Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Baggins

Members
  • Posts

    11,793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Baggins

  1. You want the players protected Deb? How about they play all 82 games in the All-star fashion: no hitting. Where's player protection with the hip check? The player flips out of control and can easily go head first into the ice. Do we need to take slapshots out of the game because they've caused numerous injuries? Players have also been severely cut by skates so maybe we need to have them play on dull rounded blades. Fighting also needs to be eliminated as they're wailing away at each others heads. We have the league leader for fighting majors on our team and I haven't seen you once speak out against intentional bare knuckle bashing to the skull in the name of player safety. Just how far does your concern for player safety go Deb? These points may seem ridiculous but they all do concern players safety and the injuries that do happen in the game as a result. If you want blows the head eliminated you will take out all hits other than shoulder to shoulder. Even shoulder to shoulder would have to be limited to little more than a bump because a full speed hit could still result in head contact. You say you want hitting to be part of the game. So explain to me how you can deliver a hit to the front of a player who is leaning forward as he skates without any chance of the risk of contact with his head. I still maintain they are consistent in their current application of the rule. If the hit is into the core of the body the hit is legal regardless of contact to the head. If the hit picks the head and isn't focused into the core of the body then the head itself is being targeted and results in suspension. Into the core of the body good, not into the core of the body bad. That's the consistency and it pretty black and white. It's not that difficult to determine whether or not the hit was into the core of the body or not. It's far more difficult to determine intentional or accidental.
  2. The way the league is enforcing the rule is not whether or not the head was contacted but how and why it's contacted. If a player is skating forward he will be also leaning forward. This means virtually any hit from the front, or any angle from front, will very likely result in contact with the head. They are allowing those hits. What they are not allowing is cutting straight across the front of a player and picking the head with little or none of the force directed to the core of the body. It's the difference between going for a full body check and simply targeting the head. The videos I've watched are consistent in this ruling. The three you've mentioned are consistent with this ruling. Anybody with an ounce of objectivity can see the difference between hitting into the core of the body and picking the head. They describe the difference quite well in the suspension videos even giving an explanation of what would have made the hits legal. I don't know how much more consistent they could possibly get than that. I'll guess that it hasn't occurred you at all that the two who were knocked to the ice was the result of those hits being into the core of the body while the hit on Hertl wasn't. If you can't tell whether a hit is into the core of the body or not I really have to wonder what you've been watching. It sure hasn't been full contact hockey. Full impact into a persons body is pretty obvious. Yes, all three had contact to the head. Two had full on contact to the body and one didn't. One of these is not like the others and it's the one that got the suspension.
  3. Did you watch the suspension videos I posted on the previous page and listen to the explanations? I'm guessing you didn't because there is a consistency to them. Every one of them refers to hitting into the core of the body as opposed to picking the head. Every one of them is in line with the Edler hit. Basically it's aiming for the head versus aiming for the body with the head getting in the way. The former is suspended, the latter is considered legal. I get that it seems like a contradiction as the head is struck either way. But it's currently how the head is struck that determines a suspension. The fact Hertl spins off Edlers hit and continues in the direction he was already going indicates the hit wasn't into the core of the body.
  4. Two out of the three the person getting hit had their forward momentum halted. Indicating those two hits were into the core of the body. Can you guess which one wasn't into the core of the body? Does that not indicate "consistency" in how these hits are judged suspendable or not?
  5. Tanev currently has only 25 hits so far and he has 15 fewer points Garrison. Does he need to go as well? For perspective both Daniel (33) and Henrik (43) have out hit Tanev with a very similar number of games played. I don't see the Sedins out hitting a d-man as a positive.
  6. Launching yourself off the ice prior to the hit is charging. Here's a video of a charging suspension. Note that in the explanation the hit would have been legally delivered had he not launched himself off the ice. The positioning of Volchenkov (leaning forward) would have certainly resulted in contact to the head. This is where hitting into the core of the body makes head contact legal as the rules are currently enforced. Otherwise you'd have to eliminate head-on hits (pardon the pun) from the game and limit hitting to only shoulder to shoulder. But even shoulder to shoulder hits can result in head contact. Meaning players would be at risk of suspension for any hit they deliver.
  7. So are you saying that if a players spins after a hit the hitter should be suspended? There will be a boatload of suspensions. "Direction" is a key point to the explanation. It's how Hertl spun BUT continued his forward direction after the hit that shows the contact wasn't into the core of the body. It's not that he simply spun. Had the hit been into the core of his body his forward momentum would have been all but stopped at the least and his body forced to move in the direction of the hit. That didn't happen. Hitting the core of the body versus picking the head is consistent. Again, watch the videos on the previous page, listen carefully to the explanation, and compare them to the Edler hit. The hit on Burrows was into the core of the body and it wasn't a case, like those on the previous page, of simply picking the head. Do try to be objective.
  8. Deb, it doesn't matter what you want. They won't suspend a player who doesn't violate the rules as written and enforced because you don't like the play. They have been consistent in this regard. They haven't flip flopped at all about hitting into the core of the body as opposed to picking the head. You'd have to eliminate hits to the chest to eliminate contact to the head. One almost always leads to the other. You can say all you want you don't want the Euro style and prefer the physical NHL game but you can't eliminate all contact to the head without changing to that Euro style. It's one or the other. You can't have both. Again, everything you posted in red there screams you want the Euro style. Did you even watch the videos on the previous page? They seem pretty consistent to the Edler suspension to me. Plus the explanation of how to make each it a legal hit is consistent with the hit on Burrows. Btw, in the Euro leagues players still get suspended for hits to the head. They all know they'll be suspended and it still happens. The door is never shut Deb. Suspensions would never occur if the door was truly closed.
  9. Which I already explained. Not sure what it is you're not getting about it. It's all about the DIRECTION the player went after contact. Hertl was simply spun as opposed to having his direction change. That's evidence the hit was not into the core of the body and simply picked the head instead. You're focusing solely on the single word "spun" rather than the context of the entire sentence. Watch the videos on the previous page with a little objectivity and you'll see that they are consistent with the Edler suspension.
  10. I don't buy that at all. There isn't an owner out there that wants to see his star players lost to concussion, or any other injury, and it's the owner that make the rules. What they're attempting to do is keep the physicality of the game and protect the players as much as possible. The hit on Burrows is proof you can't fully protect the players and retain the physical nature they want. It's simply impossible to have both. It really is an either/or situation. You'd have to eliminate all hits to the chest of a player to avoid head contact. I'd be really curious to see a player poll on the question of removing head shots completely. Would the players themselves prefer the Euro type rule that greatly reduces hitting or if they think the way the NHL is currently enforcing head shots as sufficient. You've mentioned several times about affecting the players lives. But they know full well the risks they're taking and are extremely well compensated for the profession they've chosen. Considerably more so than occupations where death and loss of limbs occur yearly. The bottom line is this Deb: The way the rules are currently enforced the hit on Burrows was legal. Nobody is asking you to like the hit on Burrows. No fan likes that type of hit when it happens to one of their own. But you can't suspend a player for following those rules simply because it happened to one of your guys. So it's either advocate changing the rules or accept that type of hit as part of the game. Personally, I'd prefer to see the "big hit" remain in the game as opposed to the Euro style alternative.
  11. Deb, everything you are saying is pointing to you wanting a less physical league. You want a complete elimination of hits to the head. That's the Euro rules and the result of those rules is less hitting. That's the only way to get remotely close to what you want "before the fact". You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's one way OR the other. Per the rules as they stand, the hit on Burrows was legal. Period. So you either want a player suspended contrary to the current rules or you're advocating a rule change. Which is it Deb? That's a pretty simple either/or question. Unfortunately suspensions can't be handed out until the offense has occurred. Such is suspension life in any sport and suspensions occur in football, baseball, and basketball in the same manner: after the fact. After the fact video is reviewed to determine what occurred and a decision made according to the rules. Lacking the ability to punish players before the event happens, like the movie Minority Report, can you see any other way of doing it? Even if the rules were changed to no head contact at all it will still happen at times, just as it does in the Euro leagues, and punishment will come after the fact. In summary: You will never slam that door shut. No matter what the rules there will be those who violate those rules whether intentionally, by accident, or heat of the moment. Punishment will always be after the fact.
  12. The goal isn't to stop contact to the head. The goal is to stop "picking" the head. There's a difference. Kassians reckless use of his stick had nothing at all to do with a legal hockey play and is completely irrelevant to what constitutes a legal body check.
  13. So you want the Euro style. Start your petition Deb.
  14. The league isn't making contact to the head illegal and likely won't unless you want a less physical Euro style of game. What they are eliminating is targeting the head of a player. It's actually well explained in the videos. As long as contact is into the core of the body contact to the head is incidental. This is the case in the Burrows hit. Cutting across the front of the player and "picking the head" is illegal. This is the case in the Edler hit and the videos I posted on the previous page. The league has actually been consistent Deb. It's not picking and choosing. The rules are definite. Watch the videos of suspensions on the previous page. All of them are in line with the Edler hit. It's actually you guys that are picking and choosing by ignoring the stipulation of delivering the hit into the core of the body. You're ignoring the part that isn't convenient to your argument. But after watching several suspension video the league has been consistent with that stipulation. Do you want a less physical league in the Euro style Deb? It's the only way to eliminate contact to the head which requires a change to the existing rules. As the rules stand, like it or not, the hit on Burrows was legal.
  15. Not really. Watch all four of the videos of suspensions I posted and listen to the explanation. All of them are in line with the Edler suspension. The hit on Burrows was into the core of the body making it a legal hit. The only alternative to allowing this type of hit is to take the Euro stance of no contact to the head at all. Which of course means the NHL becoming far less physical just like the Euro leagues. Do you want a less physical game or do you like the big hits?
  16. Englland 5 game suspension... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG5OFqmGgfk Grabner 2 game suspension http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLRGxlKEGt8 Cowen 2 game suspension http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT2EKXrax0Y&list=UUaxPcdPvw93ohaD7CHr_UZA Clarkson suspended 2 games http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igJomfZxIE8 Note the very specific wording: This is not a full body check in which contact to the head was unavoidable. All four of these are like the Edler suspension. Consistent. The hit on Burrows was into the core of the body, or a full body check, where contact to the head was unavoidable in the delivery.
  17. Maybe read through the thread. The rules regarding head shots is explained over and over again. The ruling has nothing to do with Burrows or his reputation. It has everything to do with the hit being delivered into the core of the body. As long as the hit is into the core of the body, contact with the head is considered incidental. The bold part is something many Canuck fans could use a heaping dose of regarding league rulings. Instead of the automatic if it happens to a Canuck it's illegal and if a Canuck does it it's clean.
  18. He specifically said the direction Hertl spun was evidence it was a head hit. The fact Hertl wasn't moved in the direction of the hit showed the hit wasn't into the core of the body. Burrows spun, but he went in the direction of the hit, which is evidence the hit was into the core of the body.
  19. It was a late hit that caused injury. A late hit is illegal. That's a suspension. Rome wasn't suspended for a head hit. he was suspended for a late hit. Why is it so tough to understand the difference between "late" and "head"?.
  20. As long as humans are involved there will always be an element of human error. All they can do is review available footage and apply the rulebook as written. If you don't like the rules start a petition to have it changed. Until that happens they can only apply what is not what they or we think should be. I didn't like the hit as I stated earlier in the thread. But I do think they got it right in this case after reading the rules posted by Elvis and watching half a dozen videos of head shots that were suspensions. Those videos were consistent.
  21. Yes, but Burrows forward motion was stopped and he was sent spinning in the direction of the hit. Hertl spun in the direction he was already going. It actually shows the difference in impact to the body.
  22. The Hansen disciplinary video is on the previous page Deb. There's no mention of how many goals Hossa scored. You can choose not to accept the rules as written all you want but as long as they are following those rules regarding suspensions they are not in the wrong. So until that rule is changed they are in the right whether you like it or not.
  23. If you watch the video (I posted it above) it is pretty clear Hansen gave up on reaching for the puck and gave Hossa a forearm to the head instead as explained. It wasn't incidental contact while reaching for the puck. Hansens arm is initially vertical reaching for the puck but is almost horizontal when he delivers the blow. It was an intentional blow to the head and deserved a suspension.
  24. It's always been that way Deb. Bert got the rest of the season (20 games) for a sucker punch. Two weeks later Ference sucker punches a Flame and continues to punch him on the ice. The Flame wasn't injured and Ference got 3 games. Same offense, different result, and a different penalty.
×
×
  • Create New...