I think the difference is when he has the puck he's always braced. On that play he was heading to the bench for a change and wasn't expecting it. Either way it was harmless.
- canadianpenfan

I understand he wasnt bracing for it.. my point was that he isnt some weak skater who cant take a tap to the back.. he went down really easy was what I was saying. I just dont get the whole.. its a cheap shot stuff.

Funny thing about Crosby is he takes that same shot, or much worse 20 times a game when he has the puck on his stick... and never goes down. I too have played, and still play. Im a center and I stand in front of the net a ton. Im roughly the same size as Crosby (6' 195lbs)... when you do go down its never in a motion similar to that. Im not saying he flat out dove.. i will say that he went down easy.. and made no effort whatsoever to prevent himself from going down.

The bs screaming of a cheap shot is hysterical... on both the Schenn shot and the Vitale hit.
- jak521

If it's during play, he's expecting to get hit. If it's after the play and he doesn't have the puck he's not ready for it. Maybe Brier should have realized he was actually carrying the puck in a NHL game and therefor may get hit.....cleanly I might add.

Here's my thing about the "little cross check". Having played the game for 20 years I know that it doesn't take much of a cross check in the back to send a player, doesn't matter who, sprawling. I'm like 5'6 and have a low center of gravity, but still a cross check in the back can easily send me sprawling. All it takes is getting a little on your toes and you are going down. It's simple physics. Loss of friction/balance, forward momentum, mass and gravity.

I know that everybody who has sworn allegience to the Flyers believes that Crosby made like an Olympic diver, but there is a very real chance that he just fell. I'm not saying it was cheap, well other than being from behind and after a whistle, but it happens in every game so it's not big deal.
- Ben37

First of all, Schenn's cross-check on Crosby was NOT "after the whistle." This has already been covered at length. If it had occurred after the whistle, the penalty would have stood...the fact that it happened BEFORE the whistle was what negated the penalty due to them reviewing Sullivan's goal & awarding that goal after the fact. That's all the proof you need. For someone who supposedly played this game for 20 years, one would think you would have picked up on this.

Secondly, the fact still remains that Crosby initiated the confrontation with Schenn by hitting him away from the play. Then he skated in front of Schenn towards the bench, almost inviting him to do something. Schenn retaliated like any hockey player and didn't back down...he wasn't going to take crap from #87 and then just back down because it's "Mr Face of the NHL." So he gave him a shot back. No big deal. Happens every game, and 99% of the time, it's the person who retaliates that gets caught & penalized...which is exactly what would have happened here if not for the goal review mentioned above. The fact that Crosby feels he can dish out the dirty/cheap/away from the play hits but should be exempt from being on the receiving end, while crying to the media after the game about it being a "cheap shot," speaks volumes about his hypocrisy & his vagina-like qualities. You can't have it both ways, Cindy...if you want to give it, be prepared to take it. That's the way it works. There was no need to take out Briere or start a line brawl because of a soft retaliatory cross-check on 87.

If it's during play, he's expecting to get hit. If it's after the play and he doesn't have the puck he's not ready for it. Maybe Brier should have realized he was actually carrying the puck in a NHL game and therefor may get hit.....cleanly I might add.
- madmike71

Have i said differently?

First of all, Schenn's cross-check on Crosby was NOT "after the whistle." This has already been covered at length. If it had occurred after the whistle, the penalty would have stood...the fact that it happened BEFORE the whistle was what negated the penalty due to them reviewing Sullivan's goal & awarding that goal after the fact. That's all the proof you need. For someone who supposedly played this game for 20 years, one would think you would have picked up on this.

Secondly, the fact still remains that Crosby initiated the confrontation with Schenn by hitting him away from the play. Then he skated in front of Schenn towards the bench, almost inviting him to do something. Schenn retaliated like any hockey player and didn't back down...he wasn't going to take crap from #87 and then just back down because it's "Mr Face of the NHL." So he gave him a shot back. No big deal. Happens every game, and 99% of the time, it's the person who retaliates that gets caught & penalized...which is exactly what would have happened here if not for the goal review mentioned above. The fact that Crosby feels he can dish out the dirty/cheap/away from the play hits but should be exempt from being on the receiving end, while crying to the media after the game about it being a "cheap shot," speaks volumes about his hypocrisy & his vagina-like qualities. You can't have it both ways, Cindy...if you want to give it, be prepared to take it. That's the way it works. There was no need to take out Briere or start a line brawl because of a soft retaliatory cross-check on 87.
- shonoff95

I agree with everything but the bold.

The game didnt end. Briere needs to be much smarter there.. especially after he knew those guys were on the ice.

No no.. I completely agree with your gist. Briere needs to know where he is there. Cant hang your head. You can say you wouldnt be angry, but if roles were reversed... Crosby gets knocked out indefinitely in the final minute of a blow out win, by some 4th line grinder who throws a monster hit.. you guys would be livid. The guys on the ice would have also acted the exact same way.
- jak521

Your right.... We'd be livid at Bylsma. Crosby wouldn't be on the ice. Just like he wasn't on the ice at the end of the last game with it decided. Lavi needs to look in the mirror.

Have i said differently?
- jak521

You seem to say that it was dirty or was meant as a message. I'm saying the guy is carrying the puck and left himself vulnerable. The line brawl didn't happen at the faceoff, it happened after the hit. It happened after guys went after Vitale.

If Crosby gets laid out by a clean hit that's part of the game. Crosby is absolutely correct....if Lavi didn't want Brier to get hit, he shouldn't have been on the ice. I guess Vitale should have just let him walk right through the neutral zone with no contact because the game was decided.

- madmike71

No, if Crosby got laid out by a clean hit with 1 minute left in a 3-goal game and was put out of action, Pens fans would NOT just shrug their shoulders and say, "well it's part of the game." They would be livid and screaming bloody murder, citing Crosby's concussion history and the fact that it was a 4th liner who took him out. Please take off your gold-colored glasses here. Briere has had concussions issues this year as well and was taken out a week before the playoffs start (where everyone knows he is a clutch performer). I'm not going to whine about the hit itself as it wasn't dirty, but let's lay all on the cards on the table and not kid ourselves about how Pens fans would react if the situation were reversed and your beloved #87 was crushed like that this close to the playoffs and at the end of a game with the outcome already decided. You're just not being honest...with yourself or anyone else.

As far as Crosby's suggestion that Lavs not put Briere on the ice at the end of the game...I have 2 thoughts on that. #1 would be that maybe Sid should worry about himself first because that bullseye on his sweater just got even bigger by running his mouth and with his history of getting recurring concussion symptoms from even running into his own players, he would be better off keeping his mouth shut & focusing on protecting his own health headed into this last week before the playoffs. #2, if Lavs HAD taken the approach of keeping his skill players off the ice and put out the 4th liners (which would include RINALDO), WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE WOULD THAT HAVE SENT?!?!!? Wouldn't that have been viewed as Lavs trying to ignite the situation instead of diffusing it??? AGAIN, you can't have it both ways, Sid. Lavs didn't send out the "grinders" to try to avoid the stupid end-of-game antics that occur when coaches do that kind of stuff...and instead, what happens? The other team's 4th liner takes out one of our best players and then their best player (who was sitting safely on the bench) runs his mouth and says that Lavs shouldn't have put him on the ice if he didn't want him taken out & injured. That's unbelievable.

I agree with everything but the bold.

The game didnt end. Briere needs to be much smarter there.. especially after he knew those guys were on the ice.
- jak521

I don't disagree with you...Briere does need to be more aware and do a better job of keeping his head up. But at the same time, everything that has happened in the NHL over the past few years (from Cooke's hit on Savard to Richards on Booth to Rome on Horton to Kronwall on anyone) has led to a change in mentality when it comes to delivering big hits...and that just because a player isn't looking doesn't necessarily give the opposing player a license to lay him out. I'm not saying the hit was dirty (it wasn't)...I'm just saying that from a hockey perspective, Vitale wasn't making a play for the puck, made no attempt to retrieve it after separating it from the player, & it didn't do anything other than injure someone & put them out of action again at a point in the game when it didn't matter. If that's "sending a message," then I guess we're back in the old days of the 70s & 80s.

You seem to say that it was dirty or was meant as a message. I'm saying the guy is carrying the puck and left himself vulnerable. The line brawl didn't happen at the faceoff, it happened after the hit. It happened after guys went after Vitale.
- madmike71

Oooookay...so you're implying that if someone took out Crosby or Malkin with a hit like that at that juncture of the game, the Penguins (on the ice) wouldn't have responded in a similar fashion & gone after the 4th liner who took him out??? They would have gone over to that 4th liner who had played 7 minutes TOI and congratulated him for a "nice clean hit" (that "wasn't sending a message") at the end of a 3-goal game? Just trying to understand where you're coming from here.