KOVALEV A PUSSY!!!
Nam Pham
In a previous posting, Ellen A. Collier (ecol...@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca) writes:
> First of all I would like to state that I am neither a Ranger nor a
> Nordique fan, so my opinion on this matter is totally unbiased. Here is
> my opinion:
>
> ALEXI KOVALEV IS A PUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> (That may not be the correct spelling of his name, but I don`t care)
>
> I have just witnessed this guy laying on the ice as if he were dead,
> and costing the Nordiques a goal by doing so.Perhaps if he were
> actually injured it would be a different story.He`ll be back before the
> game is over, flying around the ice and will probably score a hat-trick
> and beat the Nords 3-2.This is not the way sports were meant to be
> played.Pretending to be injured is not a defensive strategy.Kovalev has
> no pride and is a disgrace to sports. HE IS A PUSSY!
Neither am I a Rangjerk nor Nodick fan. But, what do you suppose to
do when you got whacked in the back like that? I think he was in pain.
Look at the replay; he didn't see how he got hit (he was skating away).
I think Andy Van Hellemond sucked a major one. Kovalev was controlling
the puck at the time he was slashed, only gave up the puck when he was
down.
Please analyze the situation before insulting someone.
--
@ __@ ,_
/\,_ _`\<,_ _\ \@
_`\(*) (o)/ (*) (o)'<_
(o)/ ~ ~ ~ ~ (*) NP Complete
Eric Masson
Ellen A. Collier <ecol...@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca> wrote:
> First of all I would like to state that I am neither a Ranger nor a
>Nordique fan, so my opinion on this matter is totally unbiased. Here is
>my opinion:
> ALEXI KOVALEV IS A PUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>(That may not be the correct spelling of his name, but I don`t care)
> I have just witnessed this guy laying on the ice as if he were dead,
>and costing the Nordiques a goal by doing so.
I'll grant you this much: the incident eventually did become a turning point
of the game.
I remember Habs goalie Bunny Larocque pissing blood against the California
Golden Seals once while Oakland scored. The ref never stopped the play
because Montreal did not control the puck. It takes a serious incident
to stop a play when a player is injured and his team does not have the puck.
Otherwise you'd see guys faking injuries each time a breakaway comes up against
them. The ref made a big mistake and the Rangers made the best out of it.
I wonder if they are going to chase Van the Man out of the league like they
did with Morel when Terry "I pick my nose with my tie on TV" Crisp took a fit.
The guy did screw up big on the play.
It won't be easy for the Nords but if they come through then they'll deserve
it fully.
Salut,
Eric
--
=================================================================
Eric Masson - er...@finnegan.ee.mcgill.ca - FAX: 514 398 4470
=================================================================
Garry James Ryan
says...
>and beat the Nords 3-2.This is not the way sports were meant to be
>played.Pretending to be injured is not a defensive strategy.Kovalev has
>no pride and is a disgrace to sports. HE IS A PUSSY!
How about that zebra Van Hellemonde. He made the call. Not only did it
cost the Nordiques the games it has cost them the series. They were
awesome during the first period last night. That Goal should have put the
Rangers away for the night.
--
THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE
Garry James Ryan There's someone in my
gr...@awinc.com head but it's not me
Gene Arguelles
> First of all I would like to state that I am neither a Ranger nor a
>Nordique fan, so my opinion on this matter is totally unbiased. Here is
>my opinion:
> ALEXI KOVALEV IS A PUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>(That may not be the correct spelling of his name, but I don`t care)
Ellen, such language... tsk, tsk , tsk Imagine what you would say if
you WERE biased. I'm touched that a person that doesn't root for
either team would get so upset. yeah, right
David DeWayne Bricker
You're right, he did get up and play the rest of the game, but did you
know that severe pain can sometimes go away? Could you have handled a
vicious slash on your unpadded back like Kovalev received? I don't think
so. I suppose you think Beukeboom faked his injury to, huh?
In a previous article, ecol...@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca (Ellen A. Collier) says:
> First of all I would like to state that I am neither a Ranger nor a
>Nordique fan, so my opinion on this matter is totally unbiased. Here is
>my opinion:
>
> ALEXI KOVALEV IS A PUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>(That may not be the correct spelling of his name, but I don`t care)
>
> I have just witnessed this guy laying on the ice as if he were dead,
>and costing the Nordiques a goal by doing so.Perhaps if he were
>actually injured it would be a different story.He`ll be back before the
>game is over, flying around the ice and will probably score a hat-trick
Kevin Feury
granted that kovalev got slashed and there SHOULD have been a penaly on
the play. but the replay shows clearly that van h is looking at the
net...but that the linseman did see the play. he however, can only call a
major, and this incident did not warrant 5 minutes...it was a one-handed
slash. if you've ever put on a pair of hockey shoulder pads, you know
that while there ism't a ton of protection where kovalev was hit, there
is some. the pads i have cover about half-way down my scapulae. he would
definitely have felt the hit, but there's no reason he needed to act like
someone put a 12 gauge shot through him. that was crap and he needs to
take off the skirt. he was just trying to draw attention to the penalty,
pissed off because after wendel lined him up for an elbow in game two
there was no call.
bottom line is that the goal should have counted. when interviewed by al
trautwig after the period, van h said, ' i think i blew the whistle'. no,
andy, i think you blew the game. you're a professional. and you bit it hard.
i wonder why none of the rangers stopped playing or why none of them beat
the crap out of sakic for shooting the puck in after the play was over
abd forcing healy to make a save he didn't have to. because there was no
whistle.
if the nords get that goal, it is 3-0 under a minute to play in the 1st
and it's a shorthanded goal. the rangers lose game 4. it's that simple.
the rangers do seem to be getting a lot of questionable calls in their
games lately, eh? (nedved's kick in vs. the whale and wells' long hand
pass out of his zone for an empty netter against the sabres come to mind
quickly...) maybe we should start a conspiracy rumour? ;->>
-kjf.
Hiew Roger Tse Wei
: In a previous posting, Ellen A. Collier (ecol...@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca) writes:
: > First of all I would like to state that I am neither a Ranger nor a
: > Nordique fan, so my opinion on this matter is totally unbiased. Here is
: > my opinion:
: >
: > ALEXI KOVALEV IS A PUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
: > (That may not be the correct spelling of his name, but I don`t care)
: >
: > I have just witnessed this guy laying on the ice as if he were dead,
: > and costing the Nordiques a goal by doing so.Perhaps if he were
: > actually injured it would be a different story.He`ll be back before the
: > game is over, flying around the ice and will probably score a hat-trick
: > and beat the Nords 3-2.This is not the way sports were meant to be
: > played.Pretending to be injured is not a defensive strategy.Kovalev has
: > no pride and is a disgrace to sports. HE IS A PUSSY!
: Neither am I a Rangjerk nor Nodick fan. But, what do you suppose to
: do when you got whacked in the back like that? I think he was in pain.
: Look at the replay; he didn't see how he got hit (he was skating away).
: I think Andy Van Hellemond sucked a major one. Kovalev was controlling
: the puck at the time he was slashed, only gave up the puck when he was
: down.
: Please analyze the situation before insulting someone.
I have watched the replay a billion times and trust me, that one handed
slash was just a little tape in the back. Wolanin never did try to swing
his stick at all. Perhaps you could try it on someone else. There is no
way Kovalev could have gone down like that. What proves my point is that
in the later period, he came back and score and set up a goal. Surprising
don't you think. If a player is injured in a play, trust me, there is no
way he'll be back for a period or even the whole game. Bret Hedican of
the Canucks was hit by Al MacInnis slap shot and he went down right away,
and he never return to the game. That proves that he's indeed in pain.
Kovalev just wanted another penalty so his ranger team could gain another
power play. So, I think it's pretty rationale to say that Kovalev is a
PUSSY!!! He's good but what he did, boy I don't think he deserves to play
in this league.
Hiew Roger Tse Wei
: In article <3p0vda$h...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>, ecol...@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca
: says...
: >and beat the Nords 3-2.This is not the way sports were meant to be
: >played.Pretending to be injured is not a defensive strategy.Kovalev has
: >no pride and is a disgrace to sports. HE IS A PUSSY!
: How about that zebra Van Hellemonde. He made the call. Not only did it
: cost the Nordiques the games it has cost them the series. They were
: awesome during the first period last night. That Goal should have put the
: Rangers away for the night.
: --
I'm not a Nordique fan but I don't think Nordiques are done just yet. It
is best of three now, and Nordiques do have two games at home. If they
take one game at a time, I'm pretty sure they could come back. Marc
Crawford wil not let them lose that easily. As long as Van Hellemond
don't ref any of the Quebec-Ranger game, I think Quebec could do it.
Besides Canucks did it against Calgary, down 3-1 and still manage to come
back and defeat the Flames, and they almost pull it off against the
Rangers ( which was a better team before than now )
Mikhail V. Solodov
>How about that zebra Van Hellemonde. He made the call. Not only did it
>cost the Nordiques the games it has cost them the series. They were
>awesome during the first period last night. That Goal should have put the
>Rangers away for the night.
It appears that you are confused. If you want the right call, that
would be on the Quebec player who clearly slashed Kovalev across
his back. The ref made 2 mistakes. The first one was not calling
a penalty on Quebec. In view of that, bitching about the goal is silly.
Michael.
Hiew Roger Tse Wei
: granted that kovalev got slashed and there SHOULD have been a penaly on
: the play. but the replay shows clearly that van h is looking at the
: net...but that the linseman did see the play. he however, can only call a
: major, and this incident did not warrant 5 minutes...it was a one-handed
: slash. if you've ever put on a pair of hockey shoulder pads, you know
: that while there ism't a ton of protection where kovalev was hit, there
: is some. the pads i have cover about half-way down my scapulae. he would
: definitely have felt the hit, but there's no reason he needed to act like
: someone put a 12 gauge shot through him. that was crap and he needs to
: take off the skirt. he was just trying to draw attention to the penalty,
: pissed off because after wendel lined him up for an elbow in game two
: there was no call.
I don't think there should have been a call. I think it was a pretty good
acting job by Kovalev. I've watched that replay a billion times and that
wasn't a slash, perhaps just a tap. Want prove, well he came back and
play the rest of the game right? He score and setup a goal right?
: bottom line is that the goal should have counted. when interviewed by al
: trautwig after the period, van h said, ' i think i blew the whistle'. no,
: andy, i think you blew the game. you're a professional. and you bit it hard.
: i wonder why none of the rangers stopped playing or why none of them beat
: the crap out of sakic for shooting the puck in after the play was over
: abd forcing healy to make a save he didn't have to. because there was no
: whistle.
Van Hellemond is a dork!!! What a goof, he blew the whistle when the puck
was already in the net. No brains loser!
Mikhail V. Solodov
>I have watched the replay a billion times and trust me, that one handed
>slash was just a little tape in the back. Wolanin never did try to swing
>his stick at all. Perhaps you could try it on someone else.
I would like to try it on YOU.
Obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Even a slight slash in the right spot can cause immense
pain.
>There is no
>way Kovalev could have gone down like that. What proves my point is that
>in the later period, he came back and score and set up a goal.
No, this just once again proves your ignorance.
Pain can be treated, it can come and go depending on the injury.
>Surprising
>don't you think. If a player is injured in a play, trust me, there is no
>way he'll be back for a period or even the whole game.
Why we should trust you ? My expereince points to the contrary.
It all depends on the kind of the injury.
You are clueless.
Michael.
Ellen A. Collier
Nordique fan, so my opinion on this matter is totally unbiased. Here is
my opinion:
ALEXI KOVALEV IS A PUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(That may not be the correct spelling of his name, but I don`t care)
I have just witnessed this guy laying on the ice as if he were dead,
and costing the Nordiques a goal by doing so.Perhaps if he were
actually injured it would be a different story.He`ll be back before the
game is over, flying around the ice and will probably score a hat-trick
Optimus
mistake was by Van Hellemond. He claims he blew the play dead before the
goal, but every replay with audio quite clearly proves that the whistle
didn't go until _after_ Sakic had scored. The Nords, quite simply, got
robbed.
And to put my $.02 worth in on Kovalev, I think he was over-doing it. It
certainly wouldn't be out of character for him.
Ian Merrithew - UNB Fredericton
Gene Arguelles
>I'm not a Nordique fan but I don't think Nordiques are done just yet. It
>is best of three now, and Nordiques do have two games at home. If they
>take one game at a time, I'm pretty sure they could come back.
best of 3?? really. wow lets see, the nords win the next 2.... that
gives them 3 wins.... the Rangers win the 3rd... that gives them...
well my God... that gives them 4. they win. wait maybe I did that
wrong.... nords 2 + 1=3 Rangers 3 + 1 = 4. yep they win.
Gene Arguelles
>I don't think there should have been a call. I think it was a pretty good
>acting job by Kovalev. I've watched that replay a billion times and that
>wasn't a slash, perhaps just a tap. Want prove, well he came back and
>play the rest of the game right? He score and setup a goal right?
Hmm I think your right. I've been playing/watching hockey for 30
years and I don't think I've ever seen a guy get hurt and come back in
the game. Never have I seen a man get hurt, miss a shift and come
back.
LY...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
:>I don't think there should have been a call. I think it was a pretty good
swung that stick above his head and down on Kovalev's back. How the hell can
that not be a penalty. And just because he was able to continue to play,
doesn't make the play any less severe or dangerous. Or maybe we should wait
until someone is unconscious and hospital bound before we make a call...well
actually that doesn't seem to work either.
---------------------------------Gene
Eric Masson
Mikhail V. Solodov <sol...@monterey1.cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
> It appears that you are confused. If you want the right call, that
> would be on the Quebec player who clearly slashed Kovalev across
> his back. The ref made 2 mistakes. The first one was not calling
> a penalty on Quebec. In view of that, bitching about the goal is silly.
> Michael.
(1) Such plays do not get called in the NHL. That slash had no where near
the momentum needed to knock a player off his skates unless he is already
falling by himself or intends to. Kovalev put himself in an awkward
situation and the best thing he found to do was to let himself fall.
Given who he coughed to puck to this might not be such a bad decision
on his part.
(2) If the play is not called then the play goes on and as long as there is
no play stoppage whatever happens is valid. Otherwise you could call back
any goal on the basis of something you had doubts on but did not dare call
because you were uncertain. What Van Hellemond did was an attempt to
correct what he thought was a mistake with a real one. That's no way to
officiate. Two wrongs don't make a good. And that's assuming there might
have been a wrong to start with. If he thought there was a penalty then
he should whistle immediately and call the Nords. Otherwise he has to wait
for the Rangers to control the puck to stop the play for their injured
player (unless Kovalev was in serious danger for his life but that was
not the case). That sequence looked like a "since this whole event
resulted in a goal and the Nordiques are already with a lead then I'll
call back the play for the player lying on the ice" justification. Very
poor officiating.
Salut,
Eric
There is only one thing I despise more in hockey than a cheap shot and that's
a fake. Kovalev is a fake and a disgrace to the game.
Bryan Smale
>
>>I don't think there should have been a call. I think it was a pretty good
>>acting job by Kovalev. I've watched that replay a billion times and that
>>wasn't a slash, perhaps just a tap. Want prove, well he came back and
>>play the rest of the game right? He score and setup a goal right?
>
>swung that stick above his head and down on Kovalev's back. How the hell can
>that not be a penalty.
> .... And just because he was able to continue to play,
>doesn't make the play any less severe or dangerous. Or maybe we should wait
>until someone is unconscious and hospital bound before we make a call...well
>actually that doesn't seem to work either.
>
>---------------------------------Gene
I tend to agree that the slash by Wolanin could have been a penalty,
but given the current mentality in the NHL, it was not surprising
that it was not called -- the Nords were already a man short, it
didn't take a scoring opportunity away, and Wolanin didn't have
two hands on his stick. Throw in the fact that Kovalev has a
reputation for diving and faking, and Van Hellemond obviously
didn't regard it as severe as Kovalev was making it out to be.
The play heads up ice, and Sakic scores. No question that it should
have counted, but Van Hellemond obviously felt he *should* have
whistled the play dead sooner because, after the fact, he likely
thought Kovalev's injury was more severe than it first appeared.
However, Kovalev's quick *recovery* only served to embarrass Van
Hellemond further, and you can bet Kovalev will receive little
support from the officials from this point on.
And by the way, you appear to be the only one who has seen this
"ugly 6 inch welt" on Kovalev's back.
Bryan
David DeWayne Bricker
Do you despise Wayne Gretzky as well? He has been known to take a dive
to draw a penalty. If you despise players that fake things to draw
penalties, you must despise 97% of the players in the NHL.
Chuck Penfold
I wondered in the first couple of games, why Kovalev was such a target,
now I understand. He deserves anything he gets. He`s touched by a stick
in the back, and looks to have been mortally wounded. As for
VanHellemond, he`s embarassed not only himself but the league. He`s lost
any credibility he may have had. I`m not a Quebec fan, but I`d like to
hear some opinions from Quebec on this one... are the Rangers being just
slightly favoured because the big apple is such a big market, while Quebec
is small and French?
Chuck
--
Chuck Penfold bx...@freenet.carleton.ca
Nepean, Ontario, Canada
Formerly of: Toronto, Iserlohn, Richmond Hill, Koeln, Ottawa, Gloucester,
Freiburg, Belleville, Lindsay, Oakwood, Zagreb, and Sarajevo.
Eric Masson
David DeWayne Bricker <ddb...@bgnet.bgsu.edu> wrote:
>Do you despise Wayne Gretzky as well? He has been known to take a dive
>to draw a penalty. If you despise players that fake things to draw
>penalties, you must despise 97% of the players in the NHL.
Your 97% comment would be correct if we'd be talking about soccer but we ain't.
In that sport I've learned to accept it with reservation otherwise I wouldn't
be able to appreciate it. In hockey the situation has not deteriorated to that
level and I don't want it too. As for Gretzky I've not seen him pull Kovalevs
yet and it is safe to say I don't expect him to do so after all the games I've
seem with him.
Kovalev will be a member of the Bill Barber hall of fame located in
Philadelphia, PA. He will be joining with new inductee Claude Lemieux.
Gerald Olchowy
>Do you despise Wayne Gretzky as well? He has been known to take a dive
>to draw a penalty. If you despise players that fake things to draw
>penalties, you must despise 97% of the players in the NHL.
Gretzky is not a diver...Gretzky is not the type of player who gets
into position that requires dives...he typically beats you with a pass.
Gerald
Ceri Alun Morgan
>I don't think there should have been a call. I think it was a pretty good
>acting job by Kovalev. I've watched that replay a billion times and that
>wasn't a slash, perhaps just a tap. Want prove, well he came back and
>play the rest of the game right? He score and setup a goal right?
>
allowed to come back? The replays that I remember seeing were all in
slow motion. Of course it's not going to look as bad then. Remember
also that Kovalev was gone for the rest of the period and didn't even
come out of the lockerroom until a few minutes had passed in the
third. Sounds like a lot to go through once the call had already been
made.
If anyone here is a pussy it's all the people whining about how that
one call cost Quebec the series. Get real. Have you no more respect
for your team than count them out after a bad break? If one call
causes a team to lose, then I don't think they deserve to win in
the first place. Note, this is not how I feel about Quebec, but it's
the impression i'm getting from their fans.
-Ceri
Ceri Alun Morgan
of the 1st period and came back a few minute into the 2nd period (not
3rd)
-Ceri
Ceri Alun Morgan
>I wondered in the first couple of games, why Kovalev was such a target,
>now I understand. He deserves anything he gets. He`s touched by a stick
>in the back, and looks to have been mortally wounded. As for
>VanHellemond, he`s embarassed not only himself but the league. He`s lost
>any credibility he may have had. I`m not a Quebec fan, but I`d like to
>hear some opinions from Quebec on this one... are the Rangers being just
>slightly favoured because the big apple is such a big market, while Quebec
>is small and French?
>
Quebec still has a 2-0 lead after 1 period. I refuse to believe that this
one call cost them the game. As i've said before, if that is the case,
they don't deserve to win the series.
I haven't read/heard any comments from the Quebec players, what are they
saying about the play?
-Ceri
Larry Westmoreland
says...
>>There is no
>>way Kovalev could have gone down like that. What proves my point is
that
>>in the later period, he came back and score and set up a goal.
>
> No, this just once again proves your ignorance.
> Pain can be treated, it can come and go depending on the injury.
>
>>Surprising
>>don't you think. If a player is injured in a play, trust me, there is
no
>>way he'll be back for a period or even the whole game.
>
> Why we should trust you ? My expereince points to the contrary.
> It all depends on the kind of the injury.
> You are clueless.
> Michael.
>
Michael your comments amaze me! The NHL is full of the greatest actors in
the world. They do so in every game. It continues to get worse and worse.
From your comments you must also believe that Wrestling is real and the
Hulk on dope must be your favorite wrestler. The idea is to draw the
penality any way you can, so you can get an advantage. The best actor
gets the best advantage, or have I missed all those "Dive" calls this
year.
J Larry
Jeffrey D. Portwine
: In message <3p35r4$p...@nnrp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
Well, I don't know if he's a pussy or not, but he's a jerk for acting the
way he did. In the replay you can see that he didn't fall from getting hit.
There was a pretty good delayed reaction there... He's not as good an actor
as he would like to believe. As for the spineless referee who took away the
goal even though he still hadn't blown the whistle, he should be fired. Right
or wrong you have to make a call and stand by it, not just stand there in
indecision. And as for your statement about the people whining... well that
is true, there is a lot of whining but in their defense it wasn't just
a play we are talking about but a goal that may have been the difference
in the game.
Personally I don't care, i'm a fan of neither team involved. However, I
do feel that taking dives and acting hurt, and then dancing around afterwards
and even getting an assist on the next goal is bad for hockey in general.
These guys are supposed to be athletes, not cry babies.
--
Jeff Portwine jdpo...@mtu.edu
"If you are not a liberal by 20, you have no heart. If you are not a
conservative by 40, you have no brain." -Winston Churchill
Hiew Roger Tse Wei
: Hiew Roger Tse Wei <hro...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
: >I have watched the replay a billion times and trust me, that one handed
: >his stick at all. Perhaps you could try it on someone else.
: I would like to try it on YOU.
: Obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about.
: Even a slight slash in the right spot can cause immense
: pain.
: >There is no
: >way Kovalev could have gone down like that. What proves my point is that
: >in the later period, he came back and score and set up a goal.
: No, this just once again proves your ignorance.
: Pain can be treated, it can come and go depending on the injury.
: >Surprising
: >don't you think. If a player is injured in a play, trust me, there is no
: >way he'll be back for a period or even the whole game.
: Why we should trust you ? My expereince points to the contrary.
: It all depends on the kind of the injury.
: You are clueless.
: Michael.
yeah...the idiot came back and score a goal...you telling me that he's
injured??? You don't have to trust me but I'm sure alot of people would
agree with me.
LY...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
::There is only one thing I despise more in hockey than a cheap shot and that's
::a fake. Kovalev is a fake and a disgrace to the game.
Who the fuck are you to judge whether Kovalev faked his injury. I love it when
a bunch of loud mouths can sit from behind a computer screen and judge players
on the ice. I saw the welt that Kovalev received from the slash. If you had
that welt you would be crying for weeks, and not back on the ice two shifts
later. Why don't we save our judgements for our own lives and take a look at
what happened on the ice, which is a referee fucking up a second time after
panicing because of his first fuck up.
-----------Gene
Mikhail V. Solodov
> hro...@unixg.ubc.ca (Hiew Roger Tse Wei) writes:
>>I don't think there should have been a call. I think it was a pretty good
>>acting job by Kovalev. I've watched that replay a billion times and that
>>wasn't a slash, perhaps just a tap. Want prove, well he came back and
>>play the rest of the game right? He score and setup a goal right?
>That's your proof? Since when are players injured in a hockey game not
>allowed to come back? The replays that I remember seeing were all in
>slow motion. Of course it's not going to look as bad then. Remember
>also that Kovalev was gone for the rest of the period and didn't even
>come out of the lockerroom until a few minutes had passed in the
>third. Sounds like a lot to go through once the call had already been
>made.
Oh, finally some sane commments on this incident !
The "proofs" people post here are just laughable.
>If anyone here is a pussy it's all the people whining about how that
>one call cost Quebec the series. Get real. Have you no more respect
>for your team than count them out after a bad break? If one call
>causes a team to lose, then I don't think they deserve to win in
>the first place. Note, this is not how I feel about Quebec, but it's
>the impression i'm getting from their fans.
Yup. I like Quebec too, but they have nobody to blame but
themselves. They were outplayed for all but
a total of 3-4 periods over 5 games so far.
Michael.
Mikhail V. Solodov
>I was hit like Kovalev once and it hurt like hell. Kovalev was wearing an
>extended vest in yesterday's game due to his injured back. Anyone who wield his
>stick like that should recognize it potential hazards. That swing did have the
>force to knock him over. The region it hit is the "soft spot" between the pants
>and shoulder pads. If you play the game you know where I'm referring to. The
>back is a sensitive area. The stick can be a weapon. Mix the two and very
>serious injuries can result. That was a flagrant hit on Kovalev. It was un-
>called for. And it should have been called.
You are absolutely right.
I'd bet that all the losers that jumped on Kovalev never
played competitive sports at any reasonable level.
Their comments expose their ignorance beyound any doubt.
Michael.
Bryan Smale
John-Andrew Murphy <JMUR...@vma.cc.nd.edu> wrote:
>I was hit like Kovalev once and it hurt like hell. Kovalev was wearing an
>stick like that should recognize it potential hazards. That swing did have
>and shoulder pads. If you play the game you know where I'm referring to. The
>back is a sensitive area. The stick can be a weapon. Mix the two and very
>serious injuries can result. That was a flagrant hit on Kovalev. It was un-
>called for. And it should have been called.
I tend to agree that a penalty should have been called for the
slash. Nevertheless, it wasn't and the goal should have counted.
Whether or not Kovalev was seriously hurt on the play is really
irrelevant. Van Hellemond judged him not to be, allowed the play
to continue with the intent of whistled the play dead when the
Rangers regained possession of the puck. After Sakic scored, he
second-guessed his own judgement after the fact and then made
his feeble "the whistle had blown" excuse.
Bryan
sonny hays-eberts
> First of all I would like to state that I am neither a Ranger nor a
> Nordique fan, so my opinion on this matter is totally unbiased. Here is
> my opinion:
proof of the old saying that opinions are like assholes. everybodys got
one, and this one stinks.
>
> ALEXI KOVALEV IS A PUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> (That may not be the correct spelling of his name, but I don`t care)
oh, is that right ellen collie? it may not be spelled right, but i don't
care.
> I have just witnessed this guy laying on the ice as if he were dead,
> and costing the Nordiques a goal by doing so.Perhaps if he were
> actually injured it would be a different story.He`ll be back before the
> game is over, flying around the ice and will probably score a hat-trick
> and beat the Nords 3-2.This is not the way sports were meant to be
> played.Pretending to be injured is not a defensive strategy.Kovalev has
> no pride and is a disgrace to sports. HE IS A PUSSY!
i'm far from a rangers fan - i root for the islanders and i think kovalev
is more than a little lax with his stick on occasion. i'm rooting for the
nordiques, or whoever plays the rangers, but this comment of yours is
pathetic. kovalev is wearing a flack jacket to protect the welt he
suffered. he's received quite a few cheap shots this series, remember the
elbow wendell sent his way?
the only pussy-like quality being displayed is yours, for demeaning a
player who took a hit that would probably have felled you like a cheap game
animal. it's easy to sit on your fat lard ass and criticize somebody who
plays. you're a joke.
--
like the forest's fight for sunlight, it takes root in every tree
pulled upwards by the magnet, believing they are free
-- genesis
sonny hays-eberts
ebe...@oregon.uoregon.edu
Eric Masson
Chuck Penfold <bx...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>VanHellemond, he`s embarassed not only himself but the league. He`s lost
>any credibility he may have had. I`m not a Quebec fan, but I`d like to
>hear some opinions from Quebec on this one... are the Rangers being just
>slightly favoured because the big apple is such a big market, while Quebec
>is small and French?
It was a mistake by the ref. Nothing more. Van Hellemond let his sense of
not wanting to put a team out of the game take over his proper judgement
of the play. Had the Nordiques been trailing by two and the Rangers
scored the goal in Quebec then the same type of situation would have arisen.
This is probably what happens when you want to preserve your reputation of
being a ref which is transparent and has little influence on the score sheet.
Little did he know that it would have become the winning goal of the game.
C'est la vie.
John-Andrew Murphy
stick like that should recognize it potential hazards. That swing did have the
force to knock him over. The region it hit is the "soft spot" between the pants
Gamble Samuel C
I've seem him pull that act many times. Campbell should do to Kovalev to
what they did to Lemieux in Montreal: Next time he pulls one of his fake
stunts, don't send the trainer out; wait till he pulls his whining ass
off the ice.
Kovalev is the author of the worst dive in history: when he played in the
World Juniors and someone barely touched him on the skate, and he pulled
a routine even worse than the other night.
He is not necessarily a pussy, just a big fat weenie.
Sam.
*********************************************************************
Sam Gamble DUKE BLUE DEVILS RULE 4s...@qlink.queensu.ca
Queen's Commerce '97 ac...@freenet.carleton.ca
*********************************************************************
Eric Masson
>::There is only one thing I despise more in hockey than a cheap shot and that's
>::a fake. Kovalev is a fake and a disgrace to the game.
>::Eric
>Who the fuck are you to judge whether Kovalev faked his injury.
ooooooooohhhhh... I'm scared now.
>I love it when a bunch of loud mouths can sit from behind a computer screen
>and judge players on the ice.
Speaking of loud mouths I would strongly recommend you look into
a mirror sometime soon. At least my arguments aren't based on
swearing and expletives. I base my argument on the fact that I
saw a grown man with the physique of an NHL player take an obvious
dive after a light tap on his back. But you sound too rabid a
partisan to ever admit to that.
Meanwhile Kovalev was mocked on several TV channels for his poor
acting talents. So are you going to write to every TV channel
and ask them who the hell they are to laugh at your precious
little Kovalev ...? I don't think so.
As long as there are fans to the game there will be judgements made
on the players, analysis of games, etc. The players get
paid and we pay to watch and talk about it. Don't jump on your high
horse when you don't like the judgement.
If you don't like comments from people that weren't on the ice then
why don't listen to the people that were on the ice then. The Nords
and Crawford are pretty much calling Kovalev a fake and there aren't
too many Rangers to defend him.
Unless his team has the puck the ref is supposed to call a play stoppage
only if an injured player is an emergency situation (an injury like
Malarchuk's a few years back would require such action). Kovalev was
in no state of emergency but he faked so much that Van Hellemond thought he
was. That is the extent to which the theatrics went. To this day I've never
seen a player in an emergency situation come back to finish a game.
Especially not two shifts later as you put it.
>I saw the welt that Kovalev received from the slash.
If Kovalev has a welt on his back then it is from something
else. The hit he got is no where near what you'd get from your
regular NHL bodycheck. I guess he doesn't dive as much on those because
they don't draw the penalties as he would hope for.
LY...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
::yeah...the idiot came back and score a goal...you telling me that he's
::injured??? You don't have to trust me but I'm sure alot of people would
::agree with me.
notorious for coming back after injuries. I remember one player (I don't
remember the player, but I remember the story on all the newscasts) who
fractured his shoulder. He lay on the ice for about 15 minutes, and eventually
continued to play. He had a fractured shoulder and played for a period and a
half, and then sat our for about 6 weeks. Players are constantly getting hurt,
stiched up and come back to play.
You all despise Kovalev cause he is outplaying your Sakics, Nolans and Clarks
by a mile, and are jumping on this chance to trash him. Why don't you jump on
the Nordicks for being such pussy cheap shot artists, and using intimidation
rather than skill, especially Clark? Why doesn't he elbow Kocur or Graves. I
think we found the realy Pussy.
-------------------Gene
LY...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
::>Who the fuck are you to judge whether Kovalev faked his injury.
::ooooooooohhhhh... I'm scared now.
::Speaking of loud mouths I would strongly recommend you look into
::a mirror sometime soon. At least my arguments aren't based on
::swearing and expletives. I base my argument on the fact that I
::saw a grown man with the physique of an NHL player take an obvious
::dive after a light tap on his back. But you sound too rabid a
::partisan to ever admit to that.
based on ingnorant observation. Learn the game, than open your flap.
::Unless his team has the puck the ref is supposed to call a play stoppage
::only if an injured player is an emergency situation (an injury like
::Malarchuk's a few years back would require such action). Kovalev was
::in no state of emergency but he faked so much that Van Hellemond thought he
::was. That is the extent to which the theatrics went. To this day I've never
::seen a player in an emergency situation come back to finish a game.
::Especially not two shifts later as you put it.
with nothing to go on but "there is no way he could have gone down on that
light tap. Get a fucking clue.
::>I saw the welt that Kovalev received from the slash.
::If Kovalev has a welt on his back then it is from something
::else. The hit he got is no where near what you'd get from your
head swinging slash on the very spot of the welt. Silly me.
Eric is the type of person he really loves his own voice, but since noone will
listen to him, he uses a computer, where noone can shut him up. Just because
you yell loud, doesn't mean your making any sense. But man you must be spitting
all over your monitor.
------------------------------Gene
Eric Masson
>::Speaking of loud mouths I would strongly recommend you look into
>::a mirror sometime soon. At least my arguments aren't based on
>::swearing and expletives. I base my argument on the fact that I
>::saw a grown man with the physique of an NHL player take an obvious
>::dive after a light tap on his back.
>Eric, your coming this close to saying I'm rubber your glue. Your "fact" is
>based on ingnorant observation. Learn the game, than open your flap.
Every "fact" in this universe is based on observation or a set
of axioms on which you have to define your basis for logic. But that is
probably beyond you. Secondly you don't need to be an NHL pro to realize that
a player is faking as you don't need to be an actor to know an actor is acting.
In fact you don't even need to be an actor to act, just look at the Kovalev
tape. The only difference is that the performance may not be as good as
that of a trained actor. My evidence stems from seeing a man fall as if hit
by a Mack truck after being lightly hit by a stick. All this while he is
normally capable of withstanding much harder hits during the normal
course of a game. Furthermore, as many other posters have pointed out, this
is not the first time Kovalev is caught in a controversial situation in
which he is accused of faking. So there is precedent to this accusation.
Finally many paid hockey analysts have pointed out Kovalev's blatant fake
based on the same replays as I have. Are you about to call their observation
ignorant as well ? Finally you have no justification to your claim of
ignorance. You have no idea of what I know and do not know about hockey and
the experience I have playing it.
Your rebuttal consists of insulting me, swearing and calling me ignorant
instead of presenting arguments and observations of your own. Now who
doesn't know how to properly construct an argument and case for himself ?
>::Unless his team has the puck the ref is supposed to call a play stoppage
>::only if an injured player is an emergency situation (an injury like
>::Malarchuk's a few years back would require such action). Kovalev was
>::in no state of emergency but he faked so much that Van Hellemond thought he
>::was. That is the extent to which the theatrics went. To this day I've never
>::seen a player in an emergency situation come back to finish a game.
>::Especially not two shifts later as you put it.
>I'm not disputing that. I have a problem with your yelling about him faking
>with nothing to go on but "there is no way he could have gone down on that
>light tap. Get a fucking clue.
Glad you are not disputing that. It's just part of my observation based
on experience. Since you don't dispute it then should I assume you agree ?
Based on your logic one would always have to give the benefit of the doubt
to someone faking and ultimately no one could be labelled as a faker. If you
take this concept further you wouldn't be able to prove anything about
anything since nothing can be established with a complete certainty. I'm
not willing to accept such utopy as a practical system of determining things.
Based on precedents of other incidents, Kovalev's history involving similar
incidents and accusations, the similar opinions expressed by qualified NHL
analysts, the tape showing a guy barely hit and falling with a delayed
reaction with his skates giving under him, etc. I assess that Kovalev was
faking. If you don't like it and wish to argue with me about it then
refute my points with observations of your own.
Salut,
Garry Holmen
: Neither am I a Rangjerk nor Nodick fan. But, what do you suppose to
: do when you got whacked in the back like that? I think he was in pain.
: Look at the replay; he didn't see how he got hit (he was skating away).
: I think Andy Van Hellemond sucked a major one. Kovalev was controlling
: the puck at the time he was slashed, only gave up the puck when he was
: down.
Well he's the first guy I've seen to get a minor one handed slash in the
middle of the back and not get up from it. Though I give the coach credit
for sending him to the dressing room. That probably convinced Van Hellemond
to make his bizarre ruling.
Of course New York probably had some massage therapists work on him for
10 minutes just so he could return in the second period and skate like
his back wasn't bothering him. (Do I really have to add smiley faces here)
While not being a Nordique nor a Ranger fan I thought Andy made a bad call
and I thought the Nordiques showed their lack of maturity when they fell
apart afterwards... refs make bad calls but you can't blame the loss of
a game on that. Great teams win regardless...
But it doesn't eliminate that terrible call (no penalty, no whistle) which
brought back that goal. Anyone defending that call or Kovalev's acting
job is just showing how ignorant they are about the game.
Garry
LY...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
::Every "fact" in this universe is based on observation or a set
::of axioms on which you have to define your basis for logic. But that is
you haven't come close to providing anything of the sort.
::Finally many paid hockey analysts have pointed out Kovalev's blatant fake
::based on the same replays as I have. Are you about to call their observation
::ignorant as well ? Finally you have no justification to your claim of
::ignorance. You have no idea of what I know and do not know about hockey and
::the experience I have playing it.
Can we say "slow motion." You have no way of knowing how hard or soft that
slash was from your tv screen. Your offering nothing to prove how soft the
slash was. I saw with my own eyes the welt on his back (on one of the local
tv news broadcasts). It was red, swollen and rather large, and he is forced
to wear some jammy to protect that area. If you played any physical sport,
you would know what that means. That was a major league slash, and he has the
welt to prove it. Can we say "proof."
Your rebuttal consists of insulting me, swearing and calling me ignorant
instead of presenting arguments and observations of your own. Now who
doesn't know how to properly construct an argument and case for himself ?
medicine. I'm doing to you exactly what your doing to Kovalev. Except your
stating your opinions as fact and he's not around to dispute them.
::Glad you are not disputing that. It's just part of my observation based
::on experience. Since you don't dispute it then should I assume you agree ?
::Based on your logic one would always have to give the benefit of the doubt
::to someone faking and ultimately no one could be labelled as a faker. If you
::take this concept further you wouldn't be able to prove anything about
::anything since nothing can be established with a complete certainty. I'm
::not willing to accept such utopy as a practical system of determining things.
::Based on precedents of other incidents, Kovalev's history involving similar
::incidents and accusations, the similar opinions expressed by qualified NHL
::analysts, the tape showing a guy barely hit and falling with a delayed
::reaction with his skates giving under him, etc. I assess that Kovalev was
::faking. If you don't like it and wish to argue with me about it then
::refute my points with observations of your own.
the argument at hand, because you have nothing to substantiate it by. Try
using logic rather than talking about it. Maybe than you'll see the light.
--------------------Gene
Eric Masson
>::Every "fact" in this universe is based on observation or a set
>::of axioms on which you have to define your basis for logic. But that is
>Fact is not mererly based on observation. Fact is based on proven theory, and
>you haven't come close to providing anything of the sort.
Go reread your science and philosophy books. Perhaps you'll have less
certainty about your "proven theories" which are adopted on the basis
of observations or axioms. Taken to the extent at which you want to dismiss
any evidence presented you'll never be able to show anything about anything
(including this statement). The practicality of that won't get you very far.
>::Finally many paid hockey analysts have pointed out Kovalev's blatant fake
>::based on the same replays as I have. Are you about to call their observation
>::ignorant as well ? Finally you have no justification to your claim of
>::ignorance. You have no idea of what I know and do not know about hockey and
>::the experience I have playing it.
>You said yourself that all these comments are based on the instant replay.
>Can we say "slow motion." You have no way of knowing how hard or soft that
>slash was from your tv screen.
Several of these replays were at full action speed so that we may hear
the whistle way after the play terminates. But indeed I've also seen
it in slow motion in addition to the actual game. Visual information
is the best information we have to determine that a player is faking.
Furthermore that was not the only point I brought up on Kovalev.
If you are willing to dismiss any visual witness to the event because he or
she is an observer then there isn't much I can do to convince you.
How else would you determine that a player is faking ? Why do NHL refs asses
penalties ? Afterall they are mere observers themselves. Why can
Burke suspend any player when most of the evidence he ever gets to see
comes on tape ? Why do you believe in anything ? Any external info you gain
is via observation or sensing.
In fact why are we arguing ? Since we only observed the game we shouldn't
use as a reason to determine it really occurred. If you want to take
the discussion to a philosophical level then please do so by yourself.
What I wish to talk about is hockey and a strongly built athlete who took
a blatant dive after a small tap on his back and to which many witnesses can
corroborate.
>::Based on precedents of other incidents, Kovalev's history involving similar
>::incidents and accusations, the similar opinions expressed by qualified NHL
>::analysts, the tape showing a guy barely hit and falling with a delayed
>::reaction with his skates giving under him, etc. I assess that Kovalev was
>::faking.
>You talk a lot of crock, but what your trying to do is divert attention from
>the argument at hand, because you have nothing to substantiate it by.
Read my above paragraph which summarizes my thoughts on the incident. There
is no diversion in my arguments. I'm not the one diverting the
discussion to a philosophical stance which does not recognise the validity
of visual information.
Michael J. Ronemus
: Fact is not mererly based on observation. Fact is based on proven theory, and
: you [Eric M.] haven't come close to providing anything of the sort.
If "theory" were "proven" (by "facts," presumably), it wouldn't be
"theory," would it?
: You have no way of knowing how hard or soft that slash was from your tv
: screen.
[someone else wrote]
: :: ...the similar opinions expressed by qualified NHL analysts, the tape
: :: showing a guy barely hit and falling with a delayed reaction with his
: :: skates giving under him, etc. I assess that Kovalev was faking.
That's how it looked to me, too. Swing, contact, delay....sack of potatoes
collapsing onto the ice. It clearly wasn't the force of the blow that
sent Kovalev diving. Even if the welt is "evidence" Kovalev wasn't
faking, waving off the goal was incorrect -- van Hellemond didn't see the
"injury" and blew the whistle after the goal was scored.
: You [Eric M.] talk a lot of crock, but what your [sic] trying to do is divert
: attention from the argument at hand, because you have nothing to substantiate
: it by.
The first phrase is certainly true, but he certainly has no less evidence
than you do. A few things to keep in mind: 1.) The series is over; the
Nords were clearly outplayed. 2.) Wolanin's slash was an extremely stupid
move. 3.) van Hellemond blew the call -- Bettman publicly admitted it
yesterday. 4.) (my personal opinion) Kovalev is a wuss/diver. I can't
wait to see Lindros incorporate him into the Spectrum's boards.
Please let this thread die.
*******************************************************************************
Michael J. Ronemus | "In all unimportant matters, style, not
Department of Biology | sincerity, is the essential. In all
Yale University | important matters, style, not sincerity, is
ron...@minerva.cis.yale.edu | the essential." --Oscar Wilde
*******************************************************************************
Mikhail V. Solodov
[stuff deleted]
The person you respond to cited a TV news report that showed
a bad welt on Kovalev's back. Why you delete this without any
comment ? This is a stronger piece of evidence than you visual
observation, is it not ? At least say something. Like that
the welt is not real. Then we can all laugh at you.
Michael.
David DeWayne Bricker
Is this the way it had to be for the refs to call a penalty. Is this the
way it should be in the NHL? No injury no foul?
In a previous article, ga...@mda.ca (Garry Holmen) says:
>
>Ooohhhh.... a welt.... the way he was writhing on the ground I thought it
>was some serious injury. Maybe it was a laceration? A gruesome gouge?
>Perhaps a broken vertabrae... but now I know it's a welt.
>Garry
>
>
vukad...@stan.brandonu.ca
Maybe it was a penalty, maybe not; but what is one to make of
NHL officiating if calls are made in retrospect? It was
certainly clear from the replays that the whistle blew
well after the puck had gone in the net. That is the main
point here.
As far as Kovalev goes, I think he dived. I don't expect
the ref's to be absolutely right on each and every call.
I do expect them, however, to stick by their decision.
I've seen lot's calls made that I've considered bad, but
I've never seen an NHL referee reverse his decision until
now. It's van Hellemond who disgusts me far more than Kovalev.
For the record, I'm neither Ranger nor Nordique fan.
Regards,
Danny
Mikhail V. Solodov
>: a bad welt on Kovalev's back. Why you delete this without any
>: comment ? This is a stronger piece of evidence than you visual
>: observation, is it not ? At least say something. Like that
>: the welt is not real. Then we can all laugh at you.
>never put on an act like that.
In case you don't know, it is possible to inflict a serious
injury by hitting in the right spot without leaving any welt at all.
(if you know anything about martial arts, you'd agree).
This not to say how much the guy was hurt. I do not know.
You do not know either.
This remark is merely to show that your logic is bogus.
Michael.
Garry Holmen
: The person you respond to cited a TV news report that showed
: a bad welt on Kovalev's back. Why you delete this without any
: comment ? This is a stronger piece of evidence than you visual
: observation, is it not ? At least say something. Like that
: the welt is not real. Then we can all laugh at you.
Ooohhhh.... a welt.... the way he was writhing on the ground I thought it
was some serious injury. Maybe it was a laceration? A gruesome gouge?
Perhaps a broken vertabrae... but now I know it's a welt.
Good thing I wasn't looking for Kovalev's obit in the New York papers....
I can't even count the number of welts I've gotten playing hockey. And I've
never put on an act like that.
Garry
Garry Holmen
: Is this the way it had to be for the refs to call a penalty. Is this the
: way it should be in the NHL? No injury no foul?
No but no penalty was called here....
I just think that some fans should realize :
a) small taps and slashes occur all the time in hockey.
b) players take dives in hockey
c) dives do not indicate injuries nor penalties
d) any player diving and giving up the puck for an offensive zone
rush in the playoffs isn't doing their team any favours.
Garry
Andrew Fruman
the incident . . .
Accusing Kovalev of faking is both ignorant and childish. Accusing him
of pretending to be hurt to prevent Quebec from scoring is positively
stupid. When he went down, he was in possession of the puck - how could
he have foreseen the Quebec rush?
I think that I am alone in saying that not only should Van Hellemond not
have been punished by the NHL, but he should be commended. He did
exactly the right thing. If he had seen the incident from a good angle,
then I hope that he would have called a penalty. He apparently did not
see the slash and decided to let the play go on until Quebec lost the
puck (despite the apparent injury) as is customary. When they scored (a
particularly mediocre goal, by the way), he had a problem. He could not,
in good conscience, allow the goal because that would reward a team for
using severely dishonest tactics (I've never seen a penalty killing
technique that involves taking an overhand swing at an opposing player's
back!). The only excuse he could give was that Zubov had touched the
puck, and that he blew the whistle. While in my opinion this was just an
excuse, it allowed him to veil his decision behind an acceptable ruling.
His purpose, as I see it, was to nullify the goal without a penalty
because (and anybody who disagrees with this is lying to themselves) THE
MOST UNFAIR OUTCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN A NORDIQUE GOAL!!! The Nordiques
protest shows no dignity. Knowing the facts, they cannot claim to
deserve a goal, but would have benefitted from a horrible call. I can
just imagine the controversy that would have resulted if the goal had
stood and the Nordiques went on to win 3-2.
My complaint is with the media treatment of the incident (at least in
Canada). The only player who was at fault in the play is Craig Wolanin,
and not once was his name mentioned as a culprit. Alexei Kovalev did
nothing wrong, but has been villanized and victimized countless times in
puns, and sarcastic remarks, and condescending asides. I will quote Dick
Irvin Jr.: "They were going to have an award ceremony before [game 4] to
award Alexei Kovalev a gold medal for diving." This is an extremely
juvenile thing for a man of his years to say in public. In the next
game, Bob Bassen hurt himself running into the boards. Irvin then said:
"And you know when Bob Bassen goes down that he's hurt." In the final
game, Chris Simon hit Nick Kypreos into the boards from behind, and
Kypreos lay motionless. John Garrett (I think) said "You know that Nick
Kypreos is not faking" ---- Kypreos didn't miss a shift.
My conclusion is clear . . . when a European player is hurt, and returns,
he was obviously faking injury. When a Canadian is hurt, and returns, he
was hurt, but is bravely playing through the pain.
Two afterthoughts . . .
1) In the final minutes of game 7 of the Pittsburgh-Washington series,
with the Capitals' net empty, Kjell Samuelsson slashed Peter Bondra in
the mid-section. Bondra went down but play continued. As Pittsburgh
advanced the puck up ice (to score the icing goal), Koharski blew the
whistle. I wonder if he will be formally and publicly reprimanded by the
league?
By the way, Kjell and Peter exchanged a few words during the handshakes
(pleasant ones I think).
2) In the final two games of the Quebec series, I never saw any part of
Kovalev's body touch the ice besides his skateblades. I saw many
floundering Nordiques defensemen on the ice who could not stop him. He
was unquestionably the best player in the series, but was never
acknowleged as such by HNIC. They are a racist production, and firing
Don Cherry would be hypocritical.
Thanks for reading ...
Mark Fruman (my brother's account)
Gary Singbeil
much saying Kovelevs a pussy DON"T YOU THINK?!!!
--
singg
Eric Masson
> The person you respond to cited a TV news report that showed
> a bad welt on Kovalev's back. Why you delete this without any
> comment ?
I did comment in my previous to last post. Perhaps you don't remember it
since it dates from the previous day. If you check the indentations on that
specific part you'll realize that this welt business originated from the
second to last post of the originator. Anyhow I don't recall a TV station
mentionned on his part but that might be my memory failing me.
> This is a stronger piece of evidence than you visual
> observation, is it not ?
Well, who else has seen this welt ? Have you ? Your comments give me
no indication of that. Please tell me when and where if you did. I watch
a great deal of hockey news and I haven't seen it nor have the people I talk
to. It is certainly unwise and untypical of NHL players to parade an injury
for everyone to see when they can easily avoid doing so (let alone
measure it). A city's TV channel with time or newspaper plus date which
substantiates the claim would be most welcome. My observations are based on
imagery shown across Canadian stations (and US sports networks as I understand
it) and a great many other people have seen it.
But IF indeed the welt has been shown then I'm much more inclined
believe that a good body check can cause a welt as opposed to a
mere tap. These players have many bruises and welts because
of the constant contacts they receive. Bruise or not that tap was no reason for
Kovalev sprawling all over the ice for that long. You'd think he was mortally
wounded out there by looking at him. If such a hit hurt him that much then
the poor man must be in excruciating pain each time he receives your
regular but much more violent NHL hit. Surprising he doesn't have more of
these near death experiences. He did it to get the ref's attention and
it worked.
Salut,
Eric
David DeWayne Bricker
In a previous article, ga...@mda.ca (Garry Holmen) says:
>I just think that some fans should realize :
>
>a) small taps and slashes occur all the time in hockey.
What makes you so sure this was a small tap? All of the replays were in
slow motion and they can't really show the viciousness of the hit but
they do show a penalty. Some people have claimed seeing news reports
where they showed a welt on Kovalev's back. Now would a small tap do
that? I think not.
>d) any player diving and giving up the puck for an offensive zone
> rush in the playoffs isn't doing their team any favours.
Doesn't this maybe tell you that it wasn't a complete dive? Why would a
player in that situation make a dive and give up control of the puck?
OK, you say that there was no penalty called, and there was no goal
either. I guess things evened themselves out.
Eric Masson
Andrew Fruman <air...@idirect.com> wrote:
>Accusing Kovalev of faking is both ignorant and childish.
Huh, huh. So you've never seen a faker right ? Otherwise, well you know, you'd
be both ... and ... (insert your favourite insults at the ...). I think what
Kovalev pulled on the ice is an insult to the fans of the game. He had no
reason to play dead on that play when all he got was a mere tap on his
back.
>Accusing him
>of pretending to be hurt to prevent Quebec from scoring is positively
>stupid. When he went down, he was in possession of the puck - how could
>he have foreseen the Quebec rush?
He was not in the least precarious of situations and the Sakic play proved
that. Check the replay again. The guy was skating against his own team and
about to go through his last line of defense.
>I think that I am alone in saying that not only should Van Hellemond not
>have been punished by the NHL, but he should be commended.
I'm glad the NHL and many other hockey experts don't think like you do on this
one. It was a clear violation of ethics on Van Hellemond's part and he got
fined for it.
>He did
>exactly the right thing. If he had seen the incident from a good angle,
>then I hope that he would have called a penalty. He apparently did not
>see the slash and decided to let the play go on until Quebec lost the
>puck (despite the apparent injury) as is customary.
The only thing Quebec lost the puck to was the Ranger net. The Rangers
never had control of that puck.
>When they scored (a
>particularly mediocre goal, by the way), he had a problem. He could not,
>in good conscience, allow the goal because that would reward a team for
>using severely dishonest tactics
But you have stated above that Van Hellemond did not see the play...
So how did he now that Quebec used "severely dishonest tactics" as you put it?
By this logic any player seeing a breakaway against his team can take
a dive while the ref is not looking in the hope that the ref will
disallow a potential goal on "severely dishonest tactics".
>While in my opinion this was just an
>excuse, it allowed him to veil his decision behind an acceptable ruling.
As a hockey fans I don't want excuses I want correct rulings. Two wrongs don't
make a right.
>His purpose, as I see it, was to nullify the goal without a penalty
>because (and anybody who disagrees with this is lying to themselves) THE
>MOST UNFAIR OUTCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN A NORDIQUE GOAL!!!
Rationalizations and justifications are no alternative to the proper call.
At least Van Hellemond never came with such lame arguments for his decision.
Otherwise he'd be out of a job.
>The Nordiques protest shows no dignity.
I don't think the Nords put a protest on the game. You can't do that in the
NHL unless some specific conditions are met. I think the Nords simply made
a complaint on which Bettman was prompt to react. That's what I've heard
the GM of the Nords say on RDS.
>My complaint is with the media treatment of the incident (at least in
>Canada). The only player who was at fault in the play is Craig Wolanin,
>and not once was his name mentioned as a culprit. Alexei Kovalev did
>nothing wrong,
He faked.
>but has been villanized and victimized countless times in
>puns, and sarcastic remarks, and condescending asides. I will quote Dick
>Irvin Jr.: "They were going to have an award ceremony before [game 4] to
>award Alexei Kovalev a gold medal for diving." This is an extremely
>juvenile thing for a man of his years to say in public. In the next
>game, Bob Bassen hurt himself running into the boards. Irvin then said:
>"And you know when Bob Bassen goes down that he's hurt." In the final
>game, Chris Simon hit Nick Kypreos into the boards from behind, and
>Kypreos lay motionless. John Garrett (I think) said "You know that Nick
>Kypreos is not faking" ---- Kypreos didn't miss a shift.
>My conclusion is clear . . . when a European player is hurt, and returns,
>he was obviously faking injury. When a Canadian is hurt, and returns, he
>was hurt, but is bravely playing through the pain.
Some of the greatest divers in the history of the game have been
known to be Canadian (both French and English). Do the names Bill Barber
and Claude Lemieux mean anything to you ? Don't try to make this a racist
issue when it isn't. I couldn't care less if Kovalev's was actually
Jean LaFramboise and so do most Canadians.
>2) In the final two games of the Quebec series, I never saw any part of
>Kovalev's body touch the ice besides his skateblades. I saw many
>floundering Nordiques defensemen on the ice who could not stop him. He
>was unquestionably the best player in the series, but was never
>acknowleged as such by HNIC. They are a racist production, and firing
>Don Cherry would be hypocritical.
Don Cherry has made racist comments and I don't like his comments very
much. I've expressed my views on this several times in the past.
I'd certainly wish he'd leave Pavel Bure alone and would drop the Pepsi
center type of comments. But on the other hand I've never heard
Dick Irvin Jr. make a racist comment.
Kovalev is no position to fall for an invalid reason right now. His coach
have probably warned him that he no longer has the benefit of the doubt on
his side.
There were several comments on HNIC about Kovalev putting the Nords to sleep
with his fast skating. Nemchinov was also praised beyond his mates.
I watch most of my hockey mostly in French on TQS, SRC, RDS where European
players get great coverage. Guys like Forsberg, Jagr, etc. get immense
praise (perhaps because Quebec prefers a more open and offensive brand of
hockey as opposed to the rest of Canada which produces a better tight checking
game. But look at where that leads Quebec in the Memorial Cup...). Guys like
Tretiak achieved god like status around here and he is even a spokesperson for
one our nation's most successful companies. Anyway, Nemchinov got praised
greatly during the series for being the guy assigned Sakic and yet scoring
more points than him ! Forsberg was recognised as an offensive powerhouse
during the series. Kovalev was recognised for excellent play as well.
Kamiensky was criticized for arguing with his coach and Kovalenko was a ghost.
Canadian players got criticism during the series (Clark for taking too long
to show up, Sakic for being sporadic, and Lefebvre for coughing up on serious
goals). Very objective reporting if you ask me. But Kovalev's dive certainly
did not receive sympathy to say the least...
>Thanks for reading ...
The same to you.
Alex Du
>In article <Edda1995May19...@news.compulink.com>,
>Andrew Fruman <air...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
>>My conclusion is clear . . . when a European player is hurt, and returns,
>>he was obviously faking injury. When a Canadian is hurt, and returns, he
>>was hurt, but is bravely playing through the pain.
I don't think that announcers and others would think that Lemieux is bravely
playing through pain. But consider the rich tradition in faking and overacting pain
that comes from European soccer. Once it is in your psyche as an acceptable
means to influence the referees, then it applies in any sport you play.
>
>Some of the greatest divers in the history of the game have been
>known to be Canadian (both French and English). Do the names Bill Barber
>and Claude Lemieux mean anything to you ? Don't try to make this a racist
>issue when it isn't. I couldn't care less if Kovalev's was actually
>Jean LaFramboise and so do most Canadians.
>
You couldn't make this a racist issue even if you tried. If you agree that there are
such things as races in the first place, then Kovalev and Lemieux are of the same
race. Where they differ is in culture and ethnicity. Do not confuse race with these
two concepts. They are distinct and different. Race has to do with physical
appearance and not culture or ethnicity.
Andrew Fruman
>But you have stated above that Van Hellemond did not see the play...
>So how did he now that Quebec used "severely dishonest tactics" as you put it?
>By this logic any player seeing a breakaway against his team can take
>a dive while the ref is not looking in the hope that the ref will
>disallow a potential goal on "severely dishonest tactics".
That is a fair comment. I meant that he didn't see the slash from a good angle. When he
realized that it had hurt Kovalev, he couldn't let the play stand. I cannot speak for Van
Hellemond, and if he has admitted making a mistake, then I have given him too much credit.
>I don't think the Nords put a protest on the game. You can't do that in the
>NHL unless some specific conditions are met. I think the Nords simply made
>a complaint on which Bettman was prompt to react. That's what I've heard
>the GM of the Nords say on RDS.
It was my understanding that they formally protested, but any complaint shows no maturity. The
foul was committed by one of their players, and they were fortunate to escape a penalty.
>Some of the greatest divers in the history of the game have been
>known to be Canadian (both French and English). Do the names Bill Barber
>and Claude Lemieux mean anything to you ? Don't try to make this a racist
>issue when it isn't. I couldn't care less if Kovalev's was actually
>Jean LaFramboise and so do most Canadians.
This is very definitely a racist issue. Since you (to your credit, I think) watch HNIC (or
SHEC?) in French, you missed Irvin's comments, but there was no mistaking the implications.
Make no mistake, Don Cherry doesn't like French Canadian players either. Have you ever heard
him say "A good Montreal kid" (cf. A good B.C. boy, A good Brantford kid, etc.)
>There were several comments on HNIC about Kovalev putting the Nords to sleep
>with his fast skating. Nemchinov was also praised beyond his mates.
There were very few such comments (in English), and whatever was said was qualified by prefacing
it with "when he's not diving . . ." or "he had a bad game five . . . but". The fact that he
single handedly created a handful of magnificent chances, scoring twice (missing twice when in
alone - very unusual for him) was hardly noticed.
Also, when a player is described as skillful, its like saying he has a good personality. If
they wanted to acknowledge his skill, they would call him a good (great) hockey player. In
fact, they usually refer to skilled players who don't hit as "very skilled but . . ." and follow
with something like "not hard working" or "no leadership" or "can't play defense". If you doubt
the bias of the English Canadian media, then you are misreading their inuendo. If a media
personality said "dirty ______" and filled in any religious or racial (plus French) adjective,
they would be fired on the spot. Saying "dirty Swede/Russian/European" is acceptable because
the attitude is that they are outsiders and have their own media where they come from. When a
player is hired by an NHL team, I accept him as an individual performing in an independent
league - not an imported commodity.
>I watch most of my hockey mostly in French on TQS, SRC, RDS where European
>players get great coverage. Guys like Forsberg, Jagr, etc. get immense
>praise (perhaps because Quebec prefers a more open and offensive brand of
>hockey as opposed to the rest of Canada which produces a better tight checking
>game. But look at where that leads Quebec in the Memorial Cup...).
It is true that the French commentators appreciate skill more that the English thugs (and
dimwits). My French is not good enough to judge their intelligence, but their choice of
occupation puts them in very questionable company. I can infer enough bias from the French
broadcasts of Canadiens games on CBC radio (not supposed to be 'home-town') - "les tri-couleurs"
makes me cringe.
I wish Kovalev good luck in the remainder of the playoffs - a kid does not deserve to be made a
villain just for allegedly acting like a goalie (do they teach the flop in 'goalie school'). I
rarely witness dives (by anyone) which were not legitimate violations of the rules. It seems if
a player resists falling, taking himself out of the play, there is no chance of a penalty.
That is all.
Mark Fruman (brother's account)
LY...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
because a call was undeserved. This is from VanHells own mouth.
-------------Gene
LY...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
::ITS OVER LET IT GO!!! PS Vanhelleman admitted he made the wrong call pretty
::much saying Kovelevs a pussy DON"T YOU THINK?!!!
was blown after the puck was in the net, and that the call should have counted.
It says nothing about Kovalev's injury, so let's not put words in anybody's
mouth but our own.
------------Gene
Ian Maione
>the incident . . .
>
>stupid. When he went down, he was in possession of the puck - how could
>he have foreseen the Quebec rush?
>
I'm sorry, I don't agree. Sure, you're right that Kovalev could not
have anticipated the exact sequence of events that occurred, but that
doesn't change the fact that he went down and faked an injury to try to
draw a penalty. Aa it turned out, he got even luckier than that, and
prevented a goal. One need not consider anything else other than the fact
that he was out on the ensuing power play to know that this terrible
injury was nothing of the kind. Add to that Kovalev's history of pulling
this kind of dive, and the situation is pretty clear cut to me.
The antics of someone like Kovalev I think are bad for the NHL, because
hockey is a game in which players can and do get significant injuries
during play. Situations like the one in the Rangers series can happen, and
I think players should have the class not to pretend to be injured unless
they really are. That's sportsmanship, a quality which someone like
Kovalev does not possess.
>I think that I am alone in saying that not only should Van Hellemond not
>have been punished by the NHL, but he should be commended. He did
>exactly the right thing. If he had seen the incident from a good angle,
>then I hope that he would have called a penalty. He apparently did not
>see the slash and decided to let the play go on until Quebec lost the
>puck (despite the apparent injury) as is customary. When they scored (a
I don't know what was going on in Van Hellemond's mind, but I'd
guess he was trying to decide all the way down the ice whether to blow
the whistle for a player who almost certainly was not injured nearly as
badly as he was making out, and looking like an idiot. Then Quebec scored,
and he was in a real no-win situation.
>particularly mediocre goal, by the way), he had a problem. He could not,
What relevance does the "quality" of the goal have to do with anything?
Just because Healy played like a sieve on that goal doesn't mean the
Nordiques did anything wrong.
>in good conscience, allow the goal because that would reward a team for
>using severely dishonest tactics (I've never seen a penalty killing
>technique that involves taking an overhand swing at an opposing player's
>back!). The only excuse he could give was that Zubov had touched the
>puck, and that he blew the whistle. While in my opinion this was just an
>excuse, it allowed him to veil his decision behind an acceptable ruling.
> His purpose, as I see it, was to nullify the goal without a penalty
>because (and anybody who disagrees with this is lying to themselves) THE
>MOST UNFAIR OUTCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN A NORDIQUE GOAL!!! The Nordiques
Please. This sort of rationalization would be the furthest thing from
Van Hellemond's mind. Furthermore, it is not the referee's job to
decide what would have been "justified". His job is only to enforce the
rules as best he can, not make value judgements on who is right or wrong.
A referee who did think as you suggest *would* deserve to be fined and
disciplined.
>My complaint is with the media treatment of the incident (at least in
>Canada). The only player who was at fault in the play is Craig Wolanin,
>and not once was his name mentioned as a culprit. Alexei Kovalev did
>nothing wrong, but has been villanized and victimized countless times in
>puns, and sarcastic remarks, and condescending asides. I will quote Dick
Come on, this just isn't realistic. Wolanin is not blameless, and
probably desserved a penalty. However, Kovelev's actions were also
quite unsportsmanlike, and deserve to be comdemned. A slash is a slash,
but Kovalev's type of nonsense just opens a big can of worms for the
league if other players decide to start pulling this sort of nonsense to
draw penalties or stop opposing scoring rushes.
Ian
Percy Selorio
:
:
: ::yeah...the idiot came back and score a goal...you telling me that he's
: ::injured??? You don't have to trust me but I'm sure alot of people would
: ::agree with me.
:
: Your logic boggles. What game are you watching, baseball? Hockey players are
: notorious for coming back after injuries. I remember one player (I don't
: remember the player, but I remember the story on all the newscasts) who
: fractured his shoulder. He lay on the ice for about 15 minutes, and eventually
: continued to play. He had a fractured shoulder and played for a period and a
: half, and then sat our for about 6 weeks. Players are constantly getting hurt,
: stiched up and come back to play.
:
: by a mile, and are jumping on this chance to trash him. Why don't you jump on
: the Nordicks for being such pussy cheap shot artists, and using intimidation
: rather than skill, especially Clark? Why doesn't he elbow Kocur or Graves. I
: think we found the realy Pussy.
:
: -------------------Gene
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percy Selorio | "If we pick, do we not bleed?
Lowell Selorio | -Seinfeld
Lourdes Selorio | GO LEAFS GO!!! GO LEAFS GO!!! GO LEAFS GO!!!
pog...@interlog.com | GO JAYS GO!! GO JAYS GO! GO JAYS GO! GO JAYS GO!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garry Holmen
: In case you don't know, it is possible to inflict a serious
: injury by hitting in the right spot without leaving any welt at all.
: (if you know anything about martial arts, you'd agree).
: This not to say how much the guy was hurt. I do not know.
: You do not know either.
: This remark is merely to show that your logic is bogus.
I never knew Quebec was training their players in the Ninja style Mikhail...
My main point was that if Kovalev was seriously hurt (and he really looked
like it writhing on the ground) how could he come back and play in the
next period let alone on that power play?
Either it was a terrible slash that inflicted serious injury or it was
a minor slash played up to look like a major injury (although little
damage was caused.)
Kovalev playing in the next period kind of indicates the latter doesn't it?
Garry
Garry Holmen
: What makes you so sure this was a small tap? All of the replays were in
: slow motion and they can't really show the viciousness of the hit but
: they do show a penalty. Some people have claimed seeing news reports
: where they showed a welt on Kovalev's back. Now would a small tap do
: that? I think not.
Yes they can.... just get the stick across any unprotected region and it
will basically leave a welt. Yes it could have been called a penalty but
so can many other incidents in hockey be called as such.
: Doesn't this maybe tell you that it wasn't a complete dive? Why would a
: player in that situation make a dive and give up control of the puck?
: OK, you say that there was no penalty called, and there was no goal
: either. I guess things evened themselves out.
That or he didn't think that he'ld turn the puck over to the opposition,
or he thought he definitely could get a penalty from this.
Either way he made the wrong judgement call....
Garry
sonny hays-eberts
> Mikhail V. Solodov (sol...@monterey1.cs.wisc.edu) wrote:
>
> : In case you don't know, it is possible to inflict a serious
> : injury by hitting in the right spot without leaving any welt at all.
> : (if you know anything about martial arts, you'd agree).
> : This not to say how much the guy was hurt. I do not know.
> : You do not know either.
> : This remark is merely to show that your logic is bogus.
>
> I never knew Quebec was training their players in the Ninja style Mikhail...
>
> My main point was that if Kovalev was seriously hurt (and he really looked
> like it writhing on the ground) how could he come back and play in the
> next period let alone on that power play?
i don't know. why don't you ask the leaf's player who scored the overtime
goal against detroit with a broken leg in the 50's? it's quite possible
(and has happened in well documented cases) that seriously injured players
*do* return to the ice, and can perform well. hockey players above most
other sports figures still have a bit of machismo.
> Either it was a terrible slash that inflicted serious injury or it was
> a minor slash played up to look like a major injury (although little
> damage was caused.)
>
> Kovalev playing in the next period kind of indicates the latter doesn't it?
only to those who don't look to history (and it need not be distant, didn't
one of the sameullson's recently return to the ice with over 100 stitches
to the face).
why do you insist on presuming that a player who can return to the ice is
not hurt? do 100 stitches or a hairline fracture not count as injured in
your book?
--
like the forest's fight for sunlight, it takes root in every tree
pulled upwards by the magnet, believing they are free
-- genesis
sonny hays-eberts
ebe...@oregon.uoregon.edu
LY...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
::no indication of that. Please tell me when and where if you did. I watch
::a great deal of hockey news and I haven't seen it nor have the people I talk
::to. It is certainly unwise and untypical of NHL players to parade an injury
::for everyone to see when they can easily avoid doing so (let alone
::measure it). A city's TV channel with time or newspaper plus date which
::substantiates the claim would be most welcome. My observations are based on
::imagery shown across Canadian stations (and US sports networks as I understand
::it) and a great many other people have seen it.
was also mentioned in the two newspapers that I read that day. Normally, an
injury doesn't get paraded around, but there were so many bozos on Canadian
TV that immediately jumped on Kovalev, calling him a diver, that it became
an issue here as well. That's why the media paid so much attention to it. I
hadn't read one paper, nor heard any of the local announcers suggest that
Kovalev took a dive, because they saw the damn stick mark on his back. But if
you honestly beleive that I care enough to save my newspapers or record a 4
second bit on television to prove to the world Kovalev's innocence, you really
have been spending too much time on the net. It's just there are two many
people who feel they know for a fact the impact of a slash, and how much pain
someone is in, from the comfortable distance of their own home.
::But IF indeed the welt has been shown then I'm much more inclined
::believe that a good body check can cause a welt as opposed to a
::mere tap. These players have many bruises and welts because
::of the constant contacts they receive. Bruise or not that tap was no reason
for
::Kovalev sprawling all over the ice for that long. You'd think he was mortally
::wounded out there by looking at him. If such a hit hurt him that much then
::the poor man must be in excruciating pain each time he receives your
::regular but much more violent NHL hit. Surprising he doesn't have more of
::these near death experiences. He did it to get the ref's attention and
::it worked.
that the welt came from a body check is to ignore the only piece of concrete
evidence in this case (I'm sorry for doing this to your ego, but your OPINION
in not fact. It's ok, it's ok, take a few moments, let it all out, I
understand how shocking that must be). If you ever played hockey, you'd know
the difference between a check and a slash on the unprotected portion of ones
back. As it stands, the only thing you know is how to judge others.
Oh, and as far as the Nordiques go, hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhah
aahahahahahahhhahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahahahhahah
ahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhhahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaahhhahahahahahahahhahahahaahaahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
1st place hahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahaah
aaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahhhahahahahahah
-------------Gene
Ian Maione
>I saw the welt on one of the local stations the day after the incident. It
>was also mentioned in the two newspapers that I read that day. Normally, an
>injury doesn't get paraded around, but there were so many bozos on Canadian
>TV that immediately jumped on Kovalev, calling him a diver, that it became
>an issue here as well. That's why the media paid so much attention to it. I
>hadn't read one paper, nor heard any of the local announcers suggest that
>Kovalev took a dive, because they saw the damn stick mark on his back. But if
>you honestly beleive that I care enough to save my newspapers or record a 4
>second bit on television to prove to the world Kovalev's innocence, you really
>have been spending too much time on the net. It's just there are two many
>people who feel they know for a fact the impact of a slash, and how much pain
>someone is in, from the comfortable distance of their own home.
>
I don't consider the fact that Kovalev had a welt on his back to be
indicative of much. I mean, I'm sure it was painful, but the middle of your
back has got to be about the best place you can possibly take that kind of a
slash on your entire body, for God's sake. You see players take slashes on
a regular basis in the NHL in far worse spots - in the face, or on a major
joint, like a wrist, or a knee. That's the kind of injury that might cause
such pain that a person couldn't get up, a la Kovalev. Hell, a couple of
weeks ago I took a stick in the throat (accidental), and I wasn't rolling
around on the ice anything like that, and believe me, it hurt. Yes, Kovalev
was hit. Yes, it was a significant slash. But no, I don't believe he was
injured so badly that he couldn't get up for that long. There had to at least
be some signficant embellishment involved.
>Your inclined to believe anything that proves your foolish stance. To say
>that the welt came from a body check is to ignore the only piece of concrete
>evidence in this case (I'm sorry for doing this to your ego, but your OPINION
>in not fact. It's ok, it's ok, take a few moments, let it all out, I
>understand how shocking that must be). If you ever played hockey, you'd know
>the difference between a check and a slash on the unprotected portion of ones
>back. As it stands, the only thing you know is how to judge others.
>
If you came up to me and said, "Ian, I'm going to now take this stick and
hit you somewhere on your body. You pick the spot", I'd tell you to hit me
right where Kovalev got it. I agree that this is all opinion. But neither
of us know for sure. Only Kovalev does. However, I think a rational
examination of the facts points much more strongly to Kovalev faking.
Regards,
Ian
Gene Arguelles
> If you came up to me and said, "Ian, I'm going to now take this stick and
>hit you somewhere on your body. You pick the spot", I'd tell you to hit me
>right where Kovalev got it. I agree that this is all opinion. But neither
>of us know for sure. Only Kovalev does. However, I think a rational
>examination of the facts points much more strongly to Kovalev faking.
oh come on lan, give us a break. How lame can you be?? I think you
might have picked the top of your thick head too many times. You mean
to tell me that you wouldn't pick a spot like maybe your butt?? this
is an example of distorting to fit your argument. lastly, he was
hurt. to what extent we will never know but really, did anyone expect
him to jump up and say "oh, hey, I'm not hurt that bad. shucks let
the goal count'? I don't think so.
Eric Masson
>I saw the welt on one of the local stations the day after the incident. It
>was also mentioned in the two newspapers that I read that day.
Well it is a start since I can figure out a date. Now if I can only get
the name and cities of these sources (likely to be NYC).
>Your inclined to believe anything that proves your foolish stance.
I am just telling you that a bruise is a fairly common thing in a hockey game
and it shouldn't lead to pretending to death after a light tap (whether
or not the tap led to it). I just saw the replay again late last week and I
still can't believe Kovalev's deception. But by all means he is not the only
one diving to draw penalties in the NHL. I simply think he took it way too
far by faking a very serious injury out of it and by doing so he put
Van Hellemond in a dilemma.
>Oh, and as far as the Nordiques go, hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhah
Good for you...
I'm glad you don't know my team is the Habs 'cause I wouldn't want you to die
laughing that they didn't make the playoffs. To tell you the truth I'm hoping
the Rangers will beat the Flyers but they are unfortunately down by 2 and my
hopes are on the low side for this upset.
LY...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 01:53:37 EDT
From: <LY...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Message-ID: <95145.01...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
:: If you came up to me and said, "Ian, I'm going to now take this stick and
::hit you somewhere on your body. You pick the spot", I'd tell you to hit me
::right where Kovalev got it. I agree that this is all opinion. But neither
::of us know for sure. Only Kovalev does. However, I think a rational
::examination of the facts points much more strongly to Kovalev faking.
have a friend, who is relatively large and a very strong kid. He's been hit
many times, and shook of those hits, but he once got elbowed in the back
(approximately the same place as Kovalev's), and he refused to continue to
play. It turns out it wasn't that serious, and he did not have any marks the
next day, but he claims it was one of the most painful experiences of his life.
He immediately came to Kovalev's defense. There are spots on the back that if
you "tap" with significant amount of force, ignites unbearable pain.
-----------------------Gene
Dave Eisenbart
ground after he got hit, that he was faking it. I'd agree with Don
Cherry on this one. Players who wuss out like that deserve no respect
whatsoever. The guy who hit him only had one hand on his stick. Are you
from New York?
Dave Eisenbart