...remember watching that game; thought Buff was gonna kill someone...totally legal hit on a Papier Mache Havlat who lost the puck between his own legs and took his eyes off of an oncoming Freight Train...
Worst Match penalty/Major ever called (Cizikas NYI)
- Thread starter SI90
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
...remember watching that game; thought Buff was gonna kill someone...totally legal hit on a Papier Mache Havlat who lost the puck between his own legs and took his eyes off of an oncoming Freight Train...
Nogatco Rd
Pierre-McGuire Luc Dubois
- Apr 3, 2021
- 4,591
- 8,285
Not usually but it can. I wanna say that actually happened earlier this year, maybe even a dif islanders game? I think no penalty called but there was ultimately a suspension by DPOS for charging.
Edit I guess it wasn’t the isles, think I’m mixing up the Tsyplakov hit with something else
Last edited:
Looks clean to me. Bischel just tried some weird fishing pole tech instead of arriving at the boards normally.
kerrabria
Registered User
- May 3, 2018
- 4,204
- 5,282
Cizikas is 5'11" and Bichsel is 6'5". You're even exaggerating the height difference.
Actually totally incorrect. Concussions can come from hits to the chest. In fact any hit strong enough and away from the head can cause a concussions just like a head hit can.
People think height matters WAY more than it does. You act like they are moving around the ice stuck straight up. They move their bodies around, they reach, they lunge for pucks. Hell, even a skating stride is going to rob you of height. It's a 9 inch difference dude. Why you acting like he was hit by Tyrion Lannister?
I very specifically said it doesn’t matter if it’s intentional or not. Never claimed this was intentional, I can’t read Cizikas’ mind to know that. I also very clearly said the refs aren’t perfect. Literally the opposite if they “must” be right. More strawmen from you.
Notice the word usually in my post. People are taking that to mean I’m saying a hit to the chest can never cause a concussion. Not at all what I’m saying. And doesn’t apply here since he clearly hit Bischel on the chin with his shoulder.
JeffP
manem jeyef
- Nov 30, 2010
- 4,746
- 2,101
I think what friedman and bukauskas said about it on their podcast have the right thought process in that it *was* a hit to the head and that the match penalty is ~harsh but at the refs discretion probably due to the hitter and that he didn’t play the puck.
they went on to say there’s not much of a way to say he had intent to injure and wont likely get suspended.
so, harsh? maybe. who knows how soon bichsel is cleared to play again. i don’t pretend to know the fine details of the rulebook. Actions->Intent->Results, it’s a pretty big grey area and probably a discretion call.. but should it be? maybe they need to redefine the rule a bit.
they went on to say there’s not much of a way to say he had intent to injure and wont likely get suspended.
so, harsh? maybe. who knows how soon bichsel is cleared to play again. i don’t pretend to know the fine details of the rulebook. Actions->Intent->Results, it’s a pretty big grey area and probably a discretion call.. but should it be? maybe they need to redefine the rule a bit.
Troy McClure
Should’ve drafted Makar
Sure, they can. But why talk about hits to the chest when this was a hit to the chin?
- Oct 31, 2007
- 19,377
- 20,632
That's an extremely bad call and review.
Refs and whoever reviewed that need to go back and have some remedial training before they are allowed back on the job.
DrunkTurtle
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2025
- 100
- 177
Sheppy
NeelyDan eats corn the long way
This league is becoming a huge joke, honestly. Shit like this is completely discouraging body checks.
Even if they decide to call a penalty there. Why does it HAVE to be a match penalty? Why can't they just call a hit to the head?
Even if they decide to call a penalty there. Why does it HAVE to be a match penalty? Why can't they just call a hit to the head?
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
It’s not a ridiculously fine-toothed comb, it’s a binary yes/no.
Interference penalty, straight from the rulebook:
The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be deemed to be in possession.
56.2 Minor penalty — A minor penalty for interference shall be imposed:
(iii) On any player who deliberately checks an opponent, including the goalkeeper, who is not in possession of the puck
56.4 Major Penalty — The referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence, to a player guilty of interfering with an opponent (see 56.5)
56.5 Game Misconduct — When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for an infraction resulting in an injury of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.
This is simple.
- Did Bischel touch the puck? No
- Was Bischel checked? Yes Bing, interference minor
- Was it a full-blown violent body check? Yes Bing, now it’s a major
- Was Bischel injured? Yes Bing, now it’s a game misconduct
There isn’t any room for argument here. The rule is crystal clear and this play was unambiguous. Major + game is the correct call — you cannot legally body check a guy who hasn’t touched the puck.
There is no denying there was chest contact and the angle of the hit was through the center of Bischel’s body, and the reason it’s being discussed is that mitigating circumstance involving head contact is explicitly outlined in the rule.
...he was literally less than a second from making contact with the puck...it is ridiculously fine-toothed...
- Nov 8, 2008
- 19,101
- 7,240
I agree. First look to me, it seemed like chest then head.
But super slow mo the chin gets hit at the same time as the chest. Can see it argued as main contact.
He may have caught the chin with how Bischel leaned but the principle point of contact was definitely the chest.
doublechili
For all intensive purposes, your nuts
- Apr 11, 2006
- 19,219
- 15,777
I think this is the current rule:
"Rule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted. In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered:
(i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward.
(ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable.
(iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact."
So, even if you argue that Bichsel's head was the main point of contact, when evaluating "whether contact with opponent's head was avoidable", it seems like (i) favors Cizikas considering Bichsel flew backwards from a hit to the chest, and also (ii) favors Cizikas as Bichsel pretty clearly put himself in a vulnerable position by going so low that Cizikas contacted Bichsel's head without leaving his own feet,
Or to put it another way, do we really want a league where Russian players skate around like this so that no one can hit them?
"Rule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted. In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered:
(i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward.
(ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable.
(iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact."
So, even if you argue that Bichsel's head was the main point of contact, when evaluating "whether contact with opponent's head was avoidable", it seems like (i) favors Cizikas considering Bichsel flew backwards from a hit to the chest, and also (ii) favors Cizikas as Bichsel pretty clearly put himself in a vulnerable position by going so low that Cizikas contacted Bichsel's head without leaving his own feet,
Or to put it another way, do we really want a league where Russian players skate around like this so that no one can hit them?
Not to mention, I believe the call was for an illegal check to the head and not interference.
doublechili
For all intensive purposes, your nuts
- Apr 11, 2006
- 19,219
- 15,777
BTW, this is a good article where the NHL tried to clarify the head shot rule:
www.sportsnet.ca
"In the video, the NHL said the head must be the main point of contact — not necessarily the first point of contact — and that said head contact must have been avoidable for a hit to qualify as illegal.
Whitecloud's hit on Knies was deemed legal since it did not meet the first criteria.
"While there is inarguably head contact here, we see Knies' entire body stopped in its tracks and driven backwards simultaneously with his head in a way that indicates the body absorbed the force of this check," the NHL said in the video."
and
"Meanwhile, Boeser's and Nurse's heads were considered by the NHL to have taken the brunt of the impact in Jeannot's and Reaves' hits, while the perpetrators' "poor angle of approach" meant the head was avoidable.
"Both players cut along the front of their opponents' core rather than hitting through their shoulder or chest, which causes the contact to be directly and forcefully with their opponents' heads," the NHL said. The NHL noted that Whitecloud, on the other hand, takes a proper angle and "does not elevate up excessively or unnecessarily to pick the head as he delivers the check.""
The Cizikas hit was similar to the Whitecloud hit, IMO.
NHL clarifies rule on illegal checks to head after Jeannot, Reaves suspensions
What makes a hit illegal? That's the question the NHL sought to clarify in a video posted on Thursday in wake of three controversial checks — two of which led to suspensions.
"In the video, the NHL said the head must be the main point of contact — not necessarily the first point of contact — and that said head contact must have been avoidable for a hit to qualify as illegal.
Whitecloud's hit on Knies was deemed legal since it did not meet the first criteria.
"While there is inarguably head contact here, we see Knies' entire body stopped in its tracks and driven backwards simultaneously with his head in a way that indicates the body absorbed the force of this check," the NHL said in the video."
and
"Meanwhile, Boeser's and Nurse's heads were considered by the NHL to have taken the brunt of the impact in Jeannot's and Reaves' hits, while the perpetrators' "poor angle of approach" meant the head was avoidable.
"Both players cut along the front of their opponents' core rather than hitting through their shoulder or chest, which causes the contact to be directly and forcefully with their opponents' heads," the NHL said. The NHL noted that Whitecloud, on the other hand, takes a proper angle and "does not elevate up excessively or unnecessarily to pick the head as he delivers the check.""
The Cizikas hit was similar to the Whitecloud hit, IMO.
Troy McClure
Should’ve drafted Makar
I'm just saying people are talking about hits to the chest causing concussions as thought that's what happened here. We know the shoulder hit the chin, so why pretend it's something else that caused the concussion?
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Again it’s a binary. Did he touch the puck or not? If not, the hit was illegal and the level of penalty will be determined by the type of hit and resulting injury.
This isn’t even an argument, it’s black and white. “But he almost touched it!” is not a defense. Onus is on the hitter to get it right.
The box score just says “match” without elaborating. There are some technical differences between 5+game and match penalties, but the bottom line is the same: a major power play, ejection, and disciplinary review. If it hadn’t been called a hit to the head, it was a clear-cut interference major+game based on the rule quoted above.
The Gr8 Dane
L'harceleur
- Oct 9, 2012
- 34,741
- 34,108
I think that’s the problem, the contact between the chest and the head were simultaneous. I understand both sides but these hits need to be called majors. Head contact is still head contact.
