Jagr probably OK

[Ironchef Chris Wok*]

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

Just because you cannot figure out a vaguely written rule that becomes easy to interpret once a logical component is added doesn't mean it's useless.

 

[Pepper]

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

You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper every time you post.

It's painfully obvious you haven't been watching hockey for long.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Pepper, it's called sarcasm. Check it up in a dictionary. Notice the smiley.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Just because you cannot figure out a vaguely written rule that becomes easy to interpret once a logical component is added doesn't mean it's useless.

I've already said it perhaps 50 times in this thread. I don't need to repeat myself and anything I write wouldn't change your mind of Ruutu's boarding anyway.

It is up to the ref and the situation, simple logic says it's all about not being overly violent. The rule is there to keep players from taking 9 strides and then demolishing their opponent.

 

[Sports Archaeologist]

Question for Ruutu supporters:

After Jagr's injury, how do you explain Ruutu's actions (smiling, waving to the Czech bench, etc.)?

 

[Chimpradamus]

And now it was confirmed on Swedish Television, asking the head of all referees in Sweden: THERE IS NO MINIMAL LENGTH FOR BOARDING.

You CAN receive a boarding penalty even if the opponent is standing next to the boards. Just as I've said for the last 6 hours.

 

[Pepper]

Question for Ruutu supporters:

After Jagr's injury, how do you explain Ruutu's actions (smiling, waving to the Czech bench, etc.)?

That's Jarkko for you. He could take a bullet in the head and he would still be doing that.

 

[Pepper]

And now it was confirmed on Swedish Television, asking the head of all referees in Sweden: THERE IS NO MINIMAL LENGTH FOR BOARDING.

You CAN receive a boarding penalty even if the opponent is standing next to the boards. Just as I've said for the last 6 hours.

You CAN receive a penalty for that, true. Doesn't make it a right call though.

 

[JussiM]

Question for Ruutu supporters:

After Jagr's injury, how do you explain Ruutu's actions (smiling, waving to the Czech bench, etc.)?

Maybe it's just me but I thought it was directed to Straka...

 

[paxtang]

I like and still like Ruutu. He is excellent at what he does. He is a ****-disturber, who hit the best player in a vulnerable position. Was it borderline dirty? I would say so. I highly doubt Ruutu wanted to hurt him... he saw him and clocked him, simple as that.

This is being totally overblown... like everything around here at HF. How many of you have actually seen Ruutu play more than one NHL game? He has fought before, Rob Blake, Byron Ritche among others. He does not turtle, we already have one of those on the Canucks (Matt Cooke). Ruutu is a tough player who picks his spots, and unfortunately Jagr was his spot today.

I like Ruutu better than guys like Cooke or Maltby who stir **** up but won't ever back it up. But Ruutu HAS turtled before.

 

[Chimpradamus]

You CAN receive a penalty for that, true. Doesn't make it a right call though.

He also stated it was an obvious 5+20 game misconduct, but no need for suspension.

But I guess the head of refs are wrong and you are right.

 

[Flonaldo]

Question for Ruutu supporters:

After Jagr's injury, how do you explain Ruutu's actions (smiling, waving to the Czech bench, etc.)?

Easy: Straka's bearhug enforcing and the running commentary from the Czech bench.

 

[paxtang]

Or maybe for the first time he saw is fellow NHL superstar teammate and close friend get hit with a cheapshot and his adrenaline kicked in? Sure looked like that considering he went way out of his way from the top of the blue line to jump Ruutu.

And you think there's never been a situation in the NHL where a teammate of his has taken a hard hit or a cheap shot or whatever? It isn't just Straka, it's a theme with soft star players in the NHL who don't want to stick up for themselves or teammates in the NHL, whether it's because they don't care about their NHL teammates like their national teammates or they don't have the guts to take on the players in the NHL, but it's fascinating to me to see guys all of a sudden grow a sack when they get out of the NHL.

 

[Ironchef Chris Wok*]

It is up to the ref and the situation, simple logic says it's all about not being overly violent. .

There IS no logic in your argument beyond "Because I say so". Again, define "overly violent"

The rule is there to keep players from taking 9 strides and then demolishing their opponent

Exactly, the rule says 2 strides or more are not acceptable. Yet "strides" is not defined. "demolishing" is not defined.

You have yet to come up with a CLEAR definition of "charging" and "Boarding" that will properly differentiate between legal and illegal hits. "Overly violent" and "up to teh ref" are BS arguments.

But I guess the head of refs are wrong and you are right.

The constant use of the "authority" argument on HFboards is incredibly annoying.

And now it was confirmed on Swedish Television, asking the head of all referees in Sweden: THERE IS NO MINIMAL LENGTH FOR BOARDING.

If there is no minimal length, then the hit can be simply "interpreted" as an "open-ice hit." Hey, you said it yourself, there is no "minimal length"!

 

[The Pens Are Back*]

i guess ruutu never got the memo from the NHL offices that you cant hit jagr..even in international play

 

[Chimpradamus]

There IS no logic in your argument beyond "Because I say so". Again, define "overly violent"

Overly violent = Using more violence than necessary.
Violence = physical infliction.

Exactly, the rule says 2 strides or more are not acceptable. Yet "strides" is not defined. "demolishing" is not defined.

Stride = One "glide" with the skate. Do you want me to define "glide" and "skate" as well?
"Demolishing" = Think of a picture of one of this black balls in a chain from a crane, tearing down a building. Huge physical impact that breaks things.

You have yet to come up with a CLEAR definition of "charging" and "Boarding" that will properly differentiate between legal and illegal hits. "Overly violent" and "up to the ref" are BS arguments.

Do I? Do I have to create a new language as well? If there were clear borders, they would already be there.

If you think "up to the ref" is BS, it is up to you. It IS up to the ref to make the calls with his judgement, with the help of the vague book of rules.

The constant use of the "authority" argument on HFboards is incredibly annoying.

And still you will keep seeing them when someone who obviously has more knowledge and experience of the subject has made a statement on the issue. Is it annoying because ref authority doesn't agree on what you think? What "they" think is very important, because it is "they" who will make the call, each and every time.

If there is no minimal length, then the hit can be simply "interpreted" as an "open-ice hit." Hey, you said it yourself, there is no "minimal length"!

You can call it whatever you want, let's call it "crab-cake." Ruutu will still receive a Game Misconduct for "crab-cake." What Ruutu did was wrong. Period.

If you want a definition of words, I could paste definitions from the Cambridge Dictionary. But you can check that up for yourself.

If we can't agree on the definition and meaning of different words, we have a huge problem. Then we have no common language and we cannot communicate.

If you don't know the meaning for the English words "demolish" and "overly violent" for example, what can I do?

 

[Pepper]

Overly violent = Using more violence than necessary.
Violence = physical infliction.

Define "more violence than necessary"...That's the problem and you don't seem to understand it at all.

 

[Vodka Drunkenski]

i guess ruutu never got the memo from the NHL offices that you cant hit jagr..even in international play

Any player is fair game for a "clean" hit...that hit was far from clean.

I'm still trying to figure out the Penguins hatred for this guy.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Define "more violence than necessary"...That's the problem and you don't seem to understand it at all.

Here you go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYOs6lHOJ-c

When you are obviously using so much force that the danger of a serious injury on your opponent is imminent, it is "overly violent."

 

[edd1e]

Chimp and others, what is the point of these arguements when the real judges have made their decision?

Ruutu can continue playing in these Olympics, and Jagr didnt get badly hurt in this accident.

 

[mr gib]

they just showed his picture on cbc - huge cut and serious swelling

 

[Chimpradamus]

Because I'm sick of people defending Ruutu's actions and saying "it was Jagr's fault", "it was a clean hit, he didn't break any rules", "he should have kept his head up" and "this is true hockey." No on all of the above. This is exactly what hockey doesn't need and I will rant on those supporting cheapshots.

 

[Pepper]

When you are obviously using so much force that the danger of a serious injury on your opponent is imminent, it is "overly violent."

I've seen the video (with much better quality mind you) about 20 times already thank you.

And your definition is vague BS - all hockey hits can be potentially dangerous. Remember when Laperriere checked Savage with a clean hit resulting a broken neck (~3 years ago)?

Sorry, your definition simply doesn't work.

 

[Pepper]

Because I'm sick of people defending Ruutu's actions and saying "it was Jagr's fault", "it was a clean hit, he didn't break any rules", "he should have kept his head up" and "this is true hockey." No on all of the above. This is exactly what hockey doesn't need and I will rant on those supporting cheapshots.

You can't even tell which rules the hit broke.

But hey, keep ranting.

 

[Chimpradamus]

You can't even tell which rules the hit broke.

But hey, keep ranting.

For the 100th time, BOARDING. I have to ask you, how it is NOT a boarding? By your very faulty statement that a boarding can only be called when the opponent stands a bit away from the boards so he is thrown into them?

It is possibly a checking from behind as well, as the whole principle of checking from behind is that the check is delivered when the opponent doesn't see the hitter coming and is defenseless. Jagr was both. This is more an interpretation though as Ruutu came more from the side as Jagr turned up, so I do NOT say it is a checking from behind.

And for your information, I have also looked at a replay with much better quality. This was just the only online version that I knew of, if that is of any importance.