And bang bang, Philly comes back from an early 2-0 deficit to go up 3-2 midway thru the 2nd

intent? i don't think the blues players intended to deflect pucks past miller so i guess those goals don't count...blues then win easily...

intent? i don't think the blues players intended to deflect pucks past miller so i guess those goals don't count...blues then win easily...
- ddmmdd

I feel bad for the competent Blues fans. People like this make them look bad.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosenblog/chi-blackhawks-dirty-and-stupid-in-loss-to-blues-20140419,0,7395850.column

Read an objective viewpoint from a Chicago writer who tells it like it is and doesn't see the play through Eddie Olczyk colored glasses.

Take a read Jaeckel, you just might learn something.
- Taynos

You must not knoq too much about Rosenbloom,and it isn't your fault since you probably don't read Chicago papers...the guy is a major tool..his articles are there just to get a kick out of Chicago sports fans goin off on him..And the guy is totally cluless about hockey

And bang bang, Philly comes back from an early 2-0 deficit to go up 3-2 midway thru the 2nd
- Assman22

2 goal leads are kiss of death in this league at the moment. They get can disappear in a hurry and often.

Sorry JJ, while the circumstances are similar, Orpik's hit is to Toews' sholder while the Backes hit the contact point is the head.
- duxcup07

And do you think Seabrook and Orpik started out with different intentions? I don't. I think both wanted to finish a check hard and lay the other guy out. If you don't, play some hockey.

And that's the point. EITHER guy could have pulled up and not destroyed a vulnerable opponent looking down. Both did not want to do that.

There is very little chance at that speed to modify a hit to the shoulder or to the head—especially if the othe rplayer is moving, which in both cases they were.

So Orpik is not penalized or suspended because he happened to hit Toews shoulder (before he knocked his head back). So what does Seabrook think when he sees a defenseless Backes? But because by chance he hits the head, he gets discipline?

THAT'S the problem. It's about intent and NOT pulling up, regardless of the point of contact. Or whether (or when, because both players did) their skates leave the ice.

Get it? So I'm not wrong. We are taking about different things. You are talking about technicalities.

I'm saying the obvious. Both players were hurt. Both hitters had that in mind (and while no that's not provable in a courtroom setting, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain). The point of contact is irrelevant in light of that. Figure it out.

Homer!

It's also ridiculous when Seabrook wasn't even getting a penalty until the Blues attacked him, then he's ejected and suspended. I agree, the Orpik hit is a good comparison. It's a hockey play. They can change the rules if they want plays like that out of the game, but as far as the current rules go, it's not an illegal hit.
- Hemingways

You say that as if the two blind mice looking the other way at a headshot is somehow "proof" that no penalty is warranted. The fact that the head was the principal point of contact is, and will always be, the most important thing. Even if you believe it was unintentional, it was reckless and illegal. The hit on Toews was shoulder to shoulder and that's where the similarities end. To equate the two based on the other similarities is simply homerism. The hit Lapierre put on Boyle earlier this season got 5 and a game + 5 games and that punishment was deserved. That is much closer to a benchmark for this play than the hit a few weeks ago on Toews. Seabs should get 5.

My second favorite part of yesterday. First being winning of course was when I was getting a cab after the game and I called some drunk chick in a Blackhawks jersey a c$&t and she attacked the cab only to be taken down by the cops and arrested. You think seabrook was laughing you should have seen us.
- bluenote31

Do you know what an education is? Get one.

And do you think Seabrook and Orpik started out with different intentions? I don't. I think both wanted to finish a check hard and lay the other guy out. If you don't, play some hockey.

And that's the point. EITHER guy could have pulled up and not destroyed a vulnerable opponent looking down. Both did not want to do that.

There is very little chance at that speed to modify a hit to the shoulder or to the head—especially if the othe rplayer is moving, which in both cases they were.

So Orpik is not penalized or suspended because he happened to hit Toews shoulder (before he knocked his head back). So what does Seabrook think when he sees a defenseless Backes? But because by chance he hits the head, he gets discipline?

THAT'S the problem. It's about intent and NOT pulling up, regardless of the point of contact. Or whether (or when, because both players did) their skates leave the ice.

Get it? So I'm not wrong. We are taking about different things. You are talking about technicalities.

I'm saying the obvious. Both players were hurt. Both hitters had that in mind (and while no that's not provable in a courtroom setting, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain). The point of contact is irrelevant in light of that. Figure it out.
- John Jaeckel

Not that it matters that much, but... if you look at the frame just before contact to the head... it appears Seabrook makes contact with Backes' arm (similar to Orpik/Toews). Next frame is contact with head - same as Orpik hit.

Very close. Anyone who looks at both hits is kidding themselves if they don't see the similarities.

Orpik on Toews... Shoulder to shoulder principle contact. Toews released the puck less than half a second before, and his feet never left the ice.

Seabrook on Backes, a full second went by, and the initial contact was shoulder to head.

You're right though, jj... No difference at all.

You're using the 'vulnerability of the player' as a common ground here, which is totally wrong. Backes was thrice more vulnerable, and hardly even made a play on the puck.

Homer glasses.... Level infinite.

Keep plugging in those Kronwall comparisons, too. We all know you can't live without them.

Very different hits for obvious reasons. I think what you have here with chicago that is causing this blindness is the love factor for Toews. If you see a video of your sister beaten with a whiffle ball bat and a bum beaten with a wood bat they are going to make you cringe equally. Just an analogy trying to understand what's been going on here.
- dprice818

Intent to injure, not pulling up when either prayer could.

The hits are really not that different other than the point of INITIAL contact, which you assume is completely controllable. And it's not. Doesn't matter. because both players clearly intended to take a running start and lay out a vulnerable opponent.

Again, THAT'S the point. And in that regard, they are exactly the same!!!

Homer!
- sfhfan

Um go away?

He basically was in exactly the same position Toews was, head down, didn't have the puck. I'm not going to argue that. Both Orpik and Seabrook saw the opportunity to flatten the opposing captain and took it. One got penalized and will be suspended, the other didn't.

A JOKE.
- John Jaeckel

Its not a joke. Towes was hit in the shoulder. Backes was hit in the head.

If you can't get that, then I don't know what to tell you. Towes gets it. He called the hit on him clean. Unless you think your team captain doesn't know what he's talking about?

I agree that its near impossible for things like this to not happen when they skate fast and decisions have to be made quickly. But you still have to punish the hits to the head, be the accidental or intentional. The hard part is determining intent.

I wish a lot of people would stop comparing this to the Orpik hit on Toews.

Both Orpik and Seabrook saw opportunities to make a big hit and took it. But that's where the similarity ends. Orpik is a guy who has a reputation of crossing the line, but in that instance he got all shoulder and it wasn't a dirty hit. He was fortunate it worked out that way. The opposite is true in Seabrook's case. He has never been viewed as a dirty player but he committed to a big hit when he shouldn't have and the result is what it is. He may have cost his team the game and the series.

And for the record, I didn't like the Bickell hit either.
- MartiniMan

Bickell's fortunate... no excuse there.

In my view the correct call on Seabrook is interference and a hit to the head...Orpik charged...and has the MO of looking for advantageous hits.

If the puck was at Backes feet and he didn't get knocked out there isn't a call and probably no suspension. But not the case.

Hawks suffer another devastating loss... 4-3 in OT. Seabrook-Bickell-Backes:
ON THE BLACKHAWKS-Fox Chicago: http://bit.ly/1pkdzcN

Orpik on Toews... Shoulder to shoulder principle contact. Toews released the puck less than half a second before, and his feet never left the ice.

Seabrook on Backes, a full second went by, and the initial contact was shoulder to head.

You're right though, jj... No difference at all.

You're using the 'vulnerability of the player' as a common ground here, which is totally wrong. Backes was thrice more vulnerable, and hardly even made a play on the puck.

Homer glasses.... Level infinite.

Keep plugging in those Kronwall comparisons, too. We all know you can't live without them.
- snipesydangle

Please. See: Marty Havlat, WCF, 2009, and thats just part of The Turtle #55's LONG CV.

Kronwall, Orpik, Backes. Another common thread. Turtles or go after guys 30-50 pounds lighter, and 18 year olds.

Backes was no more vulnerable, both players had their head down. Neither had the puck. That is the point, although you see it but refuse to acknowledge it.

And do you think Seabrook and Orpik started out with different intentions? I don't. I think both wanted to finish a check hard and lay the other guy out. If you don't, play some hockey.

And that's the point. EITHER guy could have pulled up and not destroyed a vulnerable opponent looking down. Both did not want to do that.

There is very little chance at that speed to modify a hit to the shoulder or to the head—especially if the othe rplayer is moving, which in both cases they were.

So Orpik is not penalized or suspended because he happened to hit Toews shoulder (before he knocked his head back). So what does Seabrook think when he sees a defenseless Backes? But because by chance he hits the head, he gets discipline?

THAT'S the problem. It's about intent and NOT pulling up, regardless of the point of contact. Or whether (or when, because both players did) their skates leave the ice.

Get it? So I'm not wrong. We are taking about different things. You are talking about technicalities.

I'm saying the obvious. Both players were hurt. Both hitters had that in mind (and while no that's not provable in a courtroom setting, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain). The point of contact is irrelevant in light of that. Figure it out.
- John Jaeckel

Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between a check and one that is full force to apply as much pain as possible...Won't understand your point.

Hawks suffer another devastating loss... 4-3 in OT. Seabrook-Bickell-Backes:
ON THE BLACKHAWKS-Fox Chicago: http://bit.ly/1pkdzcN

You say that as if the two blind mice looking the other way at a headshot is somehow "proof" that no penalty is warranted. The fact that the head was the principal point of contact is, and will always be, the most important thing. Even if you believe it was unintentional, it was reckless and illegal. The hit on Toews was shoulder to shoulder and that's where the similarities end. To equate the two based on the other similarities is simply homerism. The hit Lapierre put on Boyle earlier this season got 5 and a game + 5 games and that punishment was deserved. That is much closer to a benchmark for this play than the hit a few weeks ago on Toews. Seabs should get 5.
- bluenatic411

Lol another unintelligent blues fan. Big surprise. They have internet at the trailer park? Good for you!

>JJ, you are so right about the NHL's lack of real consistency in these matters
>I've seen nearly all of Seabrook's games in his career and he is not -- in any way a dirty player -- he plays the game hard and fair
>Seabrook doesn't target smaller players or cheap shot players the way so many who deserve suspensions do
>Seabrook has been the victim of non-hockey play headshots -- Torres and his friend Wiz, now on the Jackets (was on the Ducks at the time)
>There's no doubt in my mind that Seabrook thought he had a hard, clear hit opportunity on Backes -- who is definitely a player that deserves to be hit hard by someone his size -- but not injured
>Seabrook surely did not want to concuss Backes -- he knows what that's like
>All of this hoopla protects how badly Corey Crawford has played in this series
>You could make a case that all 4 Blues goals yesterday were on Crawford -- but especially 2, 3, and 4

I just saw the wakey wakey Backes clip...where does anyone see a Hawks player clearly taunting him?

Its not a joke. Towes was hit in the shoulder. Backes was hit in the head.

If you can't get that, then I don't know what to tell you. Towes gets it. He called the hit on him clean. Unless you think your team captain doesn't know what he's talking about?

I agree that its near impossible for things like this to not happen when they skate fast and decisions have to be made quickly. But you still have to punish the hits to the head, be the accidental or intentional. The hard part is determining intent.
- thickman1178

I do not disagree. But CAN YOU see that both "victims" were vulnerable, either player could have pulled up (including Orpik), and that it is really hard to see or say definitively Seabrook or Oripk meant to hit the head to not?

Because I think ALL are fair statements. And that's my point. And I'm sorry, aside from the INITIAL point of contact, it was essentially the same franking play!

Both players intended to lay the opponent out. Anyone not seeing that is a fool and/or probably neve replayed any hockey. To your point, at that speed then, not pulling up is a reckless play, regardless of the point of initial contact!

Intent to injure, not pulling up when either prayer could.

The hits are really not that different other than the point of INITIAL contact, which you assume is completely controllable. And it's not. Doesn't matter. because both players clearly intended to take a running start and lay out a vulnerable opponent.

Again, THAT'S the point. And in that regard, they are exactly the same!!!
- John Jaeckel

They are both wearing jerseys and skates, I guess in your twisted logic in that regard they are also exactly the same?

JJ, you are such a freaking homer, makes your blogs impossible to read

If you take your homer glasses off for a second, note Seabrooks one skate OFF the ice before contact is made, and note the direct contact with the head, then take a look at Orpiks skates that left the ice only AFTER contact and see although Toews head was hit, it was after rising up from the shoulder

Skates off the ice, head principle point of contact vs Skates on the ice, shoulder principle point of contact

Still EXACTLY the same???

Did I really just read about some guy bragging that he called a woman a "C" and then was such a chicken $hit he ran to a cab and watched her get arrested as she rightfully wanted to address it with this guy?

WOW> I hope this guy makes it to the game tomorrow. I hope a lot of these trolls do.

Please. See: Marty Havlat, WCF, 2009, and thats just part of The Turtle #55's LONG CV.

Kronwall, Orpik, Backes. Another common thread. Turtles or go after guys 30-50 pounds lighter, and 18 year olds.

Backes was no more vulnerable, both players had their head down. Neither had the puck. That is the point, although you see it but refuse to acknowledge it.
- John Jaeckel

Toews made an active play on the puck and had his head down. Backes made a brush and turned away from it to a lunging Seabrook. The Orpik hit was with much less velocity than the Seabs hit. If pavs is getting laid out by that Orpik hit, I'm mad yes, but not at an 'illegal hit', by. Pavs not keeping himself safe. Backes never had a chance. Toews did.

Did I really just read about some guy bragging that he called a woman a "C" and then was such a chicken $hit he ran to a cab and watched her get arrested as she rightfully wanted to address it with this guy?

WOW> I hope this guy makes it to the game tomorrow. I hope a lot of these trolls do.
- SteveRain

And yet Ogi and I get banned