, going after an elite player after the injury though. Glad to see that team hitting the golf course, as per usual.

At 4:56 p.m., April 04, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thats what you get for shooting a puck at Neidermayer in the finals last year. Karma has had its revenge.

At 5:01 p.m., April 04, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heatley should be careful baiting a tiger. I think Peca did the same thing a few years back. Didn't turn out so well for him.

At 5:01 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger Blitzen said...

oh geez - enough with the Niedermayer thing already.

Legal or not, Neil-like or not, the league needs to take a page out of David Branch's book and simply make all hits to the head illegal. Period. This is just too unhealthy for all players.

As for the real class of the league, how about those Leafs fans cheering while Alfie's on the ice and booing him for skating off under his own steam. Now that's really good sportsmanship.

At 5:01 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger Down Goes Brown said...

jon k pretty much nailed it...

This is virtually identical to the Neil/Drury hit. If anything, Neil may have been a fraction of a second later, but otherwise the situation was identical.

Based on the NHL's current rulebook, it's a clean hit. I'd love to see the NHL make any hit above the shoulders and/or to a defenseless player an automatic penalty, but that's not the case right now.

If you're a Sens fan and you thought the Neil hit was OK, you're fooling yourself if you think this one deserves a suspension.

(And where is this elbow people are seeing? Sure, the elbow comes up after impact. That happens on every hit -- it's a natural follow through after that type of collision. But at the moment of impact, Bell's elbow is clearly tucked into his body.)

At 5:03 p.m., April 04, 2008, Anonymous Daniel said...

I'm in shock! Is there a player wearing a cage in that clip? Its about time...

At 5:12 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger Shane Giroux said...

The hit was legal, Tucker's an ass and the ACC fans were classless.

Is there anything more to discuss? ;)

At 5:14 p.m., April 04, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not elbow, very dirty though. The league has to seriously look at this as an attempt to injure in the offseason. The goal of hitting should be to take the puck, letting players hit after players have shot or passed the puck kind of goes against the spirit of the game I believe.

To me even worse than the hit was his tripping of Redden near the boards. Way dangerous, should be suspended for his reckless play overall in that game.


At 5:16 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger Down Goes Brown said...

I'm in shock! Is there a player wearing a cage in that clip? Its about time...

That's Bell. He's recovering from a broken orbital bone broken suffered earlier this year.

At 5:32 p.m., April 04, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't really care if the hit was legal or not but I doubt anyone can claim that Bell hitting Alfy's head was unintentional. And if you wear a cage you should really be far far far away from making hits like this. I'd hate to have that guy on my team. I didn't think it was possible but I'm actually feeling even more sorry for Sundin who's surrounded by inept management and lazy, cheap-shotting players.

At 5:48 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger Down Goes Brown said...

I'd hate to have that guy on my team.

Have you seen him play? Finally, something Sens and Leafs fans can agree on.

At 5:51 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger murph said...

The brainiacs at NHL HQ just released their Playoff Commercials on YouTube. This includes "Shorthanded" starring Daniel Alfredsson. Oops!

At 5:57 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger Mike said...

Alfredson himslef said that he should be responsible for knowing where everyone is on the ice. He didn't, and got ko'ed for it.

I'm in agreement with everyone that hits to the head should be banned, but they aren't right now and I think the hit was clean.

Sucks for the sens though.

At 5:57 p.m., April 04, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Deja vu all over again. This is the same hit that Murray said happened to a guy who had his head down and did not have his helmet on tight enough. Guess it's different when it happens to one of your own.

My take: just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Why do we allow head shots? It's crazy.

At 6:05 p.m., April 04, 2008, Anonymous said...

How do you intend to eliminate headshots in a league where some players are 6 ft 8 and some are 5 ft 8? If Alfie was taller or Bell shorter, the head would not have come into contact. As is, any injury Alfie's head suffered was from his head striking the ice when his helmet flew off.

I once suggested football style chin guards on Tom Benjamin's site and guessed that they could eliminate 10 percent of concussions suffered. If that's true, and Tom and others agreed it might very well be, it is a far more positive suggestion than many I have seen.

At 6:23 p.m., April 04, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alfie has done a few things to raise the ire of Leafs fans in the ACC during his time with the Sens - i.e. the hit from behind on Tucker in the 2002 playoffs, mocking Sundin throwing his stick into the crowd in 2004, etc. He knows he is the type of villain in Toronto who is going to be booed whenever he touches the puck. So it isn't surprising when he is cheered for getting hurt. he just brings out the worst in Leafs fans.

i mean, i'm as decent and tolerant as any other person. i saw hi to people i pass on the street. i volunteer my time helping street youth. i support for greater human rights in tibet and greater recognition of first nations groups. i think peace and dialogue is better than war and whatnot. etc. etc. but as a Leafs fan, when i saw alfie on the ice, i wanted Bell to kick him in the face.

At 6:24 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger IndianaJohns04 said...

Its unfortunate but it was clean just a solid check caught #11 not looking. Just a big open ice hit it's part of the game. This isn't baseball hockey is a contact sport.

At 6:27 p.m., April 04, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Head shots are illegal in Football. Last time I checked, everyone is not the same height in the NFL.

"If Alfie was taller or Bell shorter, the head would not have come into contact."

Yeah, and if my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle. Height is not the issue here.

"As is, any injury Alfie's head suffered was from his head striking the ice when his helmet flew off."

No way to know this for sure, but I like your idea. If they are not going to protect the players, they could at least mandate that the players protect themselves...

At 6:37 p.m., April 04, 2008, Anonymous Ian said...

Looked just like the Neil hit on Drury to me.

At 7:12 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger Blitzen said...

Head shots are banned in the OHL and believe me there are serious height differences even if age span wasn't 16 - 20 years old.

The game has not suffered for this at all. Players still get their bell rung now and again so it doesn't totally prevent them but I'm sure the numbers and lost games are waaaay down.

The height thing is just Pronger-physics.

At 7:29 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger Adam C said...

I'm well aware that elbows often swing up after the fact as part of the momentum of a hit. This happens all the time. Sometimes, however, a player will swing his elbow at another player's head. This is called 'elbowing'.

Mark Bell is five inches taller than Alfredsson. The point of impact (as far as I could see) was Alfie's head and Bell's elbow. The two don't match up unless Bell has a freakishly small head (admittedly a possibility with this guy) or he swings his elbow at shoulder height. Which he did.

At 7:39 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger Aaron said...

It's unfortunate for Sens fans but I'm not sure the hit was illegal in any way. It doesn't look like he really led with his elbow and the timing seemed ok to me. I could see Bell getting a 1 game suspension but I don't think it's necessary. If the league does suspend Bell for any length of time I'd love to hear an explanation for how that hit deserved discipline but this one isn't.

Consider that Kunitz did that in the final 2 mins of a game in which the Ducks were badly outplayed. If anything the Bell hit just demonstrates the need for the NHL to have consistency and predictability with their system of discipline. I think the distinction between a clean hit, a dirty hit, and a suspendible offense needs to be made much clearer.

At 8:03 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger Daniel said...

The hit was kinda cheap, but I was more concerned at how the Senators DIDN'T respond. That kind of hit happens because the opposing team doesn't respect what you WOULD do to them.

At 8:07 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger Hawerchuk said...

Mark Bell is what's known in the business as "a worthless hockey player." In San Jose, he was worth more to the team when he was sitting in the press box than when he dressed.

And - if you're the kind of guy who starts fights and cheap shots, and generally lives by 'the code' that says it's ok to hit a guy in the head, then there is no way you should ever be wearing a full face shield to protect your facial injury.

At 9:34 p.m., April 04, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one hates the Leafs more than I do but, I believe fair is fair and Ottawa should stop bellyaching, it was a CLEAN check! (I watched the replay several times)Its up to the player being hit to be aware of the opponents lining them up; if we start making rules against hitting players blindsided, you might as well take bodychecking out of the league! (I hope Garry Bettman didnt hear that...might give him ideas!)

At 9:45 p.m., April 04, 2008, Anonymous ken said...

I thought everybody in Ottawa was booing Alfredsson anyway. So what's the problem?

At 10:51 p.m., April 04, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't Bell the guy going to jail once the season ends?
That says about all one needs to know about his "character."

At 11:12 p.m., April 04, 2008, Blogger VeryProudofYa said...

"If the league does suspend Bell for any length of time I'd love to hear an explanation for how that hit deserved discipline but this one isn't."

Well, that's easy, neither of those teams are from canada.

At 12:27 a.m., April 05, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't admire your pass just ask paul kariya.

At 2:26 a.m., April 05, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that in Kariya's case, it was "don't admire your goal"

At 3:19 a.m., April 05, 2008, Blogger Oiler Mag said...

Sorry people, but an elbow lifted up into a players jaw on a semi-late check does not equal a clean play.

At 4:11 a.m., April 05, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In Bell's case, it'll be Don't Drop the Soap.

At 9:52 a.m., April 05, 2008, Anonymous Gerald said...

if we start making rules against hitting players blindsided, you might as well take bodychecking out of the league!

And there is the real discussion right there.

I generally roll my eyes at these sorts of discussions because (a) it devolves into a discussion of the minutiae of the specific hit (where usually nothing more is demonstrated than the fact that "Rashomon" was a very perceptive movie, if you know what I mean), (b) it further devolves into a discussion of the previous plays of other members on the teams involved and their own nefarious activities and (c) it FURTHER devolves into a series of rants about how, essentially, the NHL must address each offense PERFECTLY and with EXACT consistency and if they don't then the NHL is a "joke".

The quality of the deabate leaves more than a little to be desired. IMO.

That being said, the poster I quoted above has inadvertently stumbled onto the real issue in all of this (I say inadvertently, as the poster is mocking the idea by creating a false choice).

The culture of hockey today is that, if you get clocked without seeing the guy that is clocking you, it is your fault. That attitude is perfectly demonstrated by the use of the pejorative term "admiring his pass", which ascribes negative characteristics of false pride to the player who gets plastered and creates the impression that this prideful player got what was coming to him for his unearned hubris.

That attitude has become more and more ingrained by the way that hockey is covered. With the advent of the "Rock'em Sock'em" videos and (more importantly) the many sports highlight shows, the gargantuan hit has become as celebrated as goals - even more so, arguably. I have said it before, and it is true: the big hit in hockey is now the equivalent of the dunk in basketball - the big, sensational play that wows people and is celebrated far beyond its true value to the game.

It is so celebrated now that people think it has always been around as a part of the game, even though it has not.

It is a visceral experience as a fan to see one; you can almost feel it yourself.

Except you don't.

If you did, then for certain hits you as a fan would be feeling headaches, dizziness and lightheadedness for a fair while afterwards. You would be running greater risk of dementia and other brain illnesses. You would experience dramatic mood swings. You might even kill yourself, like some NFL players who had multiple concussions, or your family like Chris Benoit.

That seems a little dramatic, right? Maybe even WAY dramatic. And it is. But it is said to illustrate a point, which is that many(not all, but many) NHL fans have a dirty little secret that they really, REALLY don't want to face. That secret is that, although hockey could be played in a much, much safer manner and still retain the characteristics that attract its fans, with speed, bodychecking, goals, saves, etc., the NHL fan wants to see something more from his athletes. He wants - no, seems to NEED - them to put their own and each other's long-term health on the line. He (or she) wants to see them right on the razor's edge, and deep down he even wants to see them fall over the edge from time to time, in order to remind himself (or herself), and everyone else, that the razor's edge is in fact RIGHT THERE.

Now that is a pretty disquieting thought to most folks who are not complete sociopaths - the idea that they would want these guys to risk their long term health over a mere sporting event, mere entertainment. Heck, these athletes are people, with families and such. Even if they are paid a lot of money to do it, no person with a working conscience would WANT someone to take more risks than are necessary just for the sake of entertainment. So, what do they do? Well, what they do is they divert the argument. They talk about other things, like "well, what about your guy who did this" or "player X is a whiner" or they debate the legality of the check (as if legality is the issue), or they call up some false bravado, or (as the poster above did) they raise a patently ridiculous false dichotomy, or they raise the hoary old cliches, like the one about the (false) relationship between various forms of violence and stickwork or "hockey is a tough game", none of which raise the real question. That real question is this:

Putting aside the issue of whether something is "legal" under the rules or not, how much violence is necessary for hockey to retain its ESSENTIAL character? Is it necessary for guys to get annihilated for the "offense" of looking from time to time at the focal point of the game (the puck)?

[Please note that I distinguish hockey from certain other inherently dangerous professions which carry inherent danger with them, like boxing, where the very essence of the sport is to injure someone. I also distinguish certain inherent dangers in the sport itself, like the possibility of being struck in the face with the puck or an inadvertent stick, or falling onto the ice, or normal bodychecking, or any of a hundred other things without which hockey would lose its inherent characteristics).

It is a shame, really. I keep waiting for the real debate, and it never comes.

As an aside, I wonder whether the money plays a role in the fans' rationalization of their thirst for more violence than arguably is necessary. If players were still making $50k, one could never morally demand that someone risk their longterm health for you. For some people, though, at a certain level of money it becomes a different equation. If someone is being paid enough money to set up their family for life, can one then morally demand that level of sacrifice from your entertainers? Is that then what we are paying for: not merely hockey, but the risk of mayhem or permanent injury?That in itself is an interesting question to me as well.

At 10:19 a.m., April 05, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there really a reason to post the Leaf coach's dumb comment? One would think a hack like Jim Lang would stoop to that level but Mr. Mirtle? For shame.

At 1:42 p.m., April 05, 2008, Blogger McLea said...

That seems a little dramatic, right? Maybe even WAY dramatic. And it is. But it is said to illustrate a point, which is that many(not all, but many) NHL fans have a dirty little secret that they really, REALLY don't want to face.

Ha, so you greatly exaggerating the risk of big hits was done to "make a point?" What point? That the actually risk of serious long term injury is minute, so you have to exaggerate it in order to justify your 5 page rant?

At 1:45 p.m., April 05, 2008, Blogger Art Vandelay said...

Gerald, brilliant post, esp. the Rashoman reference.

For the less cerebral crowd, please see the most recent South Park episode about Britney Spears. The media (and citizenry) build her up, put her on a pedestal, treat her like a god among the mortals, hound her, exploit her.

Until she blows her head off, but survives.

So they do it some more. Until she finally dies, like a ritual sacrifice to the harvest god, sating the peoples' blood lust.

That's how we treat our athletes. The only thing missing in an NHL game is the hungry lions coming out of the Zamboni end of the rink.

I couldn't believe the number of talking TV hairbots who piled on to the goalie who got lit up by FrankenRoy Jr. The consistent message was, "Roy might be nuts, but it's the other kid's fault."

Yup, hockey builds character.

At 1:57 p.m., April 05, 2008, Blogger McLea said...

I mean, if we dropped the speed limit down to 30km/h an hour on every road, we would probably eliminate almost all car crash fatalities and people with "family" and "kids" would no longer needlessly parish in car collisions.

But we have decide as a society that the inconvenience of a 30km/h speed limit greatly outweighs the risk of dying in car crash, so we have 100km/h speed limits knowing full well that by having them there will be significantly more casualties.

And that's the choice we have to make as hockey fans. Are we willing to remove the violence in the game, something we seemingly all enjoy, because once every three decades somebody might get permanently injured by a huge bodycheck? Is that the trade off we're willing to make, to sacrifice part of the nightly entertainment package because of the remote chance that somebody might be seriously hurt? Surely this is an easy choice for people like Gerald, who want to create a game that he could see him and his lawyer friends excelling at, but what about the rest of who like to see the big collisions? At what point do we decide the risk of injury is too high? At what point does our concern for the welfare of people for which we have no personal connection trump our desire to watch an entertaining hockey on Saturday?

At 2:02 p.m., April 05, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gerald good god you can ramble..

At 5:14 p.m., April 05, 2008, Anonymous Kat said...

The only problem I have with that hit is the disgusting way Leaf fans acted as Alfredsson was down on the ice OBVIOUSLY in severe pain.

Never ever seen that in hockey. Those Leaf fans in attendance should be ashamed of themselves. I don't care if that Sean Avery, Steve Downie, or Todd Bertuzzi. You never boo a player when you know he's injured.

Something I wouldn't even expect to see with junior C fans. Just disgraceful.

At 10:50 p.m., April 05, 2008, Anonymous Gerald said...

McLea, I knew I could rely on you to provide a perfect illustration of the point:

Are we willing to remove the violence in the game,

See, that is exactly what the other poster did as well. He created a false choice. The issue is NOT whether to REMOVE violence in the game. I don't think at any time in my lengthy post was there a point where I advocated the removal of violence. The game involves collisions and competing for possession of the puck. Those things (and others) are inherently violent.

The issue is where one draws the line. I suspect that you know this, but you are too lacking in confidence in your position to own up to it, and would prefer to create a false choice where the only two options are barely controlled violence and zero violence, with zero fights, zero hitting, etc. I understand why you would want to frame the issue that way, because it makes your position much, much easier to defend. Unfortunately for you, it is a rather shoddy debating tactic that is easily exposed.

Ha, so you greatly exaggerating the risk of big hits was done to "make a point?"

Are you suggesting that I said I was exaggerating? IF you are, that is a prime example of another debating technique - the tried and true "let's put words in the other guy's mouth".

something we seemingly all enjoy,

What exactly do "we" all enjoy? Fighting? Arguable; some fans do, some don't, some are in between. Watching a guy being carted off after he got his clock cleaned and hit his head on the ice? Not so much. Punishing checks? Sometimes. Watching a d-man get his leg broken on an icing chase? Not so much. Watching guys lie on the ice with concussions after big hits and have to be taken off by medical staff? Don't think so. Watching Chris Simon tomahawk a guy with his stick? Maybe you do.

once every three decades somebody might get permanently injured by a huge bodycheck

That might be a valid point if guys got hurt once every three decades. However, I can only assume that, in McLea land, decades are something less than 30 in Earth days. Guys get hurt every month. Seriously. Perhaps you don't think concussions are "serious" or "permanent". They are both.

Surely this is an easy choice for people like Gerald, who want to create a game that he could see him and his lawyer friends excelling at,

"People like Gerald"? What is that? Since we have never met, please enlighten me as to how you even have the faintest idea what type of "people" I am. I can guarantee you that you don't have the faintest clue about it, champ. As for me creating a game I and my "lawyer friends" could excel at, FYI I did just fine at the game as it is currently constituted, sir. Are you somehow under the impression that there are not good athletes among lawyers?

the welfare of people for which we have no personal connection

That kind of says it, doesn't it? You are saying the "no personal connection" phrase in order to minimize the concern that you think you should feel for the athletes.

You know, McLea, you might feel a heck of a lot better if you just own up to your feelings. You don't give a crap about the athletes. You like what you like. IF one gets his brains scrambled, as long as he is not with "your" team, who gives a care? They are replaceable, right? You have no "personal connection" to them. How is someone supposed to be concerned about people who you do not personally know? Right? It's okay to feel that way. You ams what you ams. Just be honest about it, and don't cloak it in "everybody likes violence/fighting/bonecrushing checks/whatever" or create false choices like "you want to take out all violence from hockey" or stuff like that. Just say "I like my violence, and the welfare of the players (other than the guys on my team, and even then only as long as they are on my team) really does not matter that much to me, as long as I get entertained".

THAT would be honest.

At 12:44 a.m., April 06, 2008, Blogger Adam C said...

Well, I've posted twice here that I thought it was a giant elbow; that's all I see every time I look at the video. It sounds like the consensus from the players, though, is that it was a shoulder. I guess they're in better position to know than I.

Gerald: the only reason I harped on that point is that, to me, whether or not the hit was illegal is an (imperfect) indicator of whether or not it was a "normal" bodycheck. The debate you want to have (as you indicated) goes beyond that point.

So here goes. I don't watch the OHL. From every account I've read, however, they've managed to get rid of head hits without disrupting the game one bit. If this is indeed true, then the NHL needs to follow suit by sometime last week.

I'm tired of concussions. I'm tired of seeing elite players like Gagne have their careers ended or threatened while they're in their prime. I'm tired of worrying about whether they'll be able to read a book to their kids because of some idiot going headhunting in a meaningless game.

At 1:08 p.m., April 06, 2008, Anonymous Gerald said...

Well said, Adam. The reality is that moving the violence line will not necessarily change the game of hockey, but it can reduce unnecessary sacrifice.

The dirty secret is that many hockey fans do not care about the sacrifice.

At 1:19 p.m., April 06, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am most fascinated by the leaf fan reaction as so well stated by the anonymous leaf poster in this thread who maintained they do volunteering for youth groups, supporting human rights in Tibet and for first nations groups, and chose peace and dialogue over war. And yet wanted Bell to kick alfie in the face when down.

It must be a continuation of the old pat quinn demonization strategy, but it amazes me how whipped into a frenzy leaf fans are over alfie. And for what? For a hit on tucker a decade ago and for pretending to throw his stick in the crowd like Sundin did? There is no etc. Those are the only two incidents.

I could understand not being thrilled with alfies pretending to throw the stick in the crowd, but to actually attempt to use that incident as some sort of justification for kicking alfie in the face? They cant be serious?

And this is the leafs team who employed tucker diving into the sens bench, domi fighting van allen while he had a mask on or going after non-fighters on the sens against the code, bell targeting fishers knee, alfies knee and Reddens skates in one game while tucker openly talks to heatley about going after his knees.

The litany of complaints sens could justifiably raise against a team who consciously chooses the strategy of being dirty players who whine, leaves leaf fans complaints over alfie paling in comparison.

And yet, people who describe themselves as normal peace loving leaf fans as in this thread can actually quote an innocuous, humorous incident as some sort of justification for their demonization of alfie allowing them to sink to new lows of fandom. It really is quite an incredible story. Says something about the leaf media brainwashing.

Most humorous is how leaf fans used to try and pretend to sens fans that they didn’t think much of the sens-leafs rivalry, that it was only sens fans who felt the hatred, leaf fans didn’t care enough about sens to hate.

And yet here they are in all their shame for all the world to see. Leaf fans set a new low.

At 9:34 a.m., April 07, 2008, Anonymous PPP said...

And yet here they are in all their shame for all the world to see. Leaf fans set a new low.

Of all the stupid comments in this thread this one takes the cake.

a. According to the rules, it was a clean hit.

b. Adam C - your desire to demonize anything Leaf-related makes you want to see an elbow. Same goes for every anti-Leaf fan posting here. As you noted, none of the players felt it was an elbow.

c. kat - Not sure if you were able to notice in your rush to condemn Leaf fans but there was a big scrum right after the hit. People tend to get excited when there might be a fight and that's what they were cheering.

d. The last anonymous - You couldnt' be more full of it if you were actually trying. Putting aside your ridiculous litany of imagined Leaf sins, the 'innocent' Alfie hit that made Leaf fans so upset was a hit from behind on Tucker that broke his shoulder blade and allowed him to score a game winning goal in game 6 of a playoff series. No penalty was called and no discipline was issued.

e. The people arguing for a ban to hits to the head are right on. This is just the latest in a series of hits (that includes the Janssen on Kaberle hit) where a player has chosen to target an opponent's head much like the Neil on Drury hit that sens fans defended so vociferously.

f. Booing Alfie - I used to do it everytime he touched the puck but now Mark Bell has released me with that hit.

Now isn't there a Flyer we can demonize next?


Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link


Free Page Rank Checker
eXTReMe Tracker