Love it or hate it: The Hit

Wait, a Detroit Free Press writer considers himself 'unbiased' when writing about something Hawks/Wings?

Okie dokie, then. I want some of whatever he's on....

what a bunch of biased opinions from detroilit. would i be happy if the hit was the other way around, you bet. was it a dirty hit, of course. until refs penalize these aggressions then it will carry on and get even more out of hand. leaving your feet, forearming a guy in the face when he doesnt have possession is a severe penalty. but it still was an illegal dirty hit.

The ability to keep one eye on the puck and the other on the opposing team is a difficult task. I guess you could say it seperates the "haves" from the "Havlats".

Is Chicago still Bobby Hull's town or what??? Havlat glanced up twice before playing the puck. The puck was there and being played. The hit was brutal and totally clean. The refs didn't even call anything until the scrum was over with.

go hawks lets play smart!!! AND REMEMBER PAY BACK IS A MED A HAC

I am shocked as to how many Hawks fans, players, writers know so little about the game of hockey. The Kronwall hit on Mavlat was clean and legal so quit your bellyaching and learn the game, clowns!

To all you idiots who think that was a dirty play: The bad camera angle makes it look that he came high. It was shoulder to chin. His feet left the ice a whole 2 inches after havlat fell because havlat went down like an 8 yr. old child. They wouldn't have called a penalty on that hit in minor hockey. Learn the game you chicago clowns, you disgrace hockey fans everywhere

You have to give a lot of credit to Havlet for playing in game 4.

With all the stupid plays that Campbell has made during this series you would think he would know enough to keep his mouth shut. Too bad there aren't any real reporters anymore who know enough to ask an appropriate follow-up question. If Campbell thinks Kronwall's hit was "gutless," how does he characterize his own hit in 2006 on R.J. Umberger?

john sab wrote:

what a bunch of biased opinions from detroilit. would i be happy if the hit was the other way around, you bet. was it a dirty hit, of course. until refs penalize these aggressions then it will carry on and get even more out of hand. leaving your feet, forearming a guy in the face when he doesnt have possession is a severe penalty. but it still was an illegal dirty hit.

Problem for Chicago fans is that they are the only ones that see it as a dirty hit. Almost every hockey analyst and columnist outside of Chicago sees it as a clean hit. Devistating yes, but also clean. Admittedly Havlat didn't touch the puck with his stick and so maybe I could buy a two minute interference call. That said, Havlat had "possession" in my mind. He didn't overskate the puck, he decided to play cute with it and maybe protect it with his feet. But there is no question he was heading up ice and the puck was going with him. If that is interference then every forechecking forward in the NHL should be penalized when they contact the opposing teams defenseman before they touch the puck with their stick on pretty much every dump and chase.

Old time hockey