Downie

[james12lucy 0]

There's no point in speculating exactly where this behavior arises from, but I absolutely think some form of psychotherapy would benefit him and everyone else involved, not just from a hockey perspective.

It probably had something to do with witnessing his father's death in a car accident at an early age, en-route to a hockey practice. It's also what gives him an edge, in my opinion. Being from the same small town, I take pride in the fact he got to where he is through adversity. He's had his moments of pride and shame in the past, but I think everyone deserves a little slack. I really don't think Downie intentionally slashed the ref; at least I'd like to hope not...

[chippa13 1844]

There's no point in speculating exactly where this behavior arises from, but I absolutely think some form of psychotherapy would benefit him and everyone else involved, not just from a hockey perspective.

It probably had something to do with witnessing his father's death in a car accident at an early age, en-route to a hockey practice. It's also what gives him an edge, in my opinion. Being from the same small town, I take pride in the fact he got to where he is through adversity. He's had his moments of pride and shame in the past, but I think everyone deserves a little slack. I really don't think Downie intentionally slashed the ref; at least I'd like to hope not...

What gives him that edge, the fact that he could, and likely will, do something retarded at any time on the ice? Yeah, real edge. Postal workers have the same advantage.

Had Downie only had a single incident of stupidity on the ice then he might get the benefit of the doubt, however, he has a proven track record of doing many stupid things.

[Chadd 916]

There's no point in speculating exactly where this behavior arises from, but I absolutely think some form of psychotherapy would benefit him and everyone else involved, not just from a hockey perspective.

It probably had something to do with witnessing his father's death in a car accident at an early age, en-route to a hockey practice. It's also what gives him an edge, in my opinion. Being from the same small town, I take pride in the fact he got to where he is through adversity. He's had his moments of pride and shame in the past, but I think everyone deserves a little slack. I really don't think Downie intentionally slashed the ref; at least I'd like to hope not...

What gives him that edge, the fact that he could, and likely will, do something retarded at any time on the ice? Yeah, real edge. Postal workers have the same advantage.

Had Downie only had a single incident of stupidity on the ice then he might get the benefit of the doubt, however, he has a proven track record of doing many stupid things.

It's also not like his incidents are minor indiscretions, he tries to hurt or kill people.

[Dean_ 0]

you;re only defending the little douchebag because he's on your team.

He is not really defending him, he is just saying he had more control of himself when he played for Tampa. He is not defending him in this incident.

[mrusse01 0]

It's also not like his incidents are minor indiscretions, he tries to hurt or kill people.

That is being a little dramatic. He slashed the ref in the leg...as stupid as that is, I don't think he was going for a kill there. And you know my stance on the McAmmond hit, I thought it was just a borderline clean hit that was 'too hard' for the modern NHL. 10 years ago that wouldn't have even drawn a suspension, much less a ridiculous 20 games or whatever they gave him for it.

[Wolfpack_1986 154]

whats border line about going air jordan on the guy?

[mrusse01 0]

whats border line about going air jordan on the guy?

That's such a bs argument. When Downie hit him, his one foot was MAYBE 6 inches off the ice. You are implying that if Downie stayed on his feet and skated straight through McAmmond that you would be fine with the hit?

I don't want to get into it again really, but regardless of what you think about the play, I think any reasonable person can conclude that based on past interpretation of the rules, that the suspension handed down for that hit was completely ridiculous.

[chippa13 1844]

I just looked again to be sure, and yup, both blades were off the ice when contact was made with McAmmond's squash. Now, to steal a line from Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."

Downie always has been and apparently always will be a dangerous hockey player, and not in a good way.

[Wolfpack_1986 154]

That's such a bs argument. When Downie hit him, his one foot was MAYBE 6 inches off the ice. You are implying that if Downie stayed on his feet and skated straight through McAmmond that you would be fine with the hit?

for a game that doesnt involve jumping as a key component.... 6 inches is a lot

[greech 4]

whats border line about going air jordan on the guy?

That's such a bs argument. When Downie hit him, his one foot was MAYBE 6 inches off the ice. You are implying that if Downie stayed on his feet and skated straight through McAmmond that you would be fine with the hit?

I don't want to get into it again really, but regardless of what you think about the play, I think any reasonable person can conclude that based on past interpretation of the rules, that the suspension handed down for that hit was completely ridiculous.

Wow kid. Maybe 6". I don't know what you're reasoning is, but that's 1/2 a foot. Let's not talk the physics of a 200 pounder @ 12 mph jumping at somebody's head...

[Chadd 916]

whats border line about going air jordan on the guy?

That's such a bs argument. When Downie hit him, his one foot was MAYBE 6 inches off the ice. You are implying that if Downie stayed on his feet and skated straight through McAmmond that you would be fine with the hit?

I don't want to get into it again really, but regardless of what you think about the play, I think any reasonable person can conclude that based on past interpretation of the rules, that the suspension handed down for that hit was completely ridiculous.

He's on the way up when he makes contact, he's intentionally going for a head shot. The only reason to hit someone in the head is to injure them. In no way is it a hockey play; good, bad or otherwise.

Without leaving his feet, it's a late, cheap shot. Leaving his feet makes it an attempt to injure or maim. He should have never been permitted to play in the NHL again after that hit.

[mrusse01 0]

I guess Tucker should have been suspended for life as well for this hit. No penalty on the play.

Clark should have gotten at least 15-20 games for this one, hits him right in head. No penalty on the play.

Scott Stevens leaves his feet here to hit Kozlov, should have been double digit suspension. No penalty on the play.

Campbell leaves his feet here, hits Umberger directly in the head. No penalty on the play.

I don't know...maybe you guys can come up with a link to a devestating body check where the player doesn't leave his feet, and doesn't contact the opposing player in the head. I'd love to see one, because from what y'all are saying, some of the most historic hits in the history of the sport should have resulted in not only a penalty, but potentially a life-time ban from the sport.

The intent to injure argument is laughable as well. It's a body check, what do you think is going to happen? Was Wendel Clark just attempting to kindly seperate Bruce Bell and the puck on that play, haha? I guess Brian Campbell just didn't want Umberger to get by him there, right?

Steve Downie got screwed over by the NHL because he had a reputation coming out of juniors, he was a rookie player in the league they felt they could make an example of, and because he hit a veteran nice guy like Dean McAmmond that hard in a pre-season game. If Brendan Shanahan hits Steve Downie with the exact same play in Round 2 of the Playoffs I will 100% guarantee you he doesn't get a 20 game suspension, and there probably isn't even a penalty on the play. It's double-standard imposed by the NHL that I really have a problem with more than the hit.

[chippa13 1844]

I love when guys play the "what about this guy?" game when they're trying to defend a repeat asshole.

Tucker is a guy I've always hated. Probably someone Downie looked up to. The Clark hit is a little tough to see but, whatever, we'll give it to you. Stevens is another guy that has been accused of headhunting and someone Chadd has defintely railed against. The Campbell hit, hate to tell you but he never left the ice. Only one skate comes up, after the hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2l-i5e2_Uo

[Chadd 916]

I've always been in favor of strict penalties for headhunting. Just because contact is made to the head doesn't make it headhunting, you can tell the difference between a hit and someone trying to kill another player.

Tucker, high and hard but not late or with the same intent as Downie.

Clark, clean hit the guy had his head down.

Stevens, worst headhunter in the history of the NHL. I have railed about how cheap many of hits were for a long time. I can think of at least four or five others that were just as bad, if not worse from Stevens alone. Players did not regularly go for knockout shots before Stevens, his legacy is the increased concussions in the NHL and the number of skill players losing large numbers of games over the course of their career.

Campbell, his left foot never left the ice, didn't go for the head and he kept everything tucked. It was a hard but clean hit and I said as much at the time.

I just don't get why the hit has to be "devastating" to be a good hit. It seems like you're associating an injured player with a good hit and that certainly shouldn't be the case. The Campbell and Clark hits are the ones that should be exalted. They were able to throw big hits without breaking the rules. It's a shame that the other players were injured on the plays, but hockey is a tough sport.

It frightens me to think that you (and others) can't see the difference between the hits you linked (Stevens excepted) and Downie's actions.

[chippa13 1844]

I guess Tucker should have been suspended for life as well for this hit. No penalty on the play.

Clark should have gotten at least 15-20 games for this one, hits him right in head. No penalty on the play.

Scott Stevens leaves his feet here to hit Kozlov, should have been double digit suspension. No penalty on the play.

Campbell leaves his feet here, hits Umberger directly in the head. No penalty on the play.

I don't know...maybe you guys can come up with a link to a devestating body check where the player doesn't leave his feet, and doesn't contact the opposing player in the head. I'd love to see one, because from what y'all are saying, some of the most historic hits in the history of the sport should have resulted in not only a penalty, but potentially a life-time ban from the sport.

The intent to injure argument is laughable as well. It's a body check, what do you think is going to happen? Was Wendel Clark just attempting to kindly seperate Bruce Bell and the puck on that play, haha? I guess Brian Campbell just didn't want Umberger to get by him there, right?

Steve Downie got screwed over by the NHL because he had a reputation coming out of juniors, he was a rookie player in the league they felt they could make an example of, and because he hit a veteran nice guy like Dean McAmmond that hard in a pre-season game. If Brendan Shanahan hits Steve Downie with the exact same play in Round 2 of the Playoffs I will 100% guarantee you he doesn't get a 20 game suspension, and there probably isn't even a penalty on the play. It's double-standard imposed by the NHL that I really have a problem with more than the hit.

1. Downie's reputation was well-deserved and only a hair better than that of Jesse "Baseball swing" Boulerice.

2. Shanahan wouldn't have done it in the first place.

[mrusse01 0]

I've always been in favor of strict penalties for headhunting. Just because contact is made to the head doesn't make it headhunting, you can tell the difference between a hit and someone trying to kill another player.

I just don't get why the hit has to be "devastating" to be a good hit. It seems like you're associating an injured player with a good hit and that certainly shouldn't be the case. The Campbell and Clark hits are the ones that should be exalted. They were able to throw big hits without breaking the rules. It's a shame that the other players were injured on the plays, but hockey is a tough sport.

It frightens me to think that you (and others) can't see the difference between the hits you linked (Stevens excepted) and Downie's actions.

I never said the hit had to be devastating to be a good hit, I just wanted to hear how someone is able to reconcile that the Downie hit is unconscionable, grounds for a lifetime ban, but other destructive hits are perfectly fine. Your reasoning seems to lie with the 'intent' of the hit rather than the specific act itself? That is pretty remarkable.

I have no clue how you can say the Stevens hit is horrible, but the Clark hit perfectly legitimate and to be exhaled. Looks like virtually the exact same play to me, one player leaving his feet to deliver a head shot to an unsuspecting player skating with the puck.

I also question how you determine that Wendel Clark or Brian Campbell had no intent to injure on that play, whereas Steve Downie was attempting to kill Dean McAmmond.

My point is simply this: like it or not, professional hockey is a violent, dangerous sport. Part of the game is to attempt to inflict serious physical trauma on your opponent if you are given an opportunity to do so. Wendel Clark had that opportunity and he took it. Brian Campbell had that opportunity and he took it. Steve Downie had the opportunity, and he took it. Maybe Downie was a fraction of a second too late, and went too high with his hit, but to suggest that he be suspended TWENTY games, the 5th longest suspension in the history of the sport for doing so? It's laughable.

Here is a hit to the head of a player in a vulnerable position (near the boards) and it is WAY later than the hit on McAmmond. What did Janssen get for that? 3 games I believe? And Downie gets 20 for his? Ok. Anyway you slice it, the NHL unfairly made an example out of Steve Downie, end of story.

[Chadd 916]

Campbell and Clark both hit guys that had the puck and did nothing other than throw a clean, albeit hard, body check. Downie started in the neutral zone, got a head of steam, leaped into the air and drilled McAmmond in the head. There may parts of that situation that are similar to what others have done, but I have yet to see a situation that matches all of those facets of Downie's hit.

[chippa13 1844]

I'm starting to think this kid is Downie's cousin.

Downie made an example of himself with his questionable actions at every level he has played. As for the NHL's treatment of him, you make your own reputation. Apparently not, since you see no difference between Campbell's legitimate hockey play and Downie's jump to the chin.

[Law Goalie 147]

The damage to Kaberle was clearly done when his head hit the boards; McAmmond was unconscious before he hit the ice.

Kaberle also made an unusual, unexpected AND unsafe hockey play - every time I see that hit from the main cameras, it looks like Kaberle is watching Janssen the whole way, as he should be. It's almost unbelievable that Kaberle wasn't looking at Janssen the whole time in that situation. Just prior to contact, in slow motion, he does take a peek, then turns his head away and his back even further towards Janssen AND drops his shoulder, exposing his head at the last second. In a way, this was an odd variation on the guy who deliberately turns his back to an approaching opponent to shield the puck and gets buried from behind.

McAmmond, on the other hand, had his head down coming around the net, which is an unsafe but common and wholly expected play. Downie read this and attacked him.

There wasn't really any other way for Janssen to hit Kaberle when they were moving like that: a glancing blow to the left shoulder. About the only other thing he could have done was low-bridged him and ended his career with knee injuries.

Downie could have hit McAmmond any number of other ways: shoulder to shoulder, shoulder to chest, chest to shoulder, hip to hip, etc, etc. He could have separated McAmmond from the puck and delivered a good hit without hurting him. Instead, Downie chose the attack most likely to injure McAmmond, and did so at high speed with direct aim at his head, and the result was a severe injury.