HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

cuda701 wrote:I'm going with the Jags by 2

Cuda = The Phoenix!

Welcome home, its been awhile....

whatitdobaby wrote:The jags didn't get in the Irish players heads, it was the ref blowing the play dead when the irish were on a 3 on 1 because the kid that McManus absolutely murdered with a clean check laid on the ice like a little girl.

You obviously don't know anything about hockey or checking.

A.) If you watched the game or the tape you would have seen the kid trying to get up but the ref wouldn't let him get up because he had a broken femur and his leg was to the side.

B.) McManus came in high on the check and it should have been called an elbow.

I have seen the tape in slow motion and it was not a clean check at all. And I thought you had to be 13 to post on this board? Cause this kid doesn't seem like it.

Jag's-4
Irish-2

But, I've been lurking

Just may show up more often - great to be back.

cuda701 wrote:But, I've been lurking

Just may show up more often - great to be back.

Sure, now that the powder blue has "risen again" Cuda finally goes out and buys a computer.

There will never be enough big suburban fatcat posters to beat back the privateers and outstaters. Can you believe we have a ten page Park Rapids thread? God help us! <-- Whu??? Now they've got me doing it!!!!!

Neutron 14 wrote:

cuda701 wrote:But, I've been lurking

Just may show up more often - great to be back.

Sure, now that the powder blue has "risen again" Cuda finally goes out and buys a computer.

There will never be enough big suburban fatcat posters to beat back the privateers and outstaters. Can you believe we have a ten page Park Rapids thread? God help us! <-- Whu??? Now they've got me doing it!!!!!

It appears our buddy Neutron has been drinking too much PB(packerboy)-R...God help us...

schwang17 wrote:
It appears our buddy Neutron has been drinking too much PB(packerboy)-R...God help us...

If I've been drinking too much, its probably due to reading the soap opera that is the PR thread. Great humor, makes me want to throw back a couple more....

steps1299 wrote:

whatitdobaby wrote:The jags didn't get in the Irish players heads, it was the ref blowing the play dead when the irish were on a 3 on 1 because the kid that McManus absolutely murdered with a clean check laid on the ice like a little girl.

You obviously don't know anything about hockey or checking.

A.) If you watched the game or the tape you would have seen the kid trying to get up but the ref wouldn't let him get up because he had a broken femur and his leg was to the side.

B.) McManus came in high on the check and it should have been called an elbow.

I have seen the tape in slow motion and it was not a clean check at all. And I thought you had to be 13 to post on this board? Cause this kid doesn't seem like it.

Okay..first off your B is not correct. I made the trip to Bloomington to watch the game and was standing by the glass on that end, the hit was clean. McManus stepped across like he was supposed to and hit the player with his head down. The check might have been thrown a little high but what check now days isn't thrown with a little high hands AND the player was trying to cut back which is never good with your head down. That is what happened, now in the case of the whistle being blown it was up to the ref, but IMO the play was no where near the hurt player therefore the whistle should never have been blown. BUT in the case of a serious emergancy I can see the ref blowing it dead...but then again it took Bloomingtons finest 20 minutes to arrive on scene?

NOW, this game has all the ingredients for a great one. Conference lead on the line, bad blood between the teams, Rosemount looking for revenge, Jefferson for the sweep, should be a doozy!

Rbkhockey21 wrote:

steps1299 wrote:

whatitdobaby wrote:The jags didn't get in the Irish players heads, it was the ref blowing the play dead when the irish were on a 3 on 1 because the kid that McManus absolutely murdered with a clean check laid on the ice like a little girl.

You obviously don't know anything about hockey or checking.

A.) If you watched the game or the tape you would have seen the kid trying to get up but the ref wouldn't let him get up because he had a broken femur and his leg was to the side.

B.) McManus came in high on the check and it should have been called an elbow.

I have seen the tape in slow motion and it was not a clean check at all. And I thought you had to be 13 to post on this board? Cause this kid doesn't seem like it.

Okay..first off your B is not correct. I made the trip to Bloomington to watch the game and was standing by the glass on that end, the hit was clean. McManus stepped across like he was supposed to and hit the player with his head down. The check might have been thrown a little high but what check now days isn't thrown with a little high hands AND the player was trying to cut back which is never good with your head down. That is what happened, now in the case of the whistle being blown it was up to the ref, but IMO the play was no where near the hurt player therefore the whistle should never have been blown. BUT in the case of a serious emergancy I can see the ref blowing it dead...but then again it took Bloomingtons finest 20 minutes to arrive on scene?

NOW, this game has all the ingredients for a great one. Conference lead on the line, bad blood between the teams, Rosemount looking for revenge, Jefferson for the sweep, should be a doozy!

So you saw this then?

http://finleyfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3 ... 79416-A-LB


The kid leaving his feet and extending his arms. I do agree with you that kids tend to check high but this is clearly a penalty.

and EP needs to fire Lee Smith.

It could have been from the contact they made together - so he could be in fact moving slightly backwards at the time. Didn't the play result in a broken "leg" though? or is this a different hit?

the one to love wrote:It could have been from the contact they made together - so he could be in fact moving slightly backwards at the time. Didn't the play result in a broken "leg" though? or is this a different hit?

Yes that is the play where the player broke his femur, but apparently he's a little girl and should have just toughed it out and skated to the bench so play could continue.

theoneandonly1 wrote: Yes that is the play where the player broke his femur, but apparently he's a little girl and should have just toughed it out and skated to the bench so play could continue.

I love this bored!

when is this game?

Now I never broke a femur but I imagine that it hurts like crazy, and if you get hit hard enough to break that bone and it was pointing the wrong direction..... Well I'm gonna give the guy a pass for waiting for the stretcher.

Can't Never Tried wrote:Now I never broke a femur but I imagine that it hurts like crazy, and if you get hit hard enough to break that bone and it was pointing the wrong direction..... Well I'm gonna give the guy a pass for waiting for the stretcher.

If your going to coddle kids, we might as well be playing ringette!

pondyplayer93 wrote:when is this game?

Tues. Jan.5 @ Rosemount 7:30

steps1299 wrote:You obviously don't know anything about hockey or checking.

Obviously I know a little bit about hockey. Apparently you saw the hit too. So maybe you should go study your tapes a little more to see what really happened. The hit isn't even what broke the kids leg. It was the way he fell on it. You didn't happen to play that part in slow motion did you? You can clearly see the kids leg go in a completely different direction than what it should have solely on the fact of the way he came down on the ice. Maybe next time he'll have his head up so it doesn't seem like he hit him high.

whatitdobaby wrote:

steps1299 wrote:You obviously don't know anything about hockey or checking.

Obviously I know a little bit about hockey. Apparently you saw the hit too. So maybe you should go study your tapes a little more to see what really happened. The hit isn't even what broke the kids leg. It was the way he fell on it. You didn't happen to play that part in slow motion did you? You can clearly see the kids leg go in a completely different direction than what it should have solely on the fact of the way he came down on the ice. Maybe next time he'll have his head up so it doesn't seem like he hit him high.

Breaking a femur by falling on it?? this is much less likely then getting hit by something.
Unless he came down on a skate, it would be extremely difficult on a flat surface such as ice to fall on your femur.
If there is posted tape of the hit I'd like to see it!

Either way tough deal for the kid.

whatitdobaby wrote:

steps1299 wrote:You obviously don't know anything about hockey or checking.

Obviously I know a little bit about hockey. Apparently you saw the hit too. So maybe you should go study your tapes a little more to see what really happened. The hit isn't even what broke the kids leg. It was the way he fell on it. You didn't happen to play that part in slow motion did you? You can clearly see the kids leg go in a completely different direction than what it should have solely on the fact of the way he came down on the ice. Maybe next time he'll have his head up so it doesn't seem like he hit him high.

I have seen many pictures videos and witnessed it in person, and I agree it was a clean hit. His hands were a little high but it was clean. So if your the expert on the hit, in what way does it make him a girl for laying on the ice.

His foot caught caught on the ice, and this caused some torque which caused the femur to break. When I saw it I thought it was a lower leg break but apparently not.

this is hockey, not tennis. all contact sports have injuries that happen. you guys try to make it sound like mcmanus intentionally broke a kids leg because he felt like it. if you think the hit was so dirty cuz his arms were up, how are his legs affected? maybe it was a dirty hit, but he didnt break his leg cuz it was dirty.

The Weight Room wrote:this is hockey, not tennis. all contact sports have injuries that happen. you guys try to make it sound like mcmanus intentionally broke a kids leg because he felt like it. if you think the hit was so dirty cuz his arms were up, how are his legs affected? maybe it was a dirty hit, but he didnt break his leg cuz it was dirty.

I sure never intended it to sound like that, I was only commenting from a physical mechanics view point.
I highly doubt there was any intent.

ok so i'll admit i shouldn't call the kid a little girl. i'm sure we all, myself included, would of laid on the ice as well. so i would like to apologize on behalf of that statement.

Can't Never Tried- here's a picture of how the kid landed on his leg.


http://finleyfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3 ... 79429-M-LB


edit-here's a picture right before the hit. clearly the kids head is at the level of mcmanus' arms, making it seem like a high hit.
http://finleyfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3 ... 79349-M-LB

whatitdobaby wrote:ok so i'll admit i shouldn't call the kid a little girl. i'm sure we all, myself included, would of laid on the ice as well. so i would like to apologize on behalf of that statement.

Can't Never Tried- here's a picture of how the kid landed on his leg.


http://finleyfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3 ... 79429-M-LB


edit-here's a picture right before the hit. clearly the kids head is at the level of mcmanus' arms, making it seem like a high hit.
http://finleyfoto.smugmug.com/gallery/3 ... 79349-M-LB

So looking at that it would look like it was his right leg was the injured one, coming down on the skate underneath.
To bad for the young man and I hope he's doing well!