Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Dubinsky cleared for head shot on Koivu?


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#31 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,601 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 28 October 2013 - 05:48 PM

No, it does not. Not only do the pics I showed above prove that the initial point of contact was Koivu's head, there wasn't anymore body contact as momentum pushed Koivu into Dubinsky than there was with Edler and Hertl.

Posted Image Posted Image

If that wasn't enough body contact as the hit continued for Edler, it shouldn't be enough for Dubinsky, especially when you consider that Edler's hip was the part of his body thrust out the furthest as he tried to contact through the body, but Dubinsky was clearly leading with his shoulder and followed through (be it on purpose or with momentum) with his arm, helping push Koivu around and away from the contact.

If the criteria is the head being the principle point of contact then it should apply equally to Dubinsky (and everyone else in the league.) He certainly did more to pick the head than Edler did and did less to avoid it than Edler did. And if the DoPS said it was proof of a head hit that Hertl was turned sideways by the contact, then it should also be proof of a head hit that Koivu was spun around, especially when Koivu was knocked unconscious and Hertl wasn't even knocked off his feet!

Your premise at the most basic is that neither of those hits are actually hits. Both 'hitters' are just holding their ground and 'the hittees' have simply run into them. I can see some reason for debate on the Edler hit but absolutely no reason to debate Dubinsky's intent on this one.

In the Edler case you're arguing it shouldn't be a suspension. In this case you're arguing it should at least because Edler's was. I don't know if you feel Dubinsky's hit should or shouldn't be on it's own merits.

I agree both hits have contact to the head, but where we disagree is what the rest of the contact is. Is the body contact incidental, is it through the center of the body, is it legal or not based on those answers? In your scenario for both, contact with the body is irrelevant to what else is happening, incidental. In my scenario it's the main factor in why these hits are different and why one head contact is illegal while another isn't since one isn't through the center and the other is.

Dubinsky clearly intends to follow through on the hit to the point where he makes contact with Koivu's body. Koivu's momentum does nothing to change that, nor does it change Dubinsky's trajectory for the hit. If you were to draw a line to match Dubinsky's trajectory, that would run straight through the middle of Koivu (although they aren't exactly heading straight toward each other), through the center of his body.

With the other aspects of the hit also legal, Dubinsky hitting squarely through Koivu's body made the head contact incidental. Edler, having all other aspects of his hit legal, was only made a suspendable hit to the head by him not hitting through that same line, since his trajectory wasn't anywhere near straight through the middle of Hertl. Edler hits at a different angle from Dubinsky, but the important part is that the line he takes doesn't connect with the center of Hertl's body where they make contact.

It's absolutely arguable that Dubinsky did more to pick the head and less to avoid it, but that's a small part of the point. The phrases I've been using have been consistent, squarely through the body, through the center, through the middle, contact to the head is incidental, the head can be also be contacted, etc. Dubinsky makes sure he hits squarely through the body and as such makes it a legal hit.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#32 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,640 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 28 October 2013 - 09:05 PM

Your premise at the most basic is that neither of those hits are actually hits. Both 'hitters' are just holding their ground and 'the hittees' have simply run into them. I can see some reason for debate on the Edler hit but absolutely no reason to debate Dubinsky's intent on this one.


No. I never said anything of the kind for the Dubinsky hit. I simply noted that in both cases the body contact comes from the forward momentum of the person being hit, not an action by the person hitting. If you have video proof that Dubinsky actually initiated contact with anything other than Koivu's head I'd love to see it because I must have missed it. His action was to hit Koivu in the head and shoulders. All other body contact was not the result of a follow through on his part, but Koivu's own forward momentum. He shouldn't get credit for that if Edler didn't.

In the Edler case you're arguing it shouldn't be a suspension. In this case you're arguing it should at least because Edler's was. I don't know if you feel Dubinsky's hit should or shouldn't be on it's own merits.


You're complaining that I'm attempting to apply the same set of criteria to both? That's what we (and the NHL) are supposed to do! And it's exactly what you're claiming to do.

I agree both hits have contact to the head, but where we disagree is what the rest of the contact is. Is the body contact incidental, is it through the center of the body, is it legal or not based on those answers? In your scenario for both, contact with the body is irrelevant to what else is happening, incidental. In my scenario it's the main factor in why these hits are different and why one head contact is illegal while another isn't since one isn't through the center and the other is.


I argued (with photographic proof) that the body contact was almost identical. And you're argument is essentially "nuh uh!"

The head hit rule declares illegal any "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." This is where we differed on Edler's case, so I doubt we'll agree here but the reasons are the same. You are interjecting your own criteria and claiming they are the NHL's. They are not. The NHL's criteria, as very specifically noted in the rule have nothing to do with body contact after the head is contacted nor any imaginary center lines. Rather, the criteria are simple. Was the head the main point of contact and was it avoidable? Yes may be the answer for the first criteria in both hits, but the answer for the second criteria is only yes for Dubinksy and therefore he should have been suspended while Edler should not.

Additionally, watch the video again. Your imaginary center line theory doesn't even hold up. Both players were hit in essentially the same place and in both cases the hitter continued their forward momentum across the hittee's body.

Dubinsky clearly intends to follow through on the hit to the point where he makes contact with Koivu's body. Koivu's momentum does nothing to change that, nor does it change Dubinsky's trajectory for the hit. If you were to draw a line to match Dubinsky's trajectory, that would run straight through the middle of Koivu (although they aren't exactly heading straight toward each other), through the center of his body.


He does follow through...by raising his shoulder and then on the follow through the arm. But Dubinsky makes absolutely no effort whatsoever to make contact with the rest of the body. It's abundantly obvious to anyone willing to see it that the only reason there is contact with the rest of Koivu's body is the direct and sole result of Koivu's forward momentum.

Posted Image Posted Image

With the other aspects of the hit also legal, Dubinsky hitting squarely through Koivu's body made the head contact incidental. Edler, having all other aspects of his hit legal, was only made a suspendable hit to the head by him not hitting through that same line, since his trajectory wasn't anywhere near straight through the middle of Hertl. Edler hits at a different angle from Dubinsky, but the important part is that the line he takes doesn't connect with the center of Hertl's body where they make contact.


That not only doesn't make sense, it's not the rule. Hitting the body after hitting the head doesn't make it legal if the head was avoidable, as it clearly was in this case. Also, "straight through the body" is bull in general because guess where humans keep our heads. But, it's especially a big steaming pile of bull crap in this case because I don't see any difference in the section of the body being contacted.

It's absolutely arguable that Dubinsky did more to pick the head and less to avoid it, but that's a small part of the point.


No, that IS the point. And you thinking it's only a "small part of the point" may be why you keep missing it.

Edited by poetica, 28 October 2013 - 09:06 PM.

  • 2
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#33 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,974 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 28 October 2013 - 09:19 PM

That was a clean hockey hit.
  • 0

#34 canuck2xtreme

canuck2xtreme

    Canucks All-Star

  • Assistant to Regional Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,539 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 06

Posted 29 October 2013 - 10:43 AM

-

Rather than posting things that add nothing to the actual discussion but needless personal attacks, maybe you could discuss things in a civil manner. If you can't, then don't bother taking part in the discussion. If his opinion differs from yours, it's still just his opinion.
  • 1

CDCGML Commissioner/Winnipeg Jets <---Click For Roster!
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Support Canuck Place Childrens Hospice - http://www.canuckplace.org/

This is what hockey should be. A lot of chances, a lot of hitting, no cheap shots, no chirping after whistles."


#35 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,601 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 29 October 2013 - 10:56 AM

No. I never said anything of the kind for the Dubinsky hit. I simply noted that in both cases the body contact comes from the forward momentum of the person being hit, not an action by the person hitting. If you have video proof that Dubinsky actually initiated contact with anything other than Koivu's head I'd love to see it because I must have missed it. His action was to hit Koivu in the head and shoulders. All other body contact was not the result of a follow through on his part, but Koivu's own forward momentum. He shouldn't get credit for that if Edler didn't.

I'll restate: your explanation suggests there was no planned contact by Dubinsky other than the contact to the head. I'm suggesting Dubinsky is hitting Koivu squarely through the body where the head is also contacted (and even contacted first because Koivu isn't standing completely upright).

You're complaining that I'm attempting to apply the same set of criteria to both? That's what we (and the NHL) are supposed to do! And it's exactly what you're claiming to do.

Actually, no, I'm saying you're trying to change the criteria (or ignore the important criteria of squarely through the body) after a result different than what you expected in another case. I'm applying the exact same criteria and explaining them very clearly as to why they do or don't apply.

If you disagree with my points about the four main criteria I keep mentioning, that's one thing, but you haven't shown anything that proves otherwise and that's what the NHL is saying.

I argued (with photographic proof) that the body contact was almost identical. And you're argument is essentially "nuh uh!"

The head hit rule declares illegal any "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." This is where we differed on Edler's case, so I doubt we'll agree here but the reasons are the same. You are interjecting your own criteria and claiming they are the NHL's. They are not. The NHL's criteria, as very specifically noted in the rule have nothing to do with body contact after the head is contacted nor any imaginary center lines. Rather, the criteria are simple. Was the head the main point of contact and was it avoidable? Yes may be the answer for the first criteria in both hits, but the answer for the second criteria is only yes for Dubinksy and therefore he should have been suspended while Edler should not.

Additionally, watch the video again. Your imaginary center line theory doesn't even hold up. Both players were hit in essentially the same place and in both cases the hitter continued their forward momentum across the hittee's body.

Your photos only show the contact with the head. They don't show the contact with the body, which was markedly different in that Dubinsky follows through to center Koivu's body while Edler only clips the trailing half of Hertl's.

Edler's shoulder initially hits Hertl's head and then hits Hertl's back right shoulder as the only other point of contact. Edler's hip doesn't make any significant contact with the rest of Hertl's body apart from his right leg so even that's not squarely through the body.

Dubinsky does make contact initially with the head but is aiming for and makes contact with Koivu squarely through the center of his body. You can see by the video he hits him right in the crest as he follows through on the hit. And he does follow through, he doesn't just hit the head and stop so that any further contact is just the result of Koivu's momentum.

I'm not creating these criteria out of thin air. They are criteria that the NHL have used to further explain illegal/legal hits as I've already pointed out in the Kronwall/Voracek case. The NHL has clarified a few times that 'main point of contact' doesn't equal 'initial point of contact', but rather the area where the center/majority of the contact happens. That's where the rule covers head contact that is incidental to the body being the main point of contact, again as the NHL has explained themselves.

By the second criteria I think you're referencing 'avoidable', correct?

Dubinsky might have been able to get lower in order to contact the head less, but I don't think he could completely avoid head contact without switching to a hip check. The NHL has made it clear that if the player is hitting squarely through the body and the head is contacted by an otherwise legal hit, then the hit is legal overall.

Edler's one failing point is that he doesn't hit squarely through the body to make the head contact incidental. If he adjusts his line (the NHL noted this) to hit squarely through the body he likely doesn't even hit the head first, but could still make contact after first hitting Hertl's shoulder.

They might have both hit the head initially, but the line they are taking to make contact is completely different (Edler coming more across Hertl and staying fairly static while Dubinsky is coming more straight into Koivu after actively pushing off his rear leg). Their own momentum carries them into the body at different points because of that line, which is more important than the momentum of the player being hit.

He does follow through...by raising his shoulder and then on the follow through the arm. But Dubinsky makes absolutely no effort whatsoever to make contact with the rest of the body. It's abundantly obvious to anyone willing to see it that the only reason there is contact with the rest of Koivu's body is the direct and sole result of Koivu's forward momentum.

Posted Image Posted Image

That first shot is a perfect example to show that Dubinsky's shoulder, arm and body are hitting Koivu squarely in the chest. You can even see it in the second photo. Both photos also show how Dubinsky has his weight forward and over his front leg. The video clarifies that by showing although he wasn't skating in a North/South line before the hit, him cutting/pushing off his rear leg to follow through on the hit with his full weight changes his momentum in that direction and through Koivu's body.

His arm is tucked in, so it's not an elbow, and his skates are on the ground, so it's not charging. He does push off with the arm and create space after the hit but that doesn't make it a chicken wing where he missed the body completely.

Saying only Koivu's momentum is responsible for the contact through the body ignores that Dubinsky is still moving forward after having pushed off his rear leg to make the hit.

That not only doesn't make sense, it's not the rule. Hitting the body after hitting the head doesn't make it legal if the head was avoidable, as it clearly was in this case. Also, "straight through the body" is bull in general because guess where humans keep our heads. But, it's especially a big steaming pile of bull crap in this case because I don't see any difference in the section of the body being contacted.

But that is the rule. The NHL has explained it that way for the past two years. What it sounds like you're suggesting is any hit where the head has contact being illegal. That's not the case and would rule out a large part of the contact in the NHL. They're willing to accept head contact may be incidental on an otherwise legal hit in order to avoid effectively ruling most contact out of the game.

Again, it's not whether or not the head was contacted first, but if it was the center/majority of the contact. That's what the NHL has clarified as the main point of contact. You're interpretation of the rule is not the same as the NHL's, and I think they've been fairly consistent in their interpretation and the center/majority of the contact in Dubinsky's case is through the body.

No, that IS the point. And you thinking it's only a "small part of the point" may be why you keep missing it.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that Dubinsky did do more to target and less to avoid, I think he did less to target at least than Edler. Avoiding can get pretty subjective, but since he hits squarely though the body he at least is attempting the body as the main point of contact. Edler had no chance at the body being the main point unless he adjusted his angle to hit more squarely through the body, and with head contact that's suspendable.

I understand where you're trying to draw parallels between these two hits, but the point I keep coming back to is Edler doesn't hit squarely through the body while Dubinsky does. They are different in that respect and it's why one is illegal and the other isn't.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#36 Hairy Kneel

Hairy Kneel

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,532 posts
  • Joined: 01-November 10

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:52 PM

Shannahan should be fired..he's lost his objectivity.
  • 0

#37 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,640 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:53 PM

Actually, no, I'm saying you're trying to change the criteria (or ignore the important criteria of squarely through the body) after a result different than what you expected in another case. I'm applying the exact same criteria and explaining them very clearly as to why they do or don't apply.


You keep saying that's a criteria, but that doesn't make it true. Where is that criteria in the head hit rule? If it's not specifically listed as a criteria in the rulebook, it is NOT a criteria.

I am judging both hits on the criteria that actually are listed and I very specifically and repeatedly said that I did not believe Edler should have been suspended because he did everything he could to avoid Hertl's head. And I do not believe that Dubinsky did everything he could to avoid Koivu's head and therefore should have been suspended. "Avoidable" is a criteria listed. "Squarely through the body" is not.

If you disagree with my points about the four main criteria I keep mentioning, that's one thing, but you haven't shown anything that proves otherwise and that's what the NHL is saying.


You haven't shown anything that proves what you're saying is true, nor have you even shown that your "four main criteria" are actually criteria because they are NOT listed in the head hit rule, whereas I have backed up my points with pics and specifically addressed the only 2 criteria listed in the head hit rule.

And, as I am sadly coming to realize, you may have complete faith in "what the NHL is saying" because you believe that they are consistent, basing their every decisions on well thought out and completely fair assessments of the hits themselves and absolutely no other outside factors but I do not share that blind faith. There is simply far too much inconsistency and subjectivity in their decisions.

Dubinsky does make contact initially with the head but is aiming for and makes contact with Koivu squarely through the center of his body. You can see by the video he hits him right in the crest as he follows through on the hit. And he does follow through, he doesn't just hit the head and stop so that any further contact is just the result of Koivu's momentum.


No, he does not.

Posted Image

Even with the crappy quality of the video I used to get the screen captures you can clearly see that the contact is with the head and shoulders and little if anything else. In fact, in every frame you can see at least a small amount of white ice in between their hips, proving there is not any more body contact. You can also see that Dubinsky clearly raises his shoulders and arms to target the head and any follow through on his part was with his arm, resulting in Koivu being spun around as he's pushed in that direction. You can clearly see Koivu's head bounce back as he was knocked unconscious and begins falling to the ice. It's only then that there is incidental contact between Dubinksy's arm and Koivu's shoulder as Dubinksy pushes the unconscious Koivu away with his arm.

But if you have photographic evidence of how Edler's contact was less in the center of the body than Dubinsky's was, please show it because then I'll maybe at least have a clue what you're on about because this looks pretty freaking dead on center to me! It also looks like Edler had as much (if not more) chest contact than Dubinsky did.

Posted Image

That first shot is a perfect example to show that Dubinsky's shoulder, arm and body are hitting Koivu squarely in the chest. You can even see it in the second photo. Both photos also show how Dubinsky has his weight forward and over his front leg. The video clarifies that by showing although he wasn't skating in a North/South line before the hit, him cutting/pushing off his rear leg to follow through on the hit with his full weight changes his momentum in that direction and through Koivu's body.

His arm is tucked in, so it's not an elbow, and his skates are on the ground, so it's not charging. He does push off with the arm and create space after the hit but that doesn't make it a chicken wing where he missed the body completely.

Saying only Koivu's momentum is responsible for the contact through the body ignores that Dubinsky is still moving forward after having pushed off his rear leg to make the hit.


Both of my previously posted shots show Dubinsky's shoulder is very clearly directly against Koivu's head. And he DOES push off with his arm after the hit, as I clearly showed above.

Also, I didn't ignore that Dubinsky is still moving FORWARD. I just remembered that someone will move in the direction their skates are pointed which would be across Koivu's body, not into it.

But that is the rule. The NHL has explained it that way for the past two years. What it sounds like you're suggesting is any hit where the head has contact being illegal. That's not the case and would rule out a large part of the contact in the NHL. They're willing to accept head contact may be incidental on an otherwise legal hit in order to avoid effectively ruling most contact out of the game.

Again, it's not whether or not the head was contacted first, but if it was the center/majority of the contact. That's what the NHL has clarified as the main point of contact. You're interpretation of the rule is not the same as the NHL's, and I think they've been fairly consistent in their interpretation and the center/majority of the contact in Dubinsky's case is through the body.


According to the head hit rule, any contact where the head is the main contact and was avoidable is illegal. I firmly believe it was the main point of contact in both cases. However, in Edler's case, it was not avoidable due to Hertl's refusal to protect himself despite foreknowledge of impending contact and Edler's low position, arms at his sides and hip thrust out. In Dubinsky's case, it was avoidable as he visibly raises his shoulder and arm not only in anticipation of the hit but as the hit continues.

And yes, I'm very aware that my interpretation is not the same as the NHL's. That's very clearly why I'm upset with these decisions.
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#38 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,791 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:26 PM

what about it being a late hit ?
  • 0

Actually Vig don't Kill Dral, I believe him to mafia enough that I have dealt with him myself. 


#39 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,601 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:44 PM

Me saying it despite it not being specifically listed in the rule as noted doesn't make it not true. They say it quite frequently in the suspension videos (Edler's included, I know you've seen them so why I should repost them I'm not sure) and have remained consistent with those as determining factors in my opinion.

If you don't use those clarifying criteria then you can say both hits had the head as the main (initial) point of contact where contact to the head was avoidable.

For Edler, he avoids the head by actually playing the puck and making it not a hit but accidental contact. He could even play the puck and circle away from Hertl to be completely obvious it wasn't a hit. Or he could aim properly to hit Hertl and follow a line that goes through Hertl's shoulder/torso. Any of those would be attempts to avoid the head, where no movement at all (or very little, as he does move towards Hertl slightly) is at best apathetic by hoping Hertl doesn't continue the collision path they're both on.

For Dubinsky, the NHL's stance is that making sure to hit squarely through the body is a viable solution to illegal head contact, so he's already following their rules. He does have a similar option to Edler to come more from the side, and he also can choose to avoid contact as the most obvious way to not hit Koivu's head - but then we're moving toward a non-contact sport if that's the solution. Again as with Edler he could try and make sure his whole body is lower than Koivu's head, but that's only slightly more practical than it is in Edler's case.

I've questioned a number of the DPS' decisions on suspensions (or non-suspensions). The length of Kassian's suspension in the preseason compared to Kessel's, or many other suspensions that I feel were let off easy compared to 3 preseason and 5 regular season games. Weber not getting suspended for his wrestling move on Zetterberg. Keith's elbow on Daniel not being more harshly suspended.

I don't understand or agree with all their methodology to come to some of the conclusions they do. We've had plenty of discussions around the weight of intent and injury in suspensions, for instance. I certainly have opinions on where they could improve and particularly get more consistent.

I try and be fair though and make sure to take into account how suspensions might increase from year to year as there's more focus as well as judge each instance on the criteria I've seen the NHL use related to the current rules. I just don't see how the mistakes the NHL has made apply to these cases as I feel they were close to if not on the mark with the decisions on these calls.

You have your opinion on the hits (including the physics as well as the NHL's rules or criteria) and I have mine, and there are many arguable points based on our opinions (does Koivu make any effort to protect himself?). I prefer to argue based on known constants versus largely unknown variables when assessing each instance, but if you want to have a discussion on the overall effectiveness and correctness of the NHL's DPS then we might have a different discussion.

It's been an interesting discussion in the very least.

what about it being a late hit ?

I don't think anyone's suggesting it's late, going by the clock in the video (which includes the seconds in the tenths to help out) it looks like it's roughly half a second between Koivu playing the puck and the hit.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#40 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,463 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:53 PM

Shanaban continues to amaze! How is this not 5 games?

https://www.youtube....a_playerhanaban continues to amaze!


how is that even a 2 min penalty? keep your blooming head up
  • 0

#41 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,095 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:54 PM

I think the principle point of contact here is the head.
Dubinsky may then proceed to hit the chest/body of Koivu, but imo he hits the head first, and then to top it off, throws the elbow up for more than dramatic effect.

Suspendable imo.
  • 0

#42 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,640 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:07 PM

Me saying it despite it not being specifically listed in the rule as noted doesn't make it not true. They say it quite frequently in the suspension videos (Edler's included, I know you've seen them so why I should repost them I'm not sure) and have remained consistent with those as determining factors in my opinion.

If you don't use those clarifying criteria then you can say both hits had the head as the main (initial) point of contact where contact to the head was avoidable.


And I guess that is why we will never agree. You think the DoPS's arbitrary "clarifying criteria" based on nothing more than what they want it to be at that moment as opposed to what was actually put into the rule book should be the deciding factor. I don't. If they needed additional criteria added to the rule to make it clear and enforceable then they should have voted on and added them. They choose not to, so simply adding them later whenever it's convenient for the outcome they want is not okay. Players have to know what the rules are and shouldn't have to wait until their suspension video to find out.

You have your opinion on the hits (including the physics as well as the NHL's rules or criteria) and I have mine, and there are many arguable points based on our opinions (does Koivu make any effort to protect himself?). I prefer to argue based on known constants versus largely unknown variables when assessing each instance, but if you want to have a discussion on the overall effectiveness and correctness of the NHL's DPS then we might have a different discussion.


Does it matter if Koivu makes any effort to protect himself? According to you he doesn't have any actual responsibility to do so. His failure, even if it leads directly to another player being suspended, is only his problem if he gets hurt. Otherwise it's irrelevant. But, to answer your snarky question, no he doesn't. But then, he also isn't in a vulnerable position, was actually skating with the puck as opposed to knowingly chasing it along with another player and then barely making a tiny fraction of a second worth of contact, and has no reason to expect that the guy would drive upwards into his head and knock him unconscious.

As for all of your other comments about Edler, again, reread the other thread. My answers and responses haven't changed. We continue to disagree on pretty much every aspect.

And while I understand that you may be trying to be fair, basing decisions on "known constants" in a game where there are no constants seems like a fool's errand. Even you've admitted that no 2 hits will ever be identical. There are no constants except the rules and even those aren't constantly defined or enforced.
  • 2
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#43 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,095 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:14 PM

What I want to see are videos explaining how they see this as not suspendable.

Imo, a team should be entitled to get a detailed explanation in the same manner that suspension videos are made.

If they are consistent and accountable, it shouldn't be a problem - in fact it could lend credibility - but no word on why a hit like that was not suspended imo does not help lend any credibility to their process.

I'd have loved to see the explanation of Nash's hit on Kopecky.
  • 0

#44 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,463 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:58 PM

What I want to see are videos explaining how they see this as not suspendable.

Imo, a team should be entitled to get a detailed explanation in the same manner that suspension videos are made.

If they are consistent and accountable, it shouldn't be a problem - in fact it could lend credibility - but no word on why a hit like that was not suspended imo does not help lend any credibility to their process.

I'd have loved to see the explanation of Nash's hit on Kopecky.


who needs a video........Koivu was skating into the zone with his head down, Dubinsky stepped up and taught him not to skate into said zone with his head down. Hard, but clean lesson learned Saku

Edited by stawns, 29 October 2013 - 03:58 PM.

  • 0

#45 chrisbanks

chrisbanks

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,627 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 12

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:00 PM

elvis15 quit trying to argue your point.... its clear to everyone who isnt a cry baby , NHL conspiracy theorist ... that you are 100% right.... the people arguing with you are using still images to make their point and are showing 2 completely different type of hits and trying to paint it with the same brush to prove a point that the league is out to get us......you sir are right and the rest of you need to take off your tin foil hats and crawl out of your dwellings already...
  • 0

#46 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,095 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:59 PM

who needs a video........Koivu was skating into the zone with his head down, Dubinsky stepped up and taught him not to skate into said zone with his head down. Hard, but clean lesson learned Saku


who needs a DPS when there is Stawns
  • 0

#47 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,601 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:59 PM

I think the principle point of contact here is the head.
Dubinsky may then proceed to hit the chest/body of Koivu, but imo he hits the head first, and then to top it off, throws the elbow up for more than dramatic effect.

Suspendable imo.

I agree he hits the head first, and also pushes out with the arm after the hit, but neither of those have ever been suspendable when combined with a hit where the player hits squarely through the player. I'll mention again Kronwall on Voracek that I posted earlier. If he doesn't come in with his elbow up, or jumping into the hit, or late, then I can't think of one that has been suspended.

And I guess that is why we will never agree. You think the DoPS's arbitrary "clarifying criteria" based on nothing more than what they want it to be at that moment as opposed to what was actually put into the rule book should be the deciding factor. I don't. If they needed additional criteria added to the rule to make it clear and enforceable then they should have voted on and added them. They choose not to, so simply adding them later whenever it's convenient for the outcome they want is not okay. Players have to know what the rules are and shouldn't have to wait until their suspension video to find out.

But I can't think of a hit, certainly not recently, where they've ignored those criteria in order to let a player off without real reason or have changed those criteria. The Jordan Nolan hit is the only one that comes to mind that's borderline, and I can see applying those criteria that it's very close to the edge and debatable if it's over.

Does it matter if Koivu makes any effort to protect himself? According to you he doesn't have any actual responsibility to do so. His failure, even if it leads directly to another player being suspended, is only his problem if he gets hurt. Otherwise it's irrelevant. But, to answer your snarky question, no he doesn't. But then, he also isn't in a vulnerable position, was actually skating with the puck as opposed to knowingly chasing it along with another player and then barely making a tiny fraction of a second worth of contact, and has no reason to expect that the guy would drive upwards into his head and knock him unconscious.

As for all of your other comments about Edler, again, reread the other thread. My answers and responses haven't changed. We continue to disagree on pretty much every aspect.

And while I understand that you may be trying to be fair, basing decisions on "known constants" in a game where there are no constants seems like a fool's errand. Even you've admitted that no 2 hits will ever be identical. There are no constants except the rules and even those aren't constantly defined or enforced.

I was mentioning Koivu since you've made it clear you felt Hertl had significant onus on himself to avoid contact (protecting his head) as a major factor in Edler being suspended or not. I'd mentioned your opinion and pointed it out as a reason why you could feel Dubinsky shouldn't be suspended. It's not exact, just a point you hadn't brought up.

He'd played the puck, just as Hertl did and doesn't look to avoid any contact of a player coming from in front of him. Granted, he isn't leaning over as far as Hertl, but he's still low enough that contact to the head from an otherwise legal hit is possible. Dubinsky keeps his elbow in until contact and doesn't leave his feet, and it's not illegal for him to drive upwards into the hit, so why is it different otherwise? When does his responsibility to protect himself change?

You're absolutely right with the 3rd sentence in the above quote that it's only his responsibility in as much as he needs to be aware of his own safety. Of course, if he changes his head position significantly just prior to the hit that'd affect the responsibility of the hitter, but otherwise it's not a factor in why a player would be suspended or not.

We'll keep disagreeing on this unfortunately, including on using anything you can that's constant to make decisions versus the alternative of pretending everything is only chaos, and the game is completely variable. The rules are constant, you've said so yourself, and even though no two hits will ever be identical they can be very similar and one or more of the key components relating to those rules will be the same in comparison.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#48 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,095 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 29 October 2013 - 05:52 PM

I agree he hits the head first, and also pushes out with the arm after the hit, but neither of those have ever been suspendable when combined with a hit where the player hits squarely through the player. I'll mention again Kronwall on Voracek that I posted earlier. If he doesn't come in with his elbow up, or jumping into the hit, or late, then I can't think of one that has been suspended.

I don't see it the way you do - imo you are overstating the extent to which he hit "squarely through the player" - I think it's more the case that the head is the principle point of contact as he grazes across the body.
I would have suspended him.
For me this has nothing to do with the Edler suspension - this is a Columbus / Anaheim matchup and I could care less which team gets a suspension or not.
  • 0

#49 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,640 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:13 PM

We'll keep disagreeing on this unfortunately, including on using anything you can that's constant to make decisions versus the alternative of pretending everything is only chaos, and the game is completely variable. The rules are constant, you've said so yourself, and even though no two hits will ever be identical they can be very similar and one or more of the key components relating to those rules will be the same in comparison.


Actually, what I said was, "There are no constants except the rules and even those aren't constantly defined or enforced." That's clear by your own admission that the DoPS uses criteria that were never voted on, approved or otherwise defined by anyone other than the DoPS for their own purposes.

So yes, we will continue to disagree, especially when you've made it clear that you will agree and adamantly defend any decision the NHL makes and attack any opinion that is not your own theirs.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#50 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,601 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:18 PM

elvis15 quit trying to argue your point.... its clear to everyone who isnt a cry baby , NHL conspiracy theorist ... that you are 100% right.... the people arguing with you are using still images to make their point and are showing 2 completely different type of hits and trying to paint it with the same brush to prove a point that the league is out to get us......you sir are right and the rest of you need to take off your tin foil hats and crawl out of your dwellings already...

While I appreciate the support (very odd, but support nonetheless), I'm quite happy having the friendly debate with poetica and others. We might not agree but we have a healthy respect for each other's views and that we take the time to illustrate what we're talking about.

I certainly prefer that to blanket labelling people as conspiracy nuts with tin foil hats.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#51 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,463 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:37 PM

who needs a DPS when there is Stawns


guess we\ll see if \shanny agrees
  • 0

#52 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,601 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:39 PM

I don't see it the way you do - imo you are overstating the extent to which he hit "squarely through the player" - I think it's more the case that the head is the principle point of contact as he grazes across the body.
I would have suspended him.
For me this has nothing to do with the Edler suspension - this is a Columbus / Anaheim matchup and I could care less which team gets a suspension or not.

We agree on the latter point at least.

If you got a video from the NHL to explain why this isn't a suspension my guess is you'd likely hear that phrase I keep using. I can see how he does cut into him to hit through the body squarely in my opinion so that makes some sense. But, if they agree with you that it wasn't square hit to the body then I don't know what other reason they'd use for it to not be a suspension.

Actually, what I said was, "There are no constants except the rules and even those aren't constantly defined or enforced." That's clear by your own admission that the DoPS uses criteria that were never voted on, approved or otherwise defined by anyone other than the DoPS for their own purposes.

I get what you said, I just mentioned the one point since we're already a little long winded. I didn't mean to imply you felt they were enforced consistently as well since we both agree they aren't (just at differing levels) and your full meaning is pretty obvious to other people reading your posts.

I don't know how you're so sure those criteria they mention very frequently in the suspension videos weren't approved by and discussed with the GMs and NHLPA though. The rules do evolve, and the DoPS meets with both groups frequently enough (along with the competition committee) that I'm sure they've come to those conclusions as the proper meaning for the rules we've been discussing. If they don't rule out the other interpretations then they'd be seen as even more inconsistent since they wouldn't have a single, defined direction on this rule in particular.

So yes, we will continue to disagree, especially when you've made it clear that you will agree and adamantly defend any decision the NHL makes and attack any opinion that is not your own theirs.

Now you're getting emotional and misrepresenting my words. I've never said I will agree and adamantly defend any decision the NHL makes. I'm actually on record as being totally against the length of the Kassian and Kessel suspensions (one too long, one too short) and you're aware of that. I even changed my opinion that the recent Hanzal suspension was a good length after learning he was a repeat offender, and I feel I've been very clear I'm trying to judge each incident on it's own merits.

I certainly don't attack any opinion that isn't mine - or the NHL's as already noted - in a negative way when someone wants to have a good debate. I figured we were having a good discussion, even if we weren't getting very far to convince each other, so maybe that's the cue to let it rest.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#53 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,601 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:42 PM

guess we\ll see if \shanny agrees

Since the DoPS has already said no suspension, I think they did agree. I'm trying to look at it and have my own opinion, and if the NHL disagrees I'll try and see what logic they used. In this case it looks like we're probably using the same logic, same as with a number of other incidents.

I could get into another different discussion on if their logic is sound, but it's easier (and less frustrating) to focus on applying their logic to whether or not something is a suspension.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#54 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,095 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:47 PM

guess we\ll see if \shanny agrees


I was under the impression that this has come and gone - that the decision was made?
  • 0

#55 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,095 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 29 October 2013 - 07:42 PM



Just for comparison sake, if it must be compared to a Canuck suspension, here's a hit that I think is more comparable than Edler's- freeze both of these plays at the point the player passes the puck - freeze the Dubinsky hit at the 2 second mark and look at the distance between defender and passer - and consider whether Rome "hits through the player" and therefore a late, but "legal" hit?... slightly later, but certainly more "through the player".... longest suspension in playoff history.

Edited by oldnews, 29 October 2013 - 07:46 PM.

  • 0

#56 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,463 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 30 October 2013 - 11:41 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUYqTE3cnuQ

Just for comparison sake, if it must be compared to a Canuck suspension, here's a hit that I think is more comparable than Edler's- freeze both of these plays at the point the player passes the puck - freeze the Dubinsky hit at the 2 second mark and look at the distance between defender and passer - and consider whether Rome "hits through the player" and therefore a late, but "legal" hit?... slightly later, but certainly more "through the player".... longest suspension in playoff history.


The Rome hit was later than Dubinsky's hit, though I think Romes deserved a penalty, it didn't deserve a suspension, let alone 4 games in the finals. That was ridiculous to fine the result rather than the action in that situation.
  • 0

#57 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,601 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 30 October 2013 - 12:08 PM

...
Just for comparison sake, if it must be compared to a Canuck suspension, here's a hit that I think is more comparable than Edler's- freeze both of these plays at the point the player passes the puck - freeze the Dubinsky hit at the 2 second mark and look at the distance between defender and passer - and consider whether Rome "hits through the player" and therefore a late, but "legal" hit?... slightly later, but certainly more "through the player".... longest suspension in playoff history.

Putting aside the difference in how severely the rules are applied from then to now, and even changes to the rules, Rome's hit was late. Did that deserve 4 games in the SCF considering the extra weight those games carried? Absolutely not, even with the injury. It was an otherwise legal hit that was deemed late.

I looked at the video for this hit and tried to pause it when Koivu releases the puck, then pause it again when Dubinsky makes contact. I don't have frame by frame capability of course, but it looks like he moves the puck at 40.6 and gets hit at 40.1 so half a second between puck possession and the hit. That's not late in my books and since the rest of the hit is legal using the NHL's criteria I don't see why they'd suspend it.

The Rome hit was later than Dubinsky's hit, though I think Romes deserved a penalty, it didn't deserve a suspension, let alone 4 games in the finals. That was ridiculous to fine the result rather than the action in that situation.

Rome's was too much and is a great example of how a player with no history was made example of when clearly that wasn't worth 4 SCF games. The NHL is far from perfect and has a lot of room to improve.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#58 Hunter.S-Kerouac

Hunter.S-Kerouac

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 11

Posted 30 October 2013 - 12:47 PM

Shanahan was one of my Favourite players growing up.

I was happy when he took this job because of the edge he played with. But after seeing how his rulings come down he should be ashamed.

I am officially no longer a fan. Turns out he's just a sackless chump in a suit.
  • 0

#59 Canuck or Die

Canuck or Die

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,518 posts
  • Joined: 16-February 11

Posted 30 October 2013 - 09:06 PM

elvis15 quit trying to argue your point.... its clear to everyone who isnt a cry baby , NHL conspiracy theorist ... that you are 100% right.... the people arguing with you are using still images to make their point and are showing 2 completely different type of hits and trying to paint it with the same brush to prove a point that the league is out to get us......you sir are right and the rest of you need to take off your tin foil hats and crawl out of your dwellings already...


No, he isn't right, and neither are you. Both hits involved hits where the principle point of contact is the head, but apparently one is okay, while the other isn't.

Funny how some of you can't handle the facts. Calling for consistency doesn't make people conspiracy theorists. Amazing how this is so hard to grasp for some of you.
  • 1
EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GO CANUCKS GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


We WILL be drinking from Lord Stanley's Cup soon, Canucks Nation!

Posted Image

#60 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,601 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 30 October 2013 - 09:34 PM

I guess the NHL can't handle the facts either...
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.