Hamhuis rocked by Getzlaf - head into glass

[jeffl97]

"The puck was gone.. clearly gone" Is this not implying that the hit was late? Why did you bring up that the puck was gone. Either you're saying it's a late hit, or he should not have made the hit.
"hits for the sake of hitting..." lol, yes take out the main part of backes, getzlaf, callahan, brown, etc's game. Why even make any hits at all? Hits are in the game to make defenders rush plays, to get the opposing team to think twice about trying to dipsy-doodle, to rub other players out of the play. it's a huge part of the game. "hits just to hit" imo would be interference penalties. so yes take those out of the game, but this was not one.
"The hit was to send a message or injure" If he was hitting him to injure how is that not intent to injure? No mistake there.
My still images were to capture how quickly the play happened. When used in sync with the video it's clear to see how fast the play went from a normal hard checking hit, to a crazy passed out Hamhuis.
"Getz had to have seen it and decided to rub out Hamhuis anyway." The game of hockey is not always about the puck. You play the body a lot. I've played for 14 years, I know. Next time you're playing hockey, try totally committing to the hit and then backing off last second, not that easy.

I'm done replying to this topic.

[WildHendy]

Hamhuis needs to protect himself more in that situation...not like he is a rookie or doesnt like to hit others when the chance is there,unfortunate he put himself in a vulnerable position at the last minute

[Chili con Carne]

A lot of hits are tough to back off of when you're committed for sure. I don't think Getz was totally committed though - watch his stick and shoulders just after he comes around the net. Looks to me that he is trying to block the passing lane with his stick, while (smartly) keeping the body check option open. Lame effort to block the pass then his body seems to shift up and to the right, very slightly but it is there IMO - this might be what gave him the momentum that takes him off his feet.

Tough to say for sure.

Don't take it as argument. Everyone will have different views (whole point of this forum) and I am somewhat enjoying this thread.

[Loch]

1) "The puck was gone.. clearly gone" Is this not implying that the hit was late? Why did you bring up that the puck was gone. Either you're saying it's a late hit, or he should not have made the hit.

2) "The hit was to send a message or injure" If he was hitting him to injure how is that not intent to injure? No mistake there.

3) My still images were to capture how quickly the play happened. When used in sync with the video it's clear to see how fast the play went from a normal hard checking hit, to a crazy passed out Hamhuis.

4) "Getz had to have seen it and decided to rub out Hamhuis anyway." The game of hockey is not always about the puck. You play the body a lot. I've played for 14 years, I know. Next time you're playing hockey, try totally committing to the hit and then backing off last second, not that easy.

5) I'm done replying to this topic.

1) Late hits are the ones that come 3 to 5 seconds after the puck is gone. I was simply refering to the fact that there was no chance of the hit 'freeing up the puck' because it was clearly gone. This may be why I never said it was a 'late hit'.

2) Stop being awkward. There are different meanings to the word 'injure'... like knocking the wind out of someone... or even bruising their shoulder. I already admitted it could have been worded better, but hey, if you want to cling to a narrow definition that makes you feel good have at 'er.

3 & 4) Yeah, these ones are personal preference/belief territory. I still don't care for the photos compared to the video, but I suppose that's taste isn't it?
As for the hitting, how commited he was 5ft out will be debated to no good end so I won't bother. However if it was someone like Getz laid out by someone like Orr on the same hit I think the potential damage to the on ice product should not be ignored.

They got rid of the clutch and grab post lock-out on the (correct) premise that fans would rather pay to watch the stars' skill than see which 3rd liners were most effective at obstruction. I'm thinking people arn't paying to see talented players get hurt.

And no, I don't have a solution... more like just reflecting on the implications of these situations.

ps... regarding 5) I really don't care for your tone, so that's ok.

[ross10019]

Finally saw the video. Anyone who thinks that's a suspendable hit, I would like some of what you're smoking.

[fungchen3]

Yeah certainly not suspendable.

[ross10019]

Vignault comment in a Vancouver Sun article today on the Hamhuis concussion:


"Vigneault also said he didn't have a problem with Getzlaf's hit on Hamhuis.

"I thought it was a good hit by a big player," he said. "Dan was watching his pass and should have maybe been trying to protect himself a little bit. Some guys finish hits, some don't. If Hank or Danny (Sedin) are coming at you, maybe you can watch your pass. If Getzlaf is coming at you, you've got to have your head up.""