Kampfer complaining

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from matttt87. Show matttt87's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining:
    [QUOTE]I felt it should have been an interference call. It wasnt like the hit was after kampfer passed it or even had the puck. Kampfer was still a couple strides from the puck and got blind sided. Its like the poor sap in football running after someone and getting cleaned out from someone coming the other way. Its one thing to be on top of the puck or in possesion or just getting rid of the puck, and none of those even occurred and he got hit. If you watch the puck, it comes around the boards and gets beyond both players and the pittsburgh player targets Kampfer. Never had any intention of playing the puck. I'll say the check was clean in that he hit kampfer in the side to front, but should have been interference for where the puck to players were.
    Posted by bgrif008[/QUOTE]

    I actually disagree with both those points. In the second angle of the replay you can clearly see Kampfer attempting to swat at the puck to pass it, but got leveled the second before he could  make contact with it. The elbow came up maybe but it was through his shouldler, it really looks like he got smoked by a clean hit. At the same time because of his history with concussions I don't really blame him for over reacting, but I don't think its necessary to do it to the public.

    PS in football that's called blocking, and it's legal.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 306bruinsfan. Show 306bruinsfan's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    From the angle provided in the video, it looks like interference to me so I understand what he is saying about Ritola not attempting to play the puck.  There could have very easily been an interference call made.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from No4BobbyOrr-GOAT. Show No4BobbyOrr-GOAT's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    Not a great hit, Kamp had yet to touch the puck, so that would make it an interference call for sure. If the follow thru made contact with the head then that would be no different than the Pail hit.  Oh yes it would the Pail hit made shoulder contact first as it seperated the shoulder and oh yeah the player had the puck.  Kamp did not have the puck, so it is also a blindside hit on Kamp.

    Should Kamp have been aware, yes he should.

    This is a lame post, any player, I guess is not allowed to complain anymore. Just seems like a hate on for Kamp, don't really see the point. 

    Nas-point is in reality he did not have the puck so it cannot be a clean hit.

    Pail was crucified here for being so dirty, that some tools do not want him in a B's uniform. His was a hockey play, 100% more than this and he got 4 games.  Do I think this was a hockey play, yes I do and I think Kamp needed to expect the shot he got, and had he been set for it there would be no damage, but he did not habve the puck so anything he says, he is not wrong.

    Cj and staff will need to make him aware of these hits and how to be ready for them(even though he has been playing contact for over 10 years).
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    Kampfer is playing the puck.  He got cranked.  No, NO4, no Kampfer hatred.  I like the player.

    I just don't like it when players cry in the media about stuff like this.  When Chris Draper said, "Look at my face", that was different.  This is a clean hit on a player playing the puck.  Quiet down, rook.  Do something about it next time you play that team.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dc-bruins-fan. Show dc-bruins-fan's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    Stating your opinion instead of making the pc move of brushing it off (admittedly, rookie mistake), when you are actually involved in the play, when not agreeing with the opinions of the refs apparently is equivalent to "complaining"
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from amazinglarry. Show amazinglarry's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    So the kid is a little miffed about there being no penalty, especially in a game where the blue, black and white were diving all over the place like the summer olympic qualifiers... People like to exaggerate a bit.  All he said he was that it rubs him the wrong way a bit, in a question that was asked what he thought of it.

    It's not like he went up to the media and said, "Listen, I've got something to say!"

    I'd say you're simply reading too much into it.  
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principal point of contact is not permitted.

    I am not so sure that this was a clean hit.  If you watch Ritola, he brings the chicken wing up just after he crosses the face off dot, at the same time Kampfer's head is searching for the puck along the boards.  Was the head targeted?  Debateable.  Was the head the principal point of contact, yes it was.  Why else would Kampfer have a concussion right now?  Was the hit lateral or blind side, I tend to think it was.  Therefore, I disagree with the statement that it was a clean hit.  At the very least, someone should have gone after him, because if nothing else, you can't let someone run a rookie like that in your own house!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from stingerjp. Show stingerjp's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    I think I read something about Kamp being mad because he got hit when he WASN'T playing the puck.  In some article i say, he said besides that-the hit would have been legal.

    Not saying i agree with this assessment.  There were a few hard hits on guys near the puck but not playing it during that game.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    In addition, There is nothing in rule 48 that states it has to be an elbow, a shoulder to the head as the principal point of contact is still not permitted if it is lateral or blind side.  
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    Whether he has a point or not is not the issue.  The point is that he's a rookie defenseman complaining to the media about not getting a call.  He's not even really complaining about the hit - I believe in the quote he says the only thing about it that was illegal was Ritola wasn't attempting to play the puck.  He's complaining that there was no call.  Given that he was injured on the play, that sounds a little odd, doesn't it?  Don't you get the impression that he was pished, saw the replay, realized he didn't get blindsided or elbowed in the head or suckered in some way - but he did leave himself vulnerable trying to make a play and he got cranked.  What does he do with that pisshyness if it was a clean hit?  Find something else to moan about.  And that's what makes it look like he's a guy who isn't mentally tough enough.  It's not about the pc answer, it's about actually controlling your emotions and filing away your grievances to be answered on the ice.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from No4BobbyOrr-GOAT. Show No4BobbyOrr-GOAT's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    He was answering a question the pc way. If he wasn't he would have said something more along these lines.

    The kecksecker should have at least got 2 for interference, he blindsided me without the freckin puck. Next time, me I am going to pitchfork the kecksecker when he comes at me like that, and looking down on him, after I spit in his general direction, I will say kecksecker how do you like them apples.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from callodthedom19. Show callodthedom19's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    Ritola with a questionable hit at best. It could've gone either way, penalty or no penatly. I think Ritola didn't make an attempt to play the puck and that's where it is questionable.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining:
    [QUOTE]Ritola with a questionable hit at best. It could've gone either way, penalty or no penatly. I think Ritola didn't make an attempt to play the puck and that's where it is questionable.
    Posted by callodthedom19[/QUOTE]

    Where does it say in the rule book that a player (Ritola) "didn't make an attempt to play the puck"? Is it in Rule 48?  I am being geniune in aksing the question.  
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from callodthedom19. Show callodthedom19's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining : Where does it say in the rule book that a player (Ritola) "didn't make an attempt to play the puck"? Is it in Rule 48?  I am being geniune in aksing the question.  
    Posted by islamorada[/QUOTE]
    Rule 56.1 Interference. 
    Pick: A “pick” is the action of a player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent who is not in possession of the puck and is unaware of the impending check/hit. A player who is aware of an impending hit, not deemed to be a legal “battle for the puck,” may not be interfered with by a player delivering a “pick.” A player delivering a “pick” is one who moves into an opponent’s path without initially having body position, thereby taking him out of the play. When this is done, an interference penalty shall be assessed.
    You could make the argument there. Either way, wasn't a bad hit. Could've been called it wasn't.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining:
    [QUOTE]Ritola with a questionable hit at best. It could've gone either way, penalty or no penatly. I think Ritola didn't make an attempt to play the puck and that's where it is questionable.
    Posted by callodthedom19[/QUOTE]

    If Kessel is skating across center ice with the puck and gets plastered by Boychuk, is it a penalty because Boychuk didn't make an attempt to play the puck?


    Your expected response is "Kampfer wasn't skating with the puck".  Well, that's not the point you're making here.  You're saying the hit is questionable because Ritola didn't make an attempt to play the puck.  There is absolutely nothing in the NHL Rulebook that says the player must make an attempt to play the puck.

    Furthermore, at the time of getting rocked, Kampfer was attempting to play the puck.  He was attempting to move it along and therefore he was fair game.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from callodthedom19. Show callodthedom19's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining : If Kessel is skating across center ice with the puck and gets plastered by Boychuk, is it a penalty because Boychuk didn't make an attempt to play the puck? Your expected response is "Kampfer wasn't skating with the puck".  Well, that's not the point you're making here.  You're saying the hit is questionable because Ritola didn't make an attempt to play the puck.  There is absolutely nothing in the NHL Rulebook that says the player must make an attempt to play the puck. Furthermore, at the time of getting rocked, Kampfer was attempting to play the puck.  He was attempting to move it along and therefore he was fair game.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    Nope because Boychuk is trying to dislodge the puck from Kessel. Ritola was trying to make sure Kampfer didn't touch the puck. Don't jump on me NAS when I didn't even say it was a penalty. I said it could have gone either way. Go be a goon on someone else.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining : Nope because Boychuk is trying to dislodge the puck from Kessel. Ritola was trying to make sure Kampfer didn't touch the puck. Don't jump on me NAS when I didn't even say it was a penalty. I said it could have gone either way. Go be a goon on someone else.
    Posted by callodthedom19[/QUOTE]

    Don't cry.  We're just talking hockey here.

    You said it was questionable because Ritola didn't try to play the puck.  It's not necessary to attempt to play the puck when you check someone. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from callodthedom19. Show callodthedom19's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining : Don't cry.  We're just talking hockey here. You said it was questionable because Ritola didn't try to play the puck.  It's not necessary to attempt to play the puck when you check someone. 
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    Crying? Really going to resort to child like tactics here aren't you? I said how I feel on the subject deal with it, you're not goading me into a battle. I'm sick of you.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from I-Like-Hockey. Show I-Like-Hockey's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining : Don't cry.  We're just talking hockey here. You said it was questionable because Ritola didn't try to play the puck.  It's not necessary to attempt to play the puck when you check someone. 
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    I like how you stick to your guns NAS. But the kid had a slip of the lip and is a rook with a pretty shaky concussion history. Lets face it, Ritola is no angel its not like Datsyuk threw this hit.

    Do you really need to complain this much about what he said?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining : I like how you stick to your guns NAS. But the kid had a slip of the lip and is a rook with a pretty shaky concussion history. Lets face it, Ritola is no angel its not like Datsyuk threw this hit. Do you really need to complain this much about what he said?
    Posted by I-Like-Hockey[/QUOTE]

    Given the choices, I'd rather discuss this than what's being said on Montreal radio, or whether or not Habs and Flyers are done for the season!
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from I-Like-Hockey. Show I-Like-Hockey's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining : Given the choices, I'd rather discuss this than what's being said on Montreal radio, or whether or not Habs and Flyers are done for the season!
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    touche...
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from zamboni24. Show zamboni24's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    Bottom line -- If SK feels it was a cheap shot -- suck it up and circle the next meeting on the calendar -- even if it's next season.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from bgrif008. Show bgrif008's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining : If Kessel is skating across center ice with the puck and gets plastered by Boychuk, is it a penalty because Boychuk didn't make an attempt to play the puck? Your expected response is "Kampfer wasn't skating with the puck".  Well, that's not the point you're making here.  You're saying the hit is questionable because Ritola didn't make an attempt to play the puck.  There is absolutely nothing in the NHL Rulebook that says the player must make an attempt to play the puck. Furthermore, at the time of getting rocked, Kampfer was attempting to play the puck.  He was attempting to move it along and therefore he was fair game.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    Kampfer had not even gotten near the puck, yes he was moving toward it to play it, but was still 2-3 strides from the puck. The puck came around the boards quicker that SK probably expected and was then several strides from it. I dont have a problem with someone playing the player, but it was a blindside hit that was questionable due to where the puck was with relation to where the players were on the ice and the fact that SK didnt have it or was even close to playing it. SK's point is that he would have probably been prepared for the hit, had he been in play with the puck. If you watch SK, he is skating to the corner, but the puck moves past him quicker, so he almost starts to turn up the boards for it and gets blasted. Had the puck been on his stick or closer to him, Id have no problem with the hit.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from matttt87. Show matttt87's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Kampfer complaining : Kampfer had not even gotten near the puck, yes he was moving toward it to play it, but was still 2-3 strides from the puck. The puck came around the boards quicker that SK probably expected and was then several strides from it. I dont have a problem with someone playing the player, but it was a blindside hit that was questionable due to where the puck was with relation to where the players were on the ice and the fact that SK didnt have it or was even close to playing it. SK's point is that he would have probably been prepared for the hit, had he been in play with the puck. If you watch SK, he is skating to the corner, but the puck moves past him quicker, so he almost starts to turn up the boards for it and gets blasted. Had the puck been on his stick or closer to him, Id have no problem with the hit.
    Posted by bgrif008[/QUOTE]

    The people that keep saying "he was 2-3 strides form the puck" - did you watch the link that NAS posted? His stick must have been 2-3 inches away from the puck as he reached for it. You don't have to be standing on top of the puck to be playing it.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: Kampfer complaining

    It was a good hit.  If it was Lucic doing the same to an opposing Dman we would be worshipping him.  Kampfer reached and swiped at the puck, but happened to miss it by inches.  The reach is what exposed him and made the hit as violent as it was.
     

Share