Around the League- Season is almost here

[Steve Zissou]

?

It was more to do with the way he basically stalked him to make the hit. He had to skate through like 3 players from a long way away to make the hit, which was long after the puck was gone. Also, a blatant repeat offender, let me repeat that...blatant repeat offender.

Add insult to injury, Torres is LW. Why on earth is Torres head hunting on the opposite side of the ice in a pre-season game?

Oh, he's an idiot.

 

[Reaper45]

That hit was bad anyway you slice it. It's a charge, it's interference, it's a headshot AND it's from a repeat offender who has yet to learn any lesson despite being suspended what, 4-5 times in the past few years? Maybe Butters can enjoy his blackface costumes during his imposed retirement.

 

[Reclamation Project]

He's gonna wear a hood and robe this year

 

[scryan]

There, satisfied?

No.


He didn't say any hit to the head. He only spoke about intentions.

Intentions have nothing to do with it.

That's like if I said you can't trip other players. and you said "NUH UH! YOU CAN IF SOMEONE FROM THE OTHER TEAM PUSHES YOU IN FRONT OF THEM"

What I said is not that same as saying "Any trip of another player is illegal!"

Again, I have seen no blanket statements about "any", just you picking apart someone making the point that intention are irrelevant, because of semantics.

What I have seen is you steering this discussion to random points unrelated to the actual hit, acting like your right because you threw an extra word in, even though your original point was wrong.

You act as if someone was making the explicit point that any contact with head is illegal. This is certainly not the case here.

 

[HookKing]

You hate the 41 games for someone who has had dealings with player safety 10 times?
Sounds like you think he needed to kill someone first. He has done enough damage already and shouldn't be in the league.
You lose the benefit of the doubt after having done what he has done. I just don't understand why you don't get that. He has had his chance.

If you want him out of the league fine, but as long as he is playing he needs to get the same consideration on the ice as everyone else. Its a team game and SJ (I have no sympathy for them in particular) is getting screwed here. Just like LA did most of the season with SV.

 

[HookKing]

No.


He didn't say any hit to the head. He only spoke about intentions.

Intentions have nothing to do with it.

That's like if I said you can't trip other players. and you said "NUH UH! YOU CAN IF SOMEONE FROM THE OTHER TEAM PUSHES YOU IN FRONT OF THEM"

What I said is not that same as saying "Any trip of another player is illegal!"

Again, I have seen no blanket statements about "any", just you picking apart someone making the point that intention are irrelevant, because of semantics.

What I have seen is you steering this discussion to random points unrelated to the actual hit, acting like your right because you threw an extra word in, even though your original point was wrong.

You act as if someone was making the explicit point that any contact with head is illegal. This is certainly not the case here.

Stopped reading after your statement I bolded. He wrote plain as day: "You can't make contact to others' head, intentional or not." Nothing in there about "intentions".

 

[driller1]

If you want him out of the league fine, but as long as he is playing he needs to get the same consideration on the ice as everyone else. Its a team game and SJ (I have no sympathy for them in particular) is getting screwed here. Just like LA did most of the season with SV.

There is a huge difference though. Voynov (to my knowledge) never transgressed the laws prior to his unfortunate incident. Kings had no prior warning that he would be prone to domestic violence.

Torres had been suspended / warned / fined for a total of 8 times prior to him joining the Sharks. Surely Doug Wilson had to consider the risks of a long suspension if Torres did it again (which he did twice - once to Stoll and then this incident). Wilson decided the reward outweighed the risk, rolled the dice, and came up craps.

 

[tsanuri]

If you want him out of the league fine, but as long as he is playing he needs to get the same consideration on the ice as everyone else. Its a team game and SJ (I have no sympathy for them in particular) is getting screwed here. Just like LA did most of the season with SV.

Suspensions can go up each time you face one, and should. And the one that ended at 21 games was playoff games. Almost everyone considers those to equal more than a 1-1 in regular games.
He is getting the same consideration anyone should when they have faced supplemental discipline as many times as he has.

 

[scryan]

Stopped reading after your statement I bolded. He wrote plain as day: "You can't make contact to others' head, intentional or not." Nothing in there about "intentions".

what?

The statement "You can't make contact to others' head, intentional or not." has nothing in it about intentions?

You just blew my ****ing mind.
I guess I gotta be done here, because this is not logical anymore.

 

[HYORI 1963]

As entertaining as this has been, let me try and clarify. What I meant by "intentional or not" was if a player goes to bodycheck with his shoulder on another player, but instead of hitting only the upper body of the opponent, it also catches the opposing player's head/face. To me, this is an illegal hit, regardless of his intentions.

Clarify if I'm wrong. And thank you for the entertainment.

 

[tsanuri]

As entertaining as this has been, let me try and clarify. What I meant by "intentional or not" was if a player goes to bodycheck with his shoulder on another player, but instead of hitting only the upper body of the opponent, it also catches the opposing player's head/face. To me, this is an illegal hit, regardless of his intentions.

Clarify if I'm wrong. And thank you for the entertainment.

No it still has to be the main point of contact. Or that is what the rules state.

 

[HookKing]

As entertaining as this has been, let me try and clarify. What I meant by "intentional or not" was if a player goes to bodycheck with his shoulder on another player, but instead of hitting only the upper body of the opponent, it also catches the opposing player's head/face. To me, this is an illegal hit, regardless of his intentions.

Clarify if I'm wrong. And thank you for the entertainment.

You are wrong. It wasn't my intention to drag you into this but someone has a reading comprehension problem. Bottomline, you can hit another player's head if it was unavoidable even if it was the principal point of contact.

 

[HYORI 1963]

No it still has to be the main point of contact. Or that is what the rules state.

That's surprising. I could remember on several occasions where a player was assessed a penalty for such a hit.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

You are wrong. It wasn't my intention to drag you into this but someone has a reading comprehension problem. Bottomline, you can hit another player's head if it was unavoidable even if it was the principal point of contact.

uh.

"In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was
avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be
considered:
(i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the
opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor
timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the
body upward or outward.
(ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by
assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full
body check unavoidable.
(iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body
assessed. "

boldfaced is the key part for me. I think his hitting form sucks. I don't think it's intentional in that he's targeting hte head all along, I think he doesn't know how to draw a line to someone's chest when coming at high speed thru the weeds at the back of someone's shoulder. Poor angle at BEST. I know you're arguing FOR ii, but in no way does it supersede i for me or just about anyone else here.

I'd ALSO argue that it's avoidable contact simply because it's ****ing unnecessary to travel that far out of your way to charge a guy, so whether he was in a bad position or not, the hit was 'avoidable' from the standpoint of pointless. "48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with anopponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact andsuch contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted."

 

[tsanuri]

That's surprising. I could remember on several occasions where a player was assessed a penalty for such a hit.

The referee might make the call since they only have the one chance to see and get it right. And they are making a judgement call. And they expect that as a professional you can control your body. And many of the plays you might be thinking of the contact comes to the head area first with a shoulder. And in that case it makes the head a main point of contact.

 

[HYORI 1963]

No it still has to be the main point of contact. Or that is what the rules state.

Wait a minute! So, if the hitter brushes the shoulder of an opponent and makes the main point of contact to the head, then that's a penalty correct?

 

[HookKing]

uh.

"In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was
avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be
considered:
(i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the
opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor
timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the
body upward or outward.
(ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by
assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full
body check unavoidable.
(iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body
assessed. "

boldfaced is the key part for me. I think his hitting form sucks. I don't think it's intentional in that he's targeting hte head all along, I think he doesn't know how to draw a line to someone's chest when coming at high speed thru the weeds at the back of someone's shoulder. Poor angle at BEST. I know you're arguing FOR ii, but in no way does it supersede i for me or just about anyone else here.

I'd ALSO argue that it's avoidable contact simply because it's ****ing unnecessary to travel that far out of your way to charge a guy, so whether he was in a bad position or not, the hit was 'avoidable' from the standpoint of pointless. "48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with anopponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact andsuch contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted."

It wasn't charging, he glided in -- watch his skates. I don't disagree that the whole situation is borderline. I just don't like 41 games for a borderline hit when a guy's job is to hit.

 

[scryan]

uh.

"In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was
avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be
considered:
(i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the
opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor
timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the
body upward or outward.
(ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by
assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full
body check unavoidable.
(iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body
assessed. "

boldfaced is the key part for me. I think his hitting form sucks. I don't think it's intentional in that he's targeting hte head all along, I think he doesn't know how to draw a line to someone's chest when coming at high speed thru the weeds at the back of someone's shoulder. Poor angle at BEST. I know you're arguing FOR ii, but in no way does it supersede i for me or just about anyone else here.

I'd ALSO argue that it's avoidable contact simply because it's ****ing unnecessary to travel that far out of your way to charge a guy, so whether he was in a bad position or not, the hit was 'avoidable' from the standpoint of pointless. "48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with anopponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact andsuch contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted."

You can't really argue with that last one(last post by HookKing, that an unavoidable hit is legal)... And you actually are not.

Your arguing over how its deemed unavoidable... which OK that is complex. Because its not a matter of any of those points being superseded, or really anything involved. It is unavoidable if its unavoidable.

What does unavoidable mean?

: not able to be prevented or avoided

Those points are what are used to determine IF its avoidable, so they can't really be used to prove that an unavoidable hit is not OK, if that makes sense.


But really, that is all just a semantic debate over the wording of the rules.

The actual argument here is NOT if an unavoidable hit to the head is legal. NO ONE has made that claim, that is an assumption on your part if you think anyone has. No one has said "all" or spoken specifically about "unavoidable hits being illegal", just the claim that intentions have nothing to do with it.

HOWEVER, Avoidable is up to the DOPS. They will form their opinion from a large array of factors, including but not limited to those listed 48.1
Satisfying, or not satisfying a single listed point in that rule is not the determining factor,merely one consideration.

As said by Brad, traveling out of position is a pretty good indication that it was avoidable. As is the Argument HookKing made about his head being forward of his body, and as such not in the same line of travel as his body when the hitter is coming from the side. Lastly finishing your check is a pretty god damn good indication that it wasn't something you were avoiding.

 

[HookKing]

Wait a minute! So, if the hitter brushes the shoulder of an opponent and makes the main point of contact to the head, then that's a penalty correct?

That's somewhat contradictory. The head isn't the main point of contact if you get the shoulder first.

 

[tsanuri]

It wasn't charging, he glided in -- watch his skates. I don't disagree that the whole situation is borderline. I just don't like 41 games for a borderline hit when a guy's job is to hit.

Charging is a distance traveled call. You don't have to skate hard at someone. Even gliding after traveling the distance you are skating into them. The key wording is any manner. He came a distance to even get to him.

42.1 Charging
- A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player
who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.
Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of
distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A
“charge†may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal
frame or in open ice.

 

[tsanuri]

That's somewhat contradictory. The head isn't the main point of contact if you get the shoulder first.

No it's not. Main and first aren't the same.

 

[scryan]

That's somewhat contradictory. The head isn't the main point of contact if you get the shoulder first.

That is entirely wrong.

Main does not imply primary.

Definition of MAIN

1
: physical strength : force —used in the phrase with might and main
2
a : mainland
b : high sea
3
: the chief part : essential point <they are in the main well-trained>
4
: a pipe, duct, or circuit which carries the combined flow of tributary branches of a utility system
5
a : mainmast
b : mainsail
See main defined for English-language learners
See main defined for kids

The chief point of contact, essentially where the hit was absorbed, not where is primarily contacted is the main point of contact.

If I spend 30 minutes ridiculing you, but started with "your a nice guy, but..."
My main point isn't that your a nice guy, is it?

The main part of a story is not the intro paragraph.

someone has a reading comprehension problem.

 

[tsanuri]

Wait a minute! So, if the hitter brushes the shoulder of an opponent and makes the main point of contact to the head, then that's a penalty correct?

I think it would very much depend on the exact play. If it was just a brush and it didn't take any momentum away it would likely be a penalty and a potential major. If it wasn't a brush and good contact with then the follow through going into the head it likely wouldn't be a penalty.
Best thing I can say is go watch the educational videos at player safety. They cover many things.
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=995

 

[HookKing]

Charging is a distance traveled call. You don't have to skate hard at someone. Even gliding after traveling the distance you are skating into them. The key wording is any manner. He came a distance to even get to him.

Yes that is technically correct and that distance (and usually more) happens a hundred times every game on dump-ins etc. Its all a judgement call. You rarely see charging called unless the guy skates hard into someone (rather than glides in).

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

FWIW, these are just his last few incidents:

Edit: Just saw ponder's post like this a couple pages back....

I'm not sure if you're serious.

No length of ban has worked yet. This is a drastic step but one that is necessary for the safety of the other players if nothing else.

4/7/2011|Suspended by the NHL for four games.|
31-Dec-11|Fined $2,500 by the NHL.|
2-Jan-12|Suspended by the NHL for 2 games.|
21-Apr-12|Suspended by the NHL for 25 games. (Reduced to 21)|
16-May-13|Suspended by the NHL for the remainder of Round 2 against the Los Angeles Kings.|

Edit: And this one's player safety video for good measure and to understand the reasoning: