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

Stone suspended two games for illegal check to head


poetica

Recommended Posts

Ottawa Senators forward Mark Stone has been suspended for two games, without pay, for an illegal check to the head of Detroit Red Wings forward Landon Ferraro during NHL Game No. 158 in Ottawa on Saturday, October 31, the National Hockey League’s Department of Player Safety announced today.

The incident occurred at 11:08 of the second period. Stone was assessed a minor penalty for illegal check to the head.

Under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and, based on his average annual salary, Stone will forfeit $37,634.40. The money goes to the Players’ Emergency Assistance Fund.

For a full explanation of the decision, complete with video, please click on the following link.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=785929&navid=nhl:topheads

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious to hear Ray on 1040 at 4 today, I'm sure he will be animated.  I agree it was an unnecessary hit, but it didn't look all that egregious.  I don't really have an opinion on the number of games though, I have no feel for what measuring the DOPS are using this season. Seems reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it wasn't intentional throwing his arm up after the hit certainly didn't help his case. 

Throwing the arm up after the hit was likely irrelevant.

Did Ferraro do something to antagonize Stone?  If so, then there's more of a case for intent.  But in a vacuum this looks like an unfortunate play in traffic, and the penalty was enough.  2 games instead is meh though at this point in the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like CDC overplays the "randomness" of the Player Safety suspension lengths.

Most of the suspensions range between 1-5 games depending on severity, presence of injury, intent and history. More than 5 games is rare and is only found in hits that were extremely severe and premeditated and/or supplemented by a record for such hits. 

I don't really see why people get so up in arms over the difference between 1 and 2 games. Its up to the DoPS to make those decisions and typically they're within a reasonable range. 

Was the Stone hit worth 2 games? I would have put it at 1 game, but 2 games is well within reason. Some of you make it sound like they gave him 10 games. 

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015–16_NHL_suspensions_and_fines - See for yourselves. There have been 6 suspensions this year. 3 of them were given 2 games, 1 was given 3 games, and then you have Kassian (indefinite) and Torres (clear outlier based on previous history). Seems to me the going suspension is 2-3 games. What is so confusing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering Stone admitted to changing from going after the puck to trying to get a piece of Ferraro and did hit him illegally I don't have a problem with the suspension. I could have seen one game though considering no injury and no history.

Where I am baffled though is how Zetterberg got off scot free for his hit in the same game:

Best look of the Zetterberg hit the league has deemed a legal play: http://fat.gfycat.com/EmotionalInnocentAffenpinscher.mp4 

http://fat.gfycat.com/EmotionalInnocentAffenpinscher.mp4 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throwing the arm up after the hit was likely irrelevant.

Did Ferraro do something to antagonize Stone?  If so, then there's more of a case for intent.  But in a vacuum this looks like an unfortunate play in traffic, and the penalty was enough.  2 games instead is meh though at this point in the season.

The relevancy of throwing his arm up after the hit was to show the follow through on the intention to hit Ferraro. The case for intent to hit is there because of the arm swing whether or not there was intent to hit the head is another matter altogether. So it wasn't as you say "an unfortunate play in traffic". Stone meant to hit Ferraro... maybe not in the head but he did set out to make contact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering Stone admitted to changing from going after the puck to trying to get a piece of Ferraro and did hit him illegally I don't have a problem with the suspension. I could have seen one game though considering no injury and no history.

Where I am baffled though is how Zetterberg got off scot free for his hit in the same game:

http://fat.gfycat.com/EmotionalInnocentAffenpinscher.mp4 

Agreed. I was blown away that Zetterberg didn't get a phone call. Not only was the principle point of contact the head, but he actually jumped off the ground to hit him. Seemed like a pretty clear headshot/charge to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The relevancy of throwing his arm up after the hit was to show the follow through on the intention to hit Ferraro. The case for intent to hit is there because of the arm swing whether or not there was intent to hit the head is another matter altogether. So it wasn't as you say "an unfortunate play in traffic". Stone meant to hit Ferraro... maybe not in the head but he did set out to make contact. 

You don't even need to make any assumptions based on him throwing his arm. Stone admitted he intended to get a piece of Ferraro after losing the chance to play the puck. That alone means he intended to hit Ferraro and his hit was illegal. It was not accidental contact, but rather Stone accidentally made Ferraro's head the principle point of contact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't even need to make any assumptions based on him throwing his arm. Stone admitted he intended to get a piece of Ferraro after losing the chance to play the puck. That alone means he intended to hit Ferraro and his hit was illegal. It was not accidental contact, but rather Stone accidentally made Ferraro's head the principle point of contact. 

In a contact sport with hitting, intent to hit isn't the issue.  It's the intent to hit the head which is, and I doubt he did.  The penalty seemed to be enough, but the league suspended him 2 games and it's not the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't even need to make any assumptions based on him throwing his arm. Stone admitted he intended to get a piece of Ferraro after losing the chance to play the puck. That alone means he intended to hit Ferraro and his hit was illegal. It was not accidental contact, but rather Stone accidentally made Ferraro's head the principle point of contact. 

Which is why it wasn't just "an unfortunate play in traffic" - which would make it seem like because of all the traffic Stone didn't see Ferraro there and just ran into him.

 

If you watch the Byfuglien hit on Gallagher you will see exactly what I mean about the arm follow through on an intended hit. So it's not some assumption based on him throwing his arm, him throwing his arm means he was putting force through his arm to maximize a hit. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a contact sport with hitting, intent to hit isn't the issue.  It's the intent to hit the head which is, and I doubt he did.  The penalty seemed to be enough, but the league suspended him 2 games and it's not the end of the world.

While I agree intent to hit isn't an issue, an intent to hit while being careless of what/how you're hitting IS an issue. The suspension isn't because it caused an injury or he had a history, its because it was careless and had the potential to be very dangerous. 

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...