Kronwall hit on Voracek

[Phillygrump]

@SpikeDDS

I might at this point be too drunk to argue the contrary, but there is very little difference in the fact that both players were defenseless and both perpetrators took full advantage of them. The fact that Kronwall's hits are not even reviewed are atrocious when compared to these where the head was the FIRST point of contact just like on Voracek.

I realize that you are a Kronwall fan and thats fine Spike. But don't try to sell me that Kronwall's hits are clean when he lures forwards into charging up and then hits them with the head being the first point of contact. Your boy gets away with it, but I feel like that time is going to run out and he will be marked. Its getting so obvious that it shouldn't take too much longer.

[JackStraw]

But don't try to sell me that Kronwall's hits are clean when he lures forwards into charging up and then hits them with the head being the first point of contact

Grump, please explain to me how Kronwall "lures" forwards into "charging up..." Does he hypnotize them? Does he pretend to be looking the other way and then, surprise... BAM? Seriously, Vorecek is the puck carrier. He goes where he decides to go. If he screws up and skates right towards a guy who his correctly positioned to guard the blue line, just like every defenseman in the league is supposed to do in that situation, who he SEES, then wtf does he expect to happen? Voracek called himself "naive". He knows he made a mistake. My guess is that he won't make that mistake again.

[Phillygrump]

@JackStraw

So now Voracek ran into Kronwall? Give me a break Jack.

Again, too drunk to make sense, so read my previous posts please brother. Or we can argue about this tomorrow.... Not dogging you man, just not all there right now.

[JackStraw]

I don't think any of us are ever "all there". But we try. For the record, no, I'm not saying that Jake ran into Kronwall. Just that he saw Kronwall, apparently thought he was going to retreat, and so kept skating toward him.

[Phillygrump]

Kronwall is notorious for giving the impression that he's going to retreat and then he springs up and concusses players. That is dirty IMO.

I thought the NHL was trying to get rid of concussions and those types of hits. He never even gets reviewed for this behavior.

Thats what I'm saying man.

[Podein25]

I don't think any of us are ever "all there". But we try.

Speak for yourself buddy.

[flyerrod]

Rinaldo clearly left his feet in making the hit. Kronwall didn't. There's no real gray area there.

Rinaldo was in the process of stopping, not leaping and hit shoulder to CHEST NOT****ING HEAD!! Kronwall is a mugger....he will only go after people who can't defend themselves. I would not want to see that kind of cowardice wearing the O&B EVER. Let him thrive in Detroit until he gets caught in a drive by shooting.....I would not piss on him if he was on fire. Bottom line, F U C K Kronpussy.

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

Rinaldo was in the process of stopping, not leaping and hit shoulder to CHEST NOT****ING HEAD!! Kronwall is a mugger....he will only go after people who can't defend themselves. I would not want to see that kind of cowardice wearing the O&B EVER. Let him thrive in Detroit until he gets caught in a drive by shooting.....I would not piss on him if he was on fire. Bottom line, F U C K Kronpussy.

Don't sugar coat it...tell us how you really feel

[Podein25]

I still like your sig very much Alaska man.

How's trix? No, really, how is she?

[aziz]

Look, in contrast to what parts of Kronwall's body are used in his hits

this has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that most of these hits happen in open ice where the two players' vectors are not perfectly lined up. timing and angles result in less-than square contact. as opposed to kronwall, who always hits along the boards, where there is basically a ruler set up to make sure players are going exactly opposite each other. an interesting upshot is that kronwall is the only situation where we can know with absolute certainty that the hitter knew exactly where he was going to make contact on the other player. every other situation is dealing with changing angles, they are just trying to make contact somewhere. kronwall is the only one who has made a clear decision to put his shoulder into someone's face.

in anycase, i think your reasoning is exactly why he doesn't get suspended. his hips hit the other guy's hips after his shoulder has delivered the brunt of the impact to the other guy's face. shanhan gets to talk about a "full body check", even though the rules make no such distinction.

here's one where shanahan spells things out:

to quote shanny: "...Colborne makes no sudden movements just prior to, or simultanious with the hit, placing the onus on boyes to not hit him in the head."

hmm. the onus is on boyes to not hit him in the head. interesting.

to reiterate, i like the hit, i wish i felt allowing that was consistent with the way the rest of the game is called. i wish it was clear that a player putting himself in a bad spot is inviting destuction, and that the resulting destruction will go unpunished. i wish that players who put their back to a defender while facing the boards, in order to sheild the puck were allowed to get plastered into the dasher, rather than suddenly having uncontested possession. i wish dangling through the neutral zone with your head down was a green light to be knocked out of the game, rather than establishing stick-check-only protection. i wish coming around the back of the net admiring your pass was an invitation to get launched into the end boards, rather than becoming a i'm-not-looking-so-you-can't-hit-me thing. i wish all of these voluntary vulnerabilities were aknowledged as that player's fault, and that they couldn't derive any kind of protection from them. that just isn't how the league has handled things for the last 3 years.

tell me something....first, watch:

how is the kronwall on voracek situation any different than this hit by letang on bermistrov, aside from the fact that one is a hit to the head while the other is boarding? all of the justifications we've seen are there: it was full body contact, burmistrov knew letang was closing quickly and put himself into this situation, there was no extending of the arms specifically propelling burmistrov into the boards, no launching off the ice into burmistrov, and if letang doesn't make the hit burmistrov breaks out of the zone uncontested. i remember seeing the shanaban video and yelling, "so what was letang supposed to do, just let him have it? it's hockey, expect to get hit, don't turn your back on a guy when going after a puck along the boards, you moron." but 2 game suspension, because you just aren't allowed to make a play there. letang has to let him go, because burmistrov has placed himself into a voluntarily vulnerable position, and thus is supposed to be allowed to make an uncontested play.

i know the obvious answer is, "that's boarding, that's totally different". but i say ********. the details are different, but the spirit of the thing is exactly the same. letang knew there was a good chance he'd hurt burmistrov, but burmistrov was fully aware that letang was persuing and decided to expose his back. letang made a hockey play on the puck carrier, and his only other option was to surrender on the puck and back off, hoping to make a play later. similarly, kronwall knew he could do serious damage to voracek, but voracek knew kronwall was there and decided to look down and not protect himself. kronwall made a hockey play on the puck carrier, and his only other option was to surrender the offensive blueline and try to contain voracek in the neutral zone. neither play invoved utterly malicious things like elbows or knees or swinging sticks, they were both clean hits that were problematic purely due to circumstances, not technique.

if the guy getting hit has put himself in a bad spot, let him swing for putting himself there, regardless of how exactly he has compromised his safety. but if we aren't going to do that, if player safety trumps holding the offensive zone, then make the call.

[doom88]

He does make a good point about Rinaldo's hit versus BOTH of Kronwall's (Briere, Voracek).

[aziz]

Grump, please explain to me how Kronwall "lures" forwards into "charging up..." Does he hypnotize them? Does he pretend to be looking the other way and then, surprise... BAM?

well, yeah. it was talked about several times during the broadcast, that's kronwall's thing. when the winger looks up, kronwall makes like he is backing off, and then when the winger looks down to fish the puck, kronwall flies in and lays the winger out. that's how he has caught so so so many guys so so so badly. he baits them into relaxing and then pounces. it's neither here nor there, really, the winger shouldn't fall for the ploy, but it is a thing kronwall does.

[doom88]

Agreed aziz. Someone needs to get their elbows up and ding Kronwall's charging arse right in the forehead. Claim they got their arms up in self defense bracing for the hit.

[Podein25]

@aziz - again, impressed.

Thankfully you've provided excellent grist for the mill, viz:

...."that's boarding, that's totally different". but i say ********. the details are different, but the spirit of the thing is exactly the same

'Cause that was my immediate reaction. They are indeed different in my opinion, but how?

I need to digest before I comment further. For now, let me say that the issue is nothing if not complex.

Stay tuned.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Podein25

[aziz]

Agreed aziz. Someone needs to get their elbows up and ding Kronwall's charging arse right in the forehead. Claim they got their arms up in self defense bracing for the hit.

wouldn't that be interesting. bait the baiter. make like you fell for it, but bring your elbow up at the last second, let kronwall run his face straight into it. wonder how that'd be called.

[Podein25]

but it is a thing kronwall does.

Yup. He convinces opposition players to do what they shouldn't do.

Sign him at the earliest opportunity.

[aziz]

Sign him at the earliest opportunity.

agreed completely. truth is, if i had to pick one redwing to have become a flyer, kronwall would be really really high on the list. salary-to-effectiveness ratio, it doesn't get much better, and he seriously is the only player in the league i think other players should be truely afraid of. he scares the hell out of me every game we play against them. he's like denis gauthier if denis gauthier were actually a good defensemen.

[doom88]

wouldn't that be interesting. bait the baiter. make like you fell for it, but bring your elbow up at the last second, let kronwall run his face straight into it. wonder how that'd be called.

Well seeing as how he's on a top tier protected team {Bs, Pens*, Habs, Wing}, the hitter will get a major elbow, match penalty, 20 game suspension, and the head coach will be fined.

[Podein25]

he's like denis gauthier if denis gauthier were actually a good defensemen.

Nice.

Anybody who has had the, er, "privilege," of seeing the Goat play, knows exactly what you mean.

[AndyS]

wouldn't that be interesting. bait the baiter. make like you fell for it, but bring your elbow up at the last second, let kronwall run his face straight into it. wonder how that'd be called.

That'd be called a beautiful thing.

[SpikeDDS]

Kronwall is notorious for giving the impression that he's going to retreat and then he springs up and concusses players. That is dirty IMO.

Hey, you know what? Datsyuk is notorious for giving some goaltenders the impression that he's going to the backhand and then the BASTARD switches to the forehand! Dirty rotten player for trying to be deceptive! ;-)

I guess since it is wise for goaltenders be aware of when Datsyuk is on the ice and adjust their game accordingly, the same might apply for players when Kronwall is on the ice too, no? Or they can continue to play stupid and careless and ignore it and see what happens in either case, but they do so at their own peril.

And as I've said all along, THE HIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE LEAGUE!! I HAVE AGREED WITH YOU SINCE THE START ON THAT ISSUE!! Stating clearly why they deem this hit legal as compared with others would be in the best interests of the game. Shame on the league for not doing so.

Stop drinking and hit the sack already! Geez! ;-)

[aziz]

I guess since it is wise for goaltenders be aware of when Datsyuk is on the ice and adjust their game accordingly, the same might apply for players when Kronwall is on the ice too, no? Or they can continue to play stupid and careless and ignore it and see what happens in either case, but they do so at their own peril.

that's a funny way of looking at it, now that you mention it. datsyuk is trying to fool the goalie so he can score. kronwall is trying to fool the winger so he can...hit the winger while he is looking somewhere else. seriously, if you think about it...if he lets the winger know in no uncertain terms he is coming for him, the winger braces for the hit and doesn't make an effective play on the puck in his skates; kronwall can take the now loose puck off the paralyzed winger and keep the wings' offensive zone posession alive. instead, he fools the winger into making a play on the puck and then cleans him the fcuk out...and the puck goes slidding into the neutral zone. go back and watch all of kronwall's 10-feet-inside-the-blueline hits; all of them result in the puck clearing the zone. wouldn't be the case if he used the opportunity to play the puck instead of having the winger eat fight strap. given the options, kronwall's sneakiness is actually the less-effective option for the wings' game in general. the only upside is maximum damage on the hit. has its own value, absolutely, but.....

Edited March 8, 2012 by aziz

[SpikeDDS]

this has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that most of these hits happen in open ice where the two players' vectors are not perfectly lined up. timing and angles result in less-than square contact. as opposed to kronwall, who always hits along the boards, where there is basically a ruler set up to make sure players are going exactly opposite each other. an interesting upshot is that kronwall is the only situation where we can know with absolute certainty that the hitter knew exactly where he was going to make contact on the other player. every other situation is dealing with changing angles, they are just trying to make contact somewhere. kronwall is the only one who has made a clear decision to put his shoulder into someone's face.

in anycase, i think your reasoning is exactly why he doesn't get suspended. his hips hit the other guy's hips after his shoulder has delivered the brunt of the impact to the other guy's face. shanhan gets to talk about a "full body check", even though the rules make no such distinction.

here's one where shanahan spells things out:

to quote shanny: "...Colborne makes no sudden movements just prior to, or simultanious with the hit, placing the onus on boyes to not hit him in the head."

hmm. the onus is on boyes to not hit him in the head. interesting.

to reiterate, i like the hit, i wish i felt allowing that was consistent with the way the rest of the game is called. i wish it was clear that a player putting himself in a bad spot is inviting destuction, and that the resulting destruction will go unpunished. i wish that players who put their back to a defender while facing the boards, in order to sheild the puck were allowed to get plastered into the dasher, rather than suddenly having uncontested possession. i wish dangling through the neutral zone with your head down was a green light to be knocked out of the game, rather than establishing stick-check-only protection. i wish coming around the back of the net admiring your pass was an invitation to get launched into the end boards, rather than becoming a i'm-not-looking-so-you-can't-hit-me thing. i wish all of these voluntary vulnerabilities were aknowledged as that player's fault, and that they couldn't derive any kind of protection from them. that just isn't how the league has handled things for the last 3 years.

tell me something....first, watch:

how is the kronwall on voracek situation any different than this hit by letang on bermistrov, aside from the fact that one is a hit to the head while the other is boarding? all of the justifications we've seen are there: it was full body contact, burmistrov knew letang was closing quickly and put himself into this situation, there was no extending of the arms specifically propelling burmistrov into the boards, no launching off the ice into burmistrov, and if letang doesn't make the hit burmistrov breaks out of the zone uncontested. i remember seeing the shanaban video and yelling, "so what was letang supposed to do, just let him have it? it's hockey, expect to get hit, don't turn your back on a guy when going after a puck along the boards, you moron." but 2 game suspension, because you just aren't allowed to make a play there. letang has to let him go, because burmistrov has placed himself into a voluntarily vulnerable position, and thus is supposed to be allowed to make an uncontested play.

i know the obvious answer is, "that's boarding, that's totally different". but i say ********. the details are different, but the spirit of the thing is exactly the same. letang knew there was a good chance he'd hurt burmistrov, but burmistrov was fully aware that letang was persuing and decided to expose his back. letang made a hockey play on the puck carrier, and his only other option was to surrender on the puck and back off, hoping to make a play later. similarly, kronwall knew he could do serious damage to voracek, but voracek knew kronwall was there and decided to look down and not protect himself. kronwall made a hockey play on the puck carrier, and his only other option was to surrender the offensive blueline and try to contain voracek in the neutral zone. neither play invoved utterly malicious things like elbows or knees or swinging sticks, they were both clean hits that were problematic purely due to circumstances, not technique.

if the guy getting hit has put himself in a bad spot, let him swing for putting himself there, regardless of how exactly he has compromised his safety. but if we aren't going to do that, if player safety trumps holding the offensive zone, then make the call.

All right. You, just like Grump, are trying to compare a full body check where the head was in the way to a head check, where the head was the ONLY part of the body that was contacted, and that is NOT a fair comparison. But I acknowledge what you are saying about Shanny's explanation regarding the onus being on the hitter, but that assumes that the hit is illegal in the first place, while I am agreeing with the league that there is limit to the head thing, and that when you deliver what otherwise would be a full-body check to someone, and the only reason the the head is the PPOC is that the head is down, (and the only way to do that, mind you, is with a non-blind-side hit meaning from the puck possessor's front side), I say that's a legal hit so long as good hitting technique is used. Now, I realize that the letter of the rule suggests that ANY hit where the head is the PPOC is illegal. I get it. But I disagree with it. It is a poorly written rule. That hit should be legal, and as such I have said all along that the league SHOULD be reviewing the hit and publicly stating that hits like this using legal and proper hitting technique, when the puck possessor is recklessly negligent about being aware of his surroundings, there is a price to pay for that. But the league should clarify when the spirit of the law overrides the letter. For not doing that, you've got a right to be upset with Toronto. I do too.

Now, as far as the boarding comparison goes, you're biggest problem is that the boarding rule is written VERY differently than the hit-to-the-head rule is. It ACTUALLY STATES that the onus is on the hitting player to minimize or avoid the hit if a player is defenseless. There is no such declaration in Rule 48.1. Don't even try to tell me that Letang couldn't have minimized the check so that Burmistrov wouldn't have gone in tot he boards headfirst. He could still have checked him and kept the body upright. To be fair, would that be as good a check? Nope, but that is the rule. Minimize or avoid. No such statement in the head rule.

Secondly, let's set aside the rule differences for a sec. I see where you are coming from as far as the principles that are being used being applied to both types of hits. There is a difference though, I think you'd agree, in hitting someone from behind when they are facing the boards rather than hitting them from directly in front of their face when they are not. A player doesn't have eyes in the back of his head. If his head's up in a boarding situation, all that means is that his face gets smashed into the half-boards instead of the helmet hitting 'em. You're still often vulnerable, even if you do it right. In contrast, if you're head's up while you are skating forward with the puck, you're no longer vulnerable. See the difference? In one scenario, you've got complete control of your vulnerability, and in the other you do NOT. If you have the ability to make yourself non-vulnerable, and you don't do it, you carry responsibility. In a boarding situation, you can't control that to nearly the same degree as you can when you are skating forward with the puck with your head down.

That doesn't dismiss the possibility you suggest of using your position in relation to the boards to in a way make yourself invulnerable to checking as you say the Burmistrov did. There's validity to that. Players may abuse that rule, but I think you and I would both agree that doing so is not right, and the same protections should not apply. The same would be true if you keep your head down purposefully to not allow anyone to hit you, though, so it's a wash.

But in Burmistrov's case, it's REALLY hard to prove that he did it purposefully. How can he approach that puck without facing the boards? Are you suggesting that he turn himself around and skate into the boards backwards? Are you suggesting that he shouldn't attempt to use his body to shield the puck? He does have position on Letang and if you watch the vid, he's skating right at the puck, his last stride being with his right skate which naturally pushes the direction that he does. I think making a case for intentionally abusing the boarding rule is quite unclear. In SHARP contrast, it's pretty darn clear that Voracek was careless in not keeping his head up. That is obvious. His head was down for a long time--WAY too long!

Let me go back to our first paragraph where you say Kronwall is making a decision to put his should into someone's head. Your accusation assumes that the opposing player doesn't lift his head. Kronner can't control that, and I'm still waiting for someone to show me a Kronwall hit where his skates both leave the ice prior to the hit resulting in him lunging up to ensure shoulder contact with a head that has been raised once Kronwall's impending hit was recognized. I've asked numbers times for one, and no one can show me one, which I find very interesting. He doesn't change hit body position if the player lifts his head. He hits him just the same, with less direct contact to the head.

The bottom line is that whether or not Kronwall's hits are legal or not and WHY are what I am suggesting the league needs to publicly address. This is THE perfect opportunity to do that, and as I have said all along, I agree that they are remiss in not publicly reviewing this hit to extrapolate on the merits of the hit and why the circumstances surrounding it make it legal versus other hits where the head is the PPOC.

You have a right to disagree, and we're probably going to have to agree to do just that, because both of us have legitimate gripes which is why these discussions go as long as they do.

[SpikeDDS]

Agreed aziz. Someone needs to get their elbows up and ding Kronwall's charging arse right in the forehead. Claim they got their arms up in self defense bracing for the hit.

Apparently, someone hasn't let go of those feelings of revenge as much as he said he did, and tried to accuse someone else of having a reading comprehension problem. Apparently, someone isn't being honest with himself...or anyone else. Ya gotta let it go man.

[aziz]

I say that's a legal hit so long as good hitting technique is used. Now, I realize that the letter of the rule suggests that ANY hit where the head is the PPOC is illegal. I get it. But I disagree with it. It is a poorly written rule. That hit should be legal

i do not disagree, but i think i should be allowed to smoke pot and the fact it is illegal is a poorly written rule. it's still a written rule. how are players on the receiving end of the contact supposed to know what to expect if the rules aren't to be followed as written?

It ACTUALLY STATES that the onus is on the hitting player to minimize or avoid the hit if a player is defenseless. There is no such declaration in Rule 48.1.

you're right, rule 48.1 makes no mention of defenselessness or anything else. it just says you can't hit someone in the head, period, unless a sudden movement right before contact has brought the head into the firing line. it doesn't say minimize anything, it says don't do it at all. rule 41 has some blurry lines to it, rule 48 does not. just for reference: "48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted."

A player doesn't have eyes in the back of his head. If his head's up in a boarding situation, all that means is that his face gets smashed into the half-boards instead of the helmet hitting 'em. You're still often vulnerable, even if you do it right. In contrast, if you're head's up while you are skating forward with the puck, you're no longer vulnerable. See the difference?

i do see the difference, but i think you are making a poor comparison. turning your back to pressure while along the boards is equal to dropping your head to play the puck. those are the activities that are putting you at risk. there is no "proper" way to turn and face the boards anymore than there is a proper way to drop your head while a checker is closing. the alternatives are to come into the boards at something less than a 90 degree angle on the one hand, and to pick your head up on the other.

But in Burmistrov's case, it's REALLY hard to prove that he did it purposefully. How can he approach that puck without facing the boards? Are you suggesting that he turn himself around and skate into the boards backwards? Are you suggesting that he shouldn't attempt to use his body to shield the puck?

watch the slo-mo. burmistrov begins the play at a 45 degree angle to the spot on the boards where the puck is. he slides over to box letang out and assume a square-to-the-boards position to put himself between the puck and letang. he could have continued his 45 degree approach, or better, have flattened it out even more and cut towards the boards and taken the puck in stride up the ice, with his shoulders perpendicular to the boards. problem is, that would have allowed letang time to close and would have possibly resulted a contested puck, and certainly would have resulted in a big hit from letang. by presenting his back to letang and facing the boards, he was banking on being given time to make a controlled play, because he couldn't legally be hit.

Kronner can't control that, and I'm still waiting for someone to show me a Kronwall hit where his skates both leave the ice prior to the hit resulting in him lunging up to ensure shoulder contact with a head that has been raised once Kronwall's impending hit was recognized. I've asked numbers times for one, and no one can show me one, which I find very interesting.

frankly, this is something i've never cared about. off his skates, not off his skates, it doesn't really make any difference. the problem that the "left his skates" thing identifies is the upward force the player is putting into the guy he is hitting. whether the skates leave the ice before or during the hit, the check is going UP. and regardless, it isn't something that bothers me one way or the other. i've seen what i felt were good hits where skates came off the ice, and plenty of bad ones where they stayed. an irrelevant issue.

He doesn't change hit body position if the player lifts his head. He hits him just the same, with less direct contact to the head.

i agree, he doesn't care. chest, shoulder, face, jaw, whatever, kronwall is utterly unconcerned about what kind of contact he makes. which, i think, is where some people, grump being one of them, have a problem. scott stevens didn't care either, and a lot of people felt that was a negative character trait. me, not a thing i'm too worried about. i'm more concerned with consistency, so players know what to expect and what they need to worry about. if heads are fair game, then great, so long as every one knows that.

kronwall is a destroyer, and i like that in the game. just not on the opposing team.

You have a right to disagree, and we're probably going to have to agree to do just that, because both of us have legitimate gripes which is why these discussions go as long as they do.

fair enough. to reiterate, i want kronwall's hit to be legal, and i want letang's to be legal, too. in both cases players put themselves in harm's way, and that should be on them. i don't want elbows coming up, and i don't want high sticks slashing around, but i want players to be able to take the shots they are given. i want the voraceks of the league to be worried when playing that puck, i want the intimidation of a kronwall to have an impact in how the other team approaches the game. it just has to be clear to everyone how it is going to work. right now, i think a lot of people are looking at technicalities that make kronwall's hit ok while others aren't, and technicalities don't get processed well at game speed. it needs to be clear to the players what kinds of things are going to be allowed and what kinds of things they have to worry about. it is very murky right now.

edit: sorry for the no quote bubbles, the site decided it didn't want to deal for some reason. so, a little throw back to old school philly.com style.

Edited March 8, 2012 by aziz