Question About the Zub Hit on Tavares

[flyingfingers]

I don't know how you can say that "definitely". You might be right.

I think this play deserves some commentary and maybe a "the league looked into it and determined it was incidental".

Another genuine question, even in incidental contact is a player allowed to lead with an arm to the other player's head?

The league doesn’t release statements when they deem something to be incidental and not worthy of further review.

Usually in those cases, someone like Dreger or Friedman call their guys at the league office and ask, and then tweet the response out.

I haven’t seen anything from them so maybe they also don’t think too much of the play. Or it’s Sunday and they’ll tweet about it later.

 

[tailfins]

That's a fair answer and not how I saw it. Again, the hometown glasses might skew what I am seeing and I accept that.

Can you honestly tell me you think there would have been any collision at all if Zub didn't chicken wing him though? Tavares was taking a route to avoid the contact IMO.

Tavares’ right leg is inside Zub’s right leg. It would have been impossible for them to avoid contact.

 

[flyingfingers]

Tavares’ right leg is inside Zub’s right leg. It would have been impossible for them to avoid contact.

This.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

hi, i dislike both teams, from that GIF looks like Zub chicken wung him right in the chops. playoff hockey?

 

[conFABulator]

Tavares literally skates right into zub and then falls.

Maybe don't skate into other players while not watching where you're going?

It's like running into a busy street and jumping into a car and blaming the car. Like those Asian country scams you see.

Nice try but no one is falling for it.

Not sure what you think I want you to "fall for", however even if the head contact was incidental or not intentional, Rule 48 makes clear that a hit where the head is the main point of contact — and where that contact was avoidable — can still be penalized or reviewed for discipline.

All I want is some discussion about this and it seems to be that

(1) Some people seem to think this was avoidable and to the head and therefore illegal. Not sure we all think it should be punishable after being missed in real time.

(2) Some watch the video and say it was an incidental collision. This is open for interpretation and in my mind that is what makes this a reviewable play. Let DOPS decide if was incidental or avoidable.

(3) Many cannot behave like adults and miss the point of this thread -- discussion about the hit and not just an opportunity for anti-Leaf bias.

 

[conFABulator]

hi, i dislike both teams, from that GIF looks like Zub chicken wung him right in the chops. playoff hockey?

Ok, playoff hockey. I can accept that as a (frustrating) answer. Just don't tell me a rule wasn't broken (and you are not).

 

[flyingfingers]

Not sure what you think I want you to "fall for", however even if the head contact was incidental or not intentional, Rule 48 makes clear that a hit where the head is the main point of contact — and where that contact was avoidable — can still be penalized or reviewed for discipline.

All I want is some discussion about this and it seems to be that

(1) Some people seem to think this was avoidable and to the head and therefore illegal. Not sure we all think it should be punishable after being missed in real time.

(2) Some watch the video and say it was an incidental collision. This is open for interpretation and in my mind that is what makes this a reviewable play. Let DOPS decide if was incidental or avoidable.

(3) Many cannot behave like adults and miss the point of this thread -- discussion about the hit and not just an opportunity for anti-Leaf bias.

On (2), they likely already did this. But they don’t release statements in cases when something is deemed incidental and there’s no further action. They review many hits and altercations every night, and scrutiny only goes up in the playoffs. They’re not going to put out a statement about each one.

If a lot of people are asking, or it’s a big story, we usually have to rely on Friedman or Dreger reporting the league’s position out.

Maybe they will, or maybe they too don’t think much of it.

I didn’t watch the post game media, but did Berube or anyone from Toronto bring this up? If they didn’t, you probably won’t hear any more about it.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Really gettin into the weeds here, but I think Zub sees him last second and just shifts slightly to interfere- didn’t see him or plan long enough for that to really be intentional imo. Shoulda been 2, ah well.

 

[koteka]

If there is a player I once thought was a great player but over the years have realized is seriously overrated for a team game like hockey it is Tavares.

 

[MeHateHe]

Is there another angle? Zub moved toward Tavares and initiated contact, so I think there is a case for interference, but it’s hard to see exactly where the contact was from that angle.

I am once again asking for the creation of a moderated sub-forum so folks with officiating experience can discuss and educate others on situations like this, without having to wade through fanbases crying about bias or accusing players of diving.

 

[Karl Eriksson]

The real criminal is the sniper in the rafters at Canadian Tire Centre who keeps taking down leafs players in the slot

 

[conFABulator]

Well stop being a whiny Leafs fan. Stolarz basically assaulted Greig the other night , one was a head shot, but I didn't see any main board threads about it. If you post a ridiculous thread expect some push back. It's playoff hockey.

You mean the okay where Stolarz got a penalty for roughing or interference or whatever? You didn't see discussion about Greig running Stolarz and Stolarz retaliating the next game? I did.

Also, what about my comments here are whiny? If anything you seem unwilling to entertain discussion that maybe your team got away with one. I have not insulted Ottawa players or fans here. I have said that IMO there was no intent to injure by Zub, however it may have been careless and the league doesn't make a distinction on that with head shots

 

[flyingfingers]

You mean the okay where Stolarz got a penalty for roughing or interference or whatever? You didn't see discussion about Greig running Stolarz and Stolarz retaliating the next game? I did.

Also, what about my comments here are whiny? If anything you seem unwilling to entertain discussion that maybe your team got away with one. I have not insulted Ottawa players or fans here. I have said that IMO there was no intent to injure by Zub, however it may have been careless and the league doesn't make a distinction on that with head shots

I mean, you started a thread to “pose a question” but anytime someone provides a reasonable answer, but one that doesn’t align with the position you had already taken, you question its validity.

So did you start this thread to understand why the league isn’t reviewing this incident (which has been explained), or did you start this thread to get people to agree with you that the league should review this incident?

I think it’s fine to think it should be reviewed, but IMO it’s fairly easy to see why the league would think otherwise.

 

[conFABulator]

The league doesn’t release statements when they deem something to be incidental and not worthy of further review.

Usually in those cases, someone like Dreger or Friedman call their guys at the league office and ask, and then tweet the response out.

I haven’t seen anything from them so maybe they also don’t think too much of the play. Or it’s Sunday and they’ll tweet about it later.

Thanks. I did wonder about that. It seems unreasonable to expect the league to comment on non-calls.

Again, I was surprised how little discussion it got post-game and this morning and wanted to hear some opinions. It had a big enough impact that it seemed worthy of discussion.

CJ had the only piece I could find about it on the Athletic. He talked about the impact of the Leafs not getting a PP and then not having Tavares when they did get a PP. He didn't include a video or offer any opinion on a review. He simple said "it could have been a penalty that changed the game.

 

[Zybalto]

So the consensus in here is that the chicken wing to Tavares head is that its:

- Tavares fault for skating into his elbow
- a dive
- not a penalty

Jeezus. Never change hfboards.

In the end it's a headshot to a guy without the puck that led to him missing time.

It's incidental enough that 2 minutes is probably the correct call (reckless reaction penalty) but something has to be called there. The refs were letting the desperate Sens get away with murder the 2nd half of the game. The Tkachuk butt end on Benoit in overtime in front of the refs (one of 3 penalties he should have been called for that shift) was even more egregious IMO. You can see them reluctantly having to give the penalty on the Tanev high stick as it's black and white and they had to call it lol.

It is what it is though.

Don't expect any sympathy on the main boards. The jersey the player is wearing dictates many of their opinions.

 

[Summer Rose]

That's a fair answer and not how I saw it. Again, the hometown glasses might skew what I am seeing and I accept that.

Can you honestly tell me you think there would have been any collision at all if Zub didn't chicken wing him though? Tavares was taking a route to avoid the contact IMO.

I just looked at it a second time. I must have not caught it the first time but a second (and third) time looking at the play, it does look like Zub sticks his elbow out a bit and Tavares changes his angle a bit in perhaps a half-hearted attempt to skate around him. That’s a pretty standard (minor) penalty for elbowing if you ask me. Zub isn’t really looking at him so it’s probably just incidental without any intent, but by the rules, technically a penalty.

Also, I don’t get saying that Tavares dove or tried to sell anything. He just wasn’t expecting it. Happens.

 

[conFABulator]

I mean, you started a thread to “pose a question” but anytime someone provides a reasonable answer, but one that doesn’t align with the position you had already taken, you question its validity.

So did you start this thread to understand why the league isn’t reviewing this incident (which has been explained), or did you start this thread to get people to agree with you that the league should review this incident?

I don't believe you are fairly representing my responses in that comment. I have said "fair, if it was deemed incidental by the league I could live with that" on a few occasions in here

I don't agree with that perspective and am simply wondering what the threshold is for the league to comment or review and comment. We had a player leave the game for concussion protocol after being hit without having the puck. I might have though my that was the threshold.

Someon pointed out that maybe the league doesn't comment on all non-calls and that often it is someone like Dreger or Friedman saying they talked to someone at the league and they said....

That is also fair.

I am quite satisfied that this is at least now being discussed and most have been mature and productive with their input.

 

[flyingfingers]

So the consensus in here is that the chicken wing to Tavares head is that its:

- Tavares fault for skating into his elbow
- a dive
- not a penalty

Jeezus. Never change hfboards.

In the end it's a headshot to a guy without the puck that led to him missing time.

It's incidental enough that 2 minutes is probably the correct call (reckless reaction penalty) but something has to be called there. The refs were letting the desperate Sens get away with murder the 2nd half of the game. The Tkachuk butt end on Benoit in overtime in front of the refs (one of 3 penalties he should have been called for that shift) was even more egregious IMO. You can see them reluctantly having to give the penalty on the Tanev high stick as it's black and white and they had to call it lol.

It is what it is though.

Don't expect any sympathy on the main boards. The jersey the player is wearing dictates many of their opinions.

The Leafs have received the 4th most PP opportunities in the playoffs, so far.

 

[flyingfingers]

I just looked at it a second time. I must have not caught it the first time but a second (and third) time looking at the play, it does look like Zub sticks his elbow out a bit and Tavares changes his angle a bit in perhaps a half-hearted attempt to skate around him. That’s a pretty standard (minor) penalty for elbowing if you ask me. Zub isn’t really looking at him so it’s probably just incidental without any intent, but by the rules, technically a penalty.

Also, I don’t get saying that Tavares dove or tried to sell anything. He just wasn’t expecting it. Happens.

I don’t think anyone would say he dove on the initial play. He wasn’t expecting contact as much as Zub wasn’t expecting contact.

What some might say is that he stayed down for too long after the hit in an effort to draw the call, and in 2025, as soon as you grab your head after a collision, the concussion spotter will pull you out of the game.

Had he gotten up quickly and played it off, he would probably have stayed in the game the whole time.

 

[conFABulator]

I just looked at it a second time. I must have not caught it the first time but a second (and third) time looking at the play, it does look like Zub sticks his elbow out a bit and Tavares changes his angle a bit in perhaps a half-hearted attempt to skate around him. That’s a pretty standard (minor) penalty for elbowing if you ask me. Zub isn’t really looking at him so it’s probably just incidental without any intent, but by the rules, technically a penalty.

Also, I don’t get saying that Tavares dove or tried to sell anything. He just wasn’t expecting it. Happens.

Thank you. That's a very fair take. I appreciate you taking a second and third look. I am a fan, but try not be a homer and I am having a "is it just me or was that not an interference/elbow/headshot" and being gaslit by other fans is not helping.

I read your response as "yeah, it probably was a missed minor" as totally acceptable and appreciated.

If the league and DOPS explains things as it was a minor penality missed by the officials but not worthy or deeper review then I would be annoyed (as a fan) but OK with that. The lack of discussion around it has sincerely been confusing for me.

 

[conFABulator]

I don’t think anyone would say he dove on the initial play. He wasn’t expecting contact as much as Zub wasn’t expecting contact.

What some might say is that he stayed down for too long after the hit in an effort to draw the call, and in 2025, as soon as you grab your head after a collision, the concussion spotter will pull you out of the game.

Had he gotten up quickly and played it off, he would probably have stayed in the game the whole time.

I can agree with all of this. Who knows if he stayed down too long to draw a penalty. JT is a smart player and once no call was made I believe he would have realized that he was in danger of drawing concussion spotter attention. Who knows?

 

[NyQuil]

The league doesn’t release statements when they deem something to be incidental and not worthy of further review.

Usually in those cases, someone like Dreger or Friedman call their guys at the league office and ask, and then tweet the response out.

I haven’t seen anything from them so maybe they also don’t think too much of the play. Or it’s Sunday and they’ll tweet about it later.

Chris Johnston already wrote an entire article about it in the Athletic.



That's the "national" media for you.

 

[John Mandalorian]

This looked like a classic case of incidental contact. Zub is defending his position. Tavares is skating around looking for openings and skates right into Zub. I don't see why this needs further discussion.

A. It involves Toronto.
B. It involves Bieksa pandering to Toronto fans on Canadian television.

 

[conFABulator]

A. It involves Toronto.
B. It involves Bieksa pandering to Toronto fans on Canadian television.

Actually, I thought Bieksa was not representing Toronto enough post game on this one. He said "Toronto fans will want a call for the chicken wings and Ottawa fans won't" and then moved on. I was expecting more discussion and that was my initial point.

As for CJ's article, it you actually read it it is about how not having Tavares impacted the four minute PP and spent very little time on why JT was out in the first place. He didn't even include a replay of the hit.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Tavares dove in game 1 as well.