Breaking News! Neal will have 2 seperate

[aziz]

Wouldn't that be considered a delay of game, same as knocking the puck over the glass?

during play, knocking a player's gear away from him is interference. if the clock isn't running, though, it's just being a jerkface. and, if a ref really wants, an unsportsmanlike.

[aziz]

@radoran

agreed there, no question at all. and by the way things had been called to that point in the league, the hit wasn't all that far out of bounds. ban for life today, but at the time, it wasn't all that super crazy. i mean, it was, but.

'course, problem was the NHL had just like weeks before done a big thing about how they were gonna call stuff like that harshly. and then downie gave them the perfect opportunity to make an example. followed by boulerice, what, a week or two later?

it was only a couple years before the downie hit that the best check of all time happened, and there was no penalty at all, much less a suspension of any kind.

and, see, that's what i'm talking about. neal's hit on couturier wasn't nearly as likely to cause permanent damage as that hit. yeah, neal's hit had nothing to do with the play, so that's not cool...and the current culture says it is a candidate for a suspension, so that may very well happen....but goat blew straka the fcuk up. took 4 or 5 strides into the hit, left his feet, got straka horizontal and like 4 feet off the ice, flying backwards and head first into the boards. if we're calling neal's hit "intent to injure", i don't know what you call gauthier's. aside from awesome.

neal's a dickbag for hunting couturier down and catching him unawares, and within the modern rules, it was way outside the lines...by all means, suspend him, because that kind of hit deserves a suspension as the game is currently managed, but....

if goat layed out that hit on straka today, his grandkids would be suspended for life. and i gotta tell you, i loved that hit. still love that hit. and i have a tough time loving that hit while singling neal's out as intent to injure. to me, it was intent to be an azshole and fits the description of a suspendable offense, but i've seen and cheered for worse. different definitions for different ages, i guess, but i'm not comfortable getting too super upset about it. you aren't allowed to do that anymore and are susposed to be suspended for it, so suspend him, but we've been around long enough to have a broader context for these things, i think. if you're new to the game and that's one of the worst things you've seen, then ok, it was terrible. but i loved that gauthier hit.

Edited April 17, 2012 by aziz

[SpikeDDS]

it was only a couple years before the downie hit that the best check of all time happened, and there was no penalty at all, much less a suspension of any kind.

Maybe for a flyer hit. And it WAS a great hit. And I agree a legal one that didn't deserve even a penalty. A hit I want in hockey forever!

But some of Kronwall's have been better than that one, and just as legal. I was not familiar with the hit until I saw it, and quite honestly it was great, but it wasn't *spectacular* to me. Kronner's--with few exceptions--made legal hitting an art form.

[aziz]

@SpikeDDS

can't disagree that kronwall has the same hunter/killer thing that gauthier did. matter of fact, kronwall has always struck me as the modern version of gauthier. not as mean, doesn't fight, can actually play defense, but destroys people when ever he gets the chance. which is why i'm always scared when the flyers play detroit. he definitely knows how to put people down.

[radoran]

There are also the points in the rules about not putting yourself into a position to be injured.

Too many players today believe they can do whatever they want without any consequences.

Kronwell's hit on Voracek is a perfect example. Voracek knew Kronwall was there, knew Kronwall's reputation, erroneously thought Kronwall would back off, and got plastered. Voracek himself said he put himself into the position to be annihilated - and he was.

Lindros crossing the blue line, head down and getting his clock cleaned by Stevens. Lindros acknowledges he put himself into that position knowing Stevens was on the ice, knowing Stevens' reputation and he did it anyway.

There are people, of course, who disagree with both hits being "legal" and I don't intent to adjudicate them again (neither was penalized). But, to me, the important thing is both players acknowledged they put themselves into bad situations.

You can't rule out players making bad decisions and being in bad places when bad things happen. Not if you want the game of "hockey" as we know it.

Send all the messages you want. The game gives a player ample opportunity to do so. Legally.

The "intent to injure" from me, for Neal, is the blatant disregard for an *unsuspecting* player. The Straka hit was again much more "bang bang" than Couturier. And, being in the offensive corner with the puck in the immediate proximity is much different than being at center ice with the puck 10 feet behind you.

Couturier has no reason to think he will be legally hit in that situation. None.

Big hits are a part of the game. Injuries are a part of the game - even career-ending and -changing ones.

Cheap, illegal hits are not.

[AJgoal]

The "intent to injure" from me, for Neal, is the blatant disregard for an *unsuspecting* player. The Straka hit was again much more "bang bang" than Couturier. And, being in the offensive corner with the puck in the immediate proximity is much different than being at center ice with the puck 10 feet behind you.

Couturier has no reason to think he will be legally hit in that situation. None.

Which by the league definition makes him a defenseless player, not an unsuspecting one. This right here, that word, is what may get Neal hemmed up.

[SpikeDDS]

@radoran

Well, I think the major beef many had with Kronwall's hit on Voracek was that they were saying that the head was the PPOC, which is hard to disagree with. However, Shanahan and the league have made it clear that contact to the head is OK so long as a check is a full-body check. The way he states is is something like this:

An illegal hit to the head is one where the head is targeted AND is the principal point of contact.

In the case of Voracek's hit, the second was true. The first part was not.

Here's the official NHL video on legal hits which make this clearer:

http://video.nhl.com...onsole?catid=60

Click on Rule 48 Legal Hits

Although none of those hits are Kronwall's hits, they are similar and illustrate why most of his hits are legal ones. Had I remembered this vid during my long debate about that hit with @Phillygrump, I would have posted it then.

The reason the rule is stated this way is to continue to make players responsible for being aware of their surroundings. That is an extremely important part of the game. If we don't make players accountable for their own stupid/careless play, as you note they could then play as stupidly as they wanted to without consequences, and that's not hockey. If you play stupid or careless in hockey, you often pay.

I give Voracek full marks for agreeing with the hit's legality and its belonging in the game. Full marks!

[aziz]

The "intent to injure" from me, for Neal, is the blatant disregard for an *unsuspecting* player. The Straka hit was again much more "bang bang" than Couturier. And, being in the offensive corner with the puck in the immediate proximity is much different than being at center ice with the puck 10 feet behind you.

the fine lines of the rules seems irrelevant to me when talking about a player's intent. player A sees a skater who is unsuspecting and decides to light him up. player B sees a skater who has failed to protect himself and decides to light him up. in both cases, the hitting player has decided to take advantage of the situation to do damage. his "intent" is to use a player's defenselessness to maximum effect. the fact that the defenselessness comes from negligence in one case and circumstances in another, while important to the rules of the league, is beside the point when we're talking about what the hitter wants to accomplish. outside of hockey, the word "intent" has nothing to do with rules and everything to do with desired outcome. i would argue that neal's desired outcome was exactly the same as gauthier's, downie's, stevens', richards', kronwall's, whomever's: leveraging the situation for maximum destruction.

again, per the rules, neal should be suspended, i'm not arguing that. couturier had no opportunity to fail to defend himself. as you say, he had no reason to think he would be hit, as he wasn't even near the puck. i'm just saying, a)a player can "intend" to do every bit as much damage on a "legal" hit, and b)while i can be upset neal was so willing to operate outside the rules, i'm having a tough time getting real riled up over the actual hit itself or the damage neal was looking to do. gauthier's desire was that straka spend the night at the local hospital for observation, i have no doubt. kronwall wants every player he hits to require assistence getting to the lockerroom. the fact they found a way to accomplish that within the rules seems beside the point as regards their intent.

this is all as opposed to things like simon's slash to hollweg's throat, which horrified me when i saw it. that, to me, is intent to injure. he was, for a brief second, looking to kill a guy.

[InHexyWeTrust]

Culled from the pages of twitter, had to share it:

Pittsburgh's James Neal has a suspension hearing scheduled for tomorrow at 10 a.m. Although knowing him, he'll probably arrive way late.

[Phillygrump]

@SpikeDDS

Dude, Stop trying to convince me that Kronwall is not a headhunter. Why mention me in this post months later? I'm not going to agree with you about it. This is a thread about Neal and you're still using it to spin the Voracek hit. Get over it. Your boy again got away with it. He got away with the esker hit. There is nothing I can do about it so stop trying to convince me. As you can see dirty players will eventually get theirs.

[radoran]

The reason the rule is stated this way is to continue to make players responsible for being aware of their surroundings. That is an extremely important part of the game. If we don't make players accountable for their own stupid/careless play, as you note they could then play as stupidly as they wanted to without consequences, and that's not hockey. If you play stupid or careless in hockey, you often pay.

I give Voracek full marks for agreeing with the hit's legality and its belonging in the game. Full marks!

Voracek was also leading with his head (as was Lindros to an extent). You can't make a rule that says if guys are sticking their heads way out in front of them they can't be hit head on. That's just stupid. You also have a league where there are 5'8" players and 6'9" players.How does a Zdeno Chara avoid contact with Danny Briere's head if all Briere needs to do is stick it out in front of him? Just an extra half foot made a huge difference in the Lindros/Dackell hit (as did Dackell taking the hit wrong).

Which is why there are things you are taught at a very early age on the ice about how to handle yourself - for your own good. "Keep your head up" is a frequent one. How to take a hit.

Play with an edge, not over it.

There's a reason people across the hockey world were shocked and horrified by what they saw the Penguins do. Scott Hartnell was right: It wasn't hockey.

[terp]

i'm just saying, a)a player can "intend" to do every bit as much damage on a "legal" hit, and b)while i can be upset neal was so willing to operate outside the rules, i'm having a tough time getting real riled up over the actual hit itself or the damage neal was looking to do.

I disagree with this. An unsuspecting player is vulnerable such that the potential damage from a hit is greatly magnified. For example, a vulnerable player can be seriously injured from a check that might be mild if the player weren't unsuspecting. One well known example is the hit David Steckel put on Crosby last season. So far as I can tell, it wasn't an illegal hit but an inadvertent one that wasn't all that violent but that put Crosby down and badly injured him. In the case of Neal, he purposely delivered a high, very violent hit to an unsuspecting player. I call that by its very nature "intent to injure" for the reason I give above: hitting an unsuspecting player carries a high potential to injure; hitting an unsuspecting player with a high, violent hit is nearly certain to injure. It is very, very fortunate that Couturier wasn't hurt by that hit.

I'm also talking myself into expecting a suspension. The infraction and the political climate point to it. The Pens haven't a friend in the world right now.

[OccamsRazor]

during play, knocking a player's gear away from him is interference. if the clock isn't running, though, it's just being a jerkface. and, if a ref really wants, an unsportsmanlike.

It would have to be someone like Rinaldo for them to actually call it....Cindy ain't going to get called for that, it's the playoffs man is waht he'd say anything goes...

[Podein25]

I'm with you @terp, the more I look at the Neal footage, the more I think the hit on Couturier is dirty. Consider: he turned back precisely because he knew he would catch Couturier unsuspecting. And he leaves his feet. So those 2 things tell me he's looking to inflict maximum damage, pure and simple. He's gonna get suspended minimum 1 game for that.

@aziz - you're wrong on this one buddy.

[radoran]

Dude, Stop trying to convince me that Kronwall is not a headhunter.

I think that Kronwall is definitely a headhunter. That's his reputation. He hits and hits hard. But he delivers the vast majority of his headhunting legally - most often to players who have put themselves into bad situations.

And that's the difference between a Kronwall or Gauthier doing things (most often) legally and a Neal taking a cheap shot at a defenseless Couturier.

You won't see Kronwall make that Neal hit on Couturier. He doesn't need to.

As you can see dirty players will eventually get theirs.

And they usually get them they way they've given them. I wouldn't shed a tear if Kronwall got lit up and carted off legally.

[aziz]

I disagree with this. An unsuspecting player is vulnerable such that the potential damage from a hit is greatly magnified. For example, a vulnerable player can be seriously injured from a check that might be mild if the player weren't unsuspecting.

i think you are drawing a fictional line, assuming that your use of the term "unsuspecting" meaning a guy who could not be legally hit, like couturier. for example, the simple fact that that vorachek was a valid target for a check does not change the fact that, for what ever reason, he did not think he was going to be hit. he *should* have been suspecting -his fault for not being- but the result was that he was unprepared to receive the legal contact kronwall gave him.

similarly, when richards hit david booth, booth did not see him coming. booth had the puck, should have know he was a target, but regardless, did not realize he was about to get decked. he was "unsuspecting'. a legal hit, but with every bit as much danger of serious injury as neal on couturier.

my point is most of these hits are supposed to hurt a guy. just because a particular hitter found a way to do it within the confines of the rulebook does not change that intent.

[radoran]

my point is most of these hits are supposed to hurt a guy. just because a particular hitter found a way to do it within the confines of the rulebook does not change that intent.

But it does change how the rule is applied.

In the Neal case, the "with intent to injure" is a point considered after:

1) defenseless player (not carrying the puck - if you're carrying the puck and don't expect to be hit, how in the world are you in the NHL?)

2) left his feet (charging)

3) repeat offender

then "with intent to injure"

It's not the primary cause, it's an aggravating circumstance :-)

[aziz]

then "with intent to injure"

It's not the primary cause, it's an aggravating circumstance :-)

and from that point of view, i agree with you.

[terp]

he *should* have been suspecting -his fault for not being- but the result was that he was unprepared to receive the legal contact kronwall gave him.

I'm not sure I understand your point anymore but I also disagree with the above. Both common sense and the rules dictate that you behave differently with and without the puck. When you have the puck, you are fair game and need to watch out for both legal and illegal hits. If you don't have the puck, you have to be alert of course but you can't be expected to be bracing yourself for hits at all times. The game can't function correctly if players have to be ever alert for illegal blind side hits coming from anywhere, anytime on anyone. Sean Couturier made a reasonable assumption that he wasn't fair game and Neal exploited that.

This, as much as anything, is why Neal has to be suspended. If players are subject to being laid out by this type of hit with no supplemental discipline handed out to the hitter, it is going to happen more often and it will degrade the game and turn it into football or rollerball. That would be bullshyte.

[terp]

and from that point of view, i agree with you.

I just noticed you mentioned "kronwall" in the post I responded to. No wonder I didn't understand your point. I was talking about Neal.

[Phillygrump]

But he delivers the vast majority of his headhunting legally - most often to players who have put themselves into bad situations.

He's had a few that aren't as well. Yet he hasn't been reviewed for them? Odd isn't it. His hit on Kesler was absolutely illegal and I've heard Spike defend it as being legal. I'm not going to argue with the guy about it. If you can't at least acknowledge the Kronwall hit on Kesler as being illegal then you are making the judgement with your heart and not your head.

[aziz]

@aziz - you're wrong on this one buddy.

wrong on what? neal should be suspended. the idea, though, that only illegal hits are designed to "inflict maximum damage"....and that by virtue of within the annually adjusted rules, "clean" hits are not....that's a little, um, optimistic, isn't it?

darcy tucker's hit on kappy in the playoffs years back was clean, by the rules of the day. and tucker would have been thrilled if kappy was wheeled off on a backboard.

Edited April 17, 2012 by aziz

[radoran]

He's had a few that aren't as well. Yet he hasn't been reviewed for them? Odd isn't it. His hit on Kesler was absolutely illegal and I've heard Spike defend it as being legal. I'm not going to argue with the guy about it. If you can't at least acknowledge the Kronwall hit on Kesler as being illegal then you are making the judgement with your heart and not your head.

Absolutely - and he's frequently right at or just over the line. But when I Googled for "kronwall 'late hit'" or "kronwall 'dirty hit'" the vast majority of the results were actually people cheap-shotting Kronwall. And many of the so-called "dirty" hits were, again, in the eye of the beholder.

That said, he definitely leaves his feet going into Kesler. I am not a fan of that sort of back-first "hip" check and think it's a pretty cheap way to play. It is, unfortunately, still legal.

I am also no fan of NHL "enforcement" procedures. Nor of former members of teams and organizations having direct control over disciplinary deicision over their former squads.

[Podein25]

i'm having a tough time getting real riled up over the actual hit itself or the damage neal was looking to do.

Neal's hit has never been clean. It's interference and has been for as long as hockey has been played. In this case, interference that was deliberately designed to try to hurt Couturier. That's his only intention. You should be riled up about it.

[SpikeDDS]

And they usually get them they way they've given them. I wouldn't shed a tear if Kronwall got lit up and carted off legally.

Nor would I. If he's careless enough to put himself in that position and he was destroyed legally, I think he'd say exactly what Voracek said: "My fault." And I'd agree with him.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.