I don’t understand how saying “Seabrook deserves his suspension” means that I’m no longer a Hawks fan or something.
I also don’t understand why Chicago fans are so shitty. Someone on Twitter literally said that they hope Backes dies? I just…you’re an idiot. You’re not a fan of hockey, you’re a fan of blood, and we don’t want you here.
I just don’t get it. It was a dirty hit. I’m really upset that we’re losing Seabrook, but I was so sickened by watching that hit that I’m glad that he’s suspended.
Why do Hawks fans have such short memories? Does no one remember the Torres hits? Does no one remember Hossa, or the hit on (ahem) Seabrook? I can’t stand the double standard. If it’s a dirty hit when Torres does it, or when Orpik does it, or anyone else in the league, it’s a dirty hit when Seabrook does it.
If that makes me a bad fan, so be it. I’ll take it.
Go Hawks. May the best team win this series.
I think Seabrook should have got a 1-2 game for non-repeat offender. The absolute worse I was expecting was 3 games, and I’m kind of mad. I can’t speak for the stupidity of “fans” saying they hope Backes dies, but you can tell with the amount of time it took the NHL to come to the decision they weren’t really sure themselves.
I don’t really like calling it a dirty hit, because the way the play ended wasn’t what seabrook meant. The resulting point of contact was dirty, but the intent was a simple shoulder check. He was trying to make a play, and positioning turned it into more.
Don’t even talk about how this is related to the hit from Torres or Seabrook because those were 100% intentional and deliberate. Orpik’s hit mostly landed on the shoulder so that really doesn’t qualify here either.
It was a dirty hit. End of story. It was a clear hit to the head, no question about it. Did Seabrook mean to try and cause a severe injury on that play? No, I don’t think he did. BUT, I DO think he meant to HURT Backes, because he knew Backes didn’t have the puck (and hadn’t had it for awhile), and he charged. He aimed for Backes’ head. I know everyone wants to think nice things about Seabrook, but that doesn’t change the fact that he hit Backes in the head.
He’s a non-repeat offender but that play was disgusting and has no place in hockey. Ever. Saying he didn’t mean it doesn’t change anything. Intention doesn’t mean anything. Last season, during the playoffs, Keith caught someone in the face with a high stick when he CLEARLY didn’t mean it, and he even went to say sorry after the play happened. Did it matter? No, he was still penalized for that play because you have to learn how to control your stick, and your body, and if you can’t avoid hitting someone in the head then you shouldn’t be playing this game.
I mentioned the Orpik hit because so many Hawks fans were mad about it (even though it was clean), while they’re making excuses left and right for a play that was OBVIOUSLY dirty.
I mentioned both Torres hits because while the hit on Hossa was slightly more severe than this one, it was still a dirty play that has no place in hockey.
Oh, and you know what happened after the hit on Hossa? There was a poll across the country asking if the hit was dirty. Every state except for 1 said that it was a dirty hit. The one state that disagreed was Arizona, because Phoenix fans were being biased, and calling it a clean hit, and saying that it was just hockey, and saying that Hossa should have been watching, and saying that Hossa was a wuss, and saying that Torres did the right thing.
I mention that hit because Chicago fans are doing the EXACT. SAME. THING. And it’s disgusting. Everyone’s a little biased towards their team, it’s just human nature. But when you see a hit like that and start making excuses, you’re basically saying “well hits like that are only wrong if someone else does it” which is bullshit. Either it’s a dirty hit, period, or it’s not.
We all need to be able to acknowledge the faults in our team and in our players. When a player does something wrong, we need to acknowledge it, apologize, and move on. Hawks fans are making a bad name for ourselves by trying to excuse what happened. There is no question it was a dirty hit (ask literally any expert. All the Chicago Tribune hockey journalists agree. All the analysts that I’ve seen have agreed too). We need to accept it, apologize to St. Louis, and move on with class and dignity.
I’m not even talking about what he said about what his intent was with the hit, I’m talking about actual footage of the hit. If youw atch the hit multiple times, you can see when he begins to launch at backes both backes and seabrook are in a position where it would be a shoulder to shoulder hit.
This is why I say it wasnt dirty. Saying that he meant to hurt backes knowing that is laughable. Backes was trying to get at the puck, so a hit to let keith make a play makes sense here. The only thing dirty about it was how it ended up, but its intent was NOT dirty.
The fact that the NHL didn’t even consider the head contact and he got 3 games solely for charging tells you that they agree with me and that intention definitely speaks as loud as actions. I really disagree with you about dirty to non dirty hits. In the NHL there is a LOT of grey area and this has come up with non suspensions and suspensions in the past. Like the Tom Wilson hit on a philadelphia player earlier in the season.
Seabrook made a mistake through circumstances that were unfavorable. This has absolutely nothing to do with bias. If I was biased I’d be saying that it was 100% clean and denying that Backes got hit in the head at al or that he exaggerated his symptoms. It just simply isn’t like that.
I just rewatched the hit and I have to say that I don’t see what you’re seeing there. At no point do I see a time where Seabrook would have hit Backes’ shoulder. Seabrook even lifts his elbow as if to hit Backes’ head even more. Backes’ head was down the entire time because he was looking for the puck, so when Seabrook charges him his shoulder is directly level with Backes’ head the entire time.
The penalty was for both interference AND charging, actually. This is a really great video that explains the NHL’s decision: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/hockey/blackhawks/chi-video-nhl-brent-seabrook-penalty-20140420,0,3423706.htmlstory
Seabrook had plenty of time to avoid the check, he knew full well that Backes no longer had the puck, yet instead he skated into the check, and raised his shoulder to produce a very dangerous, very high check. That’s a dirty play. I know there’s a lot of grey area, but this isn’t one of them.
While the penalty/suspension may not be because of a hit to the head, the fact of the matter still stands: Backes WAS hit in the head, as a result of Seabrook’s charging/interference, and Seabrook had plenty of time to change how he hit Backes, or to even avoid hitting Backes at all. Instead, he chose to slam Backes dangerously into the boards, which resulted in a pretty serious injury that forced Backes out of the game and (potentially) out of the series.
If that isn’t a dirty hit, I don’t know what is.