Jump to content

The "Rinaldo wasn't suspended" thread.


hf101

  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. How many games will Rinaldo be suspended for?



Recommended Posts

I dont think it was charging but I do agree that the league has to have some consistancy in these situations. You can't call a suspendable offense on the ice and then go back and say that you agree with the call but arent going to suspend him.

 

It was not a "legitimate hockey hit" - it was a penalty.

 

The definition of charging is "the actions of a player or goalkeeper who as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner."

 

Nothing about "leaving the feet" and nothing about "strides not taken" - distance traveled.

 

Especially against a defenseless player who didn't have the puck.

 

Definitely a penalty. The only question is whether it was worthy of suspension.

 

As a repeat offender getting a 5 and 10 and causing injury I really don't see how the league can justify not suspending him.

 

And, from the wishy-washy mish mash of a statement of the league, they don't either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

See that "distance traveled" is a gray area. A player could skate the length of the ice to injure a player, but he could also be standing still right next to the guy and still injure him. They need to set a tolerance for distance traveled. I thought it used to be strides.

He could also take one stride and coast the length to make the hit at 2mph or he could take 5 strides in 5ft and detroy a guy. They need to clear it up a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See that "distance traveled" is a gray area. A player could skate the length of the ice to injure a player, but he could also be standing still right next to the guy and still injure him. They need to set a tolerance for distance traveled. I thought it used to be strides.

He could also take one stride and coast the length to make the hit at 2mph or he could take 5 strides in 5ft and detroy a guy. They need to clear it up a little.

 

It's a fine opinion, but that's not the rule.

From Rule 42.1

A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player

who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who is neither a Flyers nor a Bruins fan, this is a legitimate hockey hit.

You claim his skates left the ice, but not before contact. In fact, I question whether his left skate EVER left the ice.

You are suggesting this was a head shot. While I agree that the head was the initial point of contact, the way the league has enforced the "targeting of the head" rule is similar to how I do, and that is that if you were to remove the head and neck from the target player's body, would there still have been a significant body check. If so, it is (properly) deemed a legitimate body check where a player's head was in the way, usually because it is down. If you remove the head and the neck and the hit would be more of a miss, that is targeting the head, because you are not really hitting anything else, and that kind of hit does not belong in this game. This was the former, not the latter. To say it a different way, the head can be the initial point of contact so long as it is not the principal point of contact. There is a difference.

This was not charging. Rinaldo only took two strides, and IF he left his feet, he only did so AFTER the point of contact. I really don't think he did.

It was not interference. The puck was there.

The elbow was not up significantly. Replay shows it is pretty well tucked.

If Couturier had a winged wheel on his chest, I'd still say the same thing. Hit was legit.

If we start to disallow these kinds of hits, then all players with the puck will be able to defend themselves from being hit by anyone directly in front of them by simply keeping their head down. This would be horrible for the game. If you can't hit someone with the puck from the front anymore with their head down, might as well put flags on player's belts and play flag hockey I.e. It's not hockey anymore.

What makes this hit a little bit different than many of these questionable quasi-head-targeting shots was that Couturier's head wasn't down so much as it was looking back to the player checking him from behind. But while this puts less of the onus on Couturier as far as putting himself in a compromised position I.e. his head wasn't down focusing on the puck while ignoring his surroundings, the nature of the hit still makes this one legitimate for the reasons stated above. The fact that a player is unaware that a hit is coming should not disallow a hit so long as the hit is delivered with proper technique and where the player's body is checked along with the head, and not primarily the head without much of the body. This hit fits that, and thus there should be no supplemental discipline here.

Wow. You took the words right out of my mouth. I showed the elbow tucked right before contact. He didnt take more than two strides in a short distance, and the puck just left couturier's stick...that's why his head was tilted toward the middle of the ice which is why Rinaldo's shoulder got the head.

If he had a winged wheel on his chest, there would be an elbow right below it.

I mentioned the same thing about the head being down. Hitters would have to crouch really low and try to sneak under the head. I keep laughing because I can just imagine 10 skaters all with their heads paralell to the ice, seeking out a guy to run into so he can draw the penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moreover, for the "wasn't a hit to the head" crowd, I refer you to rule 42.5 under which the player received a Game Misconduct and a call which the league supports.

 

This is the entirety of Rule 42.5

 


Game Misconduct Penalty
- When a major penalty is imposed under
this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an
opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a fine opinion, but that's not the rule.

From Rule 42.1

Im not doubting you and Im not trying to add fuel to the fire but that rule is as clear as mud. They could replace the words "distance traveled" with "jalepenos eaten" and it would make as much sense. That rule describes every single hit in the game. Every player travels a distance. Every player violently checks another player. Hell, they used the word "charges" to describe what charging is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moreover, for the "wasn't a hit to the head" crowd, I refer you to rule 42.5 under which the player received a Game Misconduct and a call which the league supports.

 

This is the entirety of Rule 42.5

Thats just saying once a major has been called, and there was an injury to the head, they have to toss him out of the game. It's not an automatic suspension though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not doubting you and Im not trying to add fuel to the fire but that rule is as clear as mud. They could replace the words "distance traveled" with "jalepenos eaten" and it would make as much sense. That rule describes every single hit in the game. Every player travels a distance. Every player violently checks another player. Hell, they used the word "charges" to describe what charging is!

 

Well, I agree that the league has some serious issues - obviously using the term to define itself it silly :)

 

But if you look at the video in the first post, Rinaldo is at the goal line when he starts his run at Couturier and he hits Couturier on the other side of the faceoff dot. That's why it is "charging" - "distance traveled" - and why it is different from "every single hit in the game."

 

Thats just saying once a major has been called, and there was an injury to the head, they have to toss him out of the game. It's not an automatic suspension though.

 

Right, but by definition it was a hit to the head - whether or not it was "intentionally targeting" the head then comes into play.

 

And I've been pretty clear that we are free to differ on whether or not it was suspension-worthy.

 

But we are dealing with a multiple-time offender who caused a serious injury through his illegal play on the ice.

 

If that's not  "suspension worthy" then what is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It wasn't about "finishing a check" and it wasn't "a legitimate hockey hit" - this is exactly the type of play the league has been saying they want to get out of the game. And it was a penalty. It can't be a penalty and a "legitimate hockey hit."
 
The player didn't have the puck, was in a vulnerable position by the boards and the reckless play of a multiple-time offender caused serious injury.

 

??

 

the player had just released the puck literally fractions of a second prior to contact.  by the rules, couturier was technically still the puck carrier, and was a legal target.  that is the definition of finishing a check.  he was in a vulnerable position because he was looking behind himself watching his pass.  that's a pee-wee level no-no.

 

elbow down

glided into the hit

rinaldo ended up light on his skates, but didn't go cronwall-level flying into the hit

couturier was a legal target

 

the contextless fact that contact was made with the head is the only angle i can see to call this a bad hit.  rinaldo drove into center mass, but couturier was leading with his head, essentially creating a "you are going to hit me in the head or not at all" situation.  which is the worst possible evolution of the league's efforts to reduce concussions.  he put his head between his body and on-coming pressure (which he absolutely knew was there, he looked right at rinaldo closing immediately before shuffling the puck back, and then inexplicably decided to look backwards to see how his pass worked out).

 

i don't love the hit.  it was unnecessary and i think probably motivated more than a little bit by rinaldo wanting to ring a flyer up before the night was over.  it makes rinaldo a jerk, but that isn't suspendable.  

 

i really really really wish players would stop thinking the are protected when they voluntarily expose themselves to dangerous contact.  if couturier makes that play with an understanding that he was about to get hit from the front, the whole thing plays out differently.  instead, he looked at rinaldo, and then pulled a cloak of invulnerability around himself by utterly and intentionally failing to take any kind of defensive action.  guys are increasingly casual about these situations, because they keep being told that tactic should work.  and they're getting killed for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I agree that the league has some serious issues - obviously using the term to define itself it silly :)

But if you look at the video in the first post, Rinaldo is at the goal line when he starts his run at Couturier and he hits Couturier on the other side of the faceoff dot. That's why it is "charging" - "distance traveled" - and why it is different from "every single hit in the game."

Right, but by definition it was a hit to the head - whether or not it was "intentionally targeting" the head then comes into play.

And I've been pretty clear that we are free to differ on whether or not it was suspension-worthy.

But we are dealing with a multiple-time offender who caused a serious injury through his illegal play on the ice.

If that's not "suspension worthy" then what is?

If you think about it, Rinaldo's distance traveled was probably close to 500ft. He hopped of the bench, skated one way, turned, skated back, did a twirl, came back down the ice, then he turned and went after couturier. Im just being stupid now.

But you can see where it's fuzzy. You and I are both right but we could both be wrong too. That shouldnt be. I should be able to say "the rule says 3 strides and he only took 2" or you can say "the rule says 10ft and he traveled 15ft"

I dont like when a major penalty is called just because of a violent hit and an injury. Hits are supposed to be violent and unfortunately, injuries do happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 it makes rinaldo a jerk, but that isn't suspendable.  

 

This has likely been said already, but I can't be fuicked to go and read all 6 pages, but the "problem" with the hit is that, while it meets many of the criteria to be a "fair hockey hit" (or however you want to call it), it is also has one characteristic that the league is saying now matters. At least, I thought they were.

 

And that's the fact that Cooter is vulnerable. Rinaldo not only knows this, he chooses to take advantage of it in a nasty way. No elbows to the head though. So, are we shifting the onus to the player doing the hitting when it comes to players in vulnerable situations, or not? 

 

I'm normally on the side of the guy doing the hitting. In this case, that's a "clean" hit in my books, traditionally. But I thought the league wanted to change that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


elbow down

glided into the hit

rinaldo ended up light on his skates, but didn't go cronwall-level flying into the hit

couturier was a legal target

 

"elbow down" means nothing in the discussion. "glided into the hit" means nothing in the discussion.

 

It was a penalty. "glided into" or not - "as a result of distance traveled" Rinaldo charged Couturier (there is nothing in the rules about stopping strides prior to a hit - nothing at all).

 

He also made contact with the head which is why he got a Game Misconduct - it is, in fact, the only reason they could assess a Game Misconduct.

 

Now, the discussion of whether it was suspension-worthy is fine. Clearly the league thought it wasn't.

 

The only concern I have with that is that we are dealing with a multiple-time offender who caused injury while committing a penalty.

 

From what the league has been saying - if we are looking for "consistency" - they are trying to get that type of hit (not "every hit") out of the game.

 

You even say "it was unnecessary" - which I completely agree with. There was nothing "hockey hit" about that play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


So, are we shifting the onus to the player doing the hitting when it comes to players in vulnerable situations, or not? 

 

the league is maddingly inconsistent, i agree.  i won't, however, get upset when they get inconsistent in a way that brings things back to the way they should be.  which is each player being responsible for protecting himself at all times.  i can only hope this is the start of a re-calibrated approach that re-introduces basic personal safety to the game.

 

it totally isn't, and there'll be a big suspension for effectively the same hit at some point soon, i know.  i take these moments to pretend, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


which is each player being responsible for protecting himself at all times.

 

And each player not acting in a reckless and illegal manner.

 

"Responsibility" goes both ways and "unnecessary" hits that are penalties should not be part of the game. That's why they are penalties.

 

What was the "hockey reason" for that "unnecessary" hit? How is Couturier supposed to "defend himself" in the split second before being recklessly charged by Rinaldo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the league is maddingly inconsistent, i agree. 

 

 

That's not my main point or point at all. As far as inconsistency goes, I think if it exists it's a product of the ambiguity that exists in the game about this question of vulnerability and responsibility.  

 

I may have it wrong actually. This is Shanny on a hit and ruling from last year (Bartkowski): "Gionta puts himself in a vulnerable position making contact with his head unavoidable."— NHL Player Safety (@NHLPlayerSafety) December 22, 2014

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Now, the discussion of whether it was suspension-worthy is fine.

 

and that's the only thing i'm talking about.  charging is an infinitely wide open call that can be applied to every single hit in the game, ever, at the discretion of the referee.  it only requires a hit to be violent "in any manner".  it is a broad multi-tool for refs to use when they don't like something that happened and they need to call something, but nothing else really fits.  it's part of the game's random, and i accept it will be trotted out frequently for things I think were fine.  it is more important to me that the review team looking at the play afterwards slows things down and really tries to figure out why the play was bad.  rinaldo was very aggressive, but he wasn't flagrant, and couturier created the unsafe environment for himself.  no suspension is appropriate, imo, because i didnt' see any behavior from rinaldo on this one that needed to be corrected.  the same hit on an opponent who has decided to project himself hurts no one, would have been wholly unremarkable.  to boil that down, a suspension on rinaldo encourages couturier's wrecklessness, and i'm glad they did not do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rinaldo was very aggressive, but he wasn't flagrant, and couturier created the unsafe environment for himself.

 

"wasn't flagrant"? He got a major penalty for his illegal act and a Game Misconduct. What isn't "flagrant" about that, exactly?

 

Couturier made a pass and then another player made an illegal (and "unnecessary") play.

 

Are players really supposed to anticipate players not playing by the rules in split second circumstances?

 

Couturier had another Bruin under his legs when Rinaldo charged into him. I really fail to see what he was supposed to do to prevent Rinaldo from committing an illegal act or how it is Couturier's fault for Rinaldo's penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 How is Couturier supposed to "defend himself" in the split second before being recklessly charged by Rinaldo?

 

well, he could start by not looking away and not bending forward into the oncoming player.  he LOOKED RIGHT AT RINALDO before making the pass.  rather than shovling the puck back and then bracing for the contact like players have done for a hundred years, he ignored rinaldo entirely.  i can only assume he figured no one would dare hit him if he made himself unprepared enough.  which is complete horseshit, and should not be encouraged in any way.  

 

i mean, honestly.  it's like someone trying to cross the road, they see a car coming, and decide to look right at their feet and start crossing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I may be prejudice against couturier, I provide evidence to support my claim.

 

no, you really have not supported your "claim"

 

The hit was targeted at Couts head.   This by every definition should be a suspension.   He targeted the head while the puck was NOWHERE near the player getting hit.   I reiterate the puck was NOWHERE near Couts whent he hit took place - in fact it was behind him.   It was a cheap shot by a chickenshit player who has had a history of such play.   You can target the head w/out an elbow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just watched the league explanation again (Im bored at work ok...). Despite what the rule for charging is, I think they looked past it because of the way he delivers the hit. He originally goes after giroux but changes his path once it goes up the boards. He does a cross over skate and takes one or two more strides. He then tucks the elbow tight, bends slightly, and plows through in a straight line. If he exploded up at couturier, that would have been considered charging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can only assume he figured no one would dare hit him if he made himself unprepared enough. which is complete horseshit, and should not be encouraged in any way.

 

He can assume that another player isn't going to deliberately commit a penalty.

 

It's not about "wouldn't dare hit him" - he has no responsibility to believe that a player will deliberately break the rules. That's why they are "rules."

 

 

 

it's like someone trying to cross the road, they see a car coming, and decide to look right at their feet and start crossing.

 

It's "like that" if the car approaching has a red light, the person crossing the street is in a crosswalk and the car deliberately plows into them anyway. That's what actually happened.

 

At no time does a car have "a right" to hit a person where people are permitted to be. Never.

 

And Rinaldo has no "hockey reason" or "right" to deliberately commit an illegal act on the ice.

 

I just watched the league explanation again (Im bored at work ok...). Despite what the rule for charging is, I think they looked past it because of the way he delivers the hit. He originally goes after giroux but changes his path once it goes up the boards. He does a cross over skate and takes one or two more strides. He then tucks the elbow tight, bends slightly, and plows through in a straight line. If he exploded up at couturier, that would have been considered charging.

 

No. It was charging. That's why he got a five minute penalty for charging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[thumb]

 

 

The pictures you provided are directly contrary to what you wrote about not contacting Cooter's head.  His face is the FIRST thing contacted by Rinaldo's shoulder, and it looks like Rinaldo's skates are already off the ice as contact is made, with Couturier's head.   Not his body, as you suggested, but his head.  Thanks for the proof.

 

Rinaldo got suspended for less and with zero history his first suspension with the Flyers.  Now he's not a Flyer, and the rules are changed.

 

There is no conspiracy theory here, there is actual conspiracy evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, you really have not supported your "claim"

 

The hit was targeted at Couts head.   This by every definition should be a suspension.   He targeted the head while the puck was NOWHERE near the player getting hit.   I reiterate the puck was NOWHERE near Couts whent he hit took place - in fact it was behind him.   It was a cheap shot by a chickenshit player who has had a history of such play.   You can target the head w/out an elbow.

Here ya go murr. This is right after rinaldo decided to make the hit, and its also the exact moment couturier releases the puck. Looks pretty close to me. I know at NHL speed, it's a fraction of a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here ya go murr. This is right after rinaldo decided to make the hit, and its also the exact moment couturier releases the puck. Looks pretty close to me. I know at NHL speed, it's a fraction of a second.

 

Look at where the puck is in the stop motion - you dont even have to play the video to see it is behind him!   failed again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...