Clayton Stoner on Max Pacioretty

[ihabs1993]

In the third period of the Canadiens - Ducks game on Thursday, Clayton Stoner of the Ducks drilled Max Pacioretty of the Canadiens into the boards, sending Pacioretty to the locker room, and eventually to the hospital. There was no penalty assessed on the play and the NHL Department of Player Safety has decided that Stoner's hit does not warrant a suspension. Here's the hit.

 

 

 

To start out with, the hit is late. The initiation of contact is not late, as I think Stoner puts his stick up to hit Pacioretty at a reasonable amount of time, but it's the timing of the push that I don't like. The hit is also dangerously close to the boards and Stoner should exercise more caution and not hit Pacioretty. Pacioretty is in a vulnerable position and is no longer a part of the play. Body checks are used to separate the player from the puck, not punish him after he's passed it. Take away the lateness of the hit and this is still boarding. Both refs on the ice missed the call and the league will not pursue discipline.

 

Personally, I give him 3 games. Cheap shot the the league should not tolerate, but will make exceptions. Pacioretty has now been the victim of two absolutely brutal checks and the league has not given him any sort of satisfaction in suspending the offending party.

 

I'm somewhat reluctant to ask, but what do you guys think?

Some people have even told me that Pacioretty took a dive, which is the funniest thing I've heard in quite some time.....

[flyercanuck]

I don't see late there. And although he has his back to him he does turn sideways before the hit. But  that's a bad hit. Pretty easy to hurt someones head/neck/spine doing that. 

[flyerrod]

I see a dumb move by Pacioretty turning his head towards the boards instead of away from them. He knew he was there, knew he was going to get hit, yet still turned into the boards instead of away from.them. That makes the hit look far more egregious than it actually should have been. I won't say he dove but I will say he should have known better and could have protected himself.

[yave1964]

  _{Meh, I see a hit that looks borderline, both for being late and away from the boards, but not quite enough to warrant doing nything about.}

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Pretty nasty hit and fall there, I gotta say.

 

I can see other's points here about MaxPac turning the wrong way making things look worse than they should have been....however, I still have a bit of a problem with the fact that Clayton Stoner hit him so close to the boards, in a 'shoving' type manner that in all likelihood was going to send MaxPac in a bad way into the boards, no matter WHICH direction he was facing.

 

Had Stoner followed through on the check with his whole body and both went into the boards (where believe it or not, there was a better chance of each player cushioning each other as both went in), perhaps it may not have seemed as bad.

What I mean is, I have seen players all the time both go hard into the boards, and while the receiving player still (and should) be getting the worst of it, there is some body maneuvering and positioning by both such that chances for a major injury are lessened.

 

Hit/push a guy like Stoner did that close to the boards and MaxPac is basically "on his own" and he will fall where he may.....with a VERY good chance of landing head first with no other body to hang on to, hang on to him, and no leverage of any sort to try to re-orient his body....just left suspended in space so to speak as he goes forward into the boards.

 

Now let me say this:

I am a Clayton Stoner fan. I liked him on the Wild, was hoping the Wild would keep him on after his contract was up, though I understand that Minny had other players they thought would fit in better and would be more cost effective vs production over Stoner.

But Clayton plays a no-nonsense, hard nosed type game, big hitter anywhere on the ice, will drop the gloves if necessary, but ALWAYS has done all that with an honorable demeanor.

 

I don't believe Stoner to be a dirty player, but that hit on MaxPac is just nasty like I said, and at worst, I would categorize it as 'careless' and not too smart on his part.

And yes, it wasn't too smart of MaxPac to turn the way he did either.....he should know better when there is a guy bearing down on him AND if he knows anything about his peers, he should know damned well Stoner's reputation for being a finisher on checks.

 

Obviously, no penalty was assessed here and from the looks and sounds of it, the safety department won't be looking at this, and I can accept all that.

Though I will say if Player Safety doesn't at least look at this, it is a bit surprising, given the violent nature of the end result.

It would just goes along with the whole 'inconsistency' the NHL seems to be plagued with these days.

[ruxpin]

In the third period of the Canadiens - Ducks game on Thursday, Clayton Stoner of the Ducks drilled Max Pacioretty of the Canadiens into the boards, sending Pacioretty to the locker room, and eventually to the hospital. There was no penalty assessed on the play and the NHL Department of Player Safety has decided that Stoner's hit does not warrant a suspension. Here's the hit.

 

 

 

To start out with, the hit is late. The initiation of contact is not late, as I think Stoner puts his stick up to hit Pacioretty at a reasonable amount of time, but it's the timing of the push that I don't like. The hit is also dangerously close to the boards and Stoner should exercise more caution and not hit Pacioretty. Pacioretty is in a vulnerable position and is no longer a part of the play. Body checks are used to separate the player from the puck, not punish him after he's passed it. Take away the lateness of the hit and this is still boarding. Both refs on the ice missed the call and the league will not pursue discipline.

 

Personally, I give him 3 games. Cheap shot the the league should not tolerate, but will make exceptions. Pacioretty has now been the victim of two absolutely brutal checks and the league has not given him any sort of satisfaction in suspending the offending party.

 

I'm somewhat reluctant to ask, but what do you guys think?

Some people have even told me that Pacioretty took a dive, which is the funniest thing I've heard in quite some time.....

 

I personally don't see a penalty, let alone a suspension.  I don't see a dive either.  

 

I do see a solid hit on a guy that was either admiring his pass or daydreaming.  It really looks like once he made the pass to no one in particular, he completely forgot he was still on the ice.  Stoner hit a completely limp bystander.

 

Honestly don't see anything to penalize.

[ihabs1993]

Had Stoner followed through on the check with his whole body and both went into the boards (where believe it or not, there was a better chance of each player cushioning each other as both went in), perhaps it may not have seemed as bad.

Exactly! If Stoner lays off and just skates Pacioretty into the wall, I have no problem with the hit. Pacioretty is taken out of the play but he is not injured. Instead, Stoner shoves Max at an unsafe distance from the wall. Dumb hit.

[ihabs1993]

I personally don't see a penalty, let alone a suspension.  I don't see a dive either.  

 

I do see a solid hit on a guy that was either admiring his pass or daydreaming.  It really looks like once he made the pass to no one in particular, he completely forgot he was still on the ice.  Stoner hit a completely limp bystander.

 

Honestly don't see anything to penalize.

But at the least, this isn't boarding? Pacioretty is about 3 feet away from the wall and Stoner shoves Max hard enough to knock him face first into the wall. That's textbook boarding.

[ruxpin]

But at the least, this isn't boarding? Pacioretty is about 3 feet away from the wall and Stoner shoves Max hard enough to knock him face first into the wall. That's textbook boarding.

 

I don't see boarding.  Certainly not textbook boarding.

 

41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.

There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact. However, in determining whether such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.

 

1.  Max wasn't defenseless; he was clueless.   He knew Stoner was there.  Stoner came at him from his side.  Max had just played the puck.  He was anything but defenseless.  He was, however, clueless.  He stands there limp watching his piss-poor pass.  Keep playing, Max.  You can't kneel down in the middle of a highway and live to talk about it, son.  Sorry, not defenseless.

2.  He spun into the boards.  I don't call it a dive (although the more I watch it over and over, the more I'm tempted), but I do call it stupid.He was hit from the side, and spins into the boards face first.  Sorry he got hurt, but he may actually have gotten hurt in the act of embellishing the hit.  He was not hit from behind.  He put himself in a vulnerable position simultaneous with the check.  Stoner wasn't steaming into it, so there's no charge.  It's a shove, from the side.  

 

Clearly, the league agrees since there was no penalty and nothing stemming from it afterward.  This one's almost entirely on Max:  midget-league watching his crap pass and then spinning into the boards upon being shoved.

[ihabs1993]

1. Max wasn't defenseless; he was clueless. He knew Stoner was there. Stoner came at him from his side. Max had just played the puck. He was anything but defenseless. He was, however, clueless. He stands there limp watching his piss-poor pass. Keep playing, Max. You can't kneel down in the middle of a highway and live to talk about it, son. Sorry, not defenseless.

2. He spun into the boards. I don't call it a dive (although the more I watch it over and over, the more I'm tempted), but I do call it stupid.He was hit from the side, and spins into the boards face first. Sorry he got hurt, but he may actually have gotten hurt in the act of embellishing the hit. He was not hit from behind. He put himself in a vulnerable position simultaneous with the check. Stoner wasn't steaming into it, so there's no charge. It's a shove, from the side.



Clearly, the league agrees since there was no penalty and nothing stemming from it afterward. This one's almost entirely on Max: midget-league watching his crap pass and then spinning into the boards upon being shoved.

 

Max totally knows Stoner is there, that's why his back is turned to him literally the whole play and Stoner never enters his field of view. Not only did Max not know Stoner was there, THE REFS DIDN'T KNOW STONER WAS THERE. Not one guy in stripes was looking at the play, and Max wasn't looking at stoner. Give me a break. Kerry Fraser, former NHL official, tweeted out that the only way no penalty was called on this play is that both refs were not looking at the play.This is significant coming from an official who officiated during some of the most violent years of the sport.

 

Stoner comes in on Max at almost the same angle that Mike Richards hit David Booth at in 2009. In that hit, Mike Richards came at David Booth from just out of his field of vision. Hit from a blind spot, with the only differences between the two being the speed and the point of contact. Pacioretty is blindsided here. Yes, Pacioretty put himself in a vulnerable position as he did admire his awful pass for a bit too long, but he was in that position for a long time; long enough for Stoner to be able to react and minimize contact. At this point of the play, Pacioretty should not expect to be hit, a quote that Player Safety has used this year in the Bortuzzo suspension for his hit on Jagr.

 

Second, I cannot believe how anyone can call this a dive. Why would Pacioretty dive into the boards face first and intentionally injure himself to POSSIBLY draw a 2 minute penalty? That's absurd! Pacioretty is hit very hard and is in an awkward position to begin with.

 

Of course, I don't expect everyone to share my point of view, but come on... The guy was in the hospital and he gets accused of diving? That seems cheap and tasteless to me.

[ruxpin]

Sorry ihabs, I just don't agree with any of that. He hits him from the side. Gets his head out of his ass it wouldn't be a blind side. I don't like making that another player's responsibility.

And (he just played the puck) + (this is the NHL) = expect to be hit.

I can't get on board with the "didn't expect to be hit" stuff. Maybe "completely forgot he was playing hockey."

I'm not really full born into "dive!" but he twists in such a way that makes no sense to me. He is NOT facing the boards when hit and spins towards them after contact. The physics doesn't make a lot of sense to me unless he helps it.

He wouldn't be the first player hurt while embellishing.

Sorry, I really see little comparison to the Booth hit. I see a guy hit from the side spin head first into the boards who created his own blood spot by seemingly forgetting the was anyone else on the ice while micro focusing on his pass.

That's not another player's responsibility, that's on Max. Sorry he's in the hospital, but he needs to take personal responsibility.

I like Frazier, but I don't always agree with him. Neither does the league (full disclosure: there are times I agree with him but the pleasure doesn't. The point, though, is he's ultimately just another guy with an opinion, albeit an informed one).

[brelic]

I don't like the shove into the boards from 4 feet away. Any hockey player with half a brain knows that is a dangerous play, legal or not, suspendable or not. Follow through on your check with the player into the boards. It's much safer that way. 

[ruxpin]

I don't like the shove into the boards from 4 feet away. Any hockey player with half a brain knows that is a dangerous play, legal or not, suspendable or not. Follow through on your check with the player into the boards. It's much safer that way.

I can definitely get behind that, brelic.

[jammer2]

  It's one of those iffy could go either way. If the d-man pulls up, Max might have turned the whole thing into a legit scoring chance, who knows?  Maybe the if you can see the numbers, don't throw the hit thing might apply, but Max was turned sideways, so very hard to call on this. I can see both sides of the argument being a bit right.

[ihabs1993]

That's not another player's responsibility, that's on Max. Sorry he's in the hospital, but he needs to take personal responsibility.

 

So what you're saying is that the hard hitters in this league shouldn't be suspended for hunting for players who put themselves in vulnerable positions? If the league operated this way, it would be absolute anarchy.

There is equal responsibility here. You can't suspend Max for putting himself in this spot, he already got his punishment through the hit. Stoner needs to understand that this player is not in a good spot here and that he should try to avoid pushing him. Don't push him. Don't cross check him. Those are two of the most simple things any hockey player can do. If this play was at high speed and Stoner is slamming on the breaks and he still causes Pacioretty to get hurt, I'm ok with it. But that's not what happened. The play was very slow to develop and Stoner had ample time to make a better decision and he did not. As far as I'm concerned this is enough grounds for AT LEAST a penalty.

[Polaris922]

Boarding.

Intent to injure? Tough to prove a guy knows another will fly off his skates, but you have to be held accountable for dangerous hits. Why extend the arms instead of body checking?

Suspension? You have to go with reckless more than malicious, but I think using the boards like that I'd give one game.

[ruxpin]

So what you're saying is that the hard hitters in this league shouldn't be suspended for hunting for players who put themselves in vulnerable positions? If the league operated this way, it would be absolute anarchy hockey.

Sorry, all I see is a hockey play and a guy who needs to remember he's on the ice.

[ihabs1993]

Boarding.

Intent to injure? Tough to prove a guy knows another will fly off his skates, but you have to be held accountable for dangerous hits. Why extend the arms instead of body checking?

Suspension? You have to go with reckless more than malicious, but I think using the boards like that I'd give one game.

Exactly! I'm not saying Stoner is a dirty player, it was just a dirty hit; a dumb hit. He could have done anything else in that scenario and it would have been better. Recklessness needs to be taken into account.

[J0e Th0rnton]

I'd call it boarding.

Maybe 1 game. Not intentional

[nORRis8]

Looks like a dive to me. Pacioretty is a pro at it. Subban, Edler and Emelin and Gallagher the smiling d-bag all flopping and diving around like they've been shot.

 

Boychuck,  Ryan McDonagh, Chris Letang have all had a taste of Paciorettys  careless hits from behind. 

 

So what goes around comes around. If this was truly a hit from behind...good.

If Pacioretty dived....no surprise there.