Schenn vs Wilson

[hf101]

Anyone remember any past history between these two?  

 

Earlier this season Wilson got the best of B. Schenn in a lopsided fight and in tonights game he speeds up as he delivers the dirty hit.  I think Shanny will take a look at the hit.  The only thing that stands out is the acceleration made by Wilson just before delivering the hit.  I think he might get an extra game for this.

 

 

 

http://youtu.be/89Ldu2k0oKU

[Bakanekimiwa]

nice recall HF... and very interesting. that was an egregious attempt to murder.

[AMMOnation]

Rinaldo is going to take this kids head off. There's one thing Rinaldo can do that most fighters can't, and thats catch up to the skilled players with their speed. He will land the big hit. Then throw bombs.

Edited December 18, 2013 by AMMOnation

[fan4ever]

@hf101

 

That was an ugly hit.  I would hope that he get some supplemental discipline on it but since it was against a Flyer you never know.  Although he didn't come back so.......

[flyercanuck]

@hf101

 

 

Wilson made a name for himself with a lot of big hits in the OHL. That's what seperates him from other players. I don't think he saw a # or anything, I think he just wanted to make a big hit. He's not a dirty player.. But I think he'll get a game or two for that one. Schenn didn't do himself any favours by turning, though he was obviously trying to avoid the hit. But you can't come in at that speed and expect it to go unpunished.

[murraycraven]

It was a bad hit...   I thought it was more charging than anything else.   It was vicious hit and he definitely should earn an extra game.   I hope that kid gets payback at some point b/c that was just a brutal play w/ an intent to injure. 

[fanaticV3.0]

Schenn turned towards the boards at the last second. If he didn't do that, he doesn't get his face/head smashed into the boards. He even turned towards the boards because he saw the hit coming. This was not an unsuspecting player being blindsided. It's a shame, because he looked like he was really hurting, but that was not a dirty hit. It's not a dirty hit just because the player gets hurt. Schenn saw somebody about to hit him and the natural reaction to that is to turn away. Unfortunately for him he was too close to the boards and by doing that he put himself in a position to be hurt worse than he would have if he did not.

[doom88]

Randy Jones. This better be 6 games.

[Jmdodgesrt4]

He charged. He was increasing speed as he was lining up his hit. Can't get much more clearer on intent there.

Schenn turned towards the boards at the last second. If he didn't do that, he doesn't get his face/head smashed into the boards. He even turned towards the boards because he saw the hit coming. This was not an unsuspecting player being blindsided. It's a shame, because he looked like he was really hurting, but that was not a dirty hit. It's not a dirty hit just because the player gets hurt. Schenn saw somebody about to hit him and the natural reaction to that is to turn away. Unfortunately for him he was too close to the boards and by doing that he put himself in a position to be hurt worse than he would have if he did not.

[radoran]

He's taking full strides at that point. It's charging, it's boarding and it is clearly intent to injure.

 

One game would be the minimum - and something of a joke.

[radoran]

He charged. He was increasing speed as he was lining up his hit. Can't get much more clearer on intent there.

Schenn turned towards the boards at the last second. If he didn't do that, he doesn't get his face/head smashed into the boards. He even turned towards the boards because he saw the hit coming. This was not an unsuspecting player being blindsided. It's a shame, because he looked like he was really hurting, but that was not a dirty hit. It's not a dirty hit just because the player gets hurt. Schenn saw somebody about to hit him and the natural reaction to that is to turn away. Unfortunately for him he was too close to the boards and by doing that he put himself in a position to be hurt worse than he would have if he did not.

 

It's not a dirty hit because Schenn got hurt. It's a dirty hit because he is still taking strides into the player. That's the textbook definition of charging.

 

"Intent to injure" is a dirty hit. taking strides into the player in that situation is the definition of "intent to injure".

 

It would be a dirty hit even if no one got injured.

 

That's why it was a major penalty and game misconduct.

[The Quigster]

The reason Wilson ran BD Schenn is because he can and nobody on the Flyers will do a thing about it.  So he did!

[murraycraven]

That is a classic charging call...  there is no doubt about it.  

[fanaticV3.0]

He charged. He was increasing speed as he was lining up his hit. Can't get much more clearer on intent there.

 

How do you know what his intent was? Do you really think these guys carry the rulebook around with them and he's thinking, "Now if I keep taking strides, I'm going to get a penalty, so I should stop" or "I want to hurt him, so I am going to keep skating up until the very last minute." If you want to penalize him because it's the definition, that's fine. But don't talk to me about his intent. You have no idea what his intentions were. And if Schenn didn't turn towards the boards, he doesn't get hurt, and Wilson only gets a couple of minutes for charging. It only because escalated because Schenn got hurt. I can't blame him for turning away, it's a natural reaction, but that's the reason he got rocked so bad.

[aziz]

"Intent to injure" is a dirty hit. taking strides into the player in that situation is the definition of "intent to injure"

 

no.  stomping on a guy's throat with a skate blade is intent to injure.  taking strides into a player is intent to hit really hard.  also charging, i grant you.

 

the league wants these hits gone, and so they should and will do what they feel they need to do to make that happen.  i even support it, kind of.  to me, wasn't a dirty hit, but it was a hit the league no longer wants to see, so a suspension should be applied.  

[fanaticV3.0]

no.  stomping on a guy's throat with a skate blade is intent to injure.  taking strides into a player is intent to hit really hard.  also charging, i grant you.

 

the league wants these hits gone, and so they should and will do what they feel they need to do to make that happen.  i even support it, kind of.  to me, wasn't a dirty hit, but it was a hit the league no longer wants to see, so a suspension should be applied.  

 

I agree with you. It's a penalty, but not dirty, or even necessarily meant to end Schenn's career. I don't know Wilson's mindset, but am thinking he morely likely wanted to hit the guy with the puck and nothing more than that

[aziz]

And if Schenn didn't turn towards the boards, he doesn't get hurt, and Wilson only gets a couple of minutes for charging. It only because escalated because Schenn got hurt. I can't blame him for turning away, it's a natural reaction, but that's the reason he got rocked so bad.

 

what bugs me is that it isn't a natural hockey reaction.  if you see a hit coming, the hockey reaction is to lean into it and brace, not turn away and put yourself off balance.  THAT reaction is a learned behavior with the increasing emphasis on not hitting players in "vulnerable" situations.  if wilson followed the rules as currently implemented, he wouldn't have hit schenn at all, as schenn had rendered himself "vulnerable".  it has become a tactic.  and, as a result, injuries have increased rather than decreased.  players are being trained to put themselves in bad spots for a tactical advantage.

[fanaticV3.0]

what bugs me is that it isn't a natural hockey reaction.  if you see a hit coming, the hockey reaction is to lean into it and brace, not turn away and put yourself off balance.  THAT reaction is a learned behavior with the increasing emphasis on not hitting players in "vulnerable" situations.  if wilson followed the rules as currently implemented, he wouldn't have hit schenn at all, as schenn had rendered himself "vulnerable".  it has become a tactic.  and, as a result, injuries have increased rather than decreased.  players are being trained to put themselves in bad spots for a tactical advantage.

 

Hockey players are still people. I think Schenn saw a guy coming at him and at the last second, in an attempt to avoid maximum damage, turned away from it. Ironically, he caused himself more harm than good. I don't think there was any intention on his part at all. He didn't have enough time to think, "Hey, if I turn towards the boards, I can draw a penalty." I don't think Schenn was thinking about drawing a penalty any more than Wilson was hurting Schenn.

[Jmdodgesrt4]

Are u an idiot? What do you mean when you say do you think they carry rule books around? I played hockey for 15 years. We are taught the rules and new rules each season. If he doesn't know the most basic rules that are in the fame for a decade he shouldn't play. Please please use more intelligence when responding.

How do you know what his intent was? Do you really think these guys carry the rulebook around with them and he's thinking, "Now if I keep taking strides, I'm going to get a penalty, so I should stop" or "I want to hurt him, so I am going to keep skating up until the very last minute." If you want to penalize him because it's the definition, that's fine. But don't talk to me about his intent. You have no idea what his intentions were. And if Schenn didn't turn towards the boards, he doesn't get hurt, and Wilson only gets a couple of minutes for charging. It only because escalated because Schenn got hurt. I can't blame him for turning away, it's a natural reaction, but that's the reason he got rocked so bad.

[fanaticV3.0]

Are u an idiot? What do you mean when you say do you think they carry rule books around? I played hockey for 15 years. We are taught the rules and new rules each season. If he doesn't know the most basic rules that are in the fame for a decade he shouldn't play. Please please use more intelligence when responding.

 

Don't call somebody an idiot when you keep f-cking up the quote function for starters.

 

Oh, you played hockey for 15 years did you? Well why didn't you say so from the start? That's a horse of a different color. I wouldn't have even challenged your opinion had I known that.

[radoran]

no.  stomping on a guy's throat with a skate blade is intent to injure.  taking strides into a player is intent to hit really hard.  also charging, i grant you.

 

the league wants these hits gone, and so they should and will do what they feel they need to do to make that happen.  i even support it, kind of.  to me, wasn't a dirty hit, but it was a hit the league no longer wants to see, so a suspension should be applied.  

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26331

Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

 

Every interpretation I've read/seen/heard of the rule includes the question of whether or not the player was still taking strides (accelerating) into the player when the hit occurred.

 

You have guys that are going 15-20 MPH on skates. When they are continuing to accelerate towards a person to hit them in contravention of the rules, what else is it?

 

I don't give guys a free pass for playing stupid - "duh, I didn't know I could hurt him when I was trying to illegally hit him extra harder, ref."

 

Basically we're quibbling between Match Penalty and Game Misconduct. The former is given for "intent to injure" while the latter is for injuries to the face or head. He was assessed a Game Misconduct primarily because he did injure him so the question of his intent does seem extraneous to the assessment.

 

That said, I've gotta think that hitting someone in that situation in that manner one certainly intends to cause bodily harm - we can agree to split "the whether he intends to injure" hair differently.

[aziz]

That said, I've gotta think that hitting someone in that situation in that manner one certainly intends to cause bodily harm - we can agree to split "the whether he intends to injure" hair differently.

 

he certainly intended for it to hurt, absolutely.  "intent to injure" is "intent to cause injury".  as, knock him out of the game, to the hospital and have him on the IR for some length of time.  have him be injured.  

 

it's a pet peeve of mine, so sorry for the hair splitting.  the idea of intent to injure, like i said, means an intent to seriously break the other player.  not give him a bruise, knock the wind out of him, but have him disabled and unable to play.  that's a way higher bar than just hitting a guy harder than is allowed.  further, given that everyone knows that once a stretcher and a trip to the hospital on in the conversation, a lengthy suspension is forthcoming, so intent to injure also implies a willingness to sit out yourself.  or a momentarily crazy state of mind where you don't care.

 

one player intending to cause that kind of damage to another player, lasting long term damage, i.e., "injury", is very very very rare.  it happens.  chris simon's stomping on ruutu's ankle was one.  the two hander to hollweg's kneck was another.  mcsorely's baseball swing to brashear's head another.  but really really rare.

 

these days, the phrase and the implied severity gets trotted out each time there is something that crosses the line into questionable contact.  a hit preceded by too many strides, a slash across the shinpads, a hipcheck that dips a little too low, now it's all "intent to injure".  it's hyperbole, really.

 

i dunno.  like i said, a pet-peeve of mine.  to me, that phrase and the truly beyond-the-pale ugliness it is supposed to describe should be reserved for those moments when the actual intention was severe and lasting damage to the target player, when someone has REALLY gone WAY over the line.  wanting him to still feel the bruise a day or two later doesn't cut it. 

Edited December 18, 2013 by aziz

[radoran]

it's a pet peeve of mine, so sorry for the hair splitting.  the idea of intent to injure, like i said, means an intent to seriously break the other player.  not give him a bruise, knock the wind out of him, but have him disabled and unable to play.  that's a way higher bar than just hitting a guy harder than is allowed.  further, given that everyone knows that once a stretcher and a trip to the hospital on in the conversation, a lengthy suspension is forthcoming, so intent to injure also implies a willingness to sit out yourself.  or a momentarily crazy state of mind where you don't care.

 

one player intending to cause that kind of damage to another player, lasting long term damage, i.e., "injury", is very very very rare.  it happens.  chris simon's stomping on ruutu's ankle was one.  the two hander to hollweg's kneck was another.  mcsorely's baseball swing to brashear's head another.  but really really rare.

 

these days, the phrase and the implied severity gets trotted out each time there is something that crosses the line into questionable contact.  a hit preceded by too many strides, a slash across the shinpads, a hipcheck that dips a little too low, now it's all "intent to injure".  it's hyperbole, really.

 

i dunno.  like i said, a pet-peeve of mine.  to me, that phrase and the truly beyond-the-pale ugliness it is supposed to describe should be reserved for those moments when the actual intention was severe and lasting damage to the target player, when someone has REALLY gone WAY over the line.  wanting him to still feel the bruise a day or two later doesn't cut it. 

 

I understand the pet peeve.

 

I just think that a guy who is coming at another guy at a high rate of speed and decides that he needs to keep accelerating in a manner which is against the rules has an "intent to injure."

 

If you're in a car going 15 MPH and accelerate to hit somebody, to me you intend to injure them.

 

And that's where the "stupid" comment comes in. Not knowing (or claiming to be surprised by the idea) that deliberately, illegally accelerating into someone in that situation isn't an excuse for me and, quite frankly, isn't the "hockey play."

 

The only real question from a rules perspective is whether they get a Match Penalty or Game Misconduct. And, as noted, the former supercedes the latter as the "intent" doesn't matter once the "injury" occurs.

[JackStraw]

Every interpretation I've read/seen/heard of the rule includes the question of whether or not the player was still taking strides (accelerating) into the player when the hit occurred.

 

 

Straight from the horses mouth:

 

Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

 

There is nothing in the rule addressing number of strides, or whether or not the player is still taking strides. Or whether or not the player who gets hit turns or pirouettes or does a triple Salchow before getting hit. That was about the most egregious charge I've seen in a long time. Because of the location where the hit occurred (the "no-fly zone" near the boards) it will probably earn Wilson a few games off.

Edited December 18, 2013 by JackStraw

[radoran]

 

Straight from the horses mouth:

 

Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

 

There is nothing in the rule addressing number of strides, or whether or not the player is still taking strides. Or whether or not the player who gets hit turns or pirouettes or does a triple Salchow before getting hit. That was about the most egregious charge I've seen in a long time. Because of the location where the hit occurred (the "no-fly zone" near the boards) it will probably earn Wilson a few games off.

 

 

Yes, but unfortunately the "rulebook" is frequently more "guidelinebook" than "rulebook" in the NHL.

 

Every interpretation of the rule I've seen (as the NHL relies on such "interpretations" to do things like, oh, hand out the Stanley Cup - on occasion - even when they don't bother to tell anyone about the new interpretation) includes the "strides" being made during the charge.

 

It was, as you note, clearly egregious and it was clearly meant to do more than "leave a bruise" - even though the player in question will deny that in a James Nealy-type way...