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

[Report] Alex Burrows suspended 3 games


-Vintage Canuck-

What do you think of the Alex Burrows suspension?  

336 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Well if you can explain to us how a player can skate with any amount of speed without leaning forward exposing the head I'm willing to listen. The league has been consistent on these calls. If you come from the side you have to hit into in the shoulder. If you come from an angle in front or directly from the front contact with the head is incidental to hitting into the body. Elder came from the side missing the shoulder and hitting the head. That's an illegal hit and a suspension. The hit on Burrows the player came in on an angle making contact to his head incidental to hitting into his body. The explanation in the suspension videos are pretty clear. The onus is on the hitter to make sure his hit is legal. Shanny even explained in the Edler video what he needed to do to make the hit a legal one. Which was consistent with his explanation in other head shot suspensions. You're simply applying your own standard (the target is responsible) as opposed to what the league is applying (the hitter is responsible).

So, your argument is that Edler was coasting at a leisurely speed (because he managed to not lead with his head) and that simply skating with speed makes a player practically ineligible to be hit ever? Wow, that'll bring a whole new meaning to "they can't hit you if you're fast enough," huh? Sure, boys! Just put your head down even when you know that you are eligible to be hit and leave it down when you know contact is imminent because it makes you practically untouchable. It's called the "invincibility play." That'll sure make hockey more exciting for fans and safer for players!

If you want to be snarky with people for your assumption that they didn't watch the suspension video (see below) you might want to make sure YOU do. (Here's the link if you need a refresher viewing.) The NHL did NOT suggest that "Edler came from the side missing the shoulder and hitting the head." Rather, the suspension video said, "He cuts across the front of Hertl making the head the main point of contact." So if you believe, "If you come from an angle in front or directly from the front contact with the head is incidental to hitting into the body." then you should agree Edler should not have been suspended for a head hit.

My disagreement with that suspension comes from the fact that the NHL seemed to ignore one of the factors listed in the head hit rule that they must consider to determine if head contact was "avoidable." While they acknowledge that Hertl did not change his head's position "immediately prior to or simultaneous with the hit" and therefore that was not a mitigating factor in Elder's favor, they used that part of the rule to disregard the fact that Hertl was leaning forward when in reality it was covered by the entirely separate (and without the "immediately prior to or simultaneous with the hit" time limit) part of the rule that says they must consider if the player "put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a position that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable." To me, that means players who know they're eligible to be hit, especially when they know contact is going to happen, have a responsibility to keep their freaking heads up so that if another player makes a good faith attempt at a clean body check (e.g. lowered body position, lowered arms, hip thrust out, plenty of forewarning that contact is about to happen) their head can be avoided. Otherwise, YOU are the one trying to take hitting out of the league because you're saying players can make themselves all but invincible simply by keeping their heads down, making them only possibly eligible to be hit in an area no larger than a couple of inches on their side.

And the NHL seems to agree with me when it suits them. Example: Gudas' hit on Upshall which they said was an illegal hit that deserved a penalty but decided did not warrant suspension because Gudas left himself in a vulnerable position.

If THIS (with a raised arm!) didn't warrant a suspension based on "vulnerable position"...

GudashitonUpshall.jpg

then THIS didn't either.

edlerhertlpointofcontact.jpg

And, again, being that I agreed with Burrows' suspension because I believe the greater onus was on him in that situation, I'm not sure how you can argue that I'm just always putting the onus onto the person being hit. Unless, of course, you are simply looking for yet another way to be needlessly contrary...

Did you watch the suspension video and actually listen to the explanation? Although Emelin did change body position Burrow also changed his body position. Meaning he had time to react. It was taken into consideration. He missed the shoulder and hit the head. Late Hit + Head Shot + Four Previous Fines = Suspension.

If you want all head shots taken out the only hitting allowed would be directly from the side shoulder to shoulder and hip checks from the front. You'd be reducing the hitting in the game and going Euro hockey.

Yes, I watched the video. What part of the concept of disagreeing with it is confusing for you? (And haven't I tried explaining it to you before?!)

As I've said, I believe Burrows changed his body position to react to the change in Emelin's upper body position but NOT his abrupt change in speed which happened immediately prior to the hit and is what actually directly resulted in the head being the principal point of contact.

And even if I did want to go to Euro style hockey, so what? In reality what I've actually said, however, is that all players have a responsibility. If a player hits someone in the head while committing a penalty, even if they didn't intend the head contact they have to be responsible (e.g. Burrows.) It's like when someone commits a robbery that ends in a death is guilty of murder even if they didn't intend it because they were doing something wrong that they knew might result in unwanted and dangerous consequences. If, however, a player does not do anything that would have otherwise been deemed illegal if there wasn't head contact AND the player who was hit failed in his responsibility to not leave himself in a vulnerable position or if he moved his head immediately prior to the contact then there should not be a suspension (e.g. Edler.) I don't think that's terribly difficult to understand, even if you don't agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, your argument is that Edler was coasting at a leisurely speed (because he managed to not lead with his head) and that simply skating with speed makes a player practically ineligible to be hit ever? Wow, that'll bring a whole new meaning to "they can't hit you if you're fast enough," huh? Sure, boys! Just put your head down even when you know that you are eligible to be hit and leave it down when you know contact is imminent because it makes you practically untouchable. It's called the "invincibility play." That'll sure make hockey more exciting for fans and safer for players!

If you want to be snarky with people for your assumption that they didn't watch the suspension video (see below) you might want to make sure YOU do. (Here's the link if you need a refresher viewing.) The NHL did NOT suggest that "Edler came from the side missing the shoulder and hitting the head." Rather, the suspension video said, "He cuts across the front of Hertl making the head the main point of contact." So if you believe, "If you come from an angle in front or directly from the front contact with the head is incidental to hitting into the body." then you should agree Edler should not have been suspended for a head hit.

My disagreement with that suspension comes from the fact that the NHL seemed to ignore one of the factors listed in the head hit rule that they must consider to determine if head contact was "avoidable." While they acknowledge that Hertl did not change his head's position "immediately prior to or simultaneous with the hit" and therefore that was not a mitigating factor in Elder's favor, they used that part of the rule to disregard the fact that Hertl was leaning forward when in reality it was covered by the entirely separate (and without the "immediately prior to or simultaneous with the hit" time limit) part of the rule that says they must consider if the player "put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a position that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable." To me, that means players who know they're eligible to be hit, especially when they know contact is going to happen, have a responsibility to keep their freaking heads up so that if another player makes a good faith attempt at a clean body check (e.g. lowered body position, lowered arms, hip thrust out, plenty of forewarning that contact is about to happen) their head can be avoided. Otherwise, YOU are the one trying to take hitting out of the league because you're saying players can make themselves all but invincible simply by keeping their heads down, making them only possibly eligible to be hit in an area no larger than a couple of inches on their side.

And the NHL seems to agree with me when it suits them. Example: Gudas' hit on Upshall which they said was an illegal hit that deserved a penalty but decided did not warrant suspension because Gudas left himself in a vulnerable position.

If THIS (with a raised arm!) didn't warrant a suspension based on "vulnerable position"...

GudashitonUpshall.jpg

then THIS didn't either.

edlerhertlpointofcontact.jpg

And, again, being that I agreed with Burrows' suspension because I believe the greater onus was on him in that situation, I'm not sure how you can argue that I'm just always putting the onus onto the person being hit. Unless, of course, you are simply looking for yet another way to be needlessly contrary...

Yes, I watched the video. What part of the concept of disagreeing with it is confusing for you? (And haven't I tried explaining it to you before?!)

As I've said, I believe Burrows changed his body position to react to the change in Emelin's upper body position but NOT his abrupt change in speed which happened immediately prior to the hit and is what actually directly resulted in the head being the principal point of contact.

And even if I did want to go to Euro style hockey, so what? In reality what I've actually said, however, is that all players have a responsibility. If a player hits someone in the head while committing a penalty, even if they didn't intend the head contact they have to be responsible (e.g. Burrows.) It's like when someone commits a robbery that ends in a death is guilty of murder even if they didn't intend it because they were doing something wrong that they knew might result in unwanted and dangerous consequences. If, however, a player does not do anything that would have otherwise been deemed illegal if there wasn't head contact AND the player who was hit failed in his responsibility to not leave himself in a vulnerable position or if he moved his head immediately prior to the contact then there should not be a suspension (e.g. Edler.) I don't think that's terribly difficult to understand, even if you don't agree.

So basically you want the league to hand out head shot suspensions to your whims as opposed to having a standard set of rules. Get use to life's little disappointments.

Btw the Edler photo you have there blows your case out of the water. It shows Edler completely missing the shoulder and targeting the head. Btw, it also shows Edler *gasp* leaning forward. I'm not sure how you can agree with the Burrows suspension yet disagree with Edlers. The one you're confused about is a hit from the front. A hit from the front makes head contact incidental to hitting into the body. How many times does that have to be said before you get it? Btw, would you not have to come from the side of a person to "cut across the front" of him?"

I've watched tons of these head shot suspension videos and they are consistent. That's why I don't have a problem with the Edler and Burrows suspensions and the explanations in them. Bottom line: if you approach your hit from the side you have to hit into the shoulder from the side. Miss the shoulder (or even a glancing blow) and take the head and you'll be suspended. It's the hitters responsibility to ensure he making a legal hit. All players lean forward exposing the head when skating.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how a player can skate with any amount of speed without leaning forward.

Here's the quote on the Gudus hit:

“When determining whether contact with an opponent’s head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit shall be considered.” Here, Upshall assumed a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full-body check unavoidable. Also, contact was in immediate aftermath of Gudas playing puck.”

The league didn't say he deserved a penalty, that was Kerry Fraser's opinion on that play. And as I've said repeatedly, when hitting from the front head contact becomes incidental to hitting into the body. Neither Burrows nor Edlers hits were from the front into the targets body. Both were from the side making the head the primary point of contact. I'll say it again, the league has been quite consistent on these types of hits.

Come from the side missing the shoulder and hit the head is a suspension. From the side you must target the shoulder. Come from the front, whether directly or from an angle, and head contact isn't illegal as you're throwing a full body check where head contact is unavoidable. That's the consistency. It's not whether or not head contact was made, it's whether or not a body check can be made without contact to the head. From a side approach it can be avoided by targeting the shoulder despite the player leaning forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the big reasons I love having Linden is that he can talk to the powers that be in a way that is respectful , and at the same time get them to see where he is coming from . While I dont expect that it could or would change this decision , I do think the nhl will see see this franchise in a different light . I would be lying if I said I didn't think that some of the discaplinarian action handed our way was because of the way we were perceived from the top down .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the big reasons I love having Linden is that he can talk to the powers that be in a way that is respectful , and at the same time get them to see where he is coming from . While I dont expect that it could or would change this decision , I do think the nhl will see see this franchise in a different light . I would be lying if I said I didn't think that some of the discaplinarian action handed our way was because of the way we were perceived from the top down .

Well Benning came from the Bruins organization, So he will have no experience on how to handle suspensions. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, the unnecessary snarkiness in strong in this one! :rolleyes:

So basically you want the league to hand out head shot suspensions to your whims as opposed to having a standard set of rules. Get use to life's little disappointments.

No, I'd like them to establish a standard that acknowledges all aspects of their own rules and abide by it consistently. I don't believe they have. Disagree with my opinion? Well, get used to life's little disappointments.

Btw the Edler photo you have there blows your case out of the water. It shows Edler completely missing the shoulder and targeting the head. Btw, it also shows Edler *gasp* leaning forward. I'm not sure how you can agree with the Burrows suspension yet disagree with Edlers. The one you're confused about is a hit from the front. A hit from the front makes head contact incidental to hitting into the body. How many times does that have to be said before you get it? Btw, would you not have to come from the side of a person to "cut across the front" of him?"

Edler didn't hit the shoulder because he never targeted the shoulder. The NHL said he should have, but he didn't. He approached from the front, which they said he shouldn't have done. And if he's leaning forward it's slightly in his effort to match Hertl's lowered body position. He is NOT, however, knowingly leaving his head in a vulnerable position. See the difference?

One of us is certainly confused about the hit. It's just not me.

How exactly is this Edler coming at him from the side?

edlerhertl_armanni.gif

Answer: It's not. Here's a screen capture from the suspension video showing the angled approach rather than hitting him in the front of his body that the NHL said Edler should have taken:

edlerhertl3_zps32d584f8.jpg

Remember when you said, "If you want all head shots taken out the only hitting allowed would be directly from the side shoulder to shoulder and hip checks from the front. You'd be reducing the hitting in the game and going Euro hockey." Did you really mean to address that to the NHL? Because apparently they believed the only legal way for Edler to hit Hertl there was to approach from the side and hit him shoulder to shoulder.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how a player can skate with any amount of speed without leaning forward.

Why would I have to? The rule book says players shouldn't be suspended if a player being hit left themselves in a vulnerable position. It does not say, "unless he was skating really fast."

Here's the quote on the Gudus hit:

“When determining whether contact with an opponent’s head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit shall be considered.” Here, Upshall assumed a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full-body check unavoidable. Also, contact was in immediate aftermath of Gudas playing puck.”

The league didn't say he deserved a penalty, that was Kerry Fraser's opinion on that play.

Yep, like I said before about the head hit rule... Now, do you have a dispute for the fact that Hertl left himself in a nearly identical posture?

On the second part, you're correct. I miswrote. I should have said that the NHL said the hit "meritted warning." If he didn't do anything wrong, why did he deserve a warning?

...I'm not sure how you can agree with the Burrows suspension yet disagree with Edlers. The one you're confused about is a hit from the front. A hit from the front makes head contact incidental to hitting into the body. How many times does that have to be said before you get it? Btw, would you not have to come from the side of a person to "cut across the front" of him?"

...And as I've said repeatedly, when hitting from the front head contact becomes incidental to hitting into the body. Neither Burrows nor Edlers hits were from the front into the targets body. Both were from the side making the head the primary point of contact. I'll say it again, the league has been quite consistent on these types of hits.

Always amusing to see people defending the NHL's consistency proving to be such a wonderful example of it themselves. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For people challenging the consitency of the various rulings, past and present, I think it is also important to appreciate how hard it would be to determine a lot of variables. No two plays are the same - different angles, dfferent speeds, different timing, different spot on the ices, different players, etc. etc.

One of the things that highlights this for me is when people (some of the discussion above) make long, detailed analyses of their view, they are being totally consistent from their perspective. The counter arguments point of how other people see the inconsistencies in the argument. So, one person's view may be consistent to them based on how they see the game and how they interpret the rules, but widely inconsistent to others. That alone is pretty telling to me.

This, of course, ignores, Deb's "but it's Burr and he didn't mean to" defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For people challenging the consitency of the various rulings, past and present, I think it is also important to appreciate how hard it would be to determine a lot of variables. No two plays are the same - different angles, dfferent speeds, different timing, different spot on the ices, different players, etc. etc.

One of the things that highlights this for me is when people (some of the discussion above) make long, detailed analyses of their view, they are being totally consistent from their perspective. The counter arguments point of how other people see the inconsistencies in the argument. So, one person's view may be consistent to them based on how they see the game and how they interpret the rules, but widely inconsistent to others. That alone is pretty telling to me.

This, of course, ignores, Deb's "but it's Burr and he didn't mean to" defence.

I didn't say that, did I? Perhaps read my comment and don't tell lies.

And that's my point you've just made....that if you make rigid rules that say "don't do it" then all the variables become irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My deal is that I'll move on from it...it was "questionable" and, with that, my issue is more with the stuff they let go than the stuff they address.

Burr will serve his time and I'm ok with that.

So sure, give Burr a game or two as a first offender

This, of course, ignores, Deb's "but it's Burr and he didn't mean to" defence.

Quoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say that, did I? Perhaps read my comment and don't tell lies.

And that's my point you've just made....that if you make rigid rules that say "don't do it" then all the variables become irrelevant.

There was something way back about intent (Burr not meaning or intending to hit the head or something). I was mostly just teasing - sorry if it didn't come accross that way. If I confused it with someone else, my bad - but honestly, I'm not going through 12 pages of a forum post to find it.

I think the nuance in interpretation between you and I is that I think it is actually impossible to have rigid rules for these things (or at least the application of a rigid rule isn't easy). The nature of it always will be interpretive and thus subject to scrutiny and argument. I agree it would be nice if not. A clear rule would be something like the contact the kicker rule in the CFL - if you hit him while the leg is in the air, it's a penalty. It's fairly easy to see. Hockey is too fast and the the play is too dynamic. In the end, if people want to examine 200 angles of a very high speed play and argue over whether it was 15% shoulder and 85% head, or 30% shoulder and 70% head, so be it, but it just gets silly. Likewise comparing one call to a history of other seemingly similar calls with different results (which although tells a history of precedence, it starts to sound petulant after a while, especially when flavoured with the "anti-Canuck" conspiracy nonsense).

In this particular case, it was a bit of a late hit and he hit the head. It is like the CFL kicker call - whether or not he meant to, could have realistically avoided it, or if the player were injured really shouldn't matter: hopefully it is as simple as "did he or did he not hit the head". In this case, he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will never eliminate the problem your way imo...they're trying to do it, and failing miserably. So they need to enforce it every single time with consistency. A game for first time offenders. Second offense - 3 games. Third - 6. Fourth: 12+

As it is now, it's an absolutely random deal, ranging from a blind eye to the book being thrown at some. They look more at who it is than the other details as far as I'm concerned. That has no place in it, unless it is a repeat offender.

The kicker in the CFL is different....these guys on ice are trying to hit one another, it isn't a one off deal whereby someone clips the kicker. They're allowed to hit one another.

It's ok...I can take the teasing. I just have my game face on atm. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After watching these different views, I have changed my mind, I think Burr deserves the 3 games. I hate to say it about a player in my team but there was a "dirty" intent there and he needs to clean up his act.

Burr is a favourite of mine but I can't condone this type of play from him.

I'm sorry but if people watch that video and continue to defend Burr they are way out of line. It appears to be an intentional dirty hit.

Well I don't think the word deserved is correct, because I don't think personally he deserved 3 games, but I understand the situation and accept the 3 games, it's reasonable.

He was just trying to finish a check, but he just needs to realize ok this maybe a little late, I'll get him next time. Just be a little smarter in the choices he makes and right times.

I'm not defending Burrows, but it wasn't an intentional dirty hit. There is no way he was going after Emelins head, it unfortunately happened, but it was still Burrows fault, for going for a hit late like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 or 2 games I could understand.

That it was 3 games it comes with a condition.

The same penalty is applied for the next time a player gives an unintended head shot, with no suspension history, and which in the the offended player comes back and plays in the same game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...