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

Calgary sportsnet host pokes fun at EP concussion


ChuckNORRIS4Cup

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

but don't you think the follow through was a bit much? 

Not really.  Maybe the follow through drew attention to the head contact and got him the 2 mins., but it was JG's turning into the play, following the puck, that led to him getting hit in the head.  I think the arm shove after impact would have still happened as a part of bracing for impact, and therefore is not worthy of further punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kragar said:

Not really.  Maybe the follow through drew attention to the head contact and got him the 2 mins., but it was JG's turning into the play, following the puck, that led to him getting hit in the head.  I think the arm shove after impact would have still happened as a part of bracing for impact, and therefore is not worthy of further punishment.

you have to wonder though, if thats Burrows making that hit last year what the result would have been. Oh well, at least we have two examples this week of whats legal or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

you have to wonder though, if thats Burrows making that hit last year what the result would have been. Oh well, at least we have two examples this week of whats legal or not. 

Don't tell me you want consistency from DOPS now ;) 

 

I'm still a little surprised Matheson got anything, and Guddy didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

McAvoy did have a small bit of time to avoid the head contact, he has enough time and presence to keep turning into JG and then do a full follow through with his elbow. It should be a game suspension but we'll see. 

like I said, I would consider it suspendable for the fact it's a head shot - but it's not an elbow (those are optics that are not consequential imo) - and the 'intent' is mitigated by the fact it's a typical hockey play, with a rebound in play, JG turning quickly to try to corral it, and McAvoy clearing the net, but erring on the side of a high hit - literally shoulder to Gaudreau's face. 

 

If people are relying on the gif even that evidences that fact, when frozen at the point of contact, that it's a shoulder (regardless of the arm raising afterwards, which is not in fact in alignment with JG's head - and further evidenced to the point of obvious when watched at various angles, particularly the one at the 32 second mark of the SN video).

There is no elbow to the head - and the intent part of it cannot be assumed as an intent to injure, but clearly McAvoy is responsible for the fact that the principal point of contact is essentially his shoulder to JG's face.  JG turning into the play does not necessarily excuse the hit imo, although the league has tended to look at it that way.. I'd probably impose a mild suspension based on the facts of the hit in spite of not believing intent to injure can be assumed there.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Okay that's more of a fair argument, but it was the fact you were quoting someone who's basically saying the NHL needs to protect guys like JG and EP more because their star players, and teammates shouldn't have to take things into their own hands. So how does the NHL do this if they get hit by a clean hit yet the teammates don't like it, because their star player just got hit and now they go after that player, the OP doesn't want them doing that so the only way to stop that from happening is having a rule to not hit them in the first place. We can argue and say hey as long as it's clean it's okay, but teams will still react no matter what if it's clean or not and will try and take things into their own hands still because they don't want their star getting hit. 

 

Regarding suspensions and moving forward, the game is still adapting towards it when they come across a situation that's not an illegal hit to the head, blindside hit or hit from behind, it's a learning curve and obviously the Matheson and EP incident is a prime example of it. That's a hockey play(penalty imo) but, that type of play has happened more than just once before but no one has or had ever been suspended before, because no one has ever suffered a concussion from it before. So the NHL going forward needs to suspend every player who ever does this now whether it results in a injury or not, it's all about consistency to send the proper message and that's where the NHL fails which makes it really hard as a fan and player to figure out what's right and what's wrong. 

 

The NHL is doing the right things to cut down on these injuries as said certain plays hits they have addressed, but other situations that result in an injury is something their learning and adapting too, because that play was always acceptable in past, but now it has resulted in an injury and they need to send a message to change it, it just takes time and as said the NHL needs to show consistency in these to send the message to everyone. 

 

I mentioned this before but I'll bring it up again, as said this recent incident used to be just part of hockey, guys finished checks and threw a player to the ice after, it was just something that happened, now that is not allowed don't agree with it but okay. Going to make a scenario here, look at the D in games protecting the front of their net, their pushing and cross checking shoving opposition players away from infront of their net without the puck so their goalie isn't being screened, isn't that roughing and interference as well, they don't have the puck, so what gives them the right to do the same thing other players do after finishing a hit that is deemed interference or roughing after? Point is what happens when a D pushes a smaller guy and he falls and hits his head now and gets injured? Are they going to say now you can't push or move an opposition player from infront of your net because a player got injured because of it already and if you do then you're suspended, so instead you just have to let that guy now screen your goalie and you can't do anything about it and your goalie can't do anything about it because if he pushes him then that's illegal because 1 player got injured due to the same incident.

 

Something's imo are suspension worthy, but not everything now a days is suspension worthy just because a player got injured due to it, doesn't mean that play should be illegal now that's why their are penalties, but the fact that's the way the NHL is going, the trend is it will stop players from doing everything eventually and this game will be a non contact sport if this trend continues, and that will ruin the game eventually.

I should of highlighted what I was referring to in my original quote so my bad. I think we agree on way more than we think. I grew up late 70's and 80's hockey and I loved the Shanahan's and Scott Steven's. Heck, I still wear 14 as my number (Shanny). I am simply ready to embrace the new NHL. I love the speed and skill. But dont get me wrong I still love the hits as well, when legal. My fear is that unless head trauma is addressed all hitting will be stopped. The way the world is now liability and insurance wise I could see it escalating to the point where contact sports will no longer exsisit if head trauma isnt addressed. I'm happy to see the NHL working on it in order to keep contact within the game. I've watched enough All Star games to know I don't want that to ever become the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, rekker said:

So true. I'm done with "back in the day", "it used to be". Get over it people. Time to move on. For contact sports to exist changes need to made. I look the the NFL. Recent contraversies aside, spearing tackles with helmets, protecting the QBs, have been addressed in the last few years. The new rules been embraced by players and fans. For some reason some hockey fans cant come to terms with the attempted changes. Again, you can have tough, hard nosed hockey without dumb plays like the one Mathison just did. 

Players are way faster and stronger than they used to be, plus the equipment causes a lot of damage. In the early 90s it hurt to hit a guy, not you can launch yourself like a cannon ball. While it protects the hitter it has created danger for the guy getting hit. Players are getting concussed at a much higher rate and it is bad for the game. 

Sucks to see guys like Gaudreau and Pettersson get injured as a fan of the sport. Would much rather have them showing world class skill and a little less hitting in the sport than a bunch of Gudbransons running around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2018 at 4:12 PM, PhillipBlunt said:

This is undeniable. For what Vancouver offers it's residents, as a city (forget about the "natural beauty"), it is probably the most overpriced city on Earth.

Well, when you live in a rainforest, expect rain.

The skyline is generic and snore inducing. There are no buildings that really stick out and scream Vancouver. Just a lot of uninspired, pretentious glass buildings. The 600 ft (approx.) height restriction is ridiculous. The city should be allowing 1000 ft. towers downtown to deal with the fact that the downtown peninsula is very small.

Very, very true. I'm born and raised in Vancouver, and what I've seen during that time is an almost wholesale bulldozing of the past. Vancouver has very little sense of it's own history, and tends to focus mainly on how much something costs versus what it's legacy will be.

True. Again the vast greed that has gripped the city and outlying regions has made it so that mainly those who are well-heeled can afford to open a small business.

Again, very true. The days of strong neighborhoods in the city are long gone. Certainly they're are pockets of neighborhoods out there, but for the most part, the city is a lonely place.

These two go hand in hand. Blame the Liberals and that scumbag Gordon Campbell for closing Riverview, which sent vast amounts of mentally unstable people to fend for themselves. Any mental health initiatives are merely lip service when you look at the long game and how the provincial and municipal governments have let things fester to their disgusting present state in the downtown east side.

Can't disagree, although driving through Western Washington from 2 - 7 pm on any day of the week, makes me long for Vancouver's traffic. The problem is that every minister of transportation has been a useless skinbag who's done nothing to alleviate the issue. The transportation infrastructure is pathetic, stuck about 50 years in the past, and needs a complete overhaul to make the region, in any way livable.

 

Igor Robberson's bike lanes were a horribly executed initiative that only served his faithful and screwed over so many others, definitely contributing to the region's horrible traffic.

This has been steadily increasing for about 20 years and is evident all over the city. People self-righteously tout the city's placement in nature as if it's something unique, to the point of being embarrassing. Wow the ocean, actually it's a bay and a strait, not the ocean, folks. Go to Tofino, Uculet, or Long Beach to see that. And the e. coli you can get swimming in English Bay seems to be absent from the long-winded Vancouver ra ra ra diatribes. The mountains? Wow. Seattle has Rainer, which is about 14,000 ft. is even more striking and awe-inspiring than the Coast Mountains.

 

Vancouver is a nice city, but when compared as a proper city, regardless of natural setting, to New York, Rome, London, Dublin, Toronto, Chicago, and numerous others, it's a vanilla, middle of the road city with potential.

 

I bought into Vancouver being an amazing city. I finally moved and regret not leaving sooner. Everything you said is spot on. It was awesome back in the 90s but started to get worse in the 2000s and then turned to total crap after the Olympics. 

It is horribly expensive, far away from everything, boring outside of the summer months, the job market sucks, way too many Donnelly Pubs, lame architecture, not a lot of culture, and a crappy attitude by the residents. It doesn't feel like a place that should be expensive to live. 

There is a piece of Vancouver that made it "Vancouver" that just seems to no longer exist. Like the city lost its soul, or it does not resemble the Vancouver say my parents experienced at my age. It has changed too much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

like I said, I would consider it suspendable for the fact it's a head shot - but it's not an elbow (those are optics that are not consequential imo) - and the 'intent' is mitigated by the fact it's a typical hockey play, with a rebound in play, JG turning quickly to try to corral it, and McAvoy clearing the net, but erring on the side of a high hit - literally shoulder to Gaudreau's face. 

 

If people are relying on the gif even that evidences that fact, when frozen at the point of contact, that it's a shoulder (regardless of the arm raising afterwards, which is not in fact in alignment with JG's head - and further evidenced to the point of obvious when watched at various angles, particularly the one at the 32 second mark of the SN video).

There is no elbow to the head - and the intent part of it cannot be assumed as an intent to injure, but clearly McAvoy is responsible for the fact that the principal point of contact is essentially his shoulder to JG's face.  JG turning into the play does not necessarily excuse the hit imo, although the league has tended to look at it that way.. I'd probably impose a mild suspension based on the facts of the hit in spite of not believing intent to injure can be assumed there.

  

Actually change in body position does factor in with suspensions and it should. It's a question of does the player committed to throwing a hit have time to adjust to the change in body position of his intended target. Nobody is a mindreader as to what somebody else will do in a fraction of a second so you have to allow for reaction time. This is where that .5 of a second comes in to determine a late hit as it's considered the reaction time required to process the change and adjust. It's the same application with head contact. They look to see if there's any sudden change in where the head is and does the player committed to a hit have time to adjust to that change. If the answer is no there's no suspension. Which I see as fair. You simply can't expect one player to know exactly what another player will do at any given moment.

 

I suppose ultimately it comes down to the question: do fans want to switch to Euro rules of no head contact which greatly reduces hitting, and reduces the risk of concussion, or are they willing to accept there's risk and see a more physical game. If you want the more physical game you have to accept not all concussions will result in a suspension and it can happen to your players as well. Using the current NHL rulebook there will be legal hits that result in head contact and concussions. From a player point of view, as far as I'm concerned, players know the risks of the current rulebook and fully accept that risk by signing a contract to play in this league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, canucklehead44 said:

Players are way faster and stronger than they used to be, plus the equipment causes a lot of damage. In the early 90s it hurt to hit a guy, not you can launch yourself like a cannon ball. While it protects the hitter it has created danger for the guy getting hit. Players are getting concussed at a much higher rate and it is bad for the game. 

Sucks to see guys like Gaudreau and Pettersson get injured as a fan of the sport. Would much rather have them showing world class skill and a little less hitting in the sport than a bunch of Gudbransons running around. 

Those exact points are a main reason in why I have been saying for YEARS, this game needs to go to international size ice, the game needs more open ice there isn't as much as their was back in the day, and with more open ice we definitely would be able to see skilled players doing a lot more highlight reel type skilled plays. These players need more time to react when they get the puck, they just don't have that time like they did back in the day, and without making this game 4 on 4, I'd rather see it stay 5 on 5, but just bigger ice instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Kragar said:

Don't tell me you want consistency from DOPS now ;) 

 

I'm still a little surprised Matheson got anything, and Guddy didn't.

why Guddy? sure it was a bit late but other than that it was fine, there was no head contact or intent to injure potential on that one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, oldnews said:

but clearly McAvoy is responsible for the fact that the principal point of contact is essentially his shoulder to JG's face.  JG turning into the play does not necessarily excuse the hit imo, although the league has tended to look at it that way.. I'd probably impose a mild suspension based on the facts of the hit in spite of not believing intent to injure can be assumed there.

  

I guess the other part for me is that it isn't a particularly high speed play. McAvoy, I think he could have avoided it. I don't know how Calgary fans are reacting but I would imagine they think its open season on JG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

why Guddy? sure it was a bit late but other than that it was fine, there was no head contact or intent to injure potential on that one. 

Just a little lingering concern over "always being screwed over" (generalization for emphasis) by the league/DOPS.  I don't think he deserved a suspension there, but there's been a few times where I don't think a Canuck deserved the suspension they received, and wouldn't have been surprised if it happened again there.  

 

Ask those on CP, and I'm sure they have a much different opinion :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Just a little lingering concern over "always being screwed over" (generalization for emphasis) by the league/DOPS.  I don't think he deserved a suspension there, but there's been a few times where I don't think a Canuck deserved the suspension they received, and wouldn't have been surprised if it happened again there.  

 

Ask those on CP, and I'm sure they have a much different opinion :) 

I'm sure they do :lol: Maybe if the kid has been injured on the play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I guess the other part for me is that it isn't a particularly high speed play. McAvoy, I think he could have avoided it. I don't know how Calgary fans are reacting but I would imagine they think its open season on JG.

I also think that McAvoy rises into the hit, which is problematic when you're the bigger guy.   Not clear if he left his feet, but it's close.  The hit does not need to be that high imo.

McAvoy ignores the puck electing to 'play the body' instead - that part is ok imo with another Bruin in the vicinity to pursue the puck

Gaudreau's body position at the point of contact was facing McAvoy, with his neck extended forward, so there's not much chance of his head not being the principal point of contact, but I still think there should be an onus on the hitter to prevent the head shot.   This is not a case of a player on the boards turning his back to the hit at the last second - Gaudreau is naturally turning back to the play/puck - McAvoy has to expect that Gaudreau is intending to stay in the play - a hit is ok, it's a hockey play, but the hit is not imo.  I don't think any intent can necessarily be assumed , but I still think McAvoy should be responsible for the head shot - I'm not a fan of the idea that the player being hit is equally responsible, or that it's a 'zero fault' situation. 

It appears that Gaudreau isn't injured - so that's a positive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Those exact points are a main reason in why I have been saying for YEARS, this game needs to go to international size ice, the game needs more open ice there isn't as much as their was back in the day, and with more open ice we definitely would be able to see skilled players doing a lot more highlight reel type skilled plays. These players need more time to react when they get the puck, they just don't have that time like they did back in the day, and without making this game 4 on 4, I'd rather see it stay 5 on 5, but just bigger ice instead.

Do you ever see that happening? They'd have to remove the bottom 3 rows of seats along the sides, the most expensive seats. Or build 31 new arenas, I don't see the owners being willing to do either option. They'd be more likely to change to 4 on 4 as that means reducing the roster and saving themselves money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, canucklehead44 said:

I bought into Vancouver being an amazing city. I finally moved and regret not leaving sooner. Everything you said is spot on. It was awesome back in the 90s but started to get worse in the 2000s and then turned to total crap after the Olympics. 

It is horribly expensive, far away from everything, boring outside of the summer months, the job market sucks, way too many Donnelly Pubs, lame architecture, not a lot of culture, and a crappy attitude by the residents. It doesn't feel like a place that should be expensive to live. 

There is a piece of Vancouver that made it "Vancouver" that just seems to no longer exist. Like the city lost its soul, or it does not resemble the Vancouver say my parents experienced at my age. It has changed too much. 

There is always alot of drive in front of olympic games. but living gets much more expensive in those citys and after the party the circus goes to the next host. Vancouver has the olympic hangover. But, hey, life goes on and Vancouver is a great city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I also think that McAvoy rises into the hit, which is problematic when you're the bigger guy.   Not clear if he left his feet, but it's close.  The hit does not need to be that high imo.

McAvoy ignores the puck electing to 'play the body' instead - that part is ok imo with another Bruin in the vicinity to pursue the puck

Gaudreau's body position at the point of contact was facing McAvoy, with his neck extended forward, so there's not much chance of his head not being the principal point of contact, but I still think there should be an onus on the hitter to prevent the head shot.   This is not a case of a player on the boards turning his back to the hit at the last second - Gaudreau is naturally turning back to the play/puck - McAvoy has to expect that Gaudreau is intending to stay in the play - a hit is ok, it's a hockey play, but the hit is not imo.  I don't think any intent can necessarily be assumed , but I still think McAvoy should be responsible for the head shot - I'm not a fan of the idea that the player being hit is equally responsible, or that it's a 'zero fault' situation. 

It appears that Gaudreau isn't injured - so that's a positive.

 

You can see McAvoy doesn't leave his feet prior to contact. Leaving the ice once contact occurs is legal. Launching yourself off the ice into a player prior to contact is charging and suspendable.

 

The problem is the current rules. Head contact itself isn't illegal. Targeting the head is. So by the current rules it's not actually a question of was the head contacted, the question is was head contact avoidable in delivering the hit. This is what most don't understand. When delivering a check directly from the front of a player head contact isn't easily avoidable as players are leaning forward most of the time. Head contact is then incidental to delivering a full body check (hitting into the body) and thus legal. The head can even be the principle point of contact in such a case.

 

You'll see plenty of legal head contact examples in the DoPS training video:

 

 

 

Also changing body position can be a mitigating circumstance:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Baggins said:

Do you ever see that happening? They'd have to remove the bottom 3 rows of seats along the sides, the most expensive seats. Or build 31 new arenas, I don't see the owners being willing to do either option. They'd be more likely to change to 4 on 4 as that means reducing the roster and saving themselves money.

Lol I know I've been saying this for 7 years now, and if I don't add that part in the first comment I always get someone to quote me with that after, got tired of writing that over and over again in every comment I make regarding larger ice, so I know I just don't write that everytime, but thanks for trying to think I don't know.

 

The Owners and the NHL need to come to some kind of compromise, I see the owners argument side of it because yes losing seating is losing revenue and any business man won't agree to that well most of them won't, the occasional one would understand and see, and say yes I may lose revenue but I have a better chance of not losing my star player now to an injury to keep fans showing up for revenue. If the owners won't budge on that issue, then what the NHL should implement is a new rule when building a new arena it should be built to allow the expansion of ice if they ever decide to do it. Unfortunately they're not which sucks because just means it will take longer to implement if they can't get the owners to agree to it for the safety of their own players. 

 

Yes it's easier to go to 4 on 4, but now it will end up changing the rules of the whole game, what do you do when a team takes 2 penalties? Play 4 on 2? You can't do that, so whenever there is penalties it will always be 4 on 3 no matter what, that will get stale and boring so fast. More Players sitting on the bench and not playing, because it's 4 on 4 and penalties 4 on 3 a lot, it just would be boring after 3 periods like that. You have to keep the game 5 on 5, but without taking all hitting out of the game because the way it's going for the safety of the players the trend is to remove all hitting for safety, when instead they could have larger ice to fix the problem. It's something the NHL and Owners need to really discuss for the safety of their players, before they start losing young star players to career ending injuries.

 

Will also add I actually enjoy watching things like the World Cup of Hockey or Olympics when they use international size ice, a lot more then when I watch the NHL play in their Arenas. When watching hockey at those events with bigger ice you get to see the very skilled players pull somethings off they wouldn't ever be able to do in the NHL because they don't have the space and time to do it, so really as a fan you're just missing out on more talent you're not able to see, because owners don't care about their safety of players and just care about making money, sucks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018-10-18 at 9:21 PM, canucklehead44 said:

I bought into Vancouver being an amazing city. I finally moved and regret not leaving sooner. Everything you said is spot on. It was awesome back in the 90s but started to get worse in the 2000s and then turned to total crap after the Olympics. 

It is horribly expensive, far away from everything, boring outside of the summer months, the job market sucks, way too many Donnelly Pubs, lame architecture, not a lot of culture, and a crappy attitude by the residents. It doesn't feel like a place that should be expensive to live. 

There is a piece of Vancouver that made it "Vancouver" that just seems to no longer exist. Like the city lost its soul, or it does not resemble the Vancouver say my parents experienced at my age. It has changed too much. 

You want boring, try an other major Canadian City like Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg or Toronto. Try -40 degrees in the winter. 

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...