Let’s face it: without “homerism” this blog and all others like it wouldn’t exist. To an extent, it’s the reason John and I don’t write a Denver Nuggets blog; I couldn’t care less about the Denver Nuggets, much less care enough to write about them everyday.
With that in mind, though, the best blogs – in my opinion, at least – have an air of objectivity to them. Our blog entry this morning notwithstanding, the Feather tries to play things objectively; indeed, the lack of existing objectivity in the Chicago media concerning the Hawks was one of the things that gave us the impetus to start this blog.
Enter stage right, Anaheim Calling, a fairly well-known, respected blog that does much the same thing we do for the Ducks. In much the same predictable manner we wrote in this morning, Anaheim Calling came out today in defense of the James Wisniewski hit on Brent Seabrook yesterday evening in Anaheim.
So, in the spirit of throwing objectivity to the wind, I’d like to respond to a few of the comments their bloggers made this morning on the hottest topic of the day. As you’ll see, their thoughts center around the idea that Wiz either (i) doesn’t deserve a suspension or (ii) does deserve a suspension, but only because he wasn’t penalized during the game.
* * * *
I’m not sure he should be suspended, but I’m pretty sure he will be. After Ovechkin got that two game suspension for a reckless play near the boards that was more unfortunate accident than malicious hit, how could Wisniewski not be suspended when he clearly smoked Brent Seabrook without Seabrook ever taking possession of the puck[?]
How the first sentence can coexist with the second is beyond me. In one sentence, the author states his opinion that Wiz shouldn’t be suspended, and then in the second admits that Wiz “smoked Brent Seabrook without Seabrook ever taking possession of the puck.”
Considering Wiz should be suspended because he hit a player who never had the puck, it’s certainly an odd way to make an argument.
Seabrook probably brought a little bit of this upon himself by making a reckless hit on Corey Perry, one that should probably warrant its own suspension.
I’ll leave the underlying point alone. Thankfully, for the sake of my argument, the classification of Seabrook’s hit on Perry is totally irrelevant. Where I come from, men settle disputes like men – like, ya know, face-to-face – and it appears Seabrook dangerously assumed the same. Seabrook was focusing on the puck and the play at his own peril while his “really close friend” – Wiz’s words not mine – took a malicious, blind side run at him.
Personally, I don’t have a huge problem with players standing up for teammates, even after “clean” hits; it’s the nature of the game. But, for the love of Bob Murray, can’t we expect that the retribution will come when the player is expecting it? Indeed, hitting a man while he’s not looking is one of the most cowardly acts I can think of.
Perry himself was afforded that luxury. Seabrook should have been too.
This isn’t a “blindside” or “back pressure” hit.
Chicago Comcast must’ve had a different feed. I’ve heard television signals distort after a certain length of travel.
It’s an “unsuspecting” hit, but it’s a hit the NHL has already outlawed. This was a 5 minute Major for Interference that did not get called on the ice. Charging is a fine call if Seabrook actually had possession of the puck or if Wisniewski wasn’t two feet tall, but neither of those things were true when the hit was made. The NHL has already outlawed what Wisniewski did, but because he wasn’t punished in-game and because Seabrook returned to the bench at the end of the play, he still has yet to be punished as the rule allows.
Ah, here we have a fine failure of logic.
Using this brain-buster, had Brent Seabrook maliciously made contact with Corey Perry’s face using his stick – rather than just burying the second-tier scorer as he squirmed to avoid contact – Seabrook would have avoided suspension, but only if he received the appropriate penalty on the ice and Perry wasn’t wheeled off into an ambulance.
Well, that logic can’t be true, can it? The fact is that many players are penalized in-game and post-game. It’s what keeps Colin Campbell employed. (And, that, my friends, is a conversation for a different day.) Some infractions are serious enough to warrant both – like, uh, the Wisniewski hit last night on Seabrook.
In that vein, while the NHL has previously outlawed charging, I don’t know that there’s a rule in the rulebook that specifically covers interference/charging/intent to injure. If it does, I wonder what the referee’s signal to the scorer would be – maybe, like a thrashing motion to the throat?
So, we’re back to square one.
I would be hard-pressed to say that Wisniewski did anything wrong under the circumstances.
You would? See above, Sir. I think you just did.
Seabrook was playing with fire by going after Perry when the Anaheim forward corps is so riddled with injuries.
Sort of like how Wiz is going to get burnt? I see a ten-gamer coming his way. Duck!
I don’t know if he was expecting the Ducks to go after Kane or Toews in retaliation, but he had to assume something was coming his way.
Ah, yes, he must’ve been expecting retaliation. That’s why he was watching the play develop in front of him as Wiz tried to decapitate him with a 40-foot head start.
If you throw at someone’s head, you’ve got to be prepared for them to rush the mound.
Lesson learned. Hard part for Wiz is that it’s a two-way street. Let’s see how quickly Colin Campbell can get there.
I win the bet with John. The over-under was five, Wiz got eight games.
Pay up, John.