Weise Suspended 3 games

[OccamsRazor]

Kulikov should be suspended for this hit. Sure he was leaning forward and the head was hit before the chest. Suspension. Twist is however you like. But it was TO a Flyer and not FROM a Flyer so we'll see but man if the suspend Weise for that hit than this one should be too.

[ruxpin]

4 minutes ago, DaGreatGazoo said:

Bottom line;  every hit like this gets diagnosed like the Zapruder film because the league has been consistently inconsistent on this subject over the years.  

 

Back...and to the left.   Back....and to the left.    Ha!

[SpikeDDS]

13 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

The league has said previously that head down does not equal "OK to hit player in the head." The obligation is on the person making a hit to not hit a player in the head. Period. The exception comes when the player puts themselves into the dangerous position after the hit has been committed to (a la Gudas on Vesey). A player skating with their head down is not fair game for a headshot. See: Thornton v. Perron (2 games):

 

 

Again, no hit is exactly alike. But a player with their head down does NOT mean that another player can hit the head.

 

OK,

 

A. I never saw the league say that. Gotta link?

 

B. Why not skate with your head down all the time, then? Guarantees no legal hits.

 

B is why they CAN'T really mean what you say they said even if, in fact, someone was stupid enough to actually say it out loud.

[SpikeDDS]

10 minutes ago, DaGreatGazoo said:

He seems to be fine, no concussion..which is all I care about at a Flyers fan. 

 

Well, you might want to suggest to Voracek that he learn to keep his head up too, before you lose a good player to his own stupidity.

 

That is all.

[ruxpin]

4 minutes ago, SpikeDDS said:

learn to keep his head up too, before you lose a good player to his own stupidity.

 

Shirley, you jest!   That would never happen to a Flyer!

[OccamsRazor]

That is bulls hit to tell someone to keep their damn head up like he did it on purpose to draw a hit. He is leaning forward so he gets hit like that just like Gudas and Weise he needs to sit. It shouldn't matter if he got a concussion or not. That is garbage.

 

Same rules apply to all.

[OccamsRazor]

 

The results should have an impact on hits like this. And it is also why guys continue to risk them because they MAY get away with it.

[SpikeDDS]

6 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

That is bulls hit to tell someone to keep their damn head up like he did it on purpose to draw a hit. He is leaning forward so he gets hit like that just like Gudas and Weise he needs to sit. It shouldn't matter if he got a concussion or not. That is garbage.

 

Same rules apply to all.

 

So you mean like this rule: Play stupid hockey, and you're going to get hurt.

 

Yep. Skate with your head down, and injury is inevitable. If you don't like that, there is always shuffleboard.

 

The moral of our story, boys and girls, is don't play stupid hockey.

 

;-P 

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, SpikeDDS said:

 

So you mean like this rule: Play stupid hockey, and you're going to get hurt.

 

Yep. Skate with your head down, and injury is inevitable. If you don't like that, there is always shuffleboard.

 

The moral of our story, boys and girls, is don't play stupid hockey.

 

;-P 

 

 

So what you're saying is never ever is there ever any reason to have your head down and if you do you're fair game??

 

That is what you're saying.

[AJgoal]

Just now, SpikeDDS said:

B. Why not skate with your head down all the time, then? Guarantees no legal hits.

 

B is why they CAN'T really mean what you say they said even if, in fact, someone was stupid enough to actually say it out loud.

 

You are correct, I double checked and they changed the rule in 2013 to re-allow hits to the head if the player put themselves in a vulnerable position, ie, skating with the head down. And yes, players need to skate with their heads up.

 

Wording of rule 48.1 prior to the 2013 season (Incidentally, the rule under which Kronwall's hit that you posted should be judged):

 

"A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted."  

 

No room for interpretation there.

 

Current wording:

 

48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted. In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered:

 

(i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward

 

(ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable.

 

(iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with t

 

The wording of (i) is poor, but the intent is pretty clear. You're going for a check, you hit the body but also catch the head due to any number of things that happen right before or after impact that can't be anticipated. (iii) also makes a ton of sense. I'm going to hit a guy, he ducks his head into me at the last second, how can I be responsible for that?

 

While I generally agree with the point you make about "Well, what do I do when a guy is skating with his head down. Not hit him?" If your goal is actually player safety, then it has to be yes. Otherwise, allowing a player to legally tee off on a player's head because "well, he was skating with his head down." is counterproductive to that goal. 

 

I guess in the end, my whole point through all of this is that the line is so fine, I believe it's difficult for players to know where it's drawn. I honestly don't think most players are dirty, or are trying to injure others - I think they believe the hits they are making are fine up until they get suspended. In many cases we're talking about split seconds or inches between when a hit is legal or not. Drawing a hard line and setting definitive penalties (2 games first offense, 6 games second, etc.) will get players to learn where the line is really quick. For examples:

 

1: Rule 48.1 is in place ostensibly to protect players from shots to the head and to limit concussions. As someone who lives with the effects of MTBI (The military's fancy acronym for a concussion), I'm wholeheartedly on board with trying to limit the number of head injuries players sustain. I'm not a fan of "You can't do X. Except if Y," at the speed hockey is played at. Allowing for interpretation of whether a player placed himself in that position or not with a head hit is not likely to lessen the number of head hits, because players will have to not only react to the ongoing play, but interpret what they see at game speed and decide whether hitting the head is ok or not. And leaving it open to interpretation by a player at game speed is leaving it open to a wrong interpretation.

 

I think it's unfair to the players to have them try to think about that on top of everything else they're processing at the time - because that's what you're really asking them to do. And with shades of grey you only make that thought process harder in a game that's already extremely fast. A simple black and white rule ("thou shalt not hit the head.") means that players will have to pull off of some hits, even if the other player puts himself in the vulnerable position. If a player sees a clean hit that becomes a head hit at the last second due to a duck or a turn, that's where (i) and (iii) can serve to protect the hitter from repercussions. But getting all players thinking "Head=No hit zone," regardless of where the head is at the time isn't necessarily a bad thing. Unless you actually aren't concerned with the safety of the players.  

 

And yes, players should be responsible for their own safety and skate with their head up, because someone could plow them, regardless of whether it's legal or not. Just like players shouldn't look at a guy about to hit them and turn their face to the glass. Extreme hyperbole: Yes, it's illegal for a car to run me over in a crosswalk. I'm still going to look to make sure one isn't going to. And if I don't look, it doesn't all of a sudden make it ok for the driver to run me down.

 

2. We break down a lot of these hits frame by frame in order to determine whether one is legal and one is not. For instance, when talking about whether skates are on the ice. One film frame is what, 1/24 of a second? And we are going to make determinations based on that timing? In those instances, a player is committing to the hit in a certain way (incidentally, the way I was taught): get low, and extend your legs up into and through the hit. The end result of that is going to be skates off the ice. Whether the skates come off in the 24th of a second before body contact is made or after can vary based on any number of things, most likely a simple misjudgement of when contact is actually going to be made. And it's not going to matter to @Podein25 when I hit him in the jaw if I came off my feet slightly before or slightly after I make contact. The force will be the same. 

 

So again, a tightening down of the rule in that case ("Leaving your feet at any time during the process of a hit is illegal") into something black and white will draw the line in the sand in such a way that players shouldn't have any question. It will lessen the number of big hits, but it should also lessen the number of hits to the head like the Czirnas one because players just aren't going to be able to drive up through the chest as much where they end up catching the head. 

 

TLDR: If safety is your goal, safety has to be your goal. While it's unfair to punish someone for something out of their control, you can do things that force an alteration of behavior in such a way that safety follows. But introducing grey areas makes the decision process harder and at game speed, that's not a recipe for success.

 

 

[yave1964]

I like hits, I think it is ridiculous that players can skate around admiring the pretty puck on their stick without fear of getting drilled. Hitting has always been a part of the game. I love it, take it away, we have baseball on skates.

  One of my current pet peeves is when a player drills someone, totally clean but seperates the puck carrier from the puck and his feet two or three teammates of the guy who got hit have to come over and jump in, attacking the hitter even if it was a clean play. Absolutely ridiculous. The Wings have even been doing that this year, Sheahan and Abdelkader went after Boroweicki of Ottawa for a clean but hard open ice hit on Nielsen. Absolutely uncalled for.

  So now if you hit someone you face:

A potential penalty, the refs are calling things closer than ever.

A possible call from the board of player safety.

An attack from teammates of the guy who you cleanly hit.

 

 I get the importance of player safety but c'mon, it is out of control.

[AJgoal]

Just now, yave1964 said:

  One of my current pet peeves is when a player drills someone, totally clean but seperates the puck carrier from the puck and his feet two or three teammates of the guy who got hit have to come over and jump in, attacking the hitter even if it was a clean play. Absolutely ridiculous. The Wings have even been doing that this year, Sheahan and Abdelkader went after Boroweicki of Ottawa for a clean but hard open ice hit on Nielsen. Absolutely uncalled for.

 

 

Hate this too. And in a lot of cases, this happens on plays that are far removed from being penalties.

[Podein25]

6 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

2. We break down a lot of these hits frame by frame in order to determine whether one is legal and one is not. For instance, when talking about whether skates are on the ice. One film frame is what, 1/24 of a second? And we are going to make determinations based on that timing? In those instances, a player is committing to the hit in a certain way (incidentally, the way I was taught): get low, and extend your legs up into and through the hit. The end result of that is going to be skates off the ice. Whether the skates come off in the 24th of a second before body contact is made or after can vary based on any number of things, most likely a simple misjudgement of when contact is actually going to be made. And it's not going to matter to @Podein25 when I hit him in the jaw if I came off my feet slightly before or slightly after I make contact. The force will be the same. 

 

So again, a tightening down of the rule in that case ("Leaving your feet at any time during the process of a hit is illegal") into something black and white will draw the line in the sand in such a way that players shouldn't have any question. It will lessen the number of big hits, but it should also lessen the number of hits to the head like the Czirnas one because players just aren't going to be able to drive up through the chest as much where they end up catching the head. 

 

TLDR: If safety is your goal, safety has to be your goal. While it's unfair to punish someone for something out of their control, you can do things that force an alteration of behavior in such a way that safety follows. But introducing grey areas makes the decision process harder and at game speed, that's not a recipe for success.

 

You wish! I'd easily avoid your pathetic hit! 

 

[AJgoal]

Just now, Podein25 said:

 

You wish! I'd easily avoid your pathetic hit! 

 

 

Proly so. I haven't thrown a good body check in almost 20 years.

[AJgoal]

Anyway, I wandered way off topic here. In essence, if we can't decide as a group, with replays and multiple angles, whether hits are clean or dirty, how the hell can we expect players to do so at game speed?

 

For the record, the Weise hit that was the original topic of this, was worthy of the suspension.

[SpikeDDS]

24 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

While I generally agree with the point you make about "Well, what do I do when a guy is skating with his head down. Not hit him?" If your goal is actually player safety, then it has to be yes. Otherwise, allowing a player to legally tee off on a player's head because "well, he was skating with his head down." is counterproductive to that goal. 

 

The statement in bold above is only true if it lives in a vacuum, which it does not. Taken to its extreme, if player safety is our highest priority, then everybody would have to stop playing. See, it can be taken WAY too far by itself.

 

The game is hockey. Hockey is great in part BECAUSE it is a contact sport. When you play a contact sport, there are reasonable precautions you must take to minimize the chance of injury: equipment you wear, rules to follow, and especially common sense things like keep your eyes open and look where you are going. It doesn't matter what contact sport you play, if you don't do that, you are playing stupid and if you get hurt because you play stupid, you are responsible. Helmet protection is required now. If someone decides, "Screw it, I'm gonna play hockey without a helmet," and they get drilled in the head with a shot and die, it's not the shooter's fault. It's their own fault, because they played stupid. If someone's helmet come off in a game, and they are between a shooter and the goal, is the shooter allowed to shoot the puck? IF the shot hit the player in the head and killed him, would you discipline the shooter for taking the shot? Of course not. Nor would I. Same principle applies. And this isn't even when the helmetless player meant to be helmetless. It just happened.

 

Looking down at the puck and not being aware of what's going on around you when you have the puck is stupid hockey. If you play that way, and someone comes at you to give you a body check, I don't blame the hitter. I blame the stupid idiot who plays with his head down.

 

And this is most important: I do it FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME! As @yave1964 said, 

 

30 minutes ago, yave1964 said:

Hitting has always been a part of the game. I love it, take it away, we have baseball on skates.

 

He's right.

 

That DOESN'T mean there aren't limits. There are. For example, if a player is facing the boards and their head is down looking at the puck, that is not stupid, that is NECESSARY. And if you have a potential victim in that position, I agree that you have a responsibility to not hit him with reckless abandon. You can hit him "nice" to disrupt the puck play.

 

But it is not necessary to look down at the puck when you aren't on the boards. And if you are dumb enough to do more than a quick glance here or there, or aren't smart enough to look around and see what's going on around you, or aren't skilled enough to be able to carry the puck with your stick without having to stare down at it, then you have no business playing hockey in the NHL.

 

Ultimately, we have to remember the rules are there not just for the sake of the rules. They are there to protect the game of hockey. All of them should be looked at with hockey as the reason for their being. This is no exception.

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

3 hours ago, SpikeDDS said:

 

See, I like hits too, and I don't see Kulikov leaving his feet until AFTER the initial contact. One foot does, but not the other one.

I agree with this part of your post.  But that's about it.

 

3 hours ago, SpikeDDS said:

And this is one of those head shots that is only a head shot because Voracek's head is down and/or he is looking in the direction of where he sent the puck AND Kulikov's shoulder is actually at the height of Voracek's head (particularly when it is down).

 

Look at the 17 second mark and see how Kulikov's knees are bent in a skating position.  Voracek's are about the same.  Voracek is 6'2" and Kulikov is 6'1".  Kulikov elevated into the hit (26-27 second mark) and that is the only way to get his shoulder up to the level of Voracek's head at the moment of impact, and then his feet come off the ice.  That, to me, is the indication that Kulikov elevated.  The principal point of contact is the head, then the body was hit.

 

The only difference between this hit and the Weise hit (that earned 3 games) is the fact that Jake had his head turned.  Otherwise, the hits are identical.  

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

4 minutes ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said:

The principal point of contact is the head, then the body was hit.

 

 

My point exactly. Regardless of intentions just like Gudas hit. Rules are rules....but only followed it seems by some.

[SpikeDDS]

1 hour ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said:

I agree with this part of your post.  But that's about it.

 

 

Look at the 17 second mark and see how Kulikov's knees are bent in a skating position.  Voracek's are about the same.  Voracek is 6'2" and Kulikov is 6'1".  Kulikov elevated into the hit (26-27 second mark) and that is the only way to get his shoulder up to the level of Voracek's head at the moment of impact, and then his feet come off the ice.  That, to me, is the indication that Kulikov elevated.  The principal point of contact is the head, then the body was hit.

 

The only difference between this hit and the Weise hit (that earned 3 games) is the fact that Jake had his head turned.  Otherwise, the hits are identical.  

 

 

 

I don't believe that I have yet commented on the Weise hit, but I agree with you that these hits are as you said, identical other than Voracek's head. And I would say that I don't like the DPS's call on this hit. It is inconsistent with previous hits which primarily hit the head but that were body checks otherwise. If you are complaining that this hit is being judged differently, I think your complaint has merit. It is certainly no different that a Kronwall type of hit, and those were deemed legal by the DPS. I disagree with the DPS's call on the Weise hit. I don't see how Weise could have avoided the head. Even if he hadn't lunged upward--which I will admit he did--it still would have nailed the head primarily, even as he hit the rest of the body, which he would have done either way.

[SpikeDDS]

1 hour ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said:

I agree with this part of your post.  But that's about it.

 

 

Look at the 17 second mark and see how Kulikov's knees are bent in a skating position.  Voracek's are about the same.  Voracek is 6'2" and Kulikov is 6'1".  Kulikov elevated into the hit (26-27 second mark) and that is the only way to get his shoulder up to the level of Voracek's head at the moment of impact, and then his feet come off the ice.  That, to me, is the indication that Kulikov elevated.  The principal point of contact is the head, then the body was hit.

 

 

 

OK, for one thing, knee bend has only a small amount of effect on height. Want proof? Look at someone's knee bend who is bending down for a face-off. It is the WAIST bend that matters more. Look at the waist bend of a player playing a puck versus one skating upright, and you'll realize that you lose several inches of height as the head comes forward. And the heights of the players only serve to support my point that unless Voracek is bent down that the only way to get Kulikov's shoulder up to Voracek's head would be to leave his skates before contact, which he didn't do.

 

And according to the rules, the head can be the principal point of contact so long as the body would have been contacted even if the head wasn't in the way. That is what I don't understand about the Weise hit getting 3 games. I agree with those who are crying foul about that one. The league shouldn't suddenly change how they are interpreting their own rules without stating so up front. Because if they are going to punish Weise's hit, they should have punished many of Kronwalls' hits, but they didn't punish ANY of the ones that look like this one. That's wrong.

 

If they want to change the rules to protect players, OK. Then they need to say so BEFORE they start enforcing them this way.

[ruxpin]

 

 

Quote

OK, for one thing, knee bend has only a small amount of effect on height

 

It's true. You see the "pictures"  of Bettman with Crosby and there's really not much difference in Bettman's height as when Crosby isn't the only one standing erect. 

[RJ8812]

DOPS once again showing how big of a joke they are