brelic Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 One thing that strikes me as a bit hypocritical is that Erskine got 1 game and Z gets 4.In Erskine's case, it was a completely different kind of hit. But, Erskine *deliberately* targeted Simmonds' head with his elbow. He actually went out of his way to hit his head. Simmonds got a concussion as a result. Yet Erskine gets 1 game.With Z, the Sens player came in low, so was he deliberately targeting the head? It's hard to make that argument. Between the two hits, it looks to me like Erskine's was more dangerous because he intended to hit Simmonds in the head. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 One thing that strikes me as a bit hypocritical is that Erskine got 1 game and Z gets 4.In Erskine's case, it was a completely different kind of hit. But, Erskine *deliberately* targeted Simmonds' head with his elbow. He actually went out of his way to hit his head. Simmonds got a concussion as a result. Yet Erskine gets 1 game.With Z, the Sens player came in low, so was he deliberately targeting the head? It's hard to make that argument. Between the two hits, it looks to me like Erskine's was more dangerous because he intended to hit Simmonds in the head.A 1 to 4 disparity in discipline would really be inexcusable.that said, Simmonds also "comes in low" on the Erskine hit and Erskine *claims* the elbow comes out as a reflex more than a deliberate target. Again - what the player *claims*. He had never been suspended before.And the penalty was actually three games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinorama Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Maybe Zac needs to sit Z down and explain it all to him. I think Zac has gotten it!!!!!totally! Zac is a really good example of how to rein it in. He did nothing but run around looking to blow up whatever guy he could and usually skated the line. Now he's doing the same thing but figured out how to make it work for the team. I've been hoping he stays this way and I see no reason of late to think otherwise so I'd agree that he's a good model to follow for Z... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 A 1 to 4 disparity in discipline would really be inexcusable.that said, Simmonds also "comes in low" on the Erskine hit and Erskine *claims* the elbow comes out as a reflex more than a deliberate target. Again - what the player *claims*. He had never been suspended before.And the penalty was actually three games.Oh, my bad. I thought Erskine got 1 game. Must be thinking of someone else... Thanks for the clarification. There are so many inconsistent calls, it's hard to keep track.So, ok, a 1 game difference in suspensions is not the end of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Oh, my bad. I thought Erskine got 1 game. Must be thinking of someone else... Thanks for the clarification. There are so many inconsistent calls, it's hard to keep track.So, ok, a 1 game difference in suspensions is not the end of the world.Yeah, well, pobody's nerfect.Beginning with your humble narrator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 With Apologies to Shanny, it really doesn't look like he leaves his feet too early. It also doesn't look to me like he aims for the head as much as he is just trying to brace himself. Harry's crouched down before the hit, but that genuinely looks like he's just trying to be ready for anything rather than trying to launch himself at the guy. All that said, I do think the hit is suspendable and not because it was illegal (I don't think it was). Harry didn't do anything "wrong" but he didn't to the "right" thing either. He shouldn't have hit the guy so hard. End of story. You hit that guy in that position that hard, you're going to cause a serious injury. THAT guy shouldn't be in THAT position, but that's not an excuse for taking years off his career. We saw this happen to too many Flyers for me to defend it now.I just don't think Shanahan should make up B.S. reasons why the hit was illegal. It was illegal because it was dangerous. Like the Stevens hit on Lindros way back when, this one technically follows all the rules, but it was dangerous and shouldn't have happened as a result. At some point that simply has to be enough. The NFL has "Unnecessary Roughness" penalties and I think this is similar. Is it illegal by the way the rules are written? Nah, probably not. That doesn't make it okay. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Oh, my bad. I thought Erskine got 1 game. Must be thinking of someone else... Thanks for the clarification. There are so many inconsistent calls, it's hard to keep track.So, ok, a 1 game difference in suspensions is not the end of the world.James Neal for two headshots in one game. He was "bracing for impact". One game.I don't think anyone should get suspended under headshot rules if the skater has their head down. If it isn't a clear targeting of the head, it's probably a lightning fast error, but not intent. The game is very fast, and the players are human. Erskine intentionally elbowed the crap out of Simmonds, and that is the real problematic type of hit / action worthy of suspensions. 2c 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.