[Report] David Pastrnak suspended 2 games

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

['NucK™]

I was about to go on a rant about how dirty the Bruins are but honestly initial contact seems to be chest.. it was borderline but even just 2 games seems a bit much for this. they've handed out 3-5 games for things exponentially more dangerous including obvious intent to injure.

[arowind]

Hes been on fire in fantasy hockey.

[Pears]

Wait, a Bruin actually got suspended? 

[Mighty Max]

Looks more accidental, Girardi unfortunately positioned himself into it.

[elvis15]

2 hours ago, 'NucK™ said:

I was about to go on a rant about how dirty the Bruins are but honestly initial contact seems to be chest.. it was borderline but even just 2 games seems a bit much for this. they've handed out 3-5 games for things exponentially more dangerous including obvious intent to injure.

While he hits squarely through the body, he does elevate into the contact when he was already almost standing straight up before. He honestly couldn't have elevated more without leaving his feet (he already had one foot off the ice going into contact). If you've got a guy reaching for the puck in the air he's already a bit vulnerable and easy to hit versus someone in a lower stance, and you have to come into him lower. You'll knock him off his feet much easier without getting blown back yourself as well.

 

I'm fine with 2 games on that. I've seen worse not get much more as well, but no reason to let this one off the hook.

[RRypien37]

This is just getting sad and pathetic. Wasn't the cleanest of hits but nothing deserving more than a 5 min major. 

[Realtor Rod]

4 hours ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

Not a punishable offense in my opinion. After reviewing the video again, 1 game.

[canuktravella]

 elbow was up a bit but  main point contact was his shoulder  nhl is becoming figure skating with these lame weak ass rules 

[-AJ-]

A bad call to me. The head was hit, but after the chest was. Even then, Girardi moved his head just prior to contact. An interference penalty and no more, in my opinion.

 

EDIT: Upon further discussion, I'd say that this merits more than an interference minor, but I'm not sure if it merits 2 games.

[Fanuck]

He's lucky imo to just get the 2 games.

 

In a different time/place/era he'd have his own head handed to him for doing that. 

 

If that was Torres targeting Bergeron with the exact same hit, Bos would be crying for his head on a stick and the NHL would give Torres a season ending suspension. 

[elvis15]

1 hour ago, ajhockey said:

A bad call to me. The head was hit, but after the chest was. Even then, Girardi moved his head just prior to contact. An interference penalty and no more, in my opinion.

But then that's why there's more to the 'check to the head' rule than just hitting squarely through the body. There's also any other illegal element contributing the head contact, like elbowing or charging. In this case, the unnecessary elevation falls within the charging part of the rule even if it isn't a full charge. See the attached rule, particularly the first of the three conditions:

 

I know you mentioned Girardi moving his head, and that's covered in the third point of the rule, but it has to be enough movement that created the head contact on an otherwise legal hit. With Pasternak coming in high to start and then elevating further, it's not a legal hit so whatever movement Girardi makes is irrelevant.

[-AJ-]

13 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

But then that's why there's more to the 'check to the head' rule than just hitting squarely through the body. There's also any other illegal element contributing the head contact, like elbowing or charging. In this case, the unnecessary elevation falls within the charging part of the rule even if it isn't a full charge. See the attached rule, particularly the first of the three conditions:

I can definitely agree with the unnecessary elevation, but I think point iii is relevant here too. To me, it looks like Girardi materially moved his head just prior to the hit as he brought he head down after catching the puck.

 

EDIT: Just read your edit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hypothetically, if Giradi hadn't moved his head, wouldn't Pastrnak's hit not hit him in the head? It looks as though Girardi lowered his head into Pastrnak.

 

I should clarify, I'm not justifying the hit as entirely legal, as he not only clearly rose into the hit, but it was also arguably interference.

[peaches5]

Have the people who make these suspensions ever played hockey? How they're describing he should have been hit is impossible.

[elvis15]

1 hour ago, ajhockey said:

I can definitely agree with the unnecessary elevation, but I think point iii is relevant here too. To me, it looks like Girardi materially moved his head just prior to the hit as he brought he head down after catching the puck.

 

EDIT: Just read your edit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hypothetically, if Giradi hadn't moved his head, wouldn't Pastrnak's hit not hit him in the head? It looks as though Girardi lowered his head into Pastrnak.

 

I should clarify, I'm not justifying the hit as entirely legal, as he not only clearly rose into the hit, but it was also arguably interference.

And that's fair, but typically in the past they've only given that as a factor when it's been a much bigger movement. I don't think it's nearly enough in this case to justify it, and I'd even say it was a natural movement Pasternak could have expected since Girardi wouldn't just keep staring up after the puck comes down.

['NucK™]

5 hours ago, elvis15 said:

While he hits squarely through the body, he does elevate into the contact when he was already almost standing straight up before. He honestly couldn't have elevated more without leaving his feet (he already had one foot off the ice going into contact). If you've got a guy reaching for the puck in the air he's already a bit vulnerable and easy to hit versus someone in a lower stance, and you have to come into him lower. You'll knock him off his feet much easier without getting blown back yourself as well.

 

I'm fine with 2 games on that. I've seen worse not get much more as well, but no reason to let this one off the hook.

Yeah can't argue with that. I still feel like it's borderline suspendable, so figured if they chose to do so, it should be just 1 game.

 

It just frustrates me that you see guys with obvious intent to seriously injure other players maybe getting 5 games.. if this hit is 2 games than those should be closer to 20-30 IMO (and no I'm not joking)

[elvis15]

Totally agree. The NHL is clearly scared of the repercussions that could come with players challenging more suspensions, so they really only suspend based on what they can prove. Clear intent isn't easy to prove even if it seems obvious. Even then there are a number of more dangerous plays that only get a game or three more, and then it's a cutoff (apart from tacking on some games above that because of repeat offender status) with a bit of a jump before they'll look at 6+ games.

 

I think that's a part of what confuses a lot of people about suspensions. I can usually justify a suspension vs not a suspension based on the rules they have in place, but I can't always predict the weight of the suspension that results.

[terrible.dee]

There was a time when hockey fans cheered goals, hits, fights and the players responsible, the game was wild, everyone knew that. Players, Fans, Refs. If you weren't into it, you stayed away.

 

Now they boo hits and fights, cheer for the refs and league officials who step in to prevent them, and are seem to only enjoy the PREVENTION of goals and cheer on the coaching systems responsible. 

 

When was hockey invaded and conquered by people who didn't like it? every principal of the game has been knocked off kilter in the last 15 years to where we are now watching some over-legislated game of musical chairs on ice, where the gtuys who play the game we once knew are picked off one by one. Suspended, fined and returned to us as "New NHL" robots. 

 

And the "fans" think this is great?

 

Yup, love playing Monday morning "Director of player safety" When we were kids we used to start up a game and just start suspending one another until we were all serving sentences. It would get dark, our parents would have to pick us up. Then we'd get home and have phone hearings to appeal our suspensions to each other.  Unless of course we were playing "You're benched for inferior two-way play!" that week...

 

Congrats "New NHL fans" you have done a wonderful job of ruining this game

[King Heffy]

NHL needed to send a message and it wasn't enough.  The guy plays in an organization with "leadership" like Chara and Marchand who have a history of making a mockery of the sport with their deliberate attempts to injure.   Marchand was trying to lay an even dirtier hit on the same play.  One of these goofs is going to end a respectable player's career one day and the NHL will be criminally liable for not doing enough to cut the Bruins' garbage out. 

[canuck73_3]

On 2016-10-28 at 7:51 PM, King Heffy said:

NHL needed to send a message and it wasn't enough.  The guy plays in an organization with "leadership" like Chara and Marchand who have a history of making a mockery of the sport with their deliberate attempts to injure.   Marchand was trying to lay an even dirtier hit on the same play.  One of these goofs is going to end a respectable player's career one day and the NHL will be criminally liable for not doing enough to cut the Bruins' garbage out. 

 

 

Lol, the butthurt is real.