ruxpin Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I'm seeing on Twitter NOTHING for Rinaldo. Not even a fine. What the ....?? 63Sam Carchidi @BroadStBull 1h1 hour agoFrom here, NHL erred by not suspending Rinaldo. Major blunder. EDIT: Report according to Carchidi was "premature" - no word on suspension yet. Calm down, you stupid bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 http://www.tsn.ca/c-mon-ref-rinaldo-deserves-suspension-for-reckless-hit-1.380862 The person who has been cited in articles re: no suspension for Rinaldo has walked it back: https://twitter.com/renlavoietva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 http://www.tsn.ca/c-mon-ref-rinaldo-deserves-suspension-for-reckless-hit-1.380862 The person who has been cited in articles re: no suspension for Rinaldo has walked it back: https://twitter.com/renlavoietva Oh, cool. I probably shouldn't have b####ed at player safety on twitter, then, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FD19372 Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Of course he hit a Flyer, so no suspension for Zac Rinaldo. Bettman probably high-fived him, gave him a "secret bonus" and made him a member of his yacht club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fan4ever Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Of course he hit a Flyer, so no suspension for Zac Rinaldo. Bettman probably high-fived him, gave him a "secret bonus" and made him a member of his yacht club. How amazing would that be? I don't see ANYWHERE where anyone thinks that hit is NOT suspension worthy...... Of course stranger things have happened..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 It's in the video HF posted in this thread. I don't see chest at all until after he got the head "out of the way." Every angle.Upon further review, he definitely gets him in the head but it wasnt a straight on frying pan flat to the face shot like people are making it out to be. Couturier is looking down (which I've heard is a bad thing to do). Rinaldo is moving paralell to the ice and sort of rubs his shoulder down couturier's head into his upper chest. He was on his tip toes at the point of contact and just popped up a little after contact. I dont think he left his skates and launched into the head.I think we see what we want to see sometimes. I know Rinaldo got him a little, but because I dont really care for Couturier and think the team is better without him, I dont see the hit being that bad. There's a lot of man crushes for Couts going on here so people are talking about "launching" "full hit to the face" "elbows up" but I just dont see it.I hope he gets better. I also hope he gets traded but I dont think that will happen any time soon.I also dont think rinaldo would injure sean couturier on purpose and I'm sick of people acting like he is a criminal. He's not a very good hockey player...can we leave it at that? We got a third rounder for him...shouldnt we be happy with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Are you being contrary or do you really not see him hit Coots full in the face? I watched it actual speed, and then even slowed it down and looked at still frames (from the one and only camera angle I've seen). He hit the guy in the chest. I'm still sticking with no suspension on this one. I didn't see him leave his feet either. Of all the dirty hits I've seen, this one doesn't seem dirty to me. Do you have a different camera angle I can see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 42 LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samifan Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Wish I knew how to link a tweet on here but the hockey news just tweeted no additional discipline for Rinaldo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Yup, no suspension: http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2015/10/22/video-nhl-explains-why-rinaldo-wasnt-suspended-for-charging-couturier/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Quintal apparently hates us as much as Shanahan did. Maybe more. Here's the thing... I didn't think the hit was egregiously bad, but it did take advantage mostly because of McQuade already having engaged Coots and lowering his body and essentially creating the resistance that caused the whiplash.Suspendable? Borderline to me, but for an early season game and a player with a history of suspensions, probably worth sending the message to the league. That said, I wouldn't have had a problem with him not getting suspended... UNTIL they announced their explanation of why he's not getting suspended. Spoiler alert: It's full of horse manure. "he kept his elbow tucked,"He didn't. While He didn't "lead with his elbow" it was definitely in use... this is what makes it borderline. "it wasn't interference,"I'll grant that. He was finishing a check. That's legit. BUT... "it wasn't an illegal check to the head,"It was. He made direct contact with Coots' head and his head WAS 'picked' as a result of poor timing, angle or approach and unnecessary projection of the boyd upward AND outward. Their explanation on this point is an abject lie. It's a total falsification. "and it's not charging."Since there is no textbook definition of charging and that is up to the refs, I can't argue too much other than to say that Zac did leave his skates before hitting a stationary player. The argument that the impact of another moving player is what caused his blades to leave the ice doesn't wash here. Zac also used his team mate as a fulcrum point which is the thing that actually caused the whiplash reaction that is probably what dazed Coots so much and is causing any lingering issues he has now. That's not supposed to be legal. The team mate in that instance is like a ref or the boards. You can't use it as a weapon against your opponent. To boot, not suspending him is CONTINGENT on them descriptions like "he does come off the ice SLIGHTLY" and "not in an EXCESSIVE manner" that determines the use of that mitigating verbage? that seems like a bunch of crap to render the actual rule book inapplicable simply to justify your decision. They also go to great lengths to explain that supplemental discipline is based only on the hit itself and not the history of the player involved... which is ABSOLUTE bull. They're SUPPOSED to take the history of the player and previous infractions into account. I really didn't care before, but this explanation seems so full of holes that now I'm annoyed. They'd have been better off just saying "We're not suspending him. live with it a-holes." at least then they'd be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 It's ok it's just the Flyers no need to protect their players.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkscrewy Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 pretty certain wyshinski would have written a much different column had it been Zac Rinaldo of the Philadelphia Flyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerrod Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I watched it actual speed, and then even slowed it down and looked at still frames (from the one and only camera angle I've seen). He hit the guy in the chest. I'm still sticking with no suspension on this one. I didn't see him leave his feet either. Of all the dirty hits I've seen, this one doesn't seem dirty to me. Do you have a different camera angle I can see? Gary B. or Bill D.? Is that you? Can you explain how all this "legal" contact was made after the puck was not even in the same time zone when Rinaldo decides to initiate his hit? I stand by the he gets 20 games if he makes the same hit in a Flyers Jersey instead of against it. I hope they take their collective frustrations out on Bergeron with the same "legal" contact.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I states elsewhere that I didnt want a suspension. After looking closely though, I would have been fine with a few games. However, I watched the league video again and I agree with no suspension according to their criteria.1. He DID keep his elbow close to his body. Some people get confused with this aspect of the hit. A lot of player, while making clean hits, raise the elbow after contact, "shrugging" the hittee away. It's not dangerous and not suspendable.2. It was not charging. He stopped skating far back and glided into the hit.3. Interference is the closest infraction. The puck was gone but it wasnt gone for long. We want NHL players to "finish" their checks.4. That brings us to head contact. People also get confused by this one but I think I understand it now. The rule has the word "picked" in quotes when referring to picking the head as the point of contact. Rinaldo Did Not target the head...he targeted the body but the head got grazed on the way to the body. The department of safety has to look at intent so unless Rinaldo is surgical in how he chose to graze the head before he hit the body, the DOS must have thought there was no intent.By the rules,the hit is Ok. Makes you wonder why a match penalty was called though. Also, with one second left when the play was basically dead, the hit was unnecessary. If he's on my team though, I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 The only thing that bugs me is the fact that it makes sense when Rinaldo isnt a flyer but if he was a flyer, I feel like the rules would have changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canoli Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Wow I'm surprised by this ruling. I was sure he'd get 5 games minimum just because it's Rinaldo, being a repeat offender. OTOH I don't think the hit was a tremendously dirty or even much worse than a thousand other hits we've all seen over the years. Oh well whatever. The more important question is "How is Couturier feeling today?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Utter crap call by the league. You cannot be sober and watch that video and not see a hit directly to the head.And it is NOT because of some crap analysis of what I want to see. That's absolute garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I states elsewhere that I didnt want a suspension. After looking closely though, I would have been fine with a few games. However, I watched the league video again and I agree with no suspension according to their criteria.1. He DID keep his elbow close to his body. Some people get confused with this aspect of the hit. A lot of player, while making clean hits, raise the elbow after contact, "shrugging" the hittee away. It's not dangerous and not suspendable.2. It was not charging. He stopped skating far back and glided into the hit.3. Interference is the closest infraction. The puck was gone but it wasnt gone for long. We want NHL players to "finish" their checks.4. That brings us to head contact. People also get confused by this one but I think I understand it now. The rule has the word "picked" in quotes when referring to picking the head as the point of contact. Rinaldo Did Not target the head...he targeted the body but the head got grazed on the way to the body. The department of safety has to look at intent so unless Rinaldo is surgical in how he chose to graze the head before he hit the body, the DOS must have thought there was no intent.By the rules,the hit is Ok. Makes you wonder why a match penalty was called though. Also, with one second left when the play was basically dead, the hit was unnecessary. If he's on my team though, I love it.The picked thing isn't about contact with the head. It wasn't contact with the head that ended LINDROS or ruined Gagne a few years early. It was whiplash as was this. " 'picked' as a result of poor timing, angle or approach and unnecessary projection of the boyd upward AND outward. "That's the criterion. He fails. Also on the elbow, watch again. It's hard to see because it's black on black with his jersey, but it's out before contact is made. Again, I think their conclusions are in large part erroneous and false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I states elsewhere that I didnt want a suspension. After looking closely though, I would have been fine with a few games. However, I watched the league video again and I agree with no suspension according to their criteria.1. He DID keep his elbow close to his body. Some people get confused with this aspect of the hit. A lot of player, while making clean hits, raise the elbow after contact, "shrugging" the hittee away. It's not dangerous and not suspendable.2. It was not charging. He stopped skating far back and glided into the hit.3. Interference is the closest infraction. The puck was gone but it wasnt gone for long. We want NHL players to "finish" their checks.4. That brings us to head contact. People also get confused by this one but I think I understand it now. The rule has the word "picked" in quotes when referring to picking the head as the point of contact. Rinaldo Did Not target the head...he targeted the body but the head got grazed on the way to the body. The department of safety has to look at intent so unless Rinaldo is surgical in how he chose to graze the head before he hit the body, the DOS must have thought there was no intent.By the rules,the hit is Ok. Makes you wonder why a match penalty was called though. Also, with one second left when the play was basically dead, the hit was unnecessary. If he's on my team though, I love it.He was on my team and it made me embarrassed when he did it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Wow I'm surprised by this ruling. I was sure he'd get 5 games minimum just because it's Rinaldo, being a repeat offender. OTOH I don't think the hit was a tremendously dirty or even much worse than a thousand other hits we've all seen over the years.Oh well whatever. The more important question is "How is Couturier feeling today?"They're being 'cautious' with him. As is appropriate. And I agree. He'd be out 5-10 games as a repeat offender if he was still a flyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 You start by saying it's not about like or dislike and you end by saying he's an idiot which means you obviously dislike him. What did you think of the league explanation? Everything they said, I thought of after watching the replay. The only thing that almost changed my mind was the fact that there was head contact. As the league states though, the head wasnt "picked" as the primary point of contact. Ive seen that go the other way so many times for the flyers though that I just assumed there would be a suspension.I'm just saying that because I have no horse in the race (why would I care if Rinaldo is suspended, and the less Couturier plays, the better this team will be), I can look at it a little more fairly.And Couturier is slow and always has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 @icehole You clearly have a prejudice against Couturier so you only see what you want to see. Simple as that. And the league ruling was utter crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 The picked thing isn't about contact with the head. It wasn't contact with the head that ended LINDROS or ruined Gagne a few years early. It was whiplash as was this. " 'picked' as a result of poor timing, angle or approach and unnecessary projection of the boyd upward AND outward. "That's the criterion. He fails. Also on the elbow, watch again. It's hard to see because it's black on black with his jersey, but it's out before contact is made. Again, I think their conclusions are in large part erroneous and false.I agree that whiplash is very dangerous, but I dont think the hitter should be held responsible for the way the hittee's body folds and flops.We just won't agree on this. I thought I missed something with the elbow so I watched it about 5 more times. If you see an elbow come up, we must be on differnt planets.We should revisit this when there's a contriversial hit in a coyotes/flames game when we dont care about the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Any more tucked and he might have broken ribs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.