Dubinsky cleared for head shot on Koivu?

[oldnews]

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.

[poetica]

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.

[oldnews]

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.

[stawns]

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

[chrisbanks]

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...

[oldnews]

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

[elvis15]

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.

[oldnews]

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.

[poetica]

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.

[elvis15]

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.

[stawns]

who needs a DPS when there is Stawns

guess we\ll see if \shanny agrees

[elvis15]

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.

[elvis15]

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.

[oldnews]

guess we\ll see if \shanny agrees

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

[oldnews]

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.

[stawns]

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.

[elvis15]

...

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.

[Hunter.S-Kerouac]

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.

[Canuck or Die]

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.

[elvis15]

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