Baggins Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Poetica has dealt with the "turning his back" argument ad nauseum. You may be right that this is how they justified not suspending him, but it is still a terrible argument that subverts the rules. I think a big part of what is at issue here is how what you discretely call the "parameters" of DoPS decision-making sit with the actual rules of the game. People in your camp tend to give more authority to their interpretations than people in my camp are willing to stomach. It doesn't mean we're ignorant, only that we think the rules have an authority that ought to transcend the erratic decision-making that comes out of the DoPS. And I'd be wary of thinking you really understand what's going on with them, since they constantly surprise people a lot closer to the game than any of us. It doesn't subvert the rules at all. It's always been a factor in suspensions. A virtual get out of jail free card so to speak. One of the big ones is head contact. Myself and Elvis understand exactly how the league is enforcing that rule. Others meanwhile say a head shot is a head shot. In Europe that's true. Not here. The league even put out a video explaining exactly how it would be enforced including examples of legal hits that included head contact. Most don't seem to understand what "hitting into the body" means or looks like. It really doesn't matter at what you're willing to stomach. You're always free to stop watching. Or you can alway start a letter writing campaign to get the league to change the rules for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 It doesn't subvert the rules at all. It's always been a factor in suspensions. A virtual get out of jail free card so to speak. One of the big ones is head contact. Myself and Elvis understand exactly how the league is enforcing that rule. Others meanwhile say a head shot is a head shot. In Europe that's true. Not here. The league even put out a video explaining exactly how it would be enforced including examples of legal hits that included head contact. Most don't seem to understand what "hitting into the body" means or looks like. It really doesn't matter at what you're willing to stomach. You're always free to stop watching. Or you can alway start a letter writing campaign to get the league to change the rules for you. If you want to keep going on about head-shots, that's your business, but it's essentially beside the point of this thread. And it certainly doesn't do anything to save the "turning his back" argument, which is a total red herring when the issue is an illegal cross-check, as has been pointed out repeatedly above. You consistently mix up issues and then call other people illogical. Well I'd say the shoe fits pretty well on you. But have a nice time feeling vindicated by sharing thought processes with the DPOS. That must be a real comfort to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadOgre Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Yes I don't disagree with that at all. Just goes to show that the problem will never be addressed properly unless someone dies, but even then I wouldn't hold my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadOgre Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 ........vvvvvvvvv........ Except a fair bit of the problem is actually with the NHLPA. They have a huge say in the current process and define things like the maximum fines etc. In my mind they have clearly shown that they are far more concerned with players getting back playing and earning money than player safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Not at all, but you and Baggins have been implying that those that disagree with you are either fanboys or too stupid to understand the rules It's a terrible arguing style. If your cases were as strong as you guys believed you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics. That's your inference, not ours. I'd say the people we most often debate with understand the rules but fundamentally disagree on their application. There are parts both sides think the other doesn't understand as well though, so there's that. But there are also others who are strictly fanboys/conspiracy theorists but we stopped replying to them a long time ago. Like people who want to suggest that what we do directly correlates to the strength of our argument as their only point. For the record, I'm a business analyst. Would that be an acceptable profession when trying to consider if someone's argument holds merit on it's own grounds based on the facts and supporting opinions presented? Speaking generally, it's also important to separate interpretation of the rules and the subsequent discipline. This particular hit I think was deemed against the rules and illegal. The debate was around the resulting discipline. It is a subtle thing and not likely worth starting a whole other long debate, though. And that is an excellent point, one that's been noted a few times in this thread but obviously bears repeating. All this talk of rules is ultimately useless when someone like Kerry Fraser thinks it's "quite possible" the league take a team's standings into account when issuing suspensions or not. You're welcome to debate the suspension and whether the standings are a factor then. Doesn't mean the rules are a moot point and useless to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 It doesn't subvert the rules at all. It's always been a factor in suspensions. A virtual get out of jail free card so to speak. One of the big ones is head contact. Myself and Elvis understand exactly how the league is enforcing that rule. Others meanwhile say a head shot is a head shot. In Europe that's true. Not here. The league even put out a video explaining exactly how it would be enforced including examples of legal hits that included head contact. Most don't seem to understand what "hitting into the body" means or looks like. It really doesn't matter at what you're willing to stomach. You're always free to stop watching. Or you can alway start a letter writing campaign to get the league to change the rules for you. Maybe we don't have everything 100% correct, but if we can reach basically the same conclusion as them on the majority of headshots, then I don't know how else you'd explain it apart from that we understand the rule and how it's being enforced. If you want to keep going on about head-shots, that's your business, but it's essentially beside the point of this thread. And it certainly doesn't do anything to save the "turning his back" argument, which is a total red herring when the issue is an illegal cross-check, as has been pointed out repeatedly above. You consistently mix up issues and then call other people illogical. Well I'd say the shoe fits pretty well on you. But have a nice time feeling vindicated by sharing thought processes with the DPOS. That must be a real comfort to you. Both sides are happy to bring up other examples to support their arguments around the DoPS, don't lay that on Baggins. And while turning the back is only part of the point in this hit (and not a total red herring), cross checking is a major factor but so is lateness. I know I've been discussing each of those points throughout this thread - it's a red herring of your own to try and deflect that this is all about vindication or that we're DoPS shills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 If you want to keep going on about head-shots, that's your business, but it's essentially beside the point of this thread. And it certainly doesn't do anything to save the "turning his back" argument, which is a total red herring when the issue is an illegal cross-check, as has been pointed out repeatedly above. You consistently mix up issues and then call other people illogical. Well I'd say the shoe fits pretty well on you. But have a nice time feeling vindicated by sharing thought processes with the DPOS. That must be a real comfort to you. Exactly. It is a red herring because there's nothing inherently wrong with players turning their backs on other players. It's a hockey game, not a prison riot. Players who are eligible to be hit have to be conscious of any impending legal contact. None of that applies to the Toffoli hit on Burrows. It was illegal contact to a player who was not eligible for even legal contact at a dangerous position on the ice. Burrows had every right to turn his back and him doing so in no way mitigates Toffoli's responsibility for the hit. The people who keep bringing that up and saying it was a "factor" are just pretending they can read the DoPS' minds and know what factors they considered without any proof (quote? tweet? smoke signal?) while ignoring the rules as written and as previously applied. Finding a reason to defend yet another BS decision after it's handed out is not the same as "understanding" their reasons. It's just finding excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Fans who quote 'turning the back' phrase in the Burrows hit are simply chirping the party line that the NHL ran media is putting out. I have come to the conclusion that the TV media need their jobs so badly they are prepared to go along to get along to keep their pay cheques. It is one of the reasons I still have time for Don Cherry. No matter what, he usually has a straight up comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Fans who quote 'turning the back' phrase in the Burrows hit are simply chirping the party line that the NHL ran media is putting out. I have come to the conclusion that the TV media need their jobs so badly they are prepared to go along to get along to keep their pay cheques. It is one of the reasons I still have time for Don Cherry. No matter what, he usually has a straight up comment. Agreed. It's as pathetic as McLean's attempt to portray Torres' 2011 playoff hit on Seabrook as "blindside" when it was front to front. I loathe Cherry but at least he understands what hitting from behind is, and has consistently condemned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Maybe we don't have everything 100% correct, but if we can reach basically the same conclusion as them on the majority of headshots, then I don't know how else you'd explain it apart from that we understand the rule and how it's being enforced. Both sides are happy to bring up other examples to support their arguments around the DoPS, don't lay that on Baggins. And while turning the back is only part of the point in this hit (and not a total red herring), cross checking is a major factor but so is lateness. I know I've been discussing each of those points throughout this thread - it's a red herring of your own to try and deflect that this is all about vindication or that we're DoPS shills. There you go again, talking as if this was a "hit". This is how you smuggle in "lateness" and "turning the back" into the discussion, but they're irrelevant because it wasn't a hit, it was a cross-check from behind. So I'm calling BS one more time. You're muddying the waters by blending two different scenarios when only one is applicable. If this is any example of your command of the rules, it's not very impressive. And if you are accurately channelling DOPS thinking, as you claim to be able to do, it shows how they erode the rules of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Now you're arguing semantics. I consider a cross check a hit, since players use that motion on numerous occasions yet it's not considered illegal since they don't have a penalty called against them. Let's step back to the facts though as I think people have our points confused: Burrows passed the puck and turned away to go to the bench. Toffoli, who was beside Burrows when he was skating up ice, turned with him and hit him using a cross check. The contact was made after the pass was gone and was illegal from likely both a standard of being late and being a cross check. It resulted in Burrows going into the boards head first. But, back to opinion: I don't know if you've seen my other posts in this thread, but I think it was late. I have said I've seen worse cross checks, but considering that it's late and in the back with Burrows in a dangerous position facing the boards, it's illegal contact. If you disagree, please let me know, but I think we're on the same page there. What I have said in reply to some posters who have either said this was checking from behind, or that any time a player turns to go to the bench he's ineligible to be hit, is that if a players turns away from any incoming contact - regardless of the reason - that could make that contact acceptable. That would mean the contact otherwise wouldn't have been illegal for other reasons (contact to the head, late, elbow, or even cross checking) and I used the Martin/Ballard hit as an example. That was purely a clarification in general. What that it can show though, is how it can apply to this hit if the NHL felt the other points of contact weren't sufficient for any further discipline (remembering that they already agreed it was illegal but felt the penalties on the ice were enough). If you don't agree with that, fair enough. If you can see how that's not an unreasonable position yet still disagree, I'm good with that too. So was it a bad enough cross check to require more than the 5 and a game? Does the amount that it's late add to that? Where I stop accepting people's points is if they think that: This was purely checking from behind where a player was looking at another player's numbers well ahead and still hit him. This was borderline for me on that part of the call, and I think you're more concerned with the cross check. A player can turn to the bench to make a change and immediately become ineligible to be hit. I've had others clarify their original posts to help out after initial wording was unclear (to me at least), and I don't think I've seen you make that argument. Where I am happy to see people's points are if: The rules/process/etc. are broken in determining suspensions, or some rules aren't as clear as others. I've said that myself, and some rules (i.e. checks to the head) have more consistency in discipline than others. This deserved more than just the penalties on the ice. I agree there as well, even if I can see how a player with no previous history for illegal checks of this level would be warned but not fined or suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 A hit is body on body contact, and there are protocols for when that is legal and when it is not, which include lateness and the body position of the player being hit. Cross-checking is stick on body contact, and is strictly speaking never legal, although of course it varies in severity. This isn't a semantic distinction at all, but something fundamental to the rules of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 A hit is body on body contact, and there are protocols for when that is legal and when it is not, which include lateness and the body position of the player being hit. Cross-checking is stick on body contact, and is strictly speaking never legal, although of course it varies in severity. This isn't a semantic distinction at all, but something fundamental to the rules of the game. That's semantics. A hit using two hands on the stick can have the majority of contact with the hands. When does it transition from being a legal hit, which we see all the time, to a cross check that's no longer a hit? Is it only when there's just stick contact, and no contact with the gloves at all? You're arguing a moot point. We agree the contact was illegal, I call it a hit or check and you don't. And a hit can be legal or illegal. Why get stuck on debating that when it has no bearing on the legality of this instance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 ... Where I stop accepting people's points is if they think that: This was purely checking from behind where a player was looking at another player's numbers well ahead and still hit him. This was borderline for me on that part of the call, and I think you're more concerned with the cross check. A player can turn to the bench to make a change and immediately become ineligible to be hit. I've had others clarify their original posts to help out after initial wording was unclear, and I don't think I've seen you make that argument. ... We both know you mean me by the "had others clarify their original posts" comment but the problem (besides your condescending tone) is that I never actually said that. You misread what I said and have gone on to repeat that misinformation repeatedly to justify your outrage at what you think is misinformation among us supposedly less knowledgeable. And I was kind enough to clarify it for you because you needed the help understanding what everyone else was able to get by simply actually reading my original post, which said: 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 very clearly stated in that paragraph that the issue of turning your back applies only to players eligible to be hit. Burrows was not and therefore him turning was not a mitigating factor. I was responding to the people making it sound as if players are always putting themselves in a vulnerable position by turning their back to another player. They're not...UNLESS they are eligible to be hit in which case they should wait another half a second before doing so. If a player is not eligible to be hit he is not putting himself in a vulnerable position as defined by the NHL because he does not have to be on guard for contact. Do you need "to have" me clarify any more for you or will that finally do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 There have been others that weren't clear on a number of things as well, but I agree that does suggest you as the most recent ongoing thread of conversation. I didn't mean it that way but was talking about the larger point in my post. For your post though, my intent wasn't to correct you as I felt you were probably saying the same things as me (which it turns out you were), but I wanted to clarify for others who might have misread. It wasn't until a related post of yours that actually was very much unclear that I wasn't sure what you meant. So you were clarifying other people who likely meant much the same as you (illegal hits before turning are still illegal after) and I added my clarification on top of that. I've already said I agree I was sure you didn't "think that", so no need to try and convince me again. I think we've clarified enough on that topic. EDIT: I changed the formatting on that post a bit as I still wanted my comments on the points there for Maniwaki to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Good, that was exhausting but I think we can stop now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.