Jump to content

Kronwall NOT Suspended


Guest WingNut722
 Share

Recommended Posts

DetroitRedWings.com's Bill Roose reports that Kronwall will not be levied any fines or suspensions for his hit on Jakub Voracek. This post should probably go under the other pose "Gotta Love Kronwall" but I wanted the extra Pick 'Em tokens.... :rolleyes:

http://redwings.nhl.com/club/blog.htm?id=205

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

even though vorachek admits he should have had his head up, shanny is starting to show double standards when it comes to fines and suspensions. A hit to the head is a hit to the head period, there is no gray area. he should have been fined to at least show even when clean, hits like this need to end. hell all shanny had to do was search Kronwell on youtube there are a bunch just like this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A hit to the head is a hit to the head period, there is no gray area. he should have been fined to at least show even when clean, hits like this need to end

But that's not what the rule says:

"However, in determining whether such a hit should have been permitted, the circumstances of the hit, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit or the head contact on an otherwise legal body check was avoidable, can be considered."

The rule specifically allows for that "gray area".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's not what the rule says:

"However, in determining whether such a hit should have been permitted, the circumstances of the hit, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit or the head contact on an otherwise legal body check was avoidable, can be considered."

The rule specifically allows for that "gray area".

that's whats wrong with the rule, there shouldn't be a gray area. it either is or it isn't especially when it causes injury
Link to comment
Share on other sites

even though vorachek admits he should have had his head up, shanny is starting to show double standards when it comes to fines and suspensions. A hit to the head is a hit to the head period, there is no gray area. he should have been fined to at least show even when clean, hits like this need to end. hell all shanny had to do was search Kronwell on youtube there are a bunch just like this

A hit to the head is NOT a hit tithe head by the letter of the law. Read rule 48.1 regarding hits to the head. It specifically says that players putting themselves in vulnerable positions can be considered in evaluating the hit. It's not a universal all head hits are the same. They are not.

Having said that your beef about the rule being interpreted inconsistently by Shanahan is valid. Not explaining why this hit to the head is different than others--which I agree that is IS--is wrong. They should state publicly when players taking a hit like this are responsible for playing carelessly and when the onus is on the hitting player. I agree with their call, but they SHOULD PUBLICLY give their reasons so that we have a precedent/standard with which to compare other hits. They have consistently ruled that Kronwall's hits are legal, but they have not stated why using video, and that allows for vague understanding of the rules and thus confusion and what appears to be inconsistency. For the good of the game, they should make this hit an example.

I'd even accept it if they had suspended Kronner for a game if they explained why they made such a ruling. I'd still disagree. I' wouldn't like it, but I could accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

even though vorachek admits he should have had his head up, shanny is starting to show double standards when it comes to fines and suspensions. A hit to the head is a hit to the head period, there is no gray area. he should have been fined to at least show even when clean, hits like this need to end. hell all shanny had to do was search Kronwell on youtube there are a bunch just like this

A hit to the head is NOT a hit tithe head by the letter of the law. Read rule 48.1 regarding hits to the head. It specifically says that players putting themselves in vulnerable positions can be considered in evaluating the hit. It's not a universal all head hits are the same. They are not.

Having said that your beef about the rule being interpreted inconsistently by Shanahan is valid. Not explaining why this hit to the head is different than others--which I agree that is IS--is wrong. They should state publicly when players taking a hit like this are responsible for playing carelessly and when the onus is on the hitting player. I agree with their call, but they SHOULD PUBLICLY give their reasons so that we have a precedent/standard with which to compare other hits. They have consistently ruled that Kronwall's hits are legal, but they have not stated why using video, and that allows for vague understanding of the rules and thus confusion and what appears to be inconsistency. For the good of the game, they should make this hit an example.

I'd even accept it if they had suspended Kronner for a game if they explained why they made such a ruling. I'd still disagree. I' wouldn't like it, but I could accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I will say it but it was a clean hit, very hard, but he was keeping the puck in the philly zone. Voracek is taller and has about 15 pounds on Kronner but he bent over with his chin on his chest and lolligagged out of the zone. Jake says it was his fault. Jagr said is was a clean hit. Frankly I dont understand what the fuss is about. Hope he scores against the Kings friday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's whats wrong with the rule, there shouldn't be a gray area. it either is or it isn't especially when it causes injury

If they wrote the rule that way and tried to enforce it it would become a completely different game. Shanny's job is to enforce the rule as it is written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's whats wrong with the rule, there shouldn't be a gray area. it either is or it isn't especially when it causes injury

Then players can just keep their heads down to protect themselves from being hit, because if you contact the head, they are ALL the same.

Seriously, what's to stop players from doing that if you don't allow for judgment about players taking the responsibility to be aware of their surroundings? Do we just put flags on belts in lieu of checks to avoid the injury?

Not all head hits are equal. If players play stupid or careless hockey, they are going to get hurt. Voracek admits his culpability and agreed with the legality of this hit HIMSELF. Not only that, he specifically said this kind of hit should not be disallowed in our game. If anyone has a right to argue it, it's Voracek, and he doesn't. How can you continue to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then players can just keep their heads down to protect themselves from being hit, because if you contact the head, they are ALL the same.

Seriously, what's to stop players from doing that if you don't allow for judgment about players taking the responsibility to be aware of their surroundings? Do we just put flags on belts in lieu of checks to avoid the injury?

Not all head hits are equal. If players play stupid or careless hockey, they are going to get hurt. Voracek admits his culpability and agreed with the legality of this hit HIMSELF. Not only that, he specifically said this kind of hit should not be disallowed in our game. If anyone has a right to argue it, it's Voracek, and he doesn't. How can you continue to?

i'm more mad at the league than Kronwell. its the leagues double standard which i don't get. 2 very similar plays. one where there is no injury results in a 2 game suspension

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=35&id=124715

then kronwells. same type of hit and and its just a hockey play.

.

trust me i don't want flags on player as you mentioned. but if they are gonna protect players from head injury the league can't flip flop judgements on plays that are almost exactly the same

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Irishjim

Here is what I here Shannahan say in his films review:

1) Targeting the head can be defined as either intentional or reckless (seems that allot of Kronwalls hits fit into this category).

2) On the vulnerability aspect, on the Brandon Smith / Ben Smith hit, Shanny says that Ben Smith did not noticeably change the position of his head prior to the hit.

3) There also seems to be this grey area of "full body check" versus "targeting the head" or recklessly hitting the head.

Here are some of the hitting to the head suspensions this year. I also think it is humorous (not really) that whether the player is injured or not has a bearing on the suspension.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiQgHIX3PsM

In looking at these, it is hard to see how Kronwall has not been suspended when many of his hits targets his opponents heads and often is reckless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm more mad at the league than Kronwell. its the leagues double standard which i don't get. 2 very similar plays. one where there is no injury results in a 2 game suspension

http://video.nhl.com...id=35&id=124715

then kronwells. same type of hit and and its just a hockey play.

http://youtu.be/L8T9sKZiGzk

.

trust me i don't want flags on player as you mentioned. but if they are gonna protect players from head injury the league can't flip flop judgements on plays that are almost exactly the same

I guess I see those 2 hits as very different, and here is why:

The head was pretty much ALL Boyes got on that hit. I believe it may have been unintentional that the head was all he got, but it WAS 80% of what got hit. Let me put it another way: If Colborn's head was missing, Boyes would have merely clipped his shoulder. To me, this hit is a "clip" of the head somewhat reminiscent of the hit on Savard, which I think we ALL agree has no business in our game.

In contrast, Kronwall's hit on Voracek otherwise results in a full body check, but the head is admittedly in the way. But if Voracek's head was missing, Kronwall would STILL have run him over hard. So long as the player you are hitting has the puck, you are not hitting him from the blind side, and you use legal hitting technique (no elbows, etc.) I want this hit in our game. So does Voracek.

Can you see what I'm saying?

I'm frustrated that Shanahan does not use this hit to clarify this difference and set the standard. It DOES validate your sense that he's protecting Kronwall. In all honesty, I think if you're going to make that argument, the Kesler hit is a better one to use as your illustration, and for that hit, your point is valid. I say that as a Kronwall/Red Wing fan. That is where your beef is legit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3) There also seems to be this grey area of "full body check" versus "targeting the head" or recklessly hitting the head.

Here are some of the hitting to the head suspensions this year. I also think it is humorous (not really) that whether the player is injured or not has a bearing on the suspension.

Your first two points are valid, but both I and Voracek say that your point #3 is significant in discerning legal versus illegal contact to the head. Shanahan SHOULD use the Voracek video to clarify this "gray area" so that those who don't understand the position that Voracek and I happen to share at least have that distinction explained and clearly delineated, because the league has ruled this way on all of Kronwall's hits, which I argue is consistent except for the Kesler hit, which I agree can be considered a charge.

I don't think that whether a player is injured or not has a bearing on whether or not a player gets suspended at all, but rather how many games that player will be suspended if he is deemed to have earned suspension. This is appropriate as far as seeking to approach justice for the team who may be without their player who was illegally hit for potentially a long time. If injury actually is used to determine suspension or not, I agree with you. The legality of the hit itself should determine whether discipline is necessary. Injury is a part of the game of hockey. "Spit" happens, even on legal hits. Part of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SpikeDDS

You and I are pretty much in agreement that they really need to be specific. It would be very interesting to see the "instructional" video that they use to show players at the beginning of the year.

On the injury / suspension thing, while one would hope that your reasoning is the way it actually is, when you hear Shanny explain each suspension, he never differentiates that the player is being suspended versus the length of suspension due to injury. Instead, he lists injury as one of the criteria in determining the suspension overall. I think the league should correct that as well. Say player X is suspended and these are the actions that warrant the suspension. The spell out the "base" suspension for those actions and then additional length due to the injury to the player. That makes it clear for everybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...