Question About the Zub Hit on Tavares

[conFABulator]

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

That would be a fair answer. Again, I am not sure I see it that way but am aware I am viewing through Leaf coloured glasses.

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.

Honestly, this is my point. Based on this rule the league should be looking at it. I would be OK with them saying we looked at it and no further penalty or a $2K fine or whatever. The silence on it from the league (so far), the media, even HF Boards (until this thread) was confusing to me.

 

[SEALBound]

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.

So several years ago you thought he was good (maybe at around age 26-27) but now that he's 34 you're realizing he isn't as good?

Seems to track.

 

[AvroArrow]

According to Senators fans, you're allowed to take one hand off the stick, get your elbow up, and make direct contact with your opponents head, as long as you're standing still

A lot of people clueless about the NHLs rules

It's a clear penalty and should get a call from DoPS but as usual when it's our guy on the receiving end there will be nothing

 

[conFABulator]

Tavares had no idea a player was there because he was puck watching, so he skated right into the slot and into another player who was standing in his space.

It’s on him.

Unless you believe the rulebook is being followed because 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.

That review might determine no further penalty, but let's not pretend a rule wasn't broken. I am ok with against a rule was broken and they missed it. That happens.

 

[conFABulator]

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



That's the "national" media for you.

You believe the Athletic is the "national media"? It is a for-profit venture owned by the NY Times. They will disproportionately cover anything that will drive more revenue.

Maybe take a look at how TSN, Sportsnet and CBC covered this story, oh wait...they didn't ...and this was my original point. Lots of time on all of those on the Hagel hit, the Tkachuk hit...or course those were hits to players without picks that put players down and/or our.

 

[flyingfingers]

Unless you believe the rulebook is being followed because 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.

That review might determine no further penalty, but let's not pretend a rule wasn't broken. I am ok with against a rule was broken and they missed it. That happens.

The key word there is “could”. Whether the rule was broken or not is up to the interpretation of the specific incident.

In this case, the officials, and seemingly the league, have deemed that the contact to the head was not avoidable and therefore, the rule was not broken. So no penalty, fine or suspension.

Personally I agree with them. That collision was going to happen regardless of what Zub did.. That’s why it wasn’t called.

Again, you seem pretty firm in your stance that there should have been a penalty, which is fine, but it looks like you made this thread not to hear explanations or understand why it wasn’t called, but to complain that it wasn’t called.

 

[The Expert]

The funny thing is, if Tavares doesn't lay there trying to sell the call, he's available for the 4 minute PP.

 

[conFABulator]

The key word there is “could”. Whether the rule was broken or not is up to the interpretation of the specific incident.

In this case, the officials, and seemingly the league, have deemed that the contact to the head was not avoidable and therefore, the rule was not broken. So no penalty, fine or suspension.

Personally I agree with them. That collision was going to happen regardless of what Zub did.. That’s why it wasn’t called.

Again, you seem pretty firm in your stance that there should have been a penalty, which is fine, but it looks like you made this thread not to hear explanations or understand why it wasn’t called, but to complain that it wasn’t called.

I am not sure where the key word of "could" is in my post anywhere

 

[Karl Eriksson]

The funny thing is, if Tavares doesn't lay there trying to sell the call, he's available for the 4 minute PP.

Exactly. Zub didn't knock him of the game, it was Tavares that took Tavares out of the game by milking it.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

You believe the Athletic is the "national media"? It is a for-profit venture owned by the NY Times. They will disproportionately cover anything that will drive more revenue.

Maybe take a look at how TSN, Sportsnet and CBC covered this story, oh wait...they didn't ...and this was my original point. Lots of time on all of those on the Hagel hit, the Tkachuk hit...or course those were hits to players without picks that put players down and/or our.

This was many levels below either of those hits.

 

[Ducer]

The funny thing is, if Tavares doesn't lay there trying to sell the call, he's available for the 4 minute PP.

No he was pulled off the bench for concussion protocol.

 

[Karl Eriksson]

This was many levels below either of those hits.

It wasn't even a hit. Tavares domed himself because he was flying around the front of the net without paying any attention to the defenders

 

[Karl Eriksson]

No he was pulled off the bench for concussion protocol.

Because he was lying on the ice like he'd been shot despite being totally fine. The reaction drew the spotters.

 

[bert]

Zub does not move from his spot. Tavares initiates the contact (unknowingly)

End of thread.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Because he was lying on the ice like he'd been shot despite being totally fine. The reaction drew the spotters.

He sold the crosscheck to his "head" in game 1. Rather unbecoming of him, this act.

 

[Karl Eriksson]

End of thread.

Squared

 

[Stephen]

Take it as an invitation to make hits like this, playoffs baby.

 

[Anglesmith]

I think there is enough movement from Zub that it becomes referee discretion whether to call an interference penalty. If we're being honest, Tavares is cutting to avoid Zub and it isn't like Zub would be getting hit if he didn't throw the shoulder.

 

[conFABulator]

This was many levels below either of those hits.

Possibly. I don't think Tkachuk gets suspended or Zub. Why is the Zub shot to the head below Tkachuk's though? The league has a pretty zero tolerance with head shots.

Having said this, they have already been inconsistent with some head shots going unpenalized (Caulfield).

 

[NyQuil]

You believe the Athletic is the "national media"? It is a for-profit venture owned by the NY Times. They will disproportionately cover anything that will drive more revenue.

Maybe take a look at how TSN, Sportsnet and CBC covered this story, oh wait...they didn't ...and this was my original point. Lots of time on all of those on the Hagel hit, the Tkachuk hit...or course those were hits to players without picks that put players down and/or our.

It’s Chris Johnston who is on the national media all the time.

You really think it won’t be covered?

We have a couple more days before the next game.

Part of the reason why it isn’t bigger is that it’s Sunday, and another part of the reason is that it was marginal.

 

[conFABulator]

End of thread.

Unless of course people feel like Zub extended a chicken wing to hit Tavares, which you would have to do if someone skated into you, or if none of that even matters because a shot to the head is a penalty even if non-intentional.

I know you declared this thread over, but some of us are still having adult discussion here. Feel free to remove yourself if you are done with it though.

 

[conFABulator]

It’s Chris Johnston who is on the national media all the time.

You really think it won’t be covered?

We have a couple more days before the next game.

Part of the reason why it isn’t bigger is that it’s Sunday, and another part of the reason is that it was marginal.

I don't know, I don't have a crystal ball. The complaint was that what was in the Athletic should not have been considering it is national media. I was implying pointing out the that there is no definition of national media that would include the Athletic.

...the same is true for Sportsnet and TSN too by the way. For profit businesses that need to make money

 

[Zybalto]

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

So that obviously means you cant call any more penalties in their favor no matter how obvious?=

Game management or series management, its all a trash way to run your officiating. We are in a strange era where the team committing obviously more infractions can end up getting penalized less in series. Just let the refs set the damn precedent early in a game and then call it the same all game regardless of score so the players know whats up.

 

[Summer Rose]

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.

That's what I came here to say but you beat me to it. I don't doubt at all that DOPS at least took a cursory glance at this play and then decided to not do anything about it. They're not going to release a statement saying that, however, but as you pointed out, we might eventually hear through the grapevine from someone like Dreger or Friedman about it.

As for the officials, while I'm not privy to the finer details of exactly how they do it and what's said in the room, considering especially that it's the playoffs, I'm certain they reviewed an incident like this. Dan O'Halloran is the series supervisor, so I'm sure he at least looked at it. Whether they come to the conclusion of "damn, we missed that and should have called a penalty in hindsight" or "great non-call buddy, high five!" is anyone's guess. While I can certainly understand why if they were to come to the latter conclusion, since it could be argued to be not worth calling in overtime of a playoff game "because it's the playoffs" (or whatever the normal justification is), I wouldn't say that I like it at all. I think it's a penalty that should have been called.

Also, @conFABulator you deserve recognition for staying level-headed and mature throughout this discussion. Well done to you.

 

[bert]

Unless of course people feel like Zub extended a chicken wing to hit Tavares, which you would have to do if someone skated into you, or if none of that even matters because a shot to the head is a penalty even if non-intentional.

I know you declared this thread over, but some of us are still having adult discussion here. Feel free to remove yourself if you are done with it though.

Ironically youre acting like a child complaining about something that wasn't even a penalty. Tavares skated into him what's Zub supposed to do? If we're actually keeping track the leafs have been getting the majority of the calls. So yeah how about you take your own advice. Your leafs are up 3 to 1 going home. Be happy and stop crying.