Kronwall hit on Voracek

[SpikeDDS]

In summary, I agree with your last unedited paragraph all except that I think boarding should be treated differently because there is a difference with a blind-side hit, which is what boarding is by definition. I daresay that there are a LOT more blindside hits near and into the boards then there are Kronwall hits which are clean in technique. If someone is playing the puck at the boards--particularly if they are approaching the boards--they are by definition more vulnerable and have less control over that position of vulnerability than a skater who chooses to skate forward in possession of the puck with their head down. For me, it just makes sense that those circumstances should be treated differently.

Otherwise, we agree completely. The league SHOULD be using this hit to delineate what makes a hit legal versus illegal so that players and coaches can train on it and be held accountable for it with full knowledge. We both agree strongly on that point and it's what I've been saying all along.

It's reminiscent of the 2008 playoffs when Tomas Holmstrom got called for being in the crease when his STICK was in the crease and he was not and had an important goal nullified. Babcock had to restrain himself, because everyone could see he wanted to say that they blew the call (he was right), but when pestered to make more comments on the call in the PC two days later, his response was something like this: "I just coach the game. I don't get to referee it. But ya gotta be clear and consistent about how you're gonna call these things. I'm responsible for coaching my players to play their best to win games while playing within the rules of the game. But you gotta tell me what rules are gonna be enforced and how. So if your gonna call that interference, then say you're gonna and then DO it for everyone." That is a great statement, and it is applicable to these rules. They need to be defined, and this is the perfect hit to use as a case study to delineate the differences, but the league is NOT going to, and that is wrong, and THAT is DANGEROUS for the players and will lead to more injuries and uncertainty.

We're actually pretty close in our positions. I gotta get ready for work now. Have a great day.

[JackStraw]

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.....

I would say in that situation making the hit is the correct, and safe, play. If Kronwall tries to play the puck and doesn't get it then Voracek (and most other forwards) is going to blow by him. Given the Wings excellent puck support and spacing, odds are that a loose puck in the neutral zone is going to be scooped up by a back-checking forward or the other defenseman.

[aziz]

If Kronwall tries to play the puck and doesn't get it then Voracek (and most other forwards) is going to blow by him.

not if he does what most dmen do when trying to hold the zone: come in tight to the boards and take away voracek's space, but not completely forget the puck to play the man. I agree, if he backs off voracek can get speed and cause a problem, but he can pressure voracek while retaining the ability/option to play the puck. add to that the fact all right wingers are afraid of him and likely flinching when he closes, and he stands a good chance of keeping the play alive with little risk of giving something up the other direction.

[TedZep]

"It was totally my fault. I should have realized that head shots that are typically called and garner suspensions would be treated far differently once I put on the orange and black uni. My team mates have been given ample warning that if they attempt to inform the officials that they missed an opportunity to make a correct call, they will in fact be penalized instead." - Jakob Voracek.

[JackStraw]

add to that the fact all right wingers are afraid of him and likely flinching when he closes

Except not Voracek apparently. I don't disagree with you completely, but I think taking the body there is the safer play. And I'm one who generally likes defensemen to use their sticks more. Call me a wimp...

[Podein25]

And I'm one who generally likes defensemen to use their sticks more.

I generally want my defensemen to use their brains more, but I see your point.

Oh yeah: WIMP!

[JackStraw]

Wait, defensemen have brains? Who knew?

[orange_crush]

Clear shot to the head on a player in a defenseless position. If he doesn't get suspended, it's a travesty.

I'm all for good hits and I like the way Kronwall plays. I know Voracek was looking down. But the hit was direct to the head, no doubt.

How the hell was it not a penalty?

Kronwall is a gutless coward, I have less respect for him then Avery or Cook. At least those guys will face the music when they had too..

[Podein25]

Only some. Like Mark Howe.

[TedZep]

Like Mark Howe.

Ah that was a beautiful banner raising. Although I don't think I noticed Gordie crack a smile even once.

[terp]

Ah that was a beautiful banner raising. Although I don't think I noticed Gordie crack a smile even once.

Supposedly Gordie now has bouts with dementia. That might mask emotions and make him seem a little weird in a venue like that.

[Podein25]

@TedZep - I think Gordie is dealing with some age-related health issues (dementia maybe). He also looked like he had a cold or something...

[trevluk]

No. Watch the slo-mo. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the technique. The announcers on one of the clips actually NOTE Kronwall's vertical body position--that he didn't lunge with his shoulder. The shoulder hits first, because the head is down. Otherwise it would have been body-to-body (the Flyers logo, actually). Technically speaking, the ONLY thing wrong with the hit is that the head is the primary point of contact, which I admit is sufficient reason for this hit to be reviewed by the league. I hold a different point of view on this the you do, for sure. If you're skating forward with the puck and your head is down, and someone checks you from DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU i.e. not a blind side hit (see hit on Savard), without charging i.e. leaving your feet prior to the check (see Ovechkin's hit on Michalek), without lunging at your with their shoulder TARGETING the head (ala the Rinaldo hit on Ericcson), without bringing the elbows up (Cooke on McDonough), without boarding being involved (numerous examples), if he hits you and your head happens to be the first point of contact, you are significantly responsible for putting yourself in that vulnerable position that Rule 48.1 says should be taken into consideration when evaluating the hit to the head. We can argue about this until we are blue in the face, but we're gonna have to agree to disagree. What we BOTH will agree upon is that the league is remiss in NOT reviewing this hit and explaining WHY they consider the player putting himself in a vulnerable position on this hit as significant as compared with others where it should also be considered. This is a PERFECT example of a hit that can help define the rule. If they did review the hit and gave Kronwall a game, I wouldn't like it, I wouldn't agree, but I could accept the call. I could very easily accept a judgment of a legal hit also, as Voracek IMHO was GROSSLY negligent for keeping his head down as long as he did. It was careless and stupid, and when you play carelessly, there are consequences. Voracek HIMSELF admits to his own irresponsibility and takes blame for the hit. In either case, the league should use this opportunity FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME, to render judgment and then explain their answer, whatever it is to help make the rulings more understandable as far as balancing the spirit and the letter of the law, because by the letter of the law in Rule 48.1, Philly's got a beef. However, it is noteworthy that the Flyers organization is NOT making much of a big deal about the lack of a ruling on the hit. Nonetheless, the league is remiss for not clarifying how that rule will be enforced using this as a case study.

I really don't have a big problem with the hit. I do think it is borderline legal at best as it does appear he leaves his feet a little bit and the head was principal point of contact. That said, I dont think Kronwall targeted Voraceks head and it was not a malicious hit with intent to injure. I do agree that Voracek was very negligent for even putting himself in that position and should never have tried exit the zone with his head down so in that regard he is more responsible for the licking that he took than Kronwall is. I wouldnt be surprised however if Kronwall at some point pays a retaliation price for targeting players in that position. I also agree that everyone would have benefited from an explanation from the league as to why it was deemed a legal hit.

[terp]

@trevluk

I'm almost certainly repeating my self or repeating what someone else has posted at this point, but agree that it is "borderline legal at best". I would be more likely to say it is illegal based upon the rules and by the way those rules have been enforced previously but that the NHL is making stuff up as it goes along to serve some internal logic that's beyond me.

I think Kronwell always hits to hurt, especially in that part of the ice. He knows how to hurt people when he pinches and is making a career of doing just that. The "it was a legal hit" comments coming out of the Flyers dressing room sound suspiciously identical to the league's official response, so they strike me as insincere. In any case, I don't believe for a second that the Flyers and a lot of teams won't be going out of their way to even the score. Kronwell has as many enemies as any player in the league and I agree that chances are good that there will be some meaningful payback. It would have to be pretty debilitating or flagrantly illegal before anyone feels badly for him when that happens.

[xganarchy]

and i hope when this player DOES injure Kronwall, he shrugs his shoulders with a quizzical look on his face and refuses to drop the gloves. "Who, me? What? That was perfectly FINE! Why is everyone always angry when I do this?"

[JackStraw]

I think Kronwell always hits to hurt, especially in that part of the ice. He knows how to hurt people when he pinches and is making a career of doing just that

But what is it that he does that makes you say he tries to hurt people? He doesn't throw elbows, he doesn't board or charge, he doesn't leave his feet. He turns his back, I don't see how that is dangerous to the other player. As far as I can tell, he throws clean body checks. He's not even a particularly big guy, what makes his checks so devastating is his positioning and his timing.

[terp]

But what is it that he does that makes you say he tries to hurt people? He doesn't throw elbows, he doesn't board or charge, he doesn't leave his feet. He turns his back, I don't see how that is dangerous to the other player. As far as I can tell, he throws clean body checks. He's not even a particularly big guy, what makes his checks so devastating is his positioning and his timing.

Kronwall watches the opponent's eyes and allows them to think he's backing off the blue line and that it is safe to fish for the puck. When the opponent looks down, Kronwell starts to close and he's got the skating ability to catch them with their heads down. In other words, his whole thing is to create a situation in which he is hitting a player who is in a vulnerable position. This is, by definition, hitting to hurt.

We've been through the debate about whether his hit on Voracek was or should be legal, or not, but I think it should be clear to everyone on both side of the debate that he is hitting to hurt. I would add skating to positioning and timing.

Edit: It clearly is dangerous to the opponents. Just ask Martin Havlat, Jake Voracek, or Dany Heatley.

Edited March 8, 2012 by terp

[TedZep]

@terp, @Podein25: Thanks for the update guys.

Surely it sucks to get old.

Young Ella took it like like a champ!

[Vanflyer]

@JackStraw-

"But what is it that he does that makes you say he tries to hurt people? He doesn't throw elbows, he doesn't board or charge, he doesn't leave his feet. He turns his back, I don't see how that is dangerous to the other player. As far as I can tell, he throws clean body checks. He's not even a particularly big guy, what makes his checks so devastating is his positioning and his timing."

Actually he does leave his feet. Here is the Kessler hit that I started a thread on in the Vancouver section back in December:

Here is another one where he leaves his feet:

And yet another one where he leaves his feet:

And yet another one where he leaves his feet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfX5BwDKjq0&feature=related

Kronwall is an expert on his timing of how he does it, but make now doubt that he is leaving his feet and thrusting his body into the other player.

[Phillygrump]

He doesn't throw elbows, he doesn't board or charge, he doesn't leave his feet.

Look at his hit on Kesler and then say that.

[terp]

Kronwall is an expert on his timing of how he does it, but make now doubt that he is leaving his feet and thrusting his body into the other player.

I took a look at his "body of work" and reached the same conclusion. He leaves his feet on big hits all the time. He came close but didn't quite do it when he hit Voracek. He did hit him in the head though and I can't say that I fully understand the rationale for why he's allowed to do it but others get suspended.

[Vanflyer]

@terp-

I responded to spikedds on another thread regarding Kronwall. It is the leaving the feet thing that gets me. Some are more blatant than others (some he has it timed extremely well). While I think he is playing within the boundary of the rules, I also think it is completely his intent to "knock the player" out when he goes for hits like those. His purpose is not just to separate the player from the puck.

In that vein, the opposition player has to be accountable too. Just like I felt Letang had to be accountable for the hit he took by Nystrom the other day, I think Voracek has to be accountable as well. EVERY player on the Flyers should be briefed before the game "KEEP YOUR HEAD UP WHEN KRONWALL IS ON THE ICE." They should do that as hockey 101 anyway, but expecially with Kronwall because he lulls the opposition into thinking that they are "safe" as if he is going to skate back and play D. EVERYBODY knows that he does this.

I would have to go look at the suspensions this year for head hits to see what separates them from what Kronwall does.

[terp]

I would have to go look at the suspensions this year for head hits to see what separates them from what Kronwall does.

Check out the rest of Kronwall hit thread. There is some discussion there as well as some clips. He hits guys in the head, so that isn't where you'll find the difference. Based upon what I've seen, he should have been suspended for a couple of hits already, including the one on Kesler.

[SpikeDDS]

Look at his hit on Kesler and then say that.

I have said it before, and I will again say it: The hit on Kesler is the closest thing to illegal that you will find. I agree that that hit could be called a charge. His feet DID leave the ice. But it was no more (and I've actually slowed the HD feed down to check) than 4--count 'em, FOUR--frames before you can see evidence of contact with Kesler before BOTH of his skate blades are airborne. If you want to call that a charge, I'll allow that that one might be one. That's the vid you should have posted last night to compare. It's your best argument for Kronwall's hits being dirty. But it's ONE hit, and if one bad hit makes you a dirty player, then half the league is dirty.

Watch these hits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk3qIjz5EDM

Of ALL of the hits in this collection similar to the one on Voracek, the worst one IS the hit on Kesler. The rest are less offensive than that, including Voracek's as far as hitting technique is concerned. So if you want to use Kesler's hit as a case in point, I think that's reasonable. I actually had an argument with my brother on that hit on the night it happened, and I argued that it technically was a charge. He's a hopeless homer, and couldn't accept it. I'm not like that. If the sweaters were reversed, I'd be crying charge.

But the hit Tuesday night was only non-ideal because the head was in the way of an otherwise PERFECT body check, and Voracek had plenty of opportunity to raise his head, and he didn't. The league recognized that and correctly ruled Voracek was negligent and careless. Voracek agreed. The only problem is that they should now post a video that delineates the guidelines for why, and they won't, and that's wrong and bad for the game.

What is amazing in that video is how many times the announcers say the words "clean hit." Count 'em.

Is he perfect? No. I'll give you Kesler. But Voracek was not like Kesler. Kesler's should have been reviewed and Kronwall suspended for a game. (If you compare that charge to Ovechkin's charge that gave him 3 games, Ovie launched WAY more that Kronner did--WAY more clear cut charge than that one.) Voracek's was unfortunate and only non-clean because Voracek was GROSSLY careless in keeping his head down. I'd submit that Voracek had more time and opportunity than most of the players did in the other hits to do so, and he STILL didn't look up.

There IS a price to be paid for playing hockey carelessly. Voracek AGREES! Your own guy! So let it go.

Still should be used to illustrate the spirit of the rule though.

[SpikeDDS]

@terp- I responded to spikedds on another thread regarding Kronwall. It is the leaving the feet thing that gets me. Some are more blatant than others (some he has it timed extremely well). While I think he is playing within the boundary of the rules, I also think it is completely his intent to "knock the player" out when he goes for hits like those. His purpose is not just to separate the player from the puck. In that vein, the opposition player has to be accountable too. Just like I felt Letang had to be accountable for the hit he took by Nystrom the other day, I think Voracek has to be accountable as well. EVERY player on the Flyers should be briefed before the game "KEEP YOUR HEAD UP WHEN KRONWALL IS ON THE ICE." They should do that as hockey 101 anyway, but expecially with Kronwall because he lulls the opposition into thinking that they are "safe" as if he is going to skate back and play D. EVERYBODY knows that he does this. I would have to go look at the suspensions this year for head hits to see what separates them from what Kronwall does.

It's NOT a charge if your feet leave the ice ONCE contact begins. Look at the vid I JUST posted. There's only 1--Kesler's--where both of his skate blades are off the ice before the contact begins. I will give you that was a charge. But try to show me another and you'll have real difficulty finding it, because if you look frame by frame, at least one foot is down in every hit. Compare that to Ovie's charge on Michalek:

Now THAT'S a charge!

And if you look at Kronwall's technique on the Kesler hit, it's MUCH closer to legal than Ovie's, so he gets one game for that at most. One game would be fair.

One bad (and it's still borderline, but I'll give that one to you) hit does not a dirty player make.