GDT: Czech Republic vs. Finland, Feb. 18, 9.00 PM Torino, 3.00 PM EST

[bcrt2000]

All I want is that people are judging this by the rules of hockey, not their own sense of "whats right".

In my opinion nobody should get hit, and everyone should try to mind their surroundings and be polite...but in a hockey game they can bump into eachother if it is within the rules. Ruutu's hit on Jagr broke absolutely no rules and you can check it in here ( later in the video, you get slow motion etc.) http://akastreaming.svtiwebb.se/broadplay/broad_video.asx?gjmf=2006-0218-jagr&cp=21881

You can see clearly it is not dirty. It is just a big hit on a star player, who unfortunately got cut by his stupid choise of helmet. There is NOTHING else to it.

It was a CHARGE. That's undebatable.

It also could have been:

- Boarding
- Check from behind (Yes, he did come from the side, but he still blindsided Jagr. I'm not sure what the actual ruling of check from behind is).

 

[JussiM]

You're so biased. If it was Bertuzzi doing that to Selanne, you would have called for a hanging.

Excellent, draw the "nationality card." Just excellent.

 

[Shack]

I don't feel bad about saying it, because he tried to hurt Jagr, but maybe I went overboard. Still, I was pretty ticked and still am.

You showed your maturity there buddy!

 

[Panopticon]

I'll give you Bertuzzi but you have to get over Nash. I saw Jagr intentionally push a linesman at the last Olympics and nobody said a bleep.

I would've if I had seen it...

 

[Panopticon]

It was a CHARGE. That's undebatable.

Actually, it has already been debated and I'm not seeing you offer us any proof that people who are saying it was a clean hit (based on the video) are wrong.

 

[Nikke72]

Well as far as I see it was not clean/legal hit. However it was not either so ugly as some has mentioned here.

Undoubtly it was charging, Ruutu took two unneccesary extra kicks to increase the speed just before the hit. And yes Jagr was some 30-50 cm off the board so in my eyes it was boarding.

But besides those two things the hit was in my opinion clear. Jagr reached down for the puck just before the hit, at that point when Jagr reached down Ruutu had no change to avoid the hit. The hit itself was clean shoulder against shoulder hit. It wasn't check from behind even though Jagr was not aware of the incoming hit (otherwise the situation where Darcy Tucker run over Sami Kapanen would also have been considered as checking from behind).

I think that 5+20 minutes was a fair judgement. If Jagr would have not been 30-50 cm off board the 2 minutes would have been correct judgment, put in this case 5+20 min was a fair judgement.

What this episode clearly showed in my opinion is that what Jarkko Ruutu is totally lacking is the respect towards co-players. It was not an ugly shot in my eyes put it was a cheap shot.

Nikke

 

[JussiM]

And yes Jagr was some 30-50 cm off the board so in my eyes it was boarding.

You call this 30-50 cm off the board?

 

[Ajacied]

3 games in:

3 goals, 4 assists for 7 points for Jere Lehtinen
5 goals, 2 assists for 7 points for Teemu Selanne
0 goals, 5 assists for 5 points for Saku Koivu

Not bad..

 

[Canuck21t]

I would've if I had seen it...

It's too bad I don't have the video anymore but it was so obvious. Jagr just pushed a linesman and the latter fell down and no it wasn't during play. That's not good but I'm more outraged at Europeans only pointing fingers at Canadians or North Americans but disregard their own. Anyway, this is OT and I will stop here. I just want you to know about it.

 

[Canuck21t]

Excellent, draw the "nationality card." Just excellent.

Ok, forget about Bertuzzi then. If any non-Finnish player did it to Selanne, you would have called for a hanging.

 

[Panopticon]

Ok, forget about Bertuzzi then. If any non-Finnish player did it to Selanne, you would have called for a hanging.

Most likely true, but it doesn't mean they'd be right.

 

[psycho_dad*]

It's too bad I don't have the video anymore but it was so obvious. Jagr just pushed a linesman and the latter fell down and no it wasn't during play. That's not good but I'm more outraged at Europeans only pointing fingers at Canadians or North Americans but disregard their own. Anyway, this is OT and I will stop here. I just want you to know about it.

You said "nobody bleeped" but there was a big discussion about it in here, and I was one of those saying Jagr deserved a suspension.

Same with Nash though.

 

[psycho_dad*]

Ok, forget about Bertuzzi then. If any non-Finnish player did it to Selanne, you would have called for a hanging.

I would not. You are making silly assumptions here. I certainly would not have called "for a hanging". If the team had an issue with the hit, they should fight, but the ref is the one deciding penalties. I would have said it was a clean hit even if it would have been on Selänne.

 

[psycho_dad*]

It was a CHARGE. That's undebatable.

It also could have been:

- Boarding
- Check from behind (Yes, he did come from the side, but he still blindsided Jagr. I'm not sure what the actual ruling of check from behind is).

You need to take 3 kicks before the hit for it to be charging, Ruutu was sliding the whole way through. If you "do not know what the actual ruling is" then dont comment like you actually know if it was illegal or not....then you are only commenting on a feeling, not on facts.

 

[Chimpradamus]

You need to take 3 kicks before the hit for it to be charging, Ruutu was sliding the whole way through. If you "do not know what the actual ruling is" then dont comment like you actually know if it was illegal or not....then you are only commenting on a feeling, not on facts.

Well, I know what the actual ruling is and it's an obvious boarding penalty, with the intent to injure. Ruutu is solely responsible for his actions. It is him who must use his judgement in the situation and he didn't. The fact that Jagr did not see him coming and "didn't keep his head up" is an aggravating circumstance for Ruutu, NOT an extenuating circumstance. Ruutu is also coming into the situation as the third man, which is also an aggravating circumstance.

If you know the rules for boarding, you know that it says:
"520 VIOLENT CHECK AGAINST THE BOARDS - Boarding

a)A player bodychecks, elbow checks, non permitted tackle or trips his opponent so that the opponent is violently thrown against the boards, shall with the referees judgement, receive:..."

It IS enough to bodycheck a player "with a clean hit", the check in itself doesn't need to be non permitted, IF the opponent is thrown violently into the boards.

Hence, it was an obvious boarding penalty. Also, "sliding the whole way through" my ***. Ruutu took at least 9 kicks with his skates. You just don't count the last 2.

I've said it before and I say it again: you who defend Ruutu and think "it was Jagrs fault for not keeping his head up" and "it was a good, clean hit, this is hockey" are either hockeygoons, ignorant of the actual rules, very subjective or all of the above.

 

[Caz]

I've said it before and I say it again: you who defend Ruutu and think "it was Jagrs fault for not keeping his head up" and "it was a good, clean hit, this is hockey" are either hockeygoons, ignorant of the actual rules, very subjective or all of the above.

Goons, chimps... what's the difference?

 

[Flonaldo]

Hence, it was an obvious boarding penalty. Also, "sliding the whole way through" my ***. Ruutu took at least 9 kicks with his skates. You just don't count the last 2.

I've said it before and I say it again: you who defend Ruutu and think "it was Jagrs fault for not keeping his head up" and "it was a good, clean hit, this is hockey" are either hockeygoons, ignorant of the actual rules, very subjective or all of the above.

You count only the ones when he's going for the hit. You do NOT count all his strides during the whole ****ing shift!! You who say it was a flying elbow to the head, 9 strides, from behind, I have only one word for you: optometrist.

 

[Legionnaire]

a)A player bodychecks, elbow checks, non permitted tackle or trips his opponent so that the opponent is violently thrown against the boards, shall with the referees judgement, receive:..."

And you ignored the key part "with the refeerees judgement". Based on the way the rule is written NO ONE can EVER be checked into the boards if you are going to define every bit of contact as "violent"

 

[Chimpradamus]

And you ignored the key part "with the refeerees judgement". Based on the way the rule is written NO ONE can EVER be checked into the boards if you are going to define every bit of contact as "violent"

Sorry, it was a bad translation by me. It was translated into Swedish and then translated into English again. Here is the real text:

"A player who bodychecks, elbows, charges or trips an opponent in such a manner that it causes the opponent to be thrown violently into the boards, shall be assessed at the discretion of the referee, a:

- Minor penalty,

- Major penalty + Automatic Game Misconduct Penalty (5+GM)."

http://www.iihf.com/hockey/rules/offrules.htm

 

[Legionnaire]

Sorry, it was a bad translation by me. It was translated into Swedish and then translated into English again. Here is the real text:

"A player who bodychecks, elbows, charges or trips an opponent in such a manner that it causes the opponent to be thrown violently into the boards, shall be assessed at the discretion of the referee, a:

- Minor penalty,

- Major penalty + Automatic Game Misconduct Penalty (5+GM)."

http://www.iihf.com/hockey/rules/offrules.htm

No problems with translation. It still says the same thing. "With the referee's discretion".

It's up to the referee to determine what is considered "violent"

 

[daikan]

No problems with translation. It still says the same thing. "With the referee's discretion".

It's up to the referee to determine what is considered "violent"

Are you saying Jagr wasn't "thrown violently into the boards"?

 

[Legionnaire]

Are you saying Jagr wasn't "thrown violently into the boards"?

What is considered violent? Would it have been had Jagr not dropped his head right before, or would Ruutu have made contact with his shoulder?

You, and everyone need to remember that this game is played at a high rate of speed. These slow-motion video clips are not what happen during a game.

 

[Pepper]

This is an open challenge to all people thinking Ruutu's hit was against the rules:

1) please tell me how it was elbowing. Arms down, shoulder to shoulder contact, Ruutu didn't even touch Jagr's head.

2) please tell me how it was boarding. Jagr was very close to the boards (touching them in fact!), in order to call a boarding penalty you have to be much farther from the boards. Huge mistake by the refs.

3) please tell me how it was charging. Watch the video and see Ruutu *GLIDE* before hitting Jagr. He didn't take any extra kicks before the hit, he saw the opportunity to hit and went for it without any extra skating.

When you watch the video several times there's only one conclusion you can make; the hit was perfectly legal and the penalty was only because the victim was Jagr and he was bleeding. In NHL that wouldn't have been a penalty.

Ruutu's job is to hit people, he can't stop hitting because Jagr is stupid enough to stare at his feet wearing his paper-helmet (how stupid is that??).

Forget the names involved and watch the video.

 

[Chimpradamus]

This is an open challenge to all people thinking Ruutu's hit was against the rules:

1) please tell me how it was elbowing. Arms down, shoulder to shoulder contact, Ruutu didn't even touch Jagr's head.

2) please tell me how it was boarding. Jagr was very close to the boards (touching them in fact!), in order to call a boarding penalty you have to be much farther from the boards. Huge mistake by the refs.

3) please tell me how it was charging. Watch the video and see Ruutu *GLIDE* before hitting Jagr. He didn't take any extra kicks before the hit, he saw the opportunity to hit and went for it without any extra skating.

When you watch the video several times there's only one conclusion you can make; the hit was perfectly legal and the penalty was only because the victim was Jagr and he was bleeding. In NHL that wouldn't have been a penalty.

Ruutu's job is to hit people, he can't stop hitting because Jagr is stupid enough to stare at his feet wearing his paper-helmet (how stupid is that??).

Forget the names involved and watch the video.

1. It wasn't elbowing.
2. Nowhere in the rules does it imply that you have to hit your opponent standing a bit away from the boards to be called for boarding. It is the impact on the check and the impact against the boards that count.
3.It is not the number of kicks that count, it's the speed of the player who hits. It's all up to the ref. The kick rule is actually very vague.

 

[Pepper]

2. Nowhere in the rules does it imply that you have to hit your opponent standing a bit away from the boards to be called for boarding. It is the impact on the check and the impact against the boards that count..

Go check the rules. You'll be surprised.