Lucic Runs Miller. (Video)

[doom88]

You can actually see Lucic switch from 'play the puck mode' to 'seek and destroy mode' if you watch the stick during the play. That said, good for him. While goalies are not fair game, they should be. They have more padding than everyone else, and in this instance, Miller was playing the puck outside of the crease. If that was any skater, no problem.

Since on the topic of goalies, get rid of the trapezoid rule, put in the 'no skaters in the crease' rule, and treat goalies like any skater outside of the crease. Want to play the puck in the corners? Prepare to get drilled like you're a defenseman. Want to rush out and play the puck? Well, you played the puck, have a dose of pain.

Seems more than fair.

[radoran]

You can actually see Lucic switch from 'play the puck mode' to 'seek and destroy mode' if you watch the stick during the play. That said, good for him. While goalies are not fair game, they should be. They have more padding than everyone else, and in this instance, Miller was playing the puck outside of the crease. If that was any skater, no problem.

Since on the topic of goalies, get rid of the trapezoid rule, put in the 'no skaters in the crease' rule, and treat goalies like any skater outside of the crease. Want to play the puck in the corners? Prepare to get drilled like you're a defenseman. Want to rush out and play the puck? Well, you played the puck, have a dose of pain.

Seems more than fair.

I wouldn't mind a stricter crease rule and a restricted "no hit" area for goalies.

That's just not the way the rules are now.

The way the rules are now, Lucic deliberately charged Miller, caused a concussion and should have been suspended.

As you note, you can see the moment he switches from "play the puck" to "seek and destroy" - it blows my mind that Brendan Shanahan came out and said he saw no clear intent to hit Miller.

Lucic was maybe deciding on a pizza topping for after the game? Rewriting the opening paragraph of his thesis paper on the Asian Experience in the Reconstruction South? Musing on whether or not he put too much thyme into the stew last night?

How is it that it is obvious to EVERYBODY BUT Brendan Shanahan what Lucic's "intent" was?

[doom88]

Don't forget that Boston has some mystical protection from the NHL...just adds to the list of coincidences.

[ruxpin]

And if Shanahan doesn't think that Lucic "intended" to hit Miller - which is what the "he has every right to make that hit" argument implies and the League has explicitly states DID NOT happen - then what on God's green Earth was Lucic intending to do??

He intended to hit him. Good for him. I still say you come all the way out that way, you get hit. A defenseman would. A forward would. Both have far less padding and not quite as nifty a facemask/headgear. I'd say the goalie is already more protected than anyone else on the ice. Between the padding and the nice little crease where no one is supposed to touch him, interfere with him, etc, he's well more protected. Behind the net? Eh, yeah, protect him there if you want. But if you deliberately go out of your way to leave your safe zone and get bit...eh, you get bit. Suck it up, Ryan.

[aziz]

They're wearing more padding than everyone else and a full mask, what is the issue exactly? I mean, what the hell is the crease even for if they're going to be protected from playing hockey everywhere else on the ice as well?

well, they are wearing padding designed to stop pucks, not provide support against a hit, and a full mask designed to deflect/disperse the sharp impact of a puck, not absorb the blunt impact of someone's shoulderpads. those helmets have like a half inch of padding, which is essentially nothing when 220lbs of forward decide to come in at full speed, and a rigid outer shell that pretty much translates the impact of a body check directly to the goalie's head. and no mouth guard. and flat skates, and leg pads that drag a half inch off the ice on either side of the skates. no training on taking hits, and a mandate to get back into the net asap so evasive manuevers to cover up against the hit are discouraged.

goalies in that no-man's land are essentially a big fat immobile and unprotected target out there for a forward skating full-bore. their gear offers almost no protection and limits their defensive options, their training gives them zero understanding of how to roll with the hit, and tradition says they don't expect to get killed.

there was no upside to lucic hitting miller other than cashing in on the chance to run the goalie. a goalie has to come out to play a loose puck that deep in the offensive zone, really, else he is allowing a breakaway. the forward doesn't have to clean that goalie out after the puck has been played.

[aziz]

You can actually see Lucic switch from 'play the puck mode' to 'seek and destroy mode' if you watch the stick during the play. That said, good for him. While goalies are not fair game, they should be.

why? what is the goal, there?

If that was any skater, no problem.

sure, and if lucic was a goalie, he'd have gotten a penalty for playing the puck over center red. as it happened, it wasn't "any skater", it was a goalie.

Want to play the puck in the corners? Prepare to get drilled like you're a defenseman. Want to rush out and play the puck? Well, you played the puck, have a dose of pain.

we aren't talking about "a dose of pain", we're talking about "a bunch of time missed on the IR". goalies hit like that will be out the line up for the next game 4 out of 5 times.

Seems more than fair.

what does "fair" have to do with it? we need to have all 6 skaters treated equally? are the forwards feeling persecuted? if i may suggest:

So lucic went to Egypt land

Let My people go

He made all goalies understand

Let My people go

O_o

each team gets one guy on the ice that has some special rules describing what he can do and what can be done to him. why does "fair" have to go beyond that?

[radoran]

He intended to hit him. Good for him. I still say you come all the way out that way, you get hit. A defenseman would. A forward would. Both have far less padding and not quite as nifty a facemask/headgear. I'd say the goalie is already more protected than anyone else on the ice. Between the padding and the nice little crease where no one is supposed to touch him, interfere with him, etc, he's well more protected. Behind the net? Eh, yeah, protect him there if you want. But if you deliberately go out of your way to leave your safe zone and get bit...eh, you get bit. Suck it up, Ryan.

The important part here is that hitting the goalie in that situation is against the rules. Goalies are not "fair game" when they are in that position. Period.

I'd like the instigator rule to go away, but while it's here Shelley is even more ineffective and overpriced.

I understand and respect your opinion about how things should be. It's just not how they are.

[ruxpin]

I understand and respect your opinion about how things should be. It's just not how they are.

Well thanks. And I understand and respect yours as well. Aziz makes good points too. And yeah, I suppose I am talking about what they should be rather than how they are.

On the other hand, if the goalies are going to be protected no matter how dumb their decision or no matter where they are on the ice, they ought to save money on the paint or whatever and get rid of the crease. Because if we're not going to have the skate in the crease rule (you know, the one that didn't apply to Brett Hull), then I'm not quite sure I understand the point to the crease if the goalie's being in it or out of it makes no consequential difference. Again, talking "should be" rather than "is," but just saying the "is" doesn't really make much logical sense to me. (ha! ruxpin is talking like he would recognize logic!). So I guess penalty, yeah, but I'm glad they didn't suspend.

[radoran]

Well thanks. And I understand and respect yours as well. Aziz makes good points too. And yeah, I suppose I am talking about what they should be rather than how they are.

On the other hand, if the goalies are going to be protected no matter how dumb their decision or no matter where they are on the ice, they ought to save money on the paint or whatever and get rid of the crease. Because if we're not going to have the skate in the crease rule (you know, the one that didn't apply to Brett Hull), then I'm not quite sure I understand the point to the crease if the goalie's being in it or out of it makes no consequential difference. Again, talking "should be" rather than "is," but just saying the "is" doesn't really make much logical sense to me. (ha! ruxpin is talking like he would recognize logic!). So I guess penalty, yeah, but I'm glad they didn't suspend.

All right, obviously we're getting a little far afield, but...

If you think that Miller was making a "dumb" decision based on the fact that the rule says he shouldn't be run in that situation, then, fine. But Miller was playing the game according to the rules.

Lucic wasn't.

Lucic should have been suspended. EVERYONE here acknowledges that Lucic INTENDED to hit Miller. The NHL's guy said "what? intent? no. no way, dude."

I am quite familiar with being in opposition to dumb rules. I have been quite clear that I would favor a stricter redefining of the goalie position/contact rule. My disdain for the crease rule predates the Hull incident by months, if not from its inception.

Buffalo still lost the Cup.

Lucic should have been suspended.

[doom88]

How kind of you aziz to pick and choose from my quote. I acknowledged that it was against the rules by the way. The remainder was my opinion applied to that specific situation.

A lot of your argument is negated if goalies are fair game. I am aware it is not the case currently. Anyway, they'll either think twice, or be prepared. When you skate out into traffic with an invincibility complex, you aren't protecting yourself.

For a loose comparison, consider lacrosse and their treatment of goalies (and a real crease might I add).

[ruxpin]

Lucic should have been suspended.

Seriously asking here, not trying to be stupid (see how easily I do it without trying?).

I have no idea what a suspension would be based on. Assume for a moment he intentionally hit him. There's a difference between intentionally hitting a goalie and intent to injure. Outside of that, it wasn't against the boards; it wasn't a hit to the head; it wasn't from behind; and we're talking maybe a second late. I guess I understand the charge, although a better argument would have been for interference since the puck WAS gone. But I really don't understand what a suspension would be based on...under the rules.

I haven't looked for this specifically so if you or someone knows, that's why I'm asking. I'm just not off-handedly aware of it.

[ruxpin]

When you skate out into traffic with an invincibility complex, you aren't protecting yourself.

I'm on your side of this discussion, but the "not protecting yourself" in order to get a man advantage is common-place, and not just among goalies. Since it has been illegal to hit a guy from behind along the boards, it's quite common to see a player do something they would long have thought twice about: turn your back to the opponent and face the boards from 3 feet away. Utterly stupid and puts yourself in a bad position and risks serious injury. But then that player gets his team a 5 minute major and gets to cry to the media about the atrocity the opponent committed...instead of taking responsibility for acting irresponsibly in terms of his own safety.

I don't view what Miller did as any different. I think he made the correct choice going for the puck as he did. The percentages were higher in stopping control and the shot attempt before it happened than in waiting for Lucic to collect the puck and come in with a shot opportunity. I have no problem with that part. He probably assumed the oncoming player would slow or curl. But they DID reach the play in close enough time that it increased the possiblity of getting hit. And he did. For Miller's part, you make a decision, then live with the consequences of it. At the very least, I have no respect for Miller's response to it.

[flyerrod]

I'm on your side of this discussion, but the "not protecting yourself" in order to get a man advantage is common-place, and not just among goalies. Since it has been illegal to hit a guy from behind along the boards, it's quite common to see a player do something they would long have thought twice about: turn your back to the opponent and face the boards from 3 feet away. Utterly stupid and puts yourself in a bad position and risks serious injury. But then that player gets his team a 5 minute major and gets to cry to the media about the atrocity the opponent committed...instead of taking responsibility for acting irresponsibly in terms of his own safety.

I don't view what Miller did as any different. I think he made the correct choice going for the puck as he did. The percentages were higher in stopping control and the shot attempt before it happened than in waiting for Lucic to collect the puck and come in with a shot opportunity. I have no problem with that part. He probably assumed the oncoming player would slow or curl. But they DID reach the play in close enough time that it increased the possiblity of getting hit. And he did. For Miller's part, you make a decision, then live with the consequences of it. At the very least, I have no respect for Miller's response to it.

If you watch Miller, he fully expected Lucic to at least veer away from him..you can tell by the way he(Miller) sets his shoulder to actually clip Lucic and then flop on the ice for the call. Problem was Lucic figured it out and said "well if that is how he wants to play it....."

[radoran]

Seriously asking here, not trying to be stupid (see how easily I do it without trying?).

I have no idea what a suspension would be based on. Assume for a moment he intentionally hit him. There's a difference between intentionally hitting a goalie and intent to injure. Outside of that, it wasn't against the boards; it wasn't a hit to the head; it wasn't from behind; and we're talking maybe a second late. I guess I understand the charge, although a better argument would have been for interference since the puck WAS gone. But I really don't understand what a suspension would be based on...under the rules.

I haven't looked for this specifically so if you or someone knows, that's why I'm asking. I'm just not off-handedly aware of it.

Well, a suspension would boil down to intent - which everyone here seems to assume and the league said didn't exist. That was the stated reason there was no suspension - no intent.

If you assume that Lucic intended to hit Miller - which is against the rules - then using the "standards" applied by the league previously, a suspension would have been in order. Not lengthy, perhaps a game off.

Again, using the "standards" applied by the league, they would do this in part as a means of explaining to the rest of the players how serious this is.

As it is, when Kaleta "accidentally" takes out Thomas on April 7, it will surely just be a "coincidence."

I like the theory that a player who causes an injury through a deliberate act - with intent - should be out as long as the player he injured. Not sure how it would apply in practice, but I do like the theory.

[ruxpin]

If you assume that Lucic intended to hit Miller - which is against the rules - then using the "standards" applied by the league previously, a suspension would have been in order. Not lengthy, perhaps a game off.

Okay, I know I'm going from ridiculous to sublime here (and I hate when people do this, but I'm going to do it anyway. Don't worry, this won't become a discussion of the pros and cons of incest):

I don't buy the intent thing as the basis of suspension...unless you or someone can say there is an "intent" clause somewhere in the rule book. Say Hartnell deliberately intends to trip Malkin while he's on a breakaway and Malkin, in the act of falling, tears his ACL. There will likely be a penalty shot (although obviously Malkin won't be taking it at this point). Potentially you could have a minor for tripping. But just because Hartnell INTENDED to trip (clearly "against the rules"), the intent doesn't make a suspendable offense (the fact Malkin is a Penguin is what will garner the suspension--kidding).

In this case, even if we assume Lucic intended to hit him...and I do think it was at worst a last second decision...I don't think he was intending to hurt him (at least I have no proof or indication). "Intent to injure" yes, then maybe we can talk about a game or two. Intent to hit someone NOT in the head a second after the puck left...that would be a horrible excuse for a suspension.

Now if it had been Fleury, he'd probably still be sitting.