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

[Report] No hearing for Danick Martel (TB)


Ossi Vaananen

Recommended Posts

What a garbage decision. So what if the primary point of contact was a legal, shoulder to shoulder hit? Stetcher was clearly in no position to protect himself. 

 

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think a player should automatically get at least a one game suspension if a play they make results in a significant injury regardless of whether the play was legal or not. Maybe it results in a more tentative game but I'd rather see the game change than see people get hurt with potentially life altering injuries like concussions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

Good thing for Stecher that Martel said it was a clean hit.  Otherwise Troy might expect a fine or suspension for causing him undue distress and mental anguish.

What a turd. Wonder if he deems the hit clean if Roussel does the same thing to Stamkos. Total Steerdung. Moron. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to be honest here, usually I agree with the DoPS. They walk a fine line and I think they do a good job when all is said and done. However, I am surprised he got nothing. I am not sure what their reasoning is. He was going around Stetcher, and leaned in with his shoulder, and Stetcher didn't seem to make any movement towards him with his head beforehand. I would really like to see this in one of their videos of hits that are not suspensions with explanations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OneSeventeen said:

What a garbage decision. So what if the primary point of contact was a legal, shoulder to shoulder hit? Stetcher was clearly in no position to protect himself. 

 

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think a player should automatically get at least a one game suspension if a play they make results in a significant injury regardless of whether the play was legal or not. Maybe it results in a more tentative game but I'd rather see the game change than see people get hurt with potentially life altering injuries like concussions.  

As satisfying as this might be, there are reasons it won't work and is not a good idea. What if Ovechkin hits Motte in the playoffs and he gets a little bit banged up, and the Canucks just decide to leave him out the next game with an injury. Should Ovechkin not be allowed to play the next game, even though we just have the Canuck's doctors word that he is injured? Teams could abuse this so bad. Also, what if it is a lingering injury that gets made worse by a little bump, are you going to suspend a guy for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OneSeventeen said:

What a garbage decision. So what if the primary point of contact was a legal, shoulder to shoulder hit? Stetcher was clearly in no position to protect himself. 

 

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think a player should automatically get at least a one game suspension if a play they make results in a significant injury regardless of whether the play was legal or not. Maybe it results in a more tentative game but I'd rather see the game change than see people get hurt with potentially life altering injuries like concussions.  

Let's abolish the Stanley Cup and five participation trophies instead while we're at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Garrett contacted DOPS and their explanation was that there was nothing in the rule book regarding Blind Side hits so no supplemental discipline as in their view it wasn't a head shot.  Burke said the same thing this morning, tweeted by Dhaliwal.  

 

I guess that's our answer then WRT both the Baertschi and Stecher hits and why no supplemental discipline in either case.  Clearly the rules need to be changed as players are far more likely to be injured when they don't see the hit coming, but rule changes are driven by the owners.  

 

As angry as it makes me, DOPS can't discipline for violation of rules that don't exist.  Don't get me started on whether they are looking for reasons to discipline vs. reasons not to discipline as I really try hard not to wear homer glasses and I try to rage quietly without expressing myself in writing :)  

 

I don't know if we will ever get to the point where we are always satisfied with the officiating and the reviews, but I do think there needs to be more regard for player safety and removing the loopholes that allow people to be injured seemingly without penalty.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, skategal said:

John Garrett contacted DOPS and their explanation was that there was nothing in the rule book regarding Blind Side hits so no supplemental discipline as in their view it wasn't a head shot.  Burke said the same thing this morning, tweeted by Dhaliwal.  

 

I guess that's our answer then WRT both the Baertschi and Stecher hits and why no supplemental discipline in either case.  Clearly the rules need to be changed as players are far more likely to be injured when they don't see the hit coming, but rule changes are driven by the owners.  

 

As angry as it makes me, DOPS can't discipline for violation of rules that don't exist.  Don't get me started on whether they are looking for reasons to discipline vs. reasons not to discipline as I really try hard not to wear homer glasses and I try to rage quietly without expressing myself in writing :)  

 

I don't know if we will ever get to the point where we are always satisfied with the officiating and the reviews, but I do think there needs to be more regard for player safety and removing the loopholes that allow people to be injured seemingly without penalty.  

So if Roussel had taken it upon himself to blindside hit Stamkos into a concussion we're expected to believe there would be no suspension? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Gudbranson needs to run Kucherov with a similar hit.

Why?  What purpose does that serve?  Would Gudbranson feel good about it?  I doubt it.  What if Kucherov never came back from the injury that might result from the hit?  Is it worth the long term damage to him?  Is it better for the game of hockey overall that he's playing or injured?  

 

I don't like what happened to Stech, don't like what happened to Baer, but no way do I want our players to play in a way that they deliberately injure other players.  I would hope that no one wants that.  I understand that emotions get high in the moment, but take a step back and realize what you are advocating for.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So if Roussel had taken it upon himself to blindside hit Stamkos into a concussion we're expected to believe there would be no suspension? 

No but then they would implement a new rule about a blindside hit if this was the case.

 

The league is concerned about concussions and this hit as a result led to a concussion. If not suspendable, then it should at the very least be a major or a game misconduct. If not for hit itself, to mitigate the retaliation. The game could have given Martel a concussion or whatever with the fists thrown at him, it nearly led to Pettersson getting run, and I don't know if this was part of it, but Edler nearly took out Kucherov. If that 2nd period lasted any longer, there may have been a bench brawl. All this because the refs decided it was only worth a 2 min interference call (which was the wrong call anyway).

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...