Jagr probably OK

[Paatos]

Glad to hear that Jagr is already skating!

That's good for everybody. And a legal hit or not, it was not exactly necessary. I still think Ruutu is a hazard for himself, the opponent and teammates, if someone tries to revenge his antics on the Finnish forwards...but yeah, it's part of the game.

Canada game t-5 hours

 

[psycho_dad*]

Every hit is potentially dangerous, but since it is a part of hockey and allowed, players should still be able to do it, if they do it within the rules. There was not a single thing wrong in Ruutu's hit, according to the rules, so why was he penalized?

The boarding rule is there because people got their necks broken and got paralyzed etc. You need to be a bit further away from the boards to get thrown into the boards. If you are standing right next to the boards, it is a legal bodycheck, the kind of hit that has been the essential part of hockey for ages.

People are moaning that Ruutu should have not hit him because he is a star player. Ruutu saw a chance to "put some fear of god" into Jagr and because of the unfortunate events, he got cut in the process. The thing is....Jagr should expect to be hit near the boards. He is not untouchable. You just dont put your head down like that. And if he wants to stay healthy, he will drop that stupid eggshell helmet that protects as much as a plastic bag would.

 

[Ironchef Chris Wok*]

Ruutu didn't "charge" into Jagr. His feet weren't moving when he hit him. So he's off on that part. Nor did his feet leave the ice. I read the "stride counting" part of another thread. Ruutu had good speed, he moves his feet twice TO TURN, and then does not move his from the faceoff dot all the way to the boards. So if you want to call charging it's iffy.

Jagr didn't have his back to Ruutu. So Ruutu is off on that part.

Ruutu kept his elbow down, so he didn't do that either.

Why was Jagr BENT OVER? I HATE to see head injuries, but normally when people say "head down" it means they are standing up right but LOOKNIG DOWN. Jagr was looking down and was BENT OVER.

 

[Raipe]

Ruutu didn't "charge" into Jagr. His feet weren't moving when he hit him. So he's off on that part. Nor did his feet leave the ice. I read the "stride counting" part of another thread. Ruutu had good speed, he moves his feet twice TO TURN, and then does not move his from the faceoff dot all the way to the boards. So if you want to call charging it's iffy.

Jagr didn't have his back to Ruutu. So Ruutu is off on that part.

Ruutu kept his elbow down, so he didn't do that either.

Why was Jagr BENT OVER? I HATE to see head injuries, but normally when people say "head down" it means they are standing up right but LOOKNIG DOWN. Jagr was looking down and was BENT OVER.

True,but try to explain that to the chimp.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Ruutu didn't "charge" into Jagr. His feet weren't moving when he hit him. So he's off on that part. Nor did his feet leave the ice. I read the "stride counting" part of another thread. Ruutu had good speed, he moves his feet twice TO TURN, and then does not move his from the faceoff dot all the way to the boards. So if you want to call charging it's iffy.

Jagr didn't have his back to Ruutu. So Ruutu is off on that part.

Ruutu kept his elbow down, so he didn't do that either.

Why was Jagr BENT OVER? I HATE to see head injuries, but normally when people say "head down" it means they are standing up right but LOOKNIG DOWN. Jagr was looking down and was BENT OVER.

"Ruutu didn't "charge" into Jagr. His feet weren't moving when he hit him." So if I run someone over with my car, I am technically not driving if I let go of the steering wheel and take away my feet from the pedals at the last two seconds? "It wasn't me, it was the laws of physics." Wrong. You are always responsible for your actions.

Ruutu's feet not moving has nothing to do with it. About "Nor did his feet leave the ice." Whose feet? Jagrs feet or Ruutus? Ruutus feet not leaving the ice doesn't clear him from any charging, if you imply that. As for the stride part, Ruutu picks up speed 7 times before he turns the last time (as for the camera. He may have picked up even more speed before the camera spotted him). After the turn (doing the crossover, not slowing down that much), he speeds up twice again. But the number of kicks with his skates is unimportant. The rule is vague and up to the ref. He had an awful lot of speed on the impact.

As for why Jagr was bent down: Because he battled for the puck with another Finn? Of course you bend down in those situations, you see it numerous times each game.

If Ruutu would have used a normal player's judgement, he would have seen that Jagr was in a very vulnerable position and shouldn't have hit him with such an impact, as it clearly was very dangerous. Ruutu is a goon and cheapshots are what goons are there for.

You break in and hold him up against the boards, to give the other Finnish player the chance to steal it in the struggle where they were digging for the puck. You don't charge him with full force in a puck struggle in the Czech defensive zone. It was totally uncalled for.

It doesn't matter if the actual impact of the hit was correct (shoulder against shoulder) if everything else in the situation is wrong.

 

[Veela]

"Ruutu didn't "charge" into Jagr. His feet weren't moving when he hit him." So if I run someone over with my car, I am technically not driving if I let go of the steering wheel and take away my feet from the pedals at the last two seconds? "It wasn't me, it was the laws of physics." Wrong. You are always responsible for your actions.

Ruutu's feet not moving has nothing to do with it. About "Nor did his feet leave the ice." Whose feet? Jagrs feet or Ruutus? Ruutus feet not leaving the ice doesn't clear him from any charging, if you imply that. As for the stride part, Ruutu picks up speed 7 times before he turns the last time (as for the camera. He may have picked up even more speed before the camera spotted him). After the turn (doing the crossover, not slowing down that much), he speeds up twice again. But the number of kicks with his skates is unimportant. The rule is vague and up to the ref. He had an awful lot of speed on the impact.

As for why Jagr was bent down: Because he battled for the puck with another Finn? Of course you bend down in those situations, you see it numerous times each game.

If Ruutu would have used a normal player's judgement, he would have seen that Jagr was in a very vulnerable position and shouldn't have hit him with such an impact, as it clearly was very dangerous. Ruutu is a goon and cheapshots is what goons are there for.

You break in and hold him up against the boards, to give the other Finnish player the chance to steal it in the struggle where they were digging for the puck. You don't charge him with full force in a puck struggle.

Hey, Chimp, let it be. Who don´t want to see it he finds a reason. Your time should be more precious to spend it on these ignorants. Let´s move on, Jags fine, he will even play today against Italy.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Yeah, I guess. This won't get anywhere.

 

[Ironchef Chris Wok*]

One of these days, I'd love to get a copy of the NHL rule book so we can settle these debates. Not that that rule book is actually well written or anything.

I'm pretty sure the rule is taht you have to take THREE strides or more while "in the vicinity" of the player DURING YOUR ADVANCE you're hitting to qualify as charging.

Edit: the rule book says two strides. My bad.

He had an awful lot of speed on the impact.

Speed of impact does not factor into the legality of hits. To charge means you have to ACCELERATE towards your target WHILE NEAR IT.

About "Nor did his feet leave the ice." Whose feet? Jagrs feet or Ruutus

We've had this discussion about a billion times here. Any time your feet leave the ice during a hit, the hit is a penalty. Both Ruutu's feet were firmly planted on the ice during contact.

 

[Jovial]

"Ruutu didn't "charge" into Jagr. His feet weren't moving when he hit him." So if I run someone over with my car, I am technically not driving if I let go of the steering wheel and take away my feet from the pedals at the last two seconds? "It wasn't me, it was the laws of physics." Wrong. You are always responsible for your actions.

Why are you using such stupid comparison? In real life, you can't hit someone with a car, while in hockey you can hit...

Ruutu's feet not moving has nothing to do with it. About "Nor did his feet leave the ice." Whose feet? Jagrs feet or Ruutus? Ruutus feet not leaving the ice doesn't clear him from any charging, if you imply that. As for the stride part, Ruutu picks up speed 7 times before he turns the last time (as for the camera. He may have picked up even more speed before the camera spotted him). After the turn (doing the crossover, not slowing down that much), he speeds up twice again. But the number of kicks with his skates is unimportant. The rule is vague and up to the ref. He had an awful lot of speed on the impact.

Yeah, he had a lot of speed because he saw an opportunity to check someone... everything was fine until 1/2 second before the hit when Jagr bent down. He couldn't do anything to prevent that at this moment. That's unfortunate but that's the game.
Do you want every player to give weaker hit because that there is a small chance that right before the hit, the guy gets out of balance and could be injured?

 

[jepjepjoo]

Write what you mean then.

You are implying it would only have been a charging penalty if Ruutu's skates would have left the ice. How can you otherwise interpret your "FFS" and "tho" = though?

how nice that you edited the smileys off... "ffs" was regarding your post and latter sentance had sarcasm smiley after it

 

[Pepper]

"Ruutu didn't "charge" into Jagr. His feet weren't moving when he hit him." So if I run someone over with my car, I am technically not driving if I let go of the steering wheel and take away my feet from the pedals at the last two seconds? "It wasn't me, it was the laws of physics." Wrong. You are always responsible for your actions.

Ruutu's feet not moving has nothing to do with it. About "Nor did his feet leave the ice." Whose feet? Jagrs feet or Ruutus? Ruutus feet not leaving the ice doesn't clear him from any charging, if you imply that. As for the stride part, Ruutu picks up speed 7 times before he turns the last time (as for the camera. He may have picked up even more speed before the camera spotted him). After the turn (doing the crossover, not slowing down that much), he speeds up twice again. But the number of kicks with his skates is unimportant. The rule is vague and up to the ref. He had an awful lot of speed on the impact.

As for why Jagr was bent down: Because he battled for the puck with another Finn? Of course you bend down in those situations, you see it numerous times each game.

If Ruutu would have used a normal player's judgement, he would have seen that Jagr was in a very vulnerable position and shouldn't have hit him with such an impact, as it clearly was very dangerous. Ruutu is a goon and cheapshots are what goons are there for.

You break in and hold him up against the boards, to give the other Finnish player the chance to steal it in the struggle where they were digging for the puck. You don't charge him with full force in a puck struggle in the Czech defensive zone. It was totally uncalled for.

It doesn't matter if the actual impact of the hit was correct (shoulder against shoulder) if everything else in the situation is wrong.

Chimp, it's an exercise of futility to argue with you when you keep coming up with these idiotic analogies.

In real life you can't hit anyone with a car, regardless of situation. Never.

In hockey it's not only perfectly legal but tactically recommended to hit opponents.

Come back when you understand the difference.

Technically Ruutu's hit was perfectly clean and that's it. You can question Ruutu's motives all you want but they don't really count when we're talking about rulings in hockey.

 

[psycho_dad*]

If Ruutu would have used a normal player's judgement, he would have seen that Jagr was in a very vulnerable position and shouldn't have hit him with such an impact, as it clearly was very dangerous. Ruutu is a goon and cheapshots are what goons are there for.

Everyone knows that if you want the Czech team off their game, you need to lay hits on them. Sometimes they shy away and lose because of it. Ruutu had a perfect situation to hit Jagr cleanly, so he did. Unfortunately the ref reacted like some people on this board and made the call based on who hit who, not how the hit was done.

You either like hitting in hockey or you dont. I like clean hits that dont break the rules, and that is how I want to see hockey played. Even if someone might get hurt in the process. The guys make millions of dollars for taking that risk, and they know the risks too.

 

[Ironchef Chris Wok*]

I posted this on the Canucks board:

THE IIHF RULEBOOK SUCKS.

http://www.iihf.com/hockey/rules/img/sec5.pdf

The entries regarding charging and boarding:

Charging:

A player who runs, jumps, or charges at an opponent shall be assesed, at the discretion of the referee

How this is stupidly written:

The jumping part is clear. Feet on the ice at all times. OK.

"Runs" implies the feet is moving DURING teh contact, because you're "running". "Charging" is incredibly vague. Does it imply the act of acceleration? Does the acceleration have to be NEAR the target? Because players HAVE to accelerate in order to go from standing to move.

I hope you see why this is stupid. I HAVE TO DECIPHER THE BLOODY ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN ORDER TO MAKE CLEAR THE RULE. What am I, a bloody English major? I plan to do something useful as a career

Edit: Does NOBODY else see how stupid this is? They're defining "Charging" with "Charge" as the definition! Circular reasoning at its finest!

"What's somebody with Yellow skin?"
"Someone who's yellow"

WE KNOW THAT YOU MORONS.

Charging identifies the act of taking two or more steps or strides to contact an opposing player

Two strides or steps. OK. WHAT KIND of steps or strides? Do they have to be "pushing" strides the player picks up speed? What about "turning" steps that merely change the diretion of movement but not change speed? Again, we have to do all this interpretation, which makes for lame flamewars on hockey message boards.

Boarding:

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

What the hell is THROWN? I woudl interpretr "thrown" as "far from boards and hit into boards", but that's not clear either. Obviously you can't pick up a player and literally throw him.

Using the IIHF rules to assess Ruutu's hit, I thought it was borderline, but the rulebook is so incredibly horrible that I don't know what to think

 

[Chimpradamus]

Speed of impact does not factor into the legality of hits. To charge means you have to ACCELERATE towards your target WHILE NEAR IT.

Ok, for the last time: The number of strides does not matter in reality. The rule is vague (as sort of every rule). It is up to the ref to decide what is charging.

Charging: "Identifies an act of taking more than two steps or strides to contact an opposing players."

That is all. It says nothing about "you have to ACCELERATE towards your target WHILE NEAR IT." I mean that all that extra speed Ruutu picked up before making the small turn, before the two last strides, are part of that acceleration towards the opponent. You just don't nullify all that speed by changing direction by a couple of degrees. If that would be the rule, you could pick up speed with 25 strides from your own zone, change direction 10 degrees and just gliide into your opponent in 20mph and demolish him. No charging, right? I didn't accelerate while being near my opponent, right? I just happened to glide into him at 20mph.

We've had this discussion about a billion times here. Any time your feet leave the ice during a hit, the hit is a penalty. Both Ruutu's feet were firmly planted on the ice during contact.

We have and I don't get it why you don't get it.
"Charging: A player who runs, jumps or charges an opponent..." You can have both skates on the ice and still charge someone. Sure, if you jump someone it's even more serious, but it's still a charging if you don't jump or lift one skate.

Why are you using such stupid comparison? In real life, you can't hit someone with a car, while in hockey you can hit...

It's an example of ethics and that you are always responsible for your actions.

Yeah, he had a lot of speed because he saw an opportunity to check someone... everything was fine until 1/2 second before the hit when Jagr bent down. He couldn't do anything to prevent that at this moment. That's unfortunate but that's the game.
Do you want every player to give weaker hit because that there is a small chance that right before the hit, the guy gets out of balance and could be injured?

They just took up the incident in Swedish TV again. Everyone agreed that it was 5 min boarding and a match misconduct. A Sweden from the international committe was there and while he says it looks worse than it was, it was still an obvious 5 min + misconduct. Tornberg, the "expert", still thinks Ruutu should be banned for the rest of the tournament, because he means Ruutu could abort the check when he saw that it was obvious it would end up bad. When Jagr turned his head down, it was obvious his head would end up between the boards.

It doesn't matter how much you say "Jagr should have kept his head up." Jagr battled for the puck and it is Ruutu who is responsible for the hit. If you hit someone in the face with your stick, you get called for it, even if it was unintentional. Same thing, although Ruutu knew what he was doing, it wasn't unintentional.

Enough of this.

 

[Pepper]

It doesn't matter how much you say "Jagr should have kept his head up." Jagr battled for the puck and it is Ruutu who is responsible for the hit. If you hit someone in the face with your stick, you get called for it, even if it was unintentional. Same thing, although Ruutu knew what he was doing, it wasn't unintentional.

Enough of this.

Chimp, why is this so hard for you to understand??

YOU CAN'T HIT ANYONE IN THE FACE WITH A STICK, regardless of the situation!!

Hitting is legal.

Stop making these stupid analogies will ya?

 

[Chimpradamus]

Hitting is legal IF you do it within the boundaries of the rules. Geesh. A bodycheck is defined in the penalty of boarding, even if the hit is normally an ok one. This is also the case in charging.

 

[Ironchef Chris Wok*]

We have and I don't get it why you don't get it.
"Charging: A player who runs, jumps or charges an opponent..." You can have both skates on the ice and still charge someone. Sure, if you jump someone it's even more serious, but it's still a charging if you don't jump or lift one skate.

Define to me the difference between "charging" and "not charging"

Edit:

I just happened to glide into him at 20mph.

If you just don't want people hitting other people at really fast speeds, then tell me. Because all bodychecks involve high speed impact.

If you don't want to define "charging" with an "Accleration" component to it, then there is no other way to define the word. Because simply a 'high speed impact" is not sufficient to determine the difference between a "charge" and a "regular body check"

 

[Pepper]

Hitting is legal IF you do it within the boundaries of the rules. Geesh.

Exactly, hitting with a stick in the face is not!

Understand now why your analogy is so ridiculous?

 

[Chimpradamus]

Exactly, hitting with a stick in the face is not!

Understand now why your analogy is so ridiculous?

The analogy is you said "He couldn't do anything to prevent that (at this moment)." And I meant "Neither could the player who hit a player in the face with his stick. He didn't want it to happen, but it happened. But both player pay for it.
You mean Ruutu couldn't do anything to prevent it, I say neither could the player who hit another with the stick.
You say Ruutu's hit was legal and the stick in the face is illegal, I say both were illegal. Hence Ruutu's 5+20 match misconduct.

 

[Ironchef Chris Wok*]

I'm goign to say the exact same thign one more time, then I'm goign to play Football Manager:

1. The rule is vaguely written, and quite frankly is open to interpretation, since "discretion of referee..."

2. A distinction between a "charge" and a "legal" body check must be made.

3. The rule book says "run, jump, and charge". The "jump" part involves feet leaving the ice, so that's out of the way. How do we define "run" and "Charge"?

4. Therefore, when we interpret the rule, it is not only logical but necessary to add another component to in order to "differentiate". THe "Acceleration" component fits this critera, because to "Run" and "Charge" we have to accelerate. Also, when the rule book mentions "strides", we can also "imply" that they do infact mean an "accleration" component, because strides usually cause players to acclerate because a force is acted upon them.

5. Surely, the mere "speed' of the impact CANNOT be the differentiatng factor between a "charge" and a "legal" hit. Becasue all "Big" "Legal" hits that we have come to know and love ALL involve high speed impacts, and at what threshold do you cap your speed? Using "speed" as the criteria to differentiate between "Charging" and "legal body check" is not only impractical but impossible.

Edit:

6. There's an additional component of "acceleration" that fits the interpretation. Acceleration can be used as something to judge "intent". But if you want to open the door of "intent", that just opens up a Pandora's box in which I DO NOT WANT TO GO at the moment, because then teh conversation will degrade incredibly quickly.

 

[Jovial]

The analogy is you said "He couldn't do anything to prevent that (at this moment)." And I meant "Neither could the player who hit a player in the face with his stick. He didn't want it to happen, but it happened. But both player pay for it.
You mean Ruutu couldn't do anything to prevent it, I say neither could the player who hit another with the stick.
You say Ruutu's hit was legal and the stick in the face is illegal, I say both were illegal. Hence Ruutu's 5+20 match misconduct.

Why illegal, because he was too fast? What is the speed limit for hitting?

 

[The New Originals]

This argument will go on for a long time probably. The hit wasn't needed. Officials ALL SAY the hit was illegal. You gotta' figure they know more about the subject than any of us, right? If Jagr didn't collapse on the ice afterwards, the hit wouldn't be seen as being as serious, it still would have been a penalty though.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Define to me the difference between "charging" and "not charging"

Edit:


If you just don't want people hitting other people at really fast speeds, then tell me. Because all bodychecks involve high speed impact.

If you don't want to define "charging" with an "Accleration" component to it, then there is no other way to define the word. Because simply a 'high speed impact" is not sufficient to determine the difference between a "charge" and a "regular body check"

Right. Let's just remove the charging penalty from hockey. I have no idea what it's doing there anyway.

 

[Jovial]

Right. Let's just remove the charging penalty from hockey. I have no idea what it's doing there anyway.

To prevent real charging infractions...

 

[edd1e]

This argument will go on for a long time probably. The hit wasn't needed. Officials ALL SAY the hit was illegal. You gotta' figure they know more about the subject than any of us, right? If Jagr didn't collapse on the ice afterwards, the hit wouldn't be seen as being as serious, it still would have been a penalty though.

YES, it was illegal, and Ruutu served the penalty 5+20, some people here thinks Ruutu intented to injure Jagr, which my opionion is pretty hard to guess.