Why do people claim that Hollweg's hit was OK?

Question

It clearly was a hit from behind and should have been penalized.

raynrock-once again you show your knowledge, if you think that was a clean hit. I am not whining about it. Just an observation. Thought it was great and especially loved Simon's reaction.

Form your own opinion stupid. Look at it and you will see it was a hit from behind, BTW, every "expert" that I have ANY respect for disagrees.

Answer 1

yea i agree to that. i watched his hit a couple of times. i bet if he didnt just get wacked in the face that woulda been a penalty..if not the refs are gay..as usual.

Answer 2

My hubby & I both agree that Hollweg's hit was NOT ok. But speaking to a bunch of other people the next day, they were agreeing with what commentators were saying that it was a clean check. Just because these so called "experts" say it was clean, people jump on that band wagon. Anyone with two good eyes and 1/2 a brain can see that it was a check from behind. And now Simon is getting burned at the stake when this Hollweg coward is basking in all the sympathy. The Refs are so stupid and inconsistent these days....it's ruining the game of hockey!

Answer 3

I don't know but people keep saying it was a clean check. I think it is just because Simon's response. Although it couldn't have happened to a nicer player. Hollweg was right back to being an agitator in the game against the Pens though.

Answer 4

this ESPN guy's don't know ****, Hollweg clearly hit Simon from behind and Simon now also has a concussion. I'm not saying it was right for what Simon did but the ref's let a hit from behind go. Hollweg hit Simon on the back and pushed him in to the boards from behind. this ESPN guys don't know what the hell there talking about and you know why hockey is having a hard time selling in the US cause of stupid commentators don't even know the game.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ht6RyAI9370&mode=related&search=


GO HABS GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Answer 5

I have been watching hockey for years but to be honest, I don't know when a hit is clean or not. If I was the ref I would have called boarding but Barry Melrose and the other announcers on ESPN, the announcers on CSN and the other experts all state it was perfectly clean. I get confused by all the consistancy.

I got cross-checked in the face, in the crease, and the ref told me it wasn't goal tender interference because he doesn't think I could have made the save. No call.

Answer 6

The check was a clean hit... Simon was playing the puck..sorry he had just released the puck and he was turning as Hollweg hit him... but i guess you're right next time Hollweg should wait until he's fully turned around and give him plenty of time to gain momentum...just like Simon had plenty of time to wind up

Answer 7

The Rangers suck and should be moved to the Pacific division since no one cares about them anyway. Suspension for Simon yet Donlad Brashear cold cocks Witt in the face today and gets 2 minutes. You gotta love those refs!

Answer 8

The rule about hits from behind were designed to protect players in a vulnerable position. While Simon did have his back turned to the play, he was the last player to touch the puck, and was legal to be hit. He wasn't bent over or too far away from the boards that a hit would have been dangerous to him. I think it was a good hard check.

Answer 9

Your guess is as good as mine. I don't know but that is what they are all saying. That's just like the hit Ovechkin did on Briere--how was that not a penalty or suspension? I guess it depends on what mood the refs are in.

Answer 10

Stop whining. You're the one who says hockey is a "man's game" and the players are "paid handsomely". Move on and get over it - that was a clean hit, but what followed was the very definition of cowardly.

SEE MIKE B's EXCELLENT POST - ALL OF THE EXPERTS SAY IT WAS CLEAN.