Max King of the Wild said:
impertinence said:
That is a pretty weird claim, how in the world would this not be suspension worthy? Seabrook leaves his feet, targets the head, makes principal contact with the head and the player is injured. If it was the reagular season this would be an in person hearing. If the league was half way serious about player safety, a hit like that would be a suspension for the rest of the series at the very least.
|
First off he doesn't leave his feet till after the impact. Secondly, the league looks at the position the player puts himself in. Backes turns sharply (because the puck was behind him) right before the hit. Eddie O was talking about it when they came back from intermission that he was talking about it with someone from the league that they will look at that.
|
Nonsense from top to bottom. It doesn't matter when you leave your feet, who ever told you that little gem? In fact it doesn't really matter if you leave your feet at all. What makes the hit dirty and suspendable is that Seabrook launches himself into the hit. And that's also why he ends up leaving his feet.
As for Backes turning at the last moment, I'd like to see who thinks that has much impact here. A player turning right before he gets hit can sometimes be used to excuse hits from behind. Backes doesn't turn away from the hit though, he turns into it which is the only reason whu Brent Seabrook didn't barrel into him from behind which would have made the hit even worse if possible.
I'm not surprised that the Blackhawks broadcasters are trying to play down the hit, because it's quite frankly a pretty disgusting hit. Hell, even Mike Milbury was defending Seabrook on NBC, so it can't be that bad right?