Hearing for Torres on Stoll hit (Thurs 9am PT, NYC; w/DW); out for rest of WCSF

[SJeasy]

He bends his knees and bends his waist as much as it prudent in that situation, bending it more would put him launching head-first at Stoll which is silly. He hits pretty damn level considering, this is hardly an upward hit by any stretch. We've seen what real upwards hits look like and any honest look at this one shows it's not.

And then, again, we have the end result of Stoll's head running into Torres' back. That is plain and simply unfortunately incidental contact, no one headshots people with their back.

I made my point. I can't think of any change of the wording that will make it more clear. He can go lower and avert his head so that is not a legit objection. I don't buy the excuses of "hockey" minds that have objected in the past. They let Torres pass on a clear hit to Seabrook's head when he was behind he net due to Seabrook's location on the ice. I consider that BS. They talk about the responsibility of the hittee. Again BS in my book. If you talk about auto collisions, none of these excuses would pass muster. It is a game; it is not life and death. The players are entitled to a healthy retirement and not have their health compromised by people who override the well researched evidence coming from the medical professions regarding impacts to the head.

I personally think that with hits that are on or near the head that the suspension should go along with the injuries. Just like civil law in driving. It would probably be a better motivator to issue suspensions based on injury caused and add one or two games to the amount that the other player is out for. Escalate the additional games for repeat offenders. It would be the best deterrent. I doubt any more stomping incidents would occur because you would see suspensions of a half season and more just for those.

 

[Squeeven]

Sucks to get hit in the head in the first game of a playoff series, huh Stoll?

http://youtu.be/KCzWOwPE3oI

Yeah **** Stoll. I hate how when he has him pinned against the boards he looks directly at him and most likely talks **** to him.

 

[Fel 96]

#freeraffi

http://twitter.com/jasondemers5/status/334841390896918528

 

[Led Zappa]

I made my point. I can't think of any change of the wording that will make it more clear. He can go lower and avert his head so that is not a legit objection. I don't buy the excuses of "hockey" minds that have objected in the past. They let Torres pass on a clear hit to Seabrook's head when he was behind he net due to Seabrook's location on the ice. I consider that BS. They talk about the responsibility of the hittee. Again BS in my book. If you talk about auto collisions, none of these excuses would pass muster. It is a game; it is not life and death. The players are entitled to a healthy retirement and not have their health compromised by people who override the well researched evidence coming from the medical professions regarding impacts to the head.

I personally think that with hits that are on or near the head that the suspension should go along with the injuries. Just like civil law in driving. It would probably be a better motivator to issue suspensions based on injury caused and add one or two games to the amount that the other player is out for. Escalate the additional games for repeat offenders. It would be the best deterrent. I doubt any more stomping incidents would occur because you would see suspensions of a half season and more just for those.

So, if a player gets hit in the head, is out for 6 months, get's hit by another player and it takes him out for a year because of his previous concussion the second player to hit him should suffer a greater consequence? If a player just has genetically bad knees and another player takes out his knee and the guy needs surgery, is that fair?

I agree with the general idea, but I think it's very hard to implement in a fair way. I would compare it more to racing than the general driving public. Cars are gonna crash on a race course. Happens almost every race in NASCAR, but that's the nature of the sport. You really need to judge intent. But it's hard to know what's in someone's head.

I don't know the answer. I mean, I don't understand how it's not a penalty to cross check someone who is down on the ice in front of his goal when the puck is half way down the ice, but it's let go all the time.

Just a thought experiment, but how responsible should Referee's be that let games get out of control?

 

[Eighth Fret]

I made my point. I can't think of any change of the wording that will make it more clear. He can go lower and avert his head so that is not a legit objection. I don't buy the excuses of "hockey" minds that have objected in the past. They let Torres pass on a clear hit to Seabrook's head when he was behind he net due to Seabrook's location on the ice. I consider that BS. They talk about the responsibility of the hittee. Again BS in my book. If you talk about auto collisions, none of these excuses would pass muster. It is a game; it is not life and death. The players are entitled to a healthy retirement and not have their health compromised by people who override the well researched evidence coming from the medical professions regarding impacts to the head.

I personally think that with hits that are on or near the head that the suspension should go along with the injuries. Just like civil law in driving. It would probably be a better motivator to issue suspensions based on injury caused and add one or two games to the amount that the other player is out for. Escalate the additional games for repeat offenders. It would be the best deterrent. I doubt any more stomping incidents would occur because you would see suspensions of a half season and more just for those.

What of the obvious cases of purely incidental contact (e.g. Steckel on Crosby)? Should Steckel sit out a year because Crosby was out that long? If it's a predatory hit, sure.. but when it's an accident?

 

[Alwalys]

I made my point. I can't think of any change of the wording that will make it more clear. He can go lower and avert his head so that is not a legit objection. I don't buy the excuses of "hockey" minds that have objected in the past. They let Torres pass on a clear hit to Seabrook's head when he was behind he net due to Seabrook's location on the ice. I consider that BS. They talk about the responsibility of the hittee. Again BS in my book. If you talk about auto collisions, none of these excuses would pass muster. It is a game; it is not life and death. The players are entitled to a healthy retirement and not have their health compromised by people who override the well researched evidence coming from the medical professions regarding impacts to the head.

I don't think Torres could have done that without recklessly endangering his OWN health. I just think that's laughably unrealistic to ask.

Part of the reason players are paid so handsomely is they are risking their health to play the game. This hit was borderline legal, if they want to change that it starts with the rules. Can't have different standards for individual players; how is a player supposed to "reform" if they get judged at a different standard?

I personally think that with hits that are on or near the head that the suspension should go along with the injuries. Just like civil law in driving. It would probably be a better motivator to issue suspensions based on injury caused and add one or two games to the amount that the other player is out for.

Come on, can you not see how easily that could be manipulated?

 

[Kitten Mittons]

Crosby hits Desjardins in the head in the Stanley Cup finals. Desi does have a concussion but a mild one. Desi is put on LTIR, Crosby is suspended for the remainder of the finals.

 

[210]

What are your opinions on the hit, Easy? Let's say it wasn't Torres but Couture who made the hit. Is it suspension worthy?

This is the crux of the issue...the history of the player throwing the hit shouldn't matter in determining if it's a hit worthy of a suspension or not. It either is or it isn't, period. A player's history should only play a role in the length of a suspension, not if he gets one or not.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

It'll probably be the suspension that gets the least bang for his buck. He did hit him in the head and at a blindside angle. The fact that he clipped the shoulder first should destroy any idea of intent to hit the head. If this was anyone without Torres' history, this wouldn't even be looked at. The fact that the league is not even acknowledging Penner's hit on Wingels but will address this is evidence of that.

The thing I dislike the most is Sutter's comments about Stoll being more important to the team than Torres. Even if you want to make the argument, it's simply not something you say. The boys need to use this injustice as motivation and take game two. I don't think many people are going to give them a chance to win this series. That combined with the players believing that the Kings are beatable AND Sutter's comments definitely give an extra bit of motivation for the team...as if they even needed it.

 

[NWShark*]

This wasn't a shoulder-to-shoulder hit that got part of Stoll's head. The head was the primary point of contact.

Why do some of you keep saying this? It was shoulder to shoulder. The replay is very clear. Stolls head whips due to how hard he's hit not because of contact to it. I'm not convinced there is any contact between stolls head and Torres unless it's Torres helmet which is impossible to determine from the replays. Fraser is just flat wrong about the line torres takes.

 

[Eighth Fret]

It'll probably be the suspension that gets the least bang for his buck. He did hit him in the head and at a blindside angle. The fact that he clipped the shoulder first should destroy any idea of intent to hit the head. If this was anyone without Torres' history, this wouldn't even be looked at. The fact that the league is not even acknowledging Penner's hit on Wingels but will address this is evidence of that.

The thing I dislike the most is Sutter's comments about Stoll being more important to the team than Torres. Even if you want to make the argument, it's simply not something you say. The boys need to use this injustice as motivation and take game two. I don't think many people are going to give them a chance to win this series. That combined with the players believing that the Kings are beatable AND Sutter's comments definitely give an extra bit of motivation for the team...as if they even needed it.

Wow, I didn't know Sutter said that. That's bush league.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Why do some of you keep saying this? It was shoulder to shoulder. The replay is very clear. Stolls head whips due to how hard he's hit not because of contact to it. I'm not convinced there is any contact between stolls head and Torres unless it's Torres helmet which is impossible to determine from the replays. Fraser is just flat wrong about the line torres takes.

It's not solely shoulder to shoulder. He clips his shoulder at first but the force he comes with and the position of where he is relative to Stoll, he gets through and hits Stoll in the head. There is definitely contact to Stoll's head by Torres. Reverse angle shows that clearly.

 

[NWShark*]

I made my point. I can't think of any change of the wording that will make it more clear. He can go lower and avert his head so that is not a legit objection. I don't buy the excuses of "hockey" minds that have objected in the past. They let Torres pass on a clear hit to Seabrook's head when he was behind he net due to Seabrook's location on the ice. I consider that BS. They talk about the responsibility of the hittee. Again BS in my book. If you talk about auto collisions, none of these excuses would pass muster. It is a game; it is not life and death. The players are entitled to a healthy retirement and not have their health compromised by people who override the well researched evidence coming from the medical professions regarding impacts to the head.

I personally think that with hits that are on or near the head that the suspension should go along with the injuries. Just like civil law in driving. It would probably be a better motivator to issue suspensions based on injury caused and add one or two games to the amount that the other player is out for. Escalate the additional games for repeat offenders. It would be the best deterrent. I doubt any more stomping incidents would occur because you would see suspensions of a half season and more just for those.

THis is likely the worst post I've ever read from you outside of the stuff about Dr Ting... I'm sorry but you're whole first paragraph is completely ridiculous.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

It's not solely shoulder to shoulder. He clips his shoulder at first but the force he comes with and the position of where he is relative to Stoll, he gets through and hits Stoll in the head. There is definitely contact to Stoll's head by Torres. Reverse angle shows that clearly.

And thats all caused by Stoll suddenly changing his posture before Torres could change his completely. I think thats why DW and co. are going to the hearing. Torres doesn't stand a chance but perhaps if they look at the play on its own and not the name on the jersey they will make the right call. Slim chance.

 

[NWShark*]

It's not solely shoulder to shoulder. He clips his shoulder at first but the force he comes with and the position of where he is relative to Stoll, he gets through and hits Stoll in the head. There is definitely contact to Stoll's head by Torres. Reverse angle shows that clearly.

Is there a screen shot of this? Because I have yet to see one that shows shoulder to head contact. Also if he hits Stoll shoulder to shoulder and then slides off and makes head contact that still negates the claims of the principle point of contact being the head.

 

[Alwalys]

This is something I posted in the main thread and more or less sums up my objective view ...

Here are the relevant issues from my standpoint:

1) Was the hit an illegal hit to the head? It was not penalized as such, and the majority of observers agree it was not. Those that believe it was are almost exclusively Kings fans, but many Kings fans believe it was not illegal.

2) Was it worthy of supplemental discipline? It is nearly unanimously agreed that for almost no other player would supplemental discipline be considered.

3) What effect does a player's history have on the situation? It is nearly unanimously agreed that the general legality of the hit is NOT subjective based on a player's history. It is unanimously agreed and explicitly stated by the league that the supplemental discipline a player receives is affected by his history.

The grey area here is whether a player's history should affect his threshold of supplemental discipline. To me and I would think most objective fans, the threshold should NOT be affected by a player's history.

Because supplemental discipline can heavily affect on-ice play, the threshold should be considered as objectively as possible, much as calls on the ice.

I and most objective fans have no problem with a habitual offender getting the book thrown at him if he steps over the line yet again. However as evidenced by 1 and 2, this did not happen. If no other player would be rung up for this, then Torres should not either. That is simply not a fair standard and will have a significant impact on fair competition in this series.

 

[NWShark*]

It'll probably be the suspension that gets the least bang for his buck. He did hit him in the head and at a blindside angle. The fact that he clipped the shoulder first should destroy any idea of intent to hit the head. If this was anyone without Torres' history, this wouldn't even be looked at. The fact that the league is not even acknowledging Penner's hit on Wingels but will address this is evidence of that.

The thing I dislike the most is Sutter's comments about Stoll being more important to the team than Torres. Even if you want to make the argument, it's simply not something you say. The boys need to use this injustice as motivation and take game two. I don't think many people are going to give them a chance to win this series. That combined with the players believing that the Kings are beatable AND Sutter's comments definitely give an extra bit of motivation for the team...as if they even needed it.

Is there a replay of the Penner hit?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Is there a replay of the Penner hit?

Game archive is all there is.

 

[NWShark*]

This is something I posted in the main thread and more or less sums up my objective view ...

Here are the relevant issues from my standpoint:

1) Was the hit an illegal hit to the head? It was not penalized as such, and the majority of observers agree it was not. Those that believe it was are almost exclusively Kings fans, but many Kings fans believe it was not illegal.

2) Was it worthy of supplemental discipline? It is nearly unanimously agreed that for almost no other player would supplemental discipline be considered.

3) What effect does a player's history have on the situation? It is nearly unanimously agreed that the general legality of the hit is NOT subjective based on a player's history. It is unanimously agreed and explicitly stated by the league that the supplemental discipline a player receives is affected by his history.

The grey area here is whether a player's history should affect his threshold of supplemental discipline. To me and I would think most objective fans, the threshold should NOT be affected by a player's history.

Because supplemental discipline can heavily affect on-ice play, the threshold should be considered as objectively as possible, much as calls on the ice.

I and most objective fans have no problem with a habitual offender getting the book thrown at him if he steps over the line yet again. However as evidenced by 1 and 2, this did not happen. If no other player would be rung up for this, then Torres should not either. That is simply not a fair standard and will have a significant impact on fair competition in this series.

All this is true. THe previous history should only be relevant when determining suspension length.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

This is something I posted in the main thread and more or less sums up my objective view ...

Here are the relevant issues from my standpoint:

1) Was the hit an illegal hit to the head? It was not penalized as such, and the majority of observers agree it was not. Those that believe it was are almost exclusively Kings fans, but many Kings fans believe it was not illegal.

2) Was it worthy of supplemental discipline? It is nearly unanimously agreed that for almost no other player would supplemental discipline be considered.

3) What effect does a player's history have on the situation? It is nearly unanimously agreed that the general legality of the hit is NOT subjective based on a player's history. It is unanimously agreed and explicitly stated by the league that the supplemental discipline a player receives is affected by his history.

The grey area here is whether a player's history should affect his threshold of supplemental discipline. To me and I would think most objective fans, the threshold should NOT be affected by a player's history.

Because supplemental discipline can heavily affect on-ice play, the threshold should be considered as objectively as possible, much as calls on the ice.

I and most objective fans have no problem with a habitual offender getting the book thrown at him if he steps over the line yet again. However as evidenced by 1 and 2, this did not happen. If no other player would be rung up for this, then Torres should not either. That is simply not a fair standard and will have a significant impact on fair competition in this series.

I agree. Good post.

 

[The McMafia]

Oh, NBC.

They just had a promo for games for the next two days, and they didn't plug the LA-SJ game tomorrow.

And on the intermission show, Milbury said "Torres was an important cog for San Jose". I think the judgement has been made and tomorrow's hearing may just be a dog and pony show.

 

[Kitten Mittons]

And on the intermission show, Milbury said "Torres was an important cog for San Jose". I think the judgement has been made and tomorrow's hearing may just be a dog and pony show.

Milbury's real last name is Snow. He knows nothing.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

And thats all caused by Stoll suddenly changing his posture before Torres could change his completely. I think thats why DW and co. are going to the hearing. Torres doesn't stand a chance but perhaps if they look at the play on its own and not the name on the jersey they will make the right call. Slim chance.

I hope DW can work his magic, I really do. This team cannot withstand more forwards missing games. I don't see Stoll's posture change as a positive for Torres here though. Stoll was bent over for an extended period of time and slowly rising up. When Torres made his decision to go for the hit, he was vulnerable. That is probably what is going into this decision.

Is there a screen shot of this? Because I have yet to see one that shows shoulder to head contact. Also if he hits Stoll shoulder to shoulder and then slides off and makes head contact that still negates the claims of the principle point of contact being the head.

http://mayorsmanor.com/2013/05/vide...hit-on-jarret-stoll-in-game-1-sharks-at-kings

Not a still but reverse angle video shows the head getting hit. I don't think it's the point of the shoulder but the back of his shoulder looks to be what makes contact with Stoll's head.

Is there a replay of the Penner hit?

I haven't seen it since the game was over but in real time, it was easily that type of hit when Wingels was wobbly and had an ice pack to his face because of it.

 

[richo]

I knew the moment I saw the hit they would do this. I am so angry I could go on a long rant. This league has become a league for babies. I'd use another word but I might get in trouble. This hit was fine. No leaving the feet, no elbow nothing wrong.

Torres not an important player? This guy is much better than people realize. He's always where he should be on the ice. His hockey sense is incredible. This makes up for his lack of pure talent. I'd take this guy on my team any day and he HAS made a difference for the Sharks.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I hope DW can work his magic, I really do. This team cannot withstand more forwards missing games. I don't see Stoll's posture change as a positive for Torres here though. Stoll was bent over for an extended period of time and slowly rising up. When Torres made his decision to go for the hit, he was vulnerable. That is probably what is going into this decision.



http://mayorsmanor.com/2013/05/vide...hit-on-jarret-stoll-in-game-1-sharks-at-kings

Not a still but reverse angle video shows the head getting hit. I don't think it's the point of the shoulder but the back of his shoulder looks to be what makes contact with Stoll's head.



I haven't seen it since the game was over but in real time, it was easily that type of hit when Wingels was wobbly and had an ice pack to his face because of it.

I think DW views it as Stoll changed his posture as Torres was already committed to the hit. Torres was kind of screwed when that happened. Its a slim chance and I agree that they can't afford another forward loss.