Lord O' Bones Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 I think he left his feet because of the hit, not before it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalThor Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 I think he left his feet because of the hit, not before it.I saw the video and totally agree.From the Detroit Free Press?It was Day 2 of analyzing the controversial hit Kronwall put on Havlat at 13:08 of the first period Friday. Havlat had his head down and was along the boards with the puck at his feet when Kronwall struck. Replays show both of Kronwall's skates are on the ice at the moment of impact, but that wasn't Campbell's view."I thought he jumped, and Marty didn't have the puck," Campbell said. "I thought it was gutless all the way around. He's done it for hundreds of times in the league, and it seems like nothing ever happens. He could have easily come in and used his shoulder and hit him with his side, and it would have been fine, but instead he comes up and explodes with his fists and his forearms and jumps."So far from being gutless it's not even funny," Wings coach Mike Babcock said. "He did it right. He didn't leave his feet. The puck was right in between the guy's feet."It is absurd to accuse Kronwall of being a serial head-shot offender, and that wasn't just a sentiment coming from the Wings."He's not a dirty hitter," said Chicago forward Samuel Pahlsson, who played with Kronwall for Team Sweden. "He's a really good hitter, open ice, especially, he catches guys when they're not ready for it and he hits them hard."It is, of course, unfortunate that Havlat was hurt -- which was the first thing out of Kronwall's mouth Saturday.Asked if the hit was dirty, Kronwall said, "He never saw me coming, so I would feel the same way if somebody did that to one of my teammates."The Blackhawks saw Kronwall coming, though, and yelled out "heads up, heads up," to Havlat. There is an onus on the puck carrier to be aware of his surroundings.The article is a lot longer I cut out a bunch of it - nothing related to whether the hit was legit or not. While it WAS a nasty hit Kronwell took his 5 minute penalty and the game. I'd say let's call it fair at that. Havlat won't play tonight I heard and that sucks but...that's sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Greguh Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 The Kromwell check was violent, but it wasn't dirty. If Havlat had been aware of his surroundings and adequately prepared himself for the hit, that wouldn't have been a penalty at all, let alone a 5+game. The puck was between Havlat's feet, Kromwell stayed on the ice up to the moment of impact, and it's not Kromwell's fault that Havlat was staring straight down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 I think he left his feet because of the hit, not before it.Agreed. Looks like a clean hit to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 I wouldn't say it was a clean hit. He never left his feet true but he went for the head and anyone who does that is looking to injure, IMO.I think it was a dirty play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLU-RAY Posted May 24, 2009 Author Share Posted May 24, 2009 So, Nick Lidstrom is out tonight, lower-body injury, day-to-day. Whatever that may mean. It's a blow to the Wings for several reasons, obviously; captain out, top defensive defenseman out, top scoring defenseman (and a significant source of offense) out; and they're still without Hossa, too. With that said...WHY is Chelios playing? You could stick Meech in the lineup. Shit, you could stick Jakub Kindl (dunno who he is, but he's a scratched D for them) in the lineup. Chellie is a liability these days, his footspeed is shot and the Hawks are fast as fuck. Savvy and experience only go so far.Also, even though I loathe him, nice to see Martin Havlat back from getting laid the fuck out by Kronwall.ETA: Terrible playoff PK, and yet the Wings go for a shortie by Hossa. This team is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 I wouldn't say it was a clean hit. He never left his feet true but he went for the head and anyone who does that is looking to injure, IMO.I think it was a dirty play.IU don't think he even went for the head. Looks like shoulder to chest to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mme Erzulie Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 The Kromwell check was violent, but it wasn't dirty. If Havlat had been aware of his surroundings and adequately prepared himself for the hit, that wouldn't have been a penalty at all, let alone a 5+game. The puck was between Havlat's feet, Kromwell stayed on the ice up to the moment of impact, and it's not Kromwell's fault that Havlat was staring straight down.Who is this Kromwell you keep talking about? :PAnd 6-1, without Datsyuk or Lidström. Pretty impressive stuff. Seemed like Hawks were getting frustrated as the game went on and started taking unnecessary penalties.So what are the chances of Pens besting the Wings in a final this time around should they both progress? Both Crosby and Malking seem to be on fire, but will that be enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Both Crosby and Malking seem to be on fire, but will that be enough?No. But if Fluery is on fire as well, it might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHoundRules Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Looks like a Detroit vs. Pittsburgh final. Am I the only one that would find it very funny if Pittsburgh beat Detroit and kept Hossa from lifting the Cup? He did reject Pittsburgh and go to Detroit b/c he wanted to win The Stanley Cup.As for the hit. It was violent and clean. The only argument is that Havlat never played the puck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 The only argument is that Havlat never played the puck.Even then, there was no way for Kronwall to know this in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHoundRules Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Even then, there was no way for Kronwall to know this in advance.That's true, but I believe rules state he has to have played the puck. The thing is that he should have played the puck. I have no issue with the hit. I do not think he is a dirty player. Colby Armstrong of the Thrashers gets called dirty at times for the same reason. He takes good hits when they are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 No. But if Fluery is on fire as well, it might be.Yeah, that will be the key. MAF will need to steal at least one, maybe 2 games for us to have a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nymeria Sand Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I think he left his feet because of the hit, not before it.I agree. It was a nasty hit, but legal. Yeah, that will be the key. MAF will need to steal at least one, maybe 2 games for us to have a chance.Hush! :D Have ye no faith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 IU don't think he even went for the head. Looks like shoulder to chest to me.He went for the head. Hopefully the league is gonna instate some rules next season( and there's lots of talk about it) that will give players like this lengthy suspensions.A good clean hit is fine but head hunters are just out to injure or end careers. That I do not like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 He went for the head. Hopefully the league is gonna instate some rules next season( and there's lots of talk about it) that will give players like this lengthy suspensions.A good clean hit is fine but head hunters are just out to injure or end careers. That I do not like.So in your opinion he intended to go for the head and missed? Perhaps you can explain specifically what it was about it that makes you believe he was going for the head?I agree. It was a nasty hit, but legal. Hush! :D Have ye no faith?I have more hope than faith. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 So in your opinion he intended to go for the head and missed? Perhaps you can explain specifically what it was about it that makes you believe he was going for the head?The fact that he hit Havlat in the head when Havlat never saw him coming. No other explanation really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 The fact that he hit Havlat in the head when Havlat never saw him coming. No other explanation really.You can only hit someone if they see you coming???And from the angles I've seen, it doesn't even look like he hits him in the head. it looks like his shoulder initially connects with the chest, not the head. Frankly, if he had been going for the head, havlat would probably be dead.i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Stark Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I know I'm not an unbiased observer, but every single comentator or writer I've seen pay any mind to the Kronwall hit has said that it didn't deserve to be penalized at all much less to the degree which it was actually taken to. Was it a nasty, violent hit? Absolutely. It was also one which had its intent wholly within the rules, only brought into debate by a strange bounce off the boards.It looks like Datsyuk and Lidstrom are both still out for game 5. Hopefully the team picks it up again like they did on Sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 didn't deserve to be penalized at allIt was absolutely 100% Interference. Again, not that Kronwall had any way of avoiding that.much less to the degree which it was actually taken to.Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.