B21 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Hey! You guys talking about the Rinaldo hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 And couturier winked at Rinaldo before he got hit...that was clear. Wow, so you saw that too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 It was Rinaldo, in the library, with a candlestick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter puck Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Alot can happen in .8 seconds like Rino changing course and pursuing the puck. If coots has plenty of time to decide to forget the guy hes engaged wtih and protect himself Rino also has time to see the pu k is going to an opposing player its time to change course and play some defense.After all he is gliding. Penalty, suspension whatever.It was a stupid play he took himself out of position just to make a big hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Here is my problem with the hit. I believe it is late, high and unnecessary. Look at Rinaldo's posture in this picture. His knees are bent and he is also bent at the waist. He is also 4 inches shorter than Coots. Coot posture also shows him with bent knees and waist. Now look at this picture at the moment of impact. Coots posture hasn't changed dramatically, he may be slightly more upright (less bent at the waist). Rinaldo, however, is exploding **UPWARD** and is not bent at the waist or knees. The initial contact is shoulder directly to the head. He had to knock the head out of the way to get to the body. It is very difficult to tell exactly when Coots released the puck from watching the video because of the angle. I think there was 1.8 seconds remaining on the clock when the puck was released. The check was delivered at 1.1 seconds remaining. That's 0.7 seconds after. I seem to remember that anything after half a second was was considered late. There is no difference between Rinaldo's hit on Coots and this Brent Seabrook hit on David Backes. Both are late. Both are high. Both are unnecessary. http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=715650 The NHL Department of Player Safety got it wrong. EDIT: For those of you saying Rinaldo was issued a Match penalty. He was not. He received a 5 minute major and a game misconduct. A Match penalty carries an automatic suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 so. you see zach rinaldo turn towards you 8-12 feet away while you are up against the boards with a player on your back...and you would have just said, "pft, who cares, i'm sure this will go just fine, i'm probably not about to get hit. it's just zach rinaldo, renowned for letting up on hits all the time"? in this context yes. the puck is gone the buzzer is about to sound...he's occupied by McQuaid's attempt to actually check him in the context of the hockey play and McQuaid's skate in proximity to his skate could easily become an unintentional slew foot situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 i know. i'm just still shaken up that a hockey player hit someone for the sake of hitting. unprecedented. I'm glad it's hockey season and that you're active here again. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I always felt that you knew charging when you saw it, and often that is the case, but this hit makes me question that. It's right on the bubble. For charging and interference. So do you think it's charging? Charging: Nope. Not even close.Interference: Maybe. It's borderline.This isn't the first time a ref has blown a call. I firmly believe that the refs call many of their penalties based on crowd reaction and the end result of a situation, not the actual cause. We all looked at the video multiple times to see what happened. No ref can do that in the heat of the moment. All they see is a big hit, a player injured, and the crowd cheering or booing. Then they see players running around looking for revenge. They automatically call a penalty because they feel like they have to. The NHL's "game management" criteria forces the refs to call penalties and eject players simply to prevent brawls. If this were 10 years ago, here is what would have happened:No penalty would be called.Fighters would come out next shift.Two heavyweights would drop the gloves and square off.Game would settle down and continue as normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I totally missed this view. It looks like the elbow was up...and rinaldo had his glove off...and his hand is really tiny. It also looks like couturier is sad. PLEASE make that your new avatar photo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I don't think that one can say if blood is drawn that there is a referee that would say there is "no injury" in his opinion. True, but they seem to use the presence of blood to determine whether a high-sticking penalty is 2 minutes or 4, since it always causes an injury of some sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 in this context yes. the puck is gone the buzzer is about to sound...he's occupied by McQuaid's attempt to actually check him in the context of the hockey play and McQuaid's skate in proximity to his skate could easily become an unintentional slew foot situation.Zach freaking Rinaldo. Do you keep your head up, or decide there is nothing to worry about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 Who knew we would spend 161 responses over 11 pages on Zach...and he is not even a Flyer anymore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 Who knew we would spend 161 responses over 11 pages on Zach...and he is not even a Flyer anymore! I just hope Zac runs wild and takes out some star players on other teams in the Eastern conference and gets nothing done to him. It's all i want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 “I probably could have continued toward where the puck went instead of hitting him,” Rinaldo said. http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/10/23/bruins-zac-rinaldo-relieved-avoid-discipline/L4gL24Swa9opJ6GpKndW6M/story.html Yeah Zac, you could have. If you were a real hockey player. smh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 Yeah Zac, you could have. If you were a real hockey player. But he wanted to be talked about....without that hit he isn't relevant....he got what he wanted his face in the news/a 11 page thread on a hockey chat room...otherwise he is an afterthought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeDDS Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 NHL Player Safety on this hit: "while we support the call made by the official on the ice" - which was a charging major and game misconduct - "this is not charging."You can't make this stuff up. While I COMPLETELY agree that THE stupidest rule in hockey is the rule that defines "charging" using the term "charges," you ARE taking "this is not charging" out of context. It is critical to understand that that statement in the DPS video is preceded by "For the purposes of supplemental discipline," and that makes this statement VERY different. It allows them to correctly support a call made of charging on the ice without deeming the charge to be worthy of supplemental discipline. He does NOT say outright that this is not a charge in the video if you listen carefully from start to finish. They worded their comments in this vid VERY carefully.And part of the reason for that is the vagueness used in defining it can then be twisted into whatever definition the one enforcing it wants to use, which is not good for the game. "Ref how is that a charge?" "Duh! It's a charge because he charged the player, otherwise I wouldn't have called a charge!"The NHL should work to properly define what a "charge" is and what specifically differentiates it from a clean hockey hit such that those who enforce the rules can be held accountable for HOW they enforce the rules. That is why rule books are written down.Ultimately, I agree with the league's call on this. I'm not sure I would call it a "charge" myself, but I would support a ref who, in the split-second they had to evaluate a hit like this, might call it one. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the rule book to specifically denote this as "not a charge," which means I can't support my position using the book any more than someone with the opposing viewpoint can use the book to show how the hit wasn't a clean hockey hit any more than any other hit can either. Thus, these are arguments which come down to how the rules have been enforced in the past, which has been both variable, and which can also be misinterpreted by the viewer to support their own viewpoints. Fodder for forums like this one, which is why this thread is on page 10...uh, now 12 apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NRH Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 "Charging is a penalty in ice hockey. Rule 42 of the NHL rulebook dictates that charging "shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper 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."[1] The infraction may warrant any severity of penalty or combination of penalties as the officials deem fit, including a major plus a game misconduct, or suspension if the infraction results in injury to the opposing player. Any player who leaves their feet while delivering a body check is also found to be in violation of the charging rule and is subject to penalization." It seems that they didn't call it that because he wasn't originally skating towards the play to make the hit but to get the puck.(debatable since it is rinaldo.) I only ever see 1 skate leave the ground during the hit as well and that's after delivering the hit itself. He should still be suspended but mostly because he struck a player in the head (his shoulder clearly contacts Coots in the chin which is why it rung his bell) even if the hit was mostly into his chest. It seems the league doesn't care about this however since coots isn't dealing with a concussion or any lost game time other than the same game they removed rinaldo from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedZep Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 It seems the league doesn't care about this however since coots isn't dealing with a concussion or any lost game time other than the same game they removed rinaldo from. I think I smell sarcasm... because Couturier was out for the Rangers game and looks to be out for the Sabres game as well. i am always amazed by how 2 people can watch the same thing and have completely different views of what happened. Well, you have two people, aziz and the director of player "safety" (noted bias against the Flyers) vs. the rest of the hockey world including the former referees Paul Stewart, Kerry Fraser, and other such luminaries. On the former side is blind opinion, on the latter, reason. Kind of like the people that think climate change isn't a thing vs. science and facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Bump What?! 12 pages is not nearly enough for this topic. Slow day at work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Bump What?! 12 pages is not nearly enough for this topic. Slow day at work... Fuel stabilizer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Fuel stabilizer LOL. Its already comic gold. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.