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

Ference gets 3 games. Repeat offender. With clear intent to injure.

Okay, so those of you out there who do not believe the league isn't biased against the Canucks, guess what? Your days of blind ignorance are over..

I personally think 3 is fine, and still don't think the league is against the Canucks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this a "good job"?? Ference has a history, a fair judgement would have been more.

good enough for me. I'm listening to Pratt on the radio right now say that Ference made a clean hit and there should NOT have been a suspension. Just another reminder to myself as to why I never turn on the team until 10 am. Pratt is the biggest moron on radio period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow awesome internet fight. i like it when we can discuss our stances and have rebuttal. one thing i have to caution you is that some "super mods" don't like it and give you a warning point for having a different opinion and not falling into line like sheep.

I agree that a suspension is warranted as we do not like to see players injured and it doesn't help the game. but saying that accidents do happen and players get hurt. what i am hearing is that what would be good is infractions being called on a level playing field. we need consistency.

saying that ferrence should get atleast the same amount of time as burr.

we will see

peace,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly didn't say they were one for one only that the logic behind the arguments are similar (if at the other end of the spectrum from each other, hence this being the top of the slope, and this being the bottom) where you're saying the actions of one person resulted in a bad outcome. If only Emelin hadn't stood up (and out of a vulnerable position) he wouldn't have been hit in the head. But that's forgetting that it's the actions of Burrows continuing the hit well after the puck was gone and not hitting squarely through the body that caused this to be late and illegal contact to the head.

They are not even close to the same thing and I can't believe you're continuing to make such an outrageous, inflammatory and outright ignorant argument. I said that Emelin's body movement had a direct result on the physics of the contact. I never said anything even approaching, "He was wearing a helmet! What did he expect? Obviously any man who saw that had the right to assume he was just begging to be hit in the head."

You are trying to compare the fact that women's clothing choices have been used as excuses for men who willfully commit rape by allowing them to pretend they thought they had "consent" based on something that is completely irrelevant to actual consent with the fact that the movement of bodies of mass have a direct impact on the collision of those 2 bodies, aka physics. I am frankly disgusted that you are unable to see the very clear difference.

I'm not confusing anything here I don't think, and the vulnerable position argument has nothing to do with excluding a player from having to follow the other criteria for a legal hit as I mentioned. What that covers is if a player is bent in such a way that an otherwise legal hit (squarely through the body, not late, not charging, etc.) will have unavoidable head contact, then that contact is incidental.

You obviously ARE confused because you keep arguing against statements I HAVE NOT MADE. I've never argued that Emelin put himself in a vulnerable position or was in any way responsible for the hit. I only even mentioned "vulnerable position" in relation to this discussion to point out that because the NHL rule book considers how the actions of both parties impacts the physics of a hit in order to illustrate a more appropriate and accurate parallel to draw - traffic accidents - than your bizarre choice of rape.

And, I've repeatedly said that Burrows deserved the suspension because the head contact resulted from him doing something wrong to begin with. I simply said that Burrows did not INTEND a head hit, as evidenced by the fact that the he tried to line up for a body hit but ended up missing only because Emelin stopped at the last moment. Even still, yet again, I said that Burrows had to be held accountable for the head contact because he was hitting a player who wasn't eligible to be hit.

You gotta trust someone sometime. There may come a situation where it's close enough to have that question, but it's not this one.

Really? Why? Apparently I can't even trust someone I believed to be intelligent to see the difference between attempting to justify a willful criminal action based on claims of knowing someone else's thoughts and acknowledging the reality of physics.

And if there is ever a hit where we have a reason to question how the NHL treats the degree of lateness when it comes to discipline, unless there's already a way to compare it to previous suspensions we'll have no way of knowing if it's consistent or not, now will we? (And we already had a reason to question it: Rome.)

Basically this. It's been rehashed to death by this point. I would be possible for Edler to legally follow through on the angle he did if Hertl beat him to that spot so that Edler was hitting the left side of Hertl's torso/shoulder, but otherwise he has to take a better angle where he's making contact squarely through the center of the body, regardless of what position Hertl takes. Only Hertl putting his head in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or at the same time as the hit would absolve Edler of his own failings in that case (which of course we agree on).

I'll stop myself there before I get pulled into another Edler discussion. I think we've pretty well covered this Burrows one too.

Yes, I think avoiding the Edler discussion again is a good idea, especially since you still think there is an 'immediately prior" requirement for a player putting himself in a vulnerable position even though that is NOT what the head hit rule actually says. And arguing that Edler could have hit Hertl legally if only he hadn't gotten to the spot he legally occupied first because it's somehow all Edler's fault that Hertl KNOWINGLY ran into him despite having more than enough time, even by NHL standards, to avoid the hit himself?! :rolleyes: *backing away*

And yes, we're definitely done discussing the Burrows hit too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

especially since you still think there is an 'immediately prior" requirement for a player putting himself in a vulnerable position

Well you did post the rule yourself.....

(iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact.

What this means is if the opponent changes his body or head position thus making the head vulnerable without the checker having time to adjust any head contact will not be penalized. This part of the rule is covered in every one of the head shot suspension videos.

As Hertl did not materially change his body or head position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit, his head is not fair game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you did post the rule yourself.....

(iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact.

What this means is if the opponent changes his body or head position thus making the head vulnerable without the checker having time to adjust any head contact will not be penalized. This part of the rule is covered in every one of the head shot suspension videos.

As Hertl did not materially change his body or head position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit, his head is not fair game.

Yes, I did post the rule myself. And I actually bothered to read the whole thing too! You might want to try it, because ignoring section (ii) does not make it not exist.

(ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable.

Just because you continue to want to read "immediately prior to or simultaneous with" in section (iii) as being a part of the "vulnerable position" in section (ii) doesn't bend reality and make it true.

THERE IS NO TIME RESTRICTION ON VULNERABLE POSITION ACCORDING TO THE HEAD HIT RULE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Shanny addressed everything quite well. Hertl's position did not change by any great degree just prior to being hit. The hit was not a full body check into the body. Edler cut across the front of Hertl making the head the primary point of contact. Shanny then explains what Edler needed to do to make it a legal hit. Angle towards the front of Hertl hitting into the body or hit him into the body from the side.

Rule I - Poor angle of approach. Yes. Edler cut across the front of Hertl. Explained in the video.

Rule II - Yes Herdl was in a vulnerable position, but Edler could have avoided the head by hitting into the body from the side. Explained in the video.

Rule III - Hertl didn't significantly changed position to cause contact to his head. Explained in the video.

Being in a vulnerable position doesn't give the hitter a free shot to the players head. You seem to be ignoring this part of rule II - assuming a position that made head contact unavoidable on an otherwise full body check. So I'm not sure what you believe wasn't addressed. Shanny covered all three parts of the rule.

Of course I'm not saying that being in a vulnerable position gives someone permission to target the head. Rather, I'm just acknowledging that the NHL rule book says whether or not a person put himself into a vulnerable position that made the head be contacted on what was otherwise an attempt at a clean body check is a factor that must be considered and it was not in Edler's case as they only discounted "immediately prior" which is an entirely separate consideration in the rule book. If you are still failing to understand that despite all of the ways I've said it and proven it with a screen capture from and PDF link for the NHL rule book, there's nothing I can do for you.

You've claimed I'm applying my own standard and ignoring that Edler "cut across the front" when in reality I'm pointing out that the NHL has said repeatedly that that's fine. I even gave you the examples of the Gudas hit on Upshall and Niederreiter's hit on Burrows to illustrate the point. But apparently you need more, so okay.

The NHL said this hit by Dubinsky on Koivu did not deserve a suspension:

6a6cab3a-12c5-4488-8ddd-4f323785d414.jpg

Because that's a better attempt at a full body hit than what Edler did? Because that's a lesser example of picking the head than Edler simply being in front of Hertl and failing to drop to the fetal position? Nope and nope.

In the no suspension video for the Nolan on Klesla hit, the NHL offered a couple examples of "legal hits." In the first one, the person being hit's helmet flies off, which was used as "proof" of a head hit in Elder's case. Apparently it didn't "prove" a head hit there, though. The next hit looks pretty well identical to Edler's hit on Hertl, including causing the person being hit to spin around which was also used as "proof" of a head hit in Edler's case. If you're counting, that's both pieces of evidence used as "proof" of a head hit in Edler's video that exist in other hits where they were NOT viewed as proof of anything other than a good ole fashioned clean hockey hit. Huh.

Here's that second hit the NHL gave as an example of a good LEGAL hit:

nhllegalhitexample.jpg

Because that's so different from this?

edlerhertlhitframes.jpg

The only difference I see is that Edler pushed his hip rather than his shoulder towards Hertl. He should have been applauded for that, not suspended, because that is how someone tries to contact the BODY while avoiding as much contact with the head as possible.

In conclusion: I understand your point of view. I just disagree with it based on what the NHL rule book says and on the previous decisions the NHL has made in regard to similar situations. So, we're obviously at an impasse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ference gets 3 games. Repeat offender. With clear intent to injure.

Okay, so those of you out there who do not believe the league isn't biased against the Canucks, guess what? Your days of blind ignorance are over..

Its what I thought it would be, I have no problem with it.

As much as the NHL would never want to admit it, I suspect the fact that Kass jumped right back up and never missed a shift was one of the deciding factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you did post the rule yourself.....

(iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact.

What this means is if the opponent changes his body or head position thus making the head vulnerable without the checker having time to adjust any head contact will not be penalized. This part of the rule is covered in every one of the head shot suspension videos.

As Hertl did not materially change his body or head position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit, his head is not fair game.

Again, basically - especially since it's been referenced by a number of people that Emelin put himself in the upright position just prior to the hit and Burrows didn't intend to contact the head but ended up doing so because of Emelin's movement. That's why section (iii) keeps getting mentioned.

Of course, Emelin straightening up doesn't make head contact otherwise unavoidable on an otherwise full body check. The hit isn't a full body check, and nor is it a legal one and there should be no head contact with Emelin in that position unless Burrows hits squarely through the body. If Emelin had stayed in the same vulnerable position and Burrows had contacted the head on an otherwise legal body check then Burrows would be fine, and that would be where section (ii) could come in but it doesn't apply once Emelin removed himself from that vulnerable position.

But then it's also worth repeating that Emelin straightening up isn't a problem with regard to section (iii) either. He's actually raising his head out of harms way in that case, versus putting it in a position to be hit. That type of movement should be expected by someone coming in for a legal hit, rather than the opposite where the person doing the hitting couldn't expect and react to the other player ducking or leaning forward into the hit.

The Edler hit isn't excused by either section though. Hertl doesn't put himself in that position just prior to the hit, so it's not section (iii), and since Edler doesn't make a clean hit squarely through the body (or a full body check to include both phrases) and contacts the head, section (ii) isn't applicable either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I'm not saying that being in a vulnerable position gives someone permission to target the head. Rather, I'm just acknowledging that the NHL rule book says whether or not a person put himself into a vulnerable position that made the head be contacted on what was otherwise an attempt at a clean body check is a factor that must be considered and it was not in Edler's case as they only discounted "immediately prior" which is an entirely separate consideration in the rule book. If you are still failing to understand that despite all of the ways I've said it and proven it with a screen capture from and PDF link for the NHL rule book, there's nothing I can do for you.

You've claimed I'm applying my own standard and ignoring that Edler "cut across the front" when in reality I'm pointing out that the NHL has said repeatedly that that's fine. I even gave you the examples of the Gudas hit on Upshall and Niederreiter's hit on Burrows to illustrate the point. But apparently you need more, so okay.

The NHL said this hit by Dubinsky on Koivu did not deserve a suspension:

6a6cab3a-12c5-4488-8ddd-4f323785d414.jpg

Because that's a better attempt at a full body hit than what Edler did? Because that's a lesser example of picking the head than Edler simply being in front of Hertl and failing to drop to the fetal position? Nope and nope.

In the no suspension video for the Nolan on Klesla hit, the NHL offered a couple examples of "legal hits." In the first one, the person being hit's helmet flies off, which was used as "proof" of a head hit in Elder's case. Apparently it didn't "prove" a head hit there, though. The next hit looks pretty well identical to Edler's hit on Hertl, including causing the person being hit to spin around which was also used as "proof" of a head hit in Edler's case. If you're counting, that's both pieces of evidence used as "proof" of a head hit in Edler's video that exist in other hits where they were NOT viewed as proof of anything other than a good ole fashioned clean hockey hit. Huh.

Here's that second hit the NHL gave as an example of a good LEGAL hit:

nhllegalhitexample.jpg

Because that's so different from this?

edlerhertlhitframes.jpg

The only difference I see is that Edler pushed his hip rather than his shoulder towards Hertl. He should have been applauded for that, not suspended, because that is how someone tries to contact the BODY while avoiding as much contact with the head as possible.

In conclusion: I understand your point of view. I just disagree with it based on what the NHL rule book says and on the previous decisions the NHL has made in regard to similar situations. So, we're obviously at an impasse.

The NHL defines a clean body check as hitting "into the body". Edler didn't do this. You have to consider all three aspects of the rule. Not just one phrase in one part of the rules. Could Edler have delivered a full body check without contacting the head? The answer is yes and Shanny explained how Edler should have delivered the hit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQQXcQlVdJA

Dubinski delivers the hit into the body front the front. The elbow comes up after initial contact but in the replay you can see it misses Koivu's head. It's a clean hit as he was delivering a full body check into Koivu's body. The league got this right per the rules. The refs got it wrong.

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=444642

I'm really not sure what it is you're not understanding on the Nolan hit. It's explained very well in the video why this hit is legal and includes an example of an illegal head hit. "Hitting into the body". He delivered a full body check "into the body". Despite coming from the side he angled "into the body". This is where contact to the head is excused as he's delivering a "full body check" where contact to the head is unavoidable. Edler on the other hand was like the example in this video of an illegal hit, cutting across the front of the body making the head the point of contact without hitting into the body. Edler either needed to angle into Hetl's left shoulder from the front, or come in directly from the side into Hertl's left shoulder/torso. He did neither, instead cutting across the front Hertl making his head the primary point of contact. This is illegal.

Btw, it's pointless posting stills as it doesn't show the entire approach and how contact was made. Watch the videos instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good enough for me. I'm listening to Pratt on the radio right now say that Ference made a clean hit and there should NOT have been a suspension. Just another reminder to myself as to why I never turn on the team until 10 am. Pratt is the biggest moron on radio period.

Not only is Pratt a moron, he is a plagiarist. For a "journalist" (parenthesized because it's questionable whether Pratt could ever have been called a journalist) that's a complete breach of integrity. I had hoped that we would never have to hear or read the hack again. I'm sure that among the journalistic community, he's looked upon as the aged eliminated matter in a septic tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's your opinion, but it doesn't mesh at all with the rulebook around headshots or late hits. And no where is there a criteria that a hit should be suspendable just because it's vicious or more violent than another.

This is the point where you should step in with examples of late hits where the body wasn't squarely contacted and resulted in headshots on Canucks players that didn't result in suspensions from the NHL. The general refrain of "the league hates us!" is all well and good to say, but without providing anything to substantiate it then it becomes homerism, or at least a very limited perspective on what actually happens in the same situations with other teams.

Has the mike Ribero hit last game even being reviewed, is that not an example of a head shot on a Canuck being let go.

Not every Dick and Jane needs to validate the findings like we're a group of rebel-led Government watchdogs. There are plenty of people that check those things (bloggers, journalists, fans with editing experience) so if the eye test seems to align then I'm pretty happy to accept it.

If they were being sticklers about a tenth of a second or less above the threshold, then I'm sure we'd see lots of analysis, this one wasn't really near the threshold though.

Clarification's a good thing though, and there are people out there willing to do a deep dive into the NHL's ruling on hits like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL defines a clean body check as hitting "into the body". Edler didn't do this. You have to consider all three aspects of the rule. Not just one phrase in one part of the rules. Could Edler have delivered a full body check without contacting the head? The answer is yes and Shanny explained how Edler should have delivered the hit.

[media removed]

Dubinski delivers the hit into the body front the front. The elbow comes up after initial contact but in the replay you can see it misses Koivu's head. It's a clean hit as he was delivering a full body check into Koivu's body. The league got this right per the rules. The refs got it wrong.

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=444642

I'm really not sure what it is you're not understanding on the Nolan hit. It's explained very well in the video why this hit is legal and includes an example of an illegal head hit. "Hitting into the body". He delivered a full body check "into the body". Despite coming from the side he angled "into the body". This is where contact to the head is excused as he's delivering a "full body check" where contact to the head is unavoidable. Edler on the other hand was like the example in this video of an illegal hit, cutting across the front of the body making the head the point of contact without hitting into the body. Edler either needed to angle into Hetl's left shoulder from the front, or come in directly from the side into Hertl's left shoulder/torso. He did neither, instead cutting across the front Hertl making his head the primary point of contact. This is illegal.

Btw, it's pointless posting stills as it doesn't show the entire approach and how contact was made. Watch the videos instead.

It's simply pointless trying to discuss anything with you. Repeatedly you've made it clear you didn't even read what I said and instead just responded to an imaginary argument you thought was easier to dispute, which is ironic given your love of telling people to "pay attention" and "watch the videos instead." (The latter is particularly amusing because where you do think the stills come from? LOL)

Had you bothered to read what I actually said you'd notice I was referencing the Nolan decision video (for which I also provided the link for anyone "paying attention"), not the Nolan hit. What I was actually talking about (with images that should have made it obvious...) were the hits presented in that video as examples of "full body checks", including one that looks as close to identical as any 2 hits will ever be with Edler/Hertl.

If the NHL thought this was worthy of being chosen as an example of a legal full body check despite his nearly identical angle of approach AND continuing forward momentum "across the front of the body" that continues throughout the check...

nhllegalhitexample.jpg

...then this should have been considered legal too.

edlerhertlhitframes.jpg

If you can't look at not only the stills but also the videos (which is why I provided a link to the video to begin with...) and see the glaring similarities in these hits (same angle of approach, hitter continuing his forward momentum "across the body", player being hit leaning forward prior to hit and getting spun around by the hit, etc.), then you're just too drunk on the DoPS koolaid.

But hey, at least when the NHL changes their opinion again you'll finally agree with me. Well, at least until the next time they like the guy being hit far more than the guy doing the hitting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's simply pointless trying to discuss anything with you. Repeatedly you've made it clear you didn't even read what I said and instead just responded to an imaginary argument you thought was easier to dispute, which is ironic given your love of telling people to "pay attention" and "watch the videos instead." (The latter is particularly amusing because where you do think the stills come from? LOL)

Had you bothered to read what I actually said you'd notice I was referencing the Nolan decision video (for which I also provided the link for anyone "paying attention"), not the Nolan hit. What I was actually talking about (with images that should have made it obvious...) were the hits presented in that video as examples of "full body checks", including one that looks as close to identical as any 2 hits will ever be with Edler/Hertl.

If the NHL thought this was worthy of being chosen as an example of a legal full body check despite his nearly identical angle of approach AND continuing forward momentum "across the front of the body" that continues throughout the check...

nhllegalhitexample.jpg

...then this should have been considered legal too.

edlerhertlhitframes.jpg

If you can't look at not only the stills but also the videos (which is why I provided a link to the video to begin with...) and see the glaring similarities in these hits (same angle of approach, hitter continuing his forward momentum "across the body", player being hit leaning forward prior to hit and getting spun around by the hit, etc.), then you're just too drunk on the DoPS koolaid.

But hey, at least when the NHL changes their opinion again you'll finally agree with me. Well, at least until the next time they like the guy being hit far more than the guy doing the hitting...

Again with the stills. Watch the videos and LISTEN to the explanations. Hitting into the body is a key phrase that you don't seem to get. You can see the difference in the videos. The explanations are clear if you watch and listen with an open mind. One the hit is INTO THE BODY in front of the head, the other is going straight across picking the head. Therein lies the difference. Simlilar approach - yes, same delivery of hit - no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has the mike Ribero hit last game even being reviewed, is that not an example of a head shot on a Canuck being let go.

Not if they think it was a legal hit. It's certainly close, even if it's violent. It appears his arm/elbow comes out at the same time or just after contact, and he doesn't leave his feet or extend upwards into the hit. It's a little less squarely through the body than I'd like, but not so much it's a clear cut suspendable hit like the Burrows or even the Edler hit on Hertl was.

Why do you think it's illegal and the NHL should be looking at it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again with the stills. Watch the videos and LISTEN to the explanations. Hitting into the body is a key phrase that you don't seem to get. You can see the difference in the videos. The explanations are clear if you watch and listen with an open mind. One the hit is INTO THE BODY in front of the head, the other is going straight across picking the head. Therein lies the difference. Simlilar approach - yes, same delivery of hit - no.

If you say it often enough it might actually become true....

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...