No Hearing for Toffoli

[elvis15]

If you can't point to a post of mine, or reference the words that I used, it sounds an awful lot like you've just projected your own judgement about what I'm going to be saying onto my words, before you've even read them.

I was only highlighting the importance of Fraser conceding that it was a possible factor. I'm not the one carrying forward people's misrepresentation of what I said. The really important thing is Fraser's willingness to accept it as being "quite possible"

Or, you can ignore helpful advice when it's given... Either way, it's your decision.

[Xanlet]

Or, you can ignore helpful advice when it's given... Either way, it's your decision.

You may have the best of intentions, but you yourself stated you can't quantify what you mean by "tone", so it wasn't exactly that helpful of advice, was it?

[elvis15]

Now you're just sounding like them. DPOS

...

Careful with your acronyms.

But I don't think Baggins and I would disagree there may be better ways to protect players, it's just that that's a different debate from if they're correctly applying the rules as they have them set right now.

...The league defined the rules and the DoPS enforce them. I can only tell you whether or not something falls inside or outside those standards as they've set them out. If that's regurgitating the DoPS then so be it.

...

We've both apparently been guilty of regurgitation if that's the definition, but you and I have had many threads where we've been at odds with poetica and Deb on the subject, and I don't think it'll change now.

Some of it's that we're trying to explain the rules and they want to see more safety enforced, and there's also points around how the rules are now where we disagree. It is what it is.

[elvis15]

You may have the best of intentions, but you yourself stated you can't quantify what you mean by "tone", so it wasn't exactly that helpful of advice, was it?

I certainly didn't say I couldn't quantify it even if I didn't provide you direct examples.

I shouldn't have to do your work for you anyway, but was rather trying to make a point to help you out. It's your choice from there if you want to reflect on your part in the conversation, or if you want to ignore it and pretend Mongrel was 100% in the wrong.

But I'll take Mongrel's advice and drop it, you can do what you like with the advice I've given.

[elvis15]

What about "the onus is on the player delivering the hit"?

The rules are so vague they can literally decide in either extreme in any given case, thus room for bias

Different conversation but it relays back to my reply to Deb and might help you.

The onus is on the player delivering a hit to do so legally, you're correct in that, but I'll need you to clarify at what point you think Martin knows he's going hit Ballard in the numbers yet also is able to stop from hitting him. Or do you think that Martin shouldn't have been lining him up for the hit at all on the off chance that Ballard would turn right beforehand and put himself in that vulnerable position?

It's a pretty clear rule, with the only subjective part being when a player is actually able to adjust to another player putting themselves in a vulnerable position. Even then, I think a similar threshold used for a late hit might be a good starting point for where a hitter should try and lessen the impact of a hit when a player suddenly turns his back to an incoming hit (same idea for if a player changes the elevation of his head just prior to a hit).

[elvis15]

...

And turning your back to put yourself in a vulnerable position would ONLY apply to a player who is eligible to be legally hit. Burrows was not and as such he had no obligation to not put himself in a vulnerable position as he was leaving the ice on a line change. That's pretty basic understanding of the game to realize that players have to be able to turn towards the bench when they're leaving the ice without worrying about getting crosschecked, which is never legal contact anyway.

...

I just wanted to clarify something (I've been pretty clear on my stance for this hit otherwise): turning away because you were going to the bench is no different based on the rules than if you had turned away knowing a hit was coming. What does make a difference - and I think that's what you're pointing to with his eligibility - is if the hit is late then it wouldn't matter if he had turned away from an incoming hit (only if he'd turned into a hit).

I'm pretty sure Burrows knew Toffoli was there and looking to make contact, and I agree he likely thought that turning in the other direction and away from the play wouldn't result in Toffoli also turning and cross checking him.

But, there are plenty of 'legal' cross checks, and there have been more than a few harder than this one as well. It ended badly since Burrows wasn't prepared for it, but if it wasn't late (I haven't worked the numbers to see for sure) and it was just a continuation hit from Toffoli passing the puck then it's not illegal based on the rules as I understand them.

[Ballisticsports.]

Baggins I am lol at your assumption he leapt after initial contact

Have You played hockey?

Lets assume your skating forward in motion and now you hit someone "cleanly", after you make the contact, it takes some effort to jump after doing that and for what cause? Jumping for joy because you hit him ? It makes no sense to do that after the contact

Isn't this thread supposed to be about Toffoli ?

[elvis15]

Baggins I am lol at your assumption he leapt after initial contact

Have You played hockey?

Lets assume your skating forward in motion and now you hit someone "cleanly", after you make the contact, it takes some effort to jump after doing that and for what cause? Jumping for joy because you hit him ? It makes no sense to do that after the contact

Isn't this thread supposed to be about Toffoli ?

He's not saying he stayed level and then started to jump after contact was made, but if you played hockey yourself you'd know you extend your legs coming into a hit. If you don't time it right, you end up leaving your feet before hand. If you get it perfect sometimes your skates come off the ice after you make contact. If you extend too late, then you probably get sandwiched and never extend at all.

But like all threads relating to illegal plays (particularly ones where the Canucks are on the receiving end and no suspension is made, or they're making the hit and a suspension is made) plenty of comparisons get discussed to validate if the call was right or wrong.

[poetica]

I just wanted to clarify something (I've been pretty clear on my stance for this hit otherwise): turning away because you were going to the bench is no different based on the rules than if you had turned away knowing a hit was coming. What does make a difference - and I think that's what you're pointing to with his eligibility - is if the hit is late then it wouldn't matter if he had turned away from an incoming hit (only if he'd turned into a hit).

I'm pretty sure Burrows knew Toffoli was there and looking to make contact, and I agree he likely thought that turning in the other direction and away from the play wouldn't result in Toffoli also turning and cross checking him.

But, there are plenty of 'legal' cross checks, and there have been more than a few harder than this one as well. It ended badly since Burrows wasn't prepared for it, but if it wasn't late (I haven't worked the numbers to see for sure) and it was just a continuation hit from Toffoli passing the puck then it's not illegal based on the rules as I understand them.

There is absolutely no way anyone should expect a hit when they're making a line change. The onus is always on the hitter and he KNEW Burr had turned and was going to the bench and therefore unsuspecting. Players also know that that distance from the boards is dangerous and are always expected to keep that in mind.

Pretending that we know what Burr knew or didn't know is pointless. Obviously he didn't know he was in danger or he wouldn't have recklessly made it worse. No one would.

And you don't have to guess if it was late, just look at the hit. It was late. As Kerry Fraser said,

-The contact (arms extended cross-check) to the back of the Vancouver player was late. Burrows had passed the puck some twenty plus feet to Daniel Sedin positioned just outside the Kings blue line. Sedin received, and controlled the puck and then released a cross-ice pass to brother Henrik as Toffoli initiated the cross-check.

-In addition to the "late" aspect of the contact, of particular note is that since Burrows body was rotated and turning away from the direction of his pass, Toffoli had to alter his direction of attack to his left and extend his stick and arms outward to deliver the illegal check. A gap in time was created and provided Toffoli the opportunity to make the better decision to veer away and not deliver an illegal check to the back of his opponent.

Also, there are no legal cross checks. It's called a cross check because that is the name of the illegal "action of using the shaft of the stick between two hands to forcefully check an opponent." Unless you have a different version of the NHL rulebook than the one I have that actually describes what kind of cross checks will be considered legal, don't make the mistake in confusing refs turning a blind eye to something being legal.

[Quoted]

He's not saying he stayed level and then started to jump after contact was made, but if you played hockey yourself you'd know you extend your legs coming into a hit. If you don't time it right, you end up leaving your feet before hand. If you get it perfect sometimes your skates come off the ice after you make contact. If you extend too late, then you probably get sandwiched and never extend at all.

But like all threads relating to illegal plays (particularly ones where the Canucks are on the receiving end and no suspension is made, or they're making the hit and a suspension is made) plenty of comparisons get discussed to validate if the call was right or wrong.

And the fact that often the discussions hinge on interpretations of split-second nuances speaks to how hard it is to actually enforce the specific rules.

[Ballisticsports.]

Your wrong here elvis

Getz is taller and heavier and with the forward motion, his body rose off his feet with him hitting up higher, He went light on his feet to maximize the hit.

[alt kilgore]

Fraser: "Toffoli had to alter his direction of attack to his left and extend his stick and arms outward to deliver the illegal check"

I don't know why any nonsense is being put out here that the onus is also on the player being hit in this case, when the offender actually turns to hit the player that has skated out of the natural line of the hit.

[thema]

Isn't this thread supposed to be about Toffoli ?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[elvis15]

There is absolutely no way anyone should expect a hit when they're making a line change. The onus is always on the hitter and he KNEW Burr had turned and was going to the bench and therefore unsuspecting. Players also know that that distance from the boards is dangerous and are always expected to keep that in mind.

Pretending that we know what Burr knew or didn't know is pointless. Obviously he didn't know he was in danger or he wouldn't have recklessly made it worse. No one would.

And you don't have to guess if it was late, just look at the hit. It was late. As Kerry Fraser said,

...

If they turn to make a line change and there's a gap in time where any subsequent hit would become late, I agree. But then I already said that, I'm just trying not to make a judgement based on the lateness of the hit but rather make a point about a player putting themselves in a vulnerable position in an unexpected way at no fault of the person coming to hit them. Again, I haven't said that's the case here.

But it sounds like you'd think there's no possible instance where someone turning to go make a line change would be still eligible to be hit. What about if the hitter was already starting to deliver the check and the other player didn't see him and started to turn to make a line change, with no appreciable time elapsed between moving the puck and contact? Just because they didn't know a hit was coming and put themselves in a vulnerable position the person already in the act of making a hit is suddenly responsible for the person turning their back right in front of them?

To clarify, what I did say about Burrows knowing Toffoli was there is that if he did (and I think he did, but that's my opinion) he also must have thought by the time he turned to the bench and started off for a line change, Toffoli would be too far away to legal make a hit without it being late. That's certainly a situation where he wouldn't expect to be hit even if he knew a player was reasonably close to him and had been trying to hit him a split second before.

...

Also, there are no legal cross checks. It's called a cross check because that is the name of the illegal "action of using the shaft of the stick between two hands to forcefully check an opponent." Unless you have a different version of the NHL rulebook than the one I have that actually describes what kind of cross checks will be considered legal, don't make the mistake in confusing refs turning a blind eye to something being legal.

And yet they happen all the time. No penalties called, no suspensions handed down, but clearly someone with two hands on their stick, holding it horizontally and extending it into the back of another player. They just decide they aren't illegal enough to bother calling, like a cop deciding the paperwork is too much because he finds a 17 year old kid with a joint.

Sometimes it's hard enough that they have to call it because it actually knocks the player off their feet, or sometimes it's just that they've done it that fourth or fifth time when once or twice really should have been enough, but there's a threshold for them to decide when they call it.

[elvis15]

And the fact that often the discussions hinge on interpretations of split-second nuances speaks to how hard it is to actually enforce the specific rules.

Absolutely. I agree it's difficult, but nearly as difficult as some people here make it.

Your wrong here elvis

Getz is taller and heavier and with the forward motion, his body rose off his feet with him hitting up higher, He went light on his feet to maximize the hit.

I'm not sure how that's different from what I said, with the exception that you're saying he left his feet prior to contact. That's what momentum is, and why people's feet come off the ice even after making contact in a hit.

I tried to clarify that clearly he wasn't suggesting Getzlaf waited to 'jump', or extend his legs for the hit, after contact was made, but rather that he was already starting to extend his legs before the hit and it caused his feet to come off the ice either at the point of contact or afterwards.

You made it sound like he was suggesting the first explanation, and also that if he'd played hockey he'd know that was impossible. I suggested if you'd played hockey you'd have realized that the second explanation covers what he's saying quite well.

And to relate it back to the Toffoli hit, just as feet leaving the ice isn't illegal so long as you've already made contact, neither is hitting someone in the back when they've turned away immediately prior to the hit.

Or are you disagreeing with me that there is no instance where you can leave your feet and/or hit someone in the back without it being illegal?

[WilliesStache14]

Baggins I am lol at your assumption he leapt after initial contact

Have You played hockey?

Lets assume your skating forward in motion and now you hit someone "cleanly", after you make the contact, it takes some effort to jump after doing that and for what cause? Jumping for joy because you hit him ? It makes no sense to do that after the contact

go watch scott stevens hit people lol, very often he laid someone out with a massive hit he would come off the ice beacuse he drove so hard with his legs. That's why he was such a powerful hitter

he didn't come off the ice right when he hit them it was right after the initial impact

[Quoted]

go watch scott stevens hit people lol, very often he laid someone out with a massive hit he would come off the ice beacuse he drove so hard with his legs. That's why he was such a powerful hitter

he didn't come off the ice right when he hit them it was right after the initial impact

I was taught to hit bringing your body up and across, not just across. If you do it with enough force, you can't help but leave your feet a lot of the time:before contact if your timing is off or the person moves away, after otherwise.

[poetica]

If they turn to make a line change and there's a gap in time where any subsequent hit would become late, I agree. But then I already said that, I'm just trying not to make a judgement based on the lateness of the hit but rather make a point about a player putting themselves in a vulnerable position in an unexpected way at no fault of the person coming to hit them. Again, I haven't said that's the case here.

Then the point is....?

But it sounds like you'd think there's no possible instance where someone turning to go make a line change would be still eligible to be hit. What about if the hitter was already starting to deliver the check and the other player didn't see him and started to turn to make a line change, with no appreciable time elapsed between moving the puck and contact? Just because they didn't know a hit was coming and put themselves in a vulnerable position the person already in the act of making a hit is suddenly responsible for the person turning their back right in front of them?

What is the purpose of making up imaginary situations just to argue about them? In this case Toffoli had plenty of time according to NHL standards to realize that Burr had gotten rid of the puck and, as Fraser pointed out, had to alter his own trajectory in order to finish the hit which he knew was NOT legal from the get go because it was a cross check to the numbers. Period.

But again, the NHL rulebook says the person making a legal hit is responsible unless the person being hit alters their body position immediately prior to the contact in such a way that makes illegal contact unavoidable. No where in the rulebook does it ever say a person is responsible for protecting themselves from illegal contact and the NHL had repeatedly reinforced that in the suspension videos (for the ones they cared to suspend for....) How can a person be held responsible for putting themselves in a vulnerable position if they don't know someone is going to hit them? How would they know it was a vulnerable position then?

To clarify, what I did say about Burrows knowing Toffoli was there is that if he did (and I think he did, but that's my opinion) he also must have thought by the time he turned to the bench and started off for a line change, Toffoli would be too far away to legal make a hit without it being late. That's certainly a situation where he wouldn't expect to be hit even if he knew a player was reasonably close to him and had been trying to hit him a split second before.

Ok. Good. It wasn't a legal hit. We all agree on that. And yet, even when your best buds at the DoPS agree that the hit was illegal and dangerous you still try to manufacture a reason to argue. Seriously. Why? Do you honestly feel the need to play devil's advocate that badly? Are you that worried Satan isn't well enough represented on the internet?

And yet they happen all the time. No penalties called, no suspensions handed down, but clearly someone with two hands on their stick, holding it horizontally and extending it into the back of another player. They just decide they aren't illegal enough to bother calling, like a cop deciding the paperwork is too much because he finds a 17 year old kid with a joint.

Sometimes it's hard enough that they have to call it because it actually knocks the player off their feet, or sometimes it's just that they've done it that fourth or fifth time when once or twice really should have been enough, but there's a threshold for them to decide when they call it.

What exactly is your point? That because the NHL is wildly inconsistent (something YOU have argued against many, many times) that the rules no longer matter? You are the one always arguing "But that's what the rule says!" and now you're arguing "Yeah, that's what the rule says but sometimes they don't call it so it's not really like 'illegal' illegal." Seriously?!

I don't know how many cross checking penalties have been called this season, but it does get called at least sometimes. And 2 players have been suspended for cross checks, so they are clearly not legal. The fact that the rule is not enforced consistently only proves that the NHL is allowing and even fostering a dangerous climate where players are unable to know how the rules will be enforced in any given game or situation, where the DoPS is allowed enough wiggle room to make decisions influenced by non-hockey play concerns, and where certain players/teams can be unduly benefited or burdened by the rules making the game less fair. If that's your argument, I agree. Otherwise, I don't understand the "some people get away with it, so it's not really illegal" argument. Just because OJ got away with murder doesn't mean murder isn't illegal any more and you're far too intelligent to make such a basic logical mistake.

[viking mama]

There is absolutely no way anyone should expect a hit when they're making a line change. The onus is always on the hitter and he KNEW Burr had turned and was going to the bench and therefore unsuspecting. Players also know that that distance from the boards is dangerous and are always expected to keep that in mind.

Pretending that we know what Burr knew or didn't know is pointless. Obviously he didn't know he was in danger or he wouldn't have recklessly made it worse. No one would.

And you don't have to guess if it was late, just look at the hit. It was late. As Kerry Fraser said,

Also, there are no legal cross checks. It's called a cross check because that is the name of the illegal "action of using the shaft of the stick between two hands to forcefully check an opponent." Unless you have a different version of the NHL rulebook than the one I have that actually describes what kind of cross checks will be considered legal, don't make the mistake in confusing refs turning a blind eye to something being legal.

Toffoli was just doin' what Messier did to Linden in that historic Game 6.

It was a very dirty opportunistic blind-side cheap-shot that he hoped would not be detected by the on-ice officials,..and he felt he could also get away with this because,... a) Burrows is a black-balled or tainted player Toffoli's team is pretty much rolled-up in teflon as far as the current DPS has been concerned. (Brown, Doughty, Getzlaf dodge suspensions - repeatedly) Mmmmm...just like Messier knew there was no chance in hell that he would ever be suspended from playing in a Game 7 at MSG in '94,... no matter what he did or what happened to transpire in the dying seconds of the preceding Game 6.

The difference now is supposed to be that we have more video angles, more officials, stiffer rules and standards,..and we have the DPS, who clearly (and they say carefully) assess incidents case by case. hey should be setting the bar of judgment for fines and supplimentary discipline firmly as strong deterents,...uniformly, for all.

The NHL's modern era was just set back 20 years in the Toffoli case, tho. Repeat-offender status in a case of 'non-hockey play violence or recklessness MUST be recorded and addressed with much greater seriousness, in this instance. Epic fail - here,..due to the considerable amount of corruption and bias within the present process of 'appointing' and 'seeding' dubious representation of specific interests to current DPS.

Time for change...

[Baggins]

Although I disagree with Xanlet to a degree on the hit you're talking about, charging can be applied even when head contact isn't involved. I'd have to think for a while to come up with one that resulted in a suspension though.

Well here it is from somebody who you'd think would be squarely on Hammers side.....

And he has no one to blame but himself, head coach Alain Vigneault said Friday. The Canucks head coach weighed in on the ongoing debate about whether Ryan Getzlaf’s hit Wednesday night was clean or not.

“I thought it was a good hit by a big player,” Vigneault said. “(Hamhuis) was watching his pass and he should have been trying to protect himself a little bit.

“Some guys finish hits, some guys don’t. If Hank or Danny are coming at you, maybe you can watch your pass.

“If Getzlaf is coming at you, you’ve got to have your head up.”

Hamhuis is feeling head pressure and, as everyone has seen with Sidney Crosby, there is no way to predict when he may be back in the lineup.

Vigneault spoke with Hamhuis, who told him he didn’t think Getzlaf was coming that hard. It’s possible his vision was momentarily blocked by the net, which was between him and the Ducks forward.

Initial replays showed Getzlaf’s skates leaving the ice, but he didn’t get air until he followed through on the hit.

Hamhuis saw Getzlaf initially as he first went to get a puck off the end boards. But when he pushed the puck up the ice, he turned and watched it, leaving him in a vulnerable position.

Because Hamhuis turned at the last second, Getzlaf ended up hitting him in the back.

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2011/02/11/av-getzlaf-hit-was-clean-hamhuis-has-a-concussion/

Watch the elbow