Lets not talk AT ALL about the game though. Lets talk about the "hit" because that's the day and age we are in.
The hit in question - Raffi Torres on Brent Seabrook. Torres dumps the puck in, and gets on the chase on the forecheck. Brent Seabrook fields the puck behind the net and........he gets "blindsided" by Raffi Torres.
It was a blindside according to CBC, Versus, TSN, Blake Price on Team 1040 and PuckDaddy (who have since changed their headline from "blindside" to "hit to the head" - good on you guys for waking up and smellin' the coffee)
That's right. He came right at him, straight in line with the Indian Head on Seabrook's sweater. But since Seabrook has absolutely ZERO awareness of his surroundings, and he has his head facing in the opposite direction that he is travelling on the ice, someone who hits him HEAD ON, STRAIGHT ON, is "blindsiding" him.
I concede that this could be a hit where the head is the principle point of contact. And if that's the basis on which the NHL decides to suspend Torres, then I could agree with that. Torres shouldn't be the one to blame because Brent Seabrook didn't have the wherewithal to defend himself - but PLEASE talking heads - CBC, TSN, etc, all the people who are supposed to be the EXPERTS - don't just jump waste deep (pun intended) into the diarrhea of buzzwords to describe a hit as something that it certainly wasn't.
I feel for Torres. He's going in and making a good hard hit. In the NHL this day and age, hard hits aren't allowed. If the players can't protect themselves, then I guess the league has to take hitting out. I don't want anyone getting their bell rung and having their quality of life effected. At the same time, I don't want to watch no contact hockey either. It's a very fine line. We can start making the line just a TINY bit clearer if we don't immediately as one jump up the second someone gets hit hard just to hit the panic button and look for buzz words that don't apply.
Wouldn't it be something if we put the same amount of attention and blame towards players that don't defend themselves, as opposed to the guys who are trying to play physical and make big hits? It is one of the absolute BEST things about this great game, but very very very quickly it is disappearing. Are we having this discussion if Seabrook has his head up? Absolutely not.
It's impossible and downright dumb to take hockey off the ice and try and make it into a real life scenario. However, it is just as impossible, and also downright dumb to try and take hitting out of a contact sport. So here goes nothing!
Real World - I'm driving my car through an intersection. I am looking BEHIND ME whilst I am driving forward. I hit someone, or I am hit by someone. Surely I am to blame for not looking where I am going? Hockey World. NOPE. The person who hit me is to blame, because they knew where they were going, while I wasn't paying attention? Makes a tonne of sense.
Torres either gets ZERO games because the NHL sees the light. Or he gets 10.
Hammer
3 comments:
Your analysis is logical, but the NHL suspended Torres for four games just before the end of the regular season for a hit the looked very much like the one in game 3.
I can see both sides of the argument. However, what I can't see is how Torres gets suspended for 4 games a little over a week ago for almost exactly the same hit, yet he gets nothing for this one, which was a similar hit to the head. Yet again they are hypocrites (not surprising).
http://www.nhlwheelofjustice.com/
Exactly. Thank you.
Post a Comment