IlliniKrush

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Apr 22, 2011 -> 12:26 PM) Also, in referrence to another post earlier, I honestly don't even hate the Red Wings that much. I put them in the category of the Twins: A team I have a lot of respect for whom there is no real reason for me to hate other than they're really good and beat my team. I hate teams like the Blues, Canucks, and Pacers a lot more since they're just plain dirty. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 22, 2011 -> 01:06 PM) I agree 100% on your last point. Any hatred towards the Wings at least in my lifetime is because they have been the poster child for success. The Blues, Canucks and even Flyers I hate because of the way they play and especially their fans. Growing up in the Chicago Stadium and then the UC prior to 2009 makes you hate the Wings, as well as their fans, more than any other team. Not necessarily because the team is always "classless" on the ice because that hasn't always been the case, but it is a hatred that runs deep.

And Anaheim s***s the bed. Ouch.

I used to listen to Grobstein overnight in high school. Friday = and for that you suck!

Here's the thing...the series is 3-2 Vancouver, and there are two games left. Doesn't really matter how it got there, someone was going to be up 3-2 after 5 anyway. We're not trying to win 4 games anymore, just 2. Nothing that has happened in games 1-5 really matters anymore, all that matters is what happens for 60 (or more) minutes Sunday.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Apr 21, 2011 -> 03:27 PM) Driving on Lake Shore Drive during a blizzard, I believe. It was "hopping onto LSD in a blizzard," specifically targeted at the idiots that did so, not the actual driving experience.

There will be more of this for this guy until he hopefully ends up in jail. Good for him. Also LOL on the kids. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6395973

Whatever hater, his biggest failure is better than your greatest success

One of the best ones, proving this guy knows nothing, is this: 3) You're up 6 - 1, and you're still using your top PP? If I remember correctly, in a blow-out game earlier this season, Quenneville was bad-mouthing the other team for still using their top PP unit (was it against the Canucks?). Why would you contradict yourself? Again, show some class, and let your other players - you know, the one's you've barely played, or did you forget about them? - have some PP time. Well mr. hockey, we put our top guys out there because you were running around like a bunch of ass clowns, so we wanted to tack on another one for good measure. The penalty in reference was the Edler charging call. Usually, yes, you call off the dogs. But Canucks being idiots? Let's go score again.

OK, so he did actually punch him though.

While we can mock Canucks (or other) fans all we want, and we should...the whole "this series is about USA vs Canada" is so meatball I can't even stand it. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure before game 3 when Honda was announcing please rise for the Canadian anthem, people were booing. I've also been at games and heard "canada sucks" and "usa, usa, usa" chants from some idiots. Show some respect. More than that, the majority of players on the Hawks (and every team) are CANADIAN. Note, I'm not saying anyone implied that in this thread, I've just seen it and heard it around.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 20, 2011 -> 11:56 AM) Legalized marijuana. Seriously though, what other team in professional sports has a statue of a coach complaining about officiating? Toronto Maple Leafs fans are cut from the same cloth. Every year before the season starts they have the best team, they deserve to win the Cup, then when they don't win the Cup, they should have won the Cup, and officiating and bad luck were responsible for it.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 20, 2011 -> 11:27 AM) I was directly to that poster's request to have Murph do weekdays 9-1. Right now I'm a happy camper with Waddle & Silvy 9-1 and then B&B directly following! Ah, gotcha. Yes, that lineup is awesome, it's my daily listening.

If it was years ago, and you didn't get in any sort of trouble for it so it's not traceable, I don't know why you'd admit to it. You may be forced to write a letter of explanation or something perhaps. But if the only way they can see if you are lying is by hooking you up to a lie detector, which I'm pretty sure wouldn't happen, I don't know what admitting to it does. I figure it would raise more red flags by checking yes? You might want to get an answer from someone that did answer yes on it, especially on the WI bar, however.

I think you're the only person I've seen say it was a cover up.

Game 5 is the absolute hardest to take as the lower seed down 3-0. Somehow win Thursday, and the series is on.

He also told Bruce he did not want to start.

Well this started as an argument about suspension or no suspension, so that's what I was arguing based on the current rules. Maybe they need to look at all head shots - but that's really hard to do, because some "clean" checks end up with the guy with the puck low, and a clean shoulder to the head. It's tough to just say all head shots are banned, because sometimes they just happen, and the guy delivering the hit didn't do anything wrong. It's not like the NFL, where guys can somewhat control leading with their head. No matter where you try to check a guy, sometimes it doesn't turn out to be that spot. Sometimes you get his shoulder, sometimes back, sometimes his head, sometimes you miss completely and eat some glass. I don't agree with the constant pausing of the video, because that's now how it works in real life when trying to deliver a check, like how I said they both came in on angles to begin with, and Torres never changed his path from far out. If Seabrook had a slightly wider path, it's more of a full body check and you might not have the head contact. Or if Seabrook isn't bent over as much, the shoulder doesn't hit his head. I mean, his head is right above his chest, so even if he was trying to line him up "perfectly" for a hard hit, that was the result. He didn't extend anything to go at his head.

They had the wrong weather report, of course no one is to blame. Same school that fired a coach for a small lie in his resume way back when. 2 deaths relating to the football program? Meh.

I don't think I need to make a bigger deal of puck possession. Seabrook was reaching for the puck and was going to touch it very soon. Whether he touched it or didn't touch it, the result would have been the same. For all intents and purposes, the puck was indeed "there." Seabrook had his head down looking for the puck, and the play would have been as violent with or without the touching of the puck. He would not have been more aware if his stick blade somehow contacted the puck already. It's not like this was a random run at a guy with the puck nowhere in the vicinity. Since it wasn't quite touched yet...interference. The fact that the puck just barely wasn't touched isn't what you look at for the suspension here. It's the actual mechanics of the guy delivering the hit.

However, that wasn't a lateral or blind side hit. They didn't exactly need the loop hole, and that type of hit isn't the reason rule 48 was implemented. Under the current rules, not all head shots are illegal. If you want to make the argument that you should change the rules, fine. But as your 2nd article stated, the correct ruling was made based upon the rules. That's not a match penalty. Again, if the puck was there, it was a legal hit. You are going to give him a match penalty for a legal hit? I also don't agree that he targeted the head and that was it. You've got two guys skating in on an angle, he goes for the hit, and Seabrook's route/body position exposed his head at the time of the hit. They weren't skating in a straight line at each other, allowing Torres to sit there and line that up. If Torres wanted to hurt him, he would have done something much worse. Torres stopped his skating stride and glided on the route he was on and hit him with his shoulder. Good play if Seabrook had touched the puck, interference since it wasn't.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 12:05 PM) At the very least it should have been a match penalty for interference. You simply can not allow that kind of play. Granted, Seabrook should have had his head up, you are taught that from an early age. And yes, if he had the puck it's just a devastating but legal play. I agree that he didn't leave his feet, or lead with an elbow and he stopped his stride so it was not charging. But, those are not pre-requisites for a suspendable play. Especially since Torres isn't exactly known for clean play, it's not like you can say oh this was a one time thing. No, this is a player that needs to be toned down a bit. Match penalty? Hardly. Again, nothing was illegal with the hit itself except the puck not touched. If he left his feet, threw an elbow, etc, I could see a major for inteference. Why can't you allow that kind of play? Too hard of a check? Hard, devastating hits sometimes happen in hockey, even ones that might cause injury. That doesn't make them all illegal or lead to suspensions. And yes, those are exactly some things that factor into a suspendable play. You can't just say "it's Torres, he's been suspended before, so he should just be suspended again if any kind of hit looks violent."

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 11:46 AM) Bingo. I'm not a Hawks fan but that deserved a suspension. Just because it didn't violate the magical Rule 48 doesn't mean it was okay. There is a reason "intent to injure" is in the rulebook. The NHL needs to start enforcing the rules they have more consistently. Actually, a big part of the no suspension is because it didn't violate rule 48. Plus he didn't leave his feet. Or Elbow. Or charge. The only thing wrong was that Seabrook didn't have the puck = interference. Headshots are not banned. Lateral, blind side head shots are. If you get a shoulder to the head, too bad. They aren't taking hitting out of hockey. I don't buy the "intent to injure" thing since all of his actions were clean minus interference. He lined a guy up for a hard hit, and Seabrook never quite reached the puck.

University of Notre Dame, you are a f***ing joke. We already knew that, but you showed it even more today. Re: Sullivan report.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 08:36 PM) I guess I can kind of answer this. I grew up a Dolphins fan(as you well know) because my dad for whatever reason didn't like the Bears and was a big Dan Marino fan. Once Marino retired I pretty much lost my connection to the Dolphins and just never really became a true Bears fan. I like them enough now but I guess fantasy football sadly has become more important to me than the Bears ever could. I would definitely try to become a legit fan of a 2nd Chicago NFL franchise just because it'd be nice to have an actual NFL rooting interest besides for fantasy sake but I couldn't guarantee that I'd actually establish a die hard connection with them like I have with the Sox and Bulls. I don't know if you've read Simmons book, but you qualify for a reason to root for a team outside your own city - family. Your dad's reason might be questionable, but your reason isn't. Well that and you like teal, so I can't get on you for that.

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 08:31 PM) Was every fan in New York required to be a Yankees and football Giants fan prior to the Mets and Jets arriving? Well yeah...if they like football or baseball, those were the teams available to them.