Which was dirtier?

Question

The hit on Drury or the hit a few years back on Lindros by Scott Stevens (the one where Lindros had trouble even getting up then was sniffing smelling salts like they were candles)? I think both times the skater was partialy at fault for having his dead down but I definatly think of the two Stevens was worse, he did leave his feet. Why do you think there is so much outcry over this hit against Drury?

Answer 1

I'm not sure either hit was "dirty". Maybe the question should be were either necessary? Having met Neil I happen to know he is a real nice person and I doubt that his hit was intended to turn out that way. On the other hand what was the purpose of smoking a small player especially in the head area. If he wanted to set a tone then drop the gloves with one of the Buffalo tough guys (although Peters is a classic toughguy it was pretty pathetic to see him jump the goalie). All these guys are doing is making the hockey haters have more reason to say worse about hockey. What happens if Peters smokes Heatley or Spezza tonight with what is deemed a similar hit? Goons should be police for their skill guys, not assasins to take out the other teams skill guys. I personally love a hard hit (the Stevens hit was questionable too, like you mention he left his feet) but it seems this year too many guys are going headhunting. There is no reason for that, good tough hockey is awesome but shots to the head will likely lead to big fines and/or suspensions starting next season. That is all we need....another Bettman handled issue worsening the game. Team tough guys need to stop running the skill guys (especially the small ones) and play a hard skating and hitting game again.

Answer 2

The hit on Drury was a late hit and that is what caused the out-cry
The hit by Stevens was a good, clean, open ice check that Lindros allowed by having his head down
Scott Stevens has often been labeled a "dirty player" but his checks were usually text book and a thing of beauty to watch
If his "victims" had followed a simple rule,
Keep your head up,
then the results would have been much less devastating

Answer 3

Neither hit was dirty. I know it seems like the hit on drury was uncalled for but when you make a pass or when you take a shot on goal you have to have your head up. Watch closely throughout an entire nhl game and you will see many hits that occur when guy has made the pass he gets hit 3 seconds after. Its called finishing your checks. The whole point of this is to make guys with the puck think twice about holding the puck for long periods of time. You want guys htinking when they have the puck they are going to get hit. You do this in hope that the next time they have the puck they look to get rid of the puck to avoid the hit. For example when a puck gets rung around the boards and the winger just stands on the boards chips the puck out past the defenceman and gets hit, its called taking the hit tomake the play. The more hits some guys take, the less likely they will stand in and be hit in order to make the play resulting in turnovers and scoring chances for the other team. As a former hockey player we are always taught to not admire shots or passes cause you are fair game to be hit. Both hits were clean!

Answer 4

I wouldnt necessarily call either hit dirty. Both hits in my opinion were clean, but in both cases neither Lindros or Drury were not expecting it. Injuries happen in hockey all the time, just last week Shanahan and Knuble knocked each other out, only from the fact that the weren't expecting on getting hit from each other and had no time to brace themselves. I hate to bring up another hit, but dirty to me is when Domi elbowed Niedermeyer in the playoffs several years ago. That was a definite intention to injure, unlike the hits on Lindros and Drury (and i like Drury and i'm going to hate to see him miss some games)

Answer 5

I think the Drury hit was uncalled for because you can count 3 seconds after Drury shot the puck before Neil hit him. With the Lindros hit, he was hit immediately. Neil is nothing but a punk and always was. Stevens at least was a good player.

Answer 6

I think Stevens' hit was worse. I didn't think the hit on Drury was exactly dirty but it looked like it was meant to hurt him. I like the violence in the NHL but I don't want to see injuries like that... I guess I want the best of two worlds that don't exactly exist together. The outcry sparks a debate over the game and I actually think its good for the game. I think violence will always be in hockey so the outcry will go away in a few weeks until the next incident but if hockey curbed out hits like this I'd still watch it.

Answer 7

I agree with sly_ca_98. The Stevens hit on Lindros was clean. Lindros had his head down. The hit on Drury was dirty. It was late and you can see Neil lift his elbow.

Answer 8

The Stevens hit was not dirty, Lindros got caught with his head down while handling the puck. Clean hit, period.

The Neil hit on Drury was definitely dirty. Drury shot the puck on goal and was looking at the net so his head was not down. After the hit, Neil clearly had his elbow up if you look at the footage.

Answer 9

The hit on Drury deff

Answer 10

Neither was "dirty". Neither Neil or Stevens got their elbows up. Just because a player gets hurt does not mean the player that hit him did anything wrong.