Podein25 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 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.Not exactly sure what I said, but I dont think I ever said that there wasnt contact with the head. I said he didnt elbow him and I also said that he didnt intend to hit the head. The one guy explained it the best. Remove the head and couturier would go down the same way. That means that he drove through the body. Couturier's head position just before impact lined him up to hit the shoulder pad.Thanks for trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 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... Yeah, the more I look at it the more I think it might be late enough to be interference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 This is right after rinaldo decided to make the hit And this is where the problem is. Rinaldo "decided to make the hit" regardless of where the puck was or what the player was doing. And he "decides" to make the hit twenty feet away ("distance traveled") from the player he's going to hit. Rinaldo wants to make the hit - he's not making a "hockey play" or "finishing a check" - he's making the hit for the sake of making the hit. That's the definition of reckless and it's why it is indisputably a penalty. 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. Why not? NHL "Player Safety" obviously made it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 He can assume that another player isn't going to deliberately commit a penalty. there were 66 hits registered in that game. that means there were 66 times a charging penalty could have correctly called. ANY hit that involves any kind of closing distance (so, hits where the two players begin the play side by side are fine, but what hit doesn't involve players moving?) that is deemed "violent" is a technical violation of the rules, and is subject to a charging call. the bare fact that a penalty was called on the ice by refs who saw the play at full game speed is unmoving. by that logic every time a puck carrier sees pressure, he shouldn't worry too much, because any resulting hit may be deemed illegal if the refs feel like calling it so. the puck carrier should still put his own safety high on the list of priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 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...Im not sure when it was invented, but video is a media that includes motion. Although the puck in the screenshot may appear to be behind him when Rinaldo is 5ft away, in that moment Rinaldo was already in motion going faster than being still, and the puck was actually just on the stick a millisecond before the screenshot. Also, they play on ice which is slippery which makes it more difficult to stop motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 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... that....isn't how it works. in that screengrab, couturier is the technical puck carrier, and is a legal target of a hit. he will continue to be the technical puck carrier until someone else controls the puck, or a reasonable amount of time has passed. the .2 seconds between that frame and contact is not a reasonable amount of time. this is not new or controversial. the term "finishing your check" is specifically about hitting the player in that exact situation. how flyers fans of all people are getting grumpy about this concept is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 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.It actually looks like the puck is only a couple millimeters behind him and the players are only 1.5cm tall. Wait, how did these people end up inside of this rectangular box in my hand??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 there were 66 hits registered in that game. that means there were 66 times a charging penalty could have correctly called. No, it really doesn't. There weren't 66 hits where a player charges twenty feet before impacting a player. Again, Rinaldo committed a penalty - which is something even the league agrees with. It's not Couturier's fault that Rinaldo committed a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 It's not Couturier's fault that Rinaldo committed a penalty. Well put. I hadn't thought of it like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The hockey play happening here is Couturier directing the puck up the boards. He is engaged with another player who is closer to him and is trying to stop that play....this is why 14's head is down. It's isn't "oh there's Zac Rinaldo I think I'll try to draw a penalty " it's more like " I want to get this puck past this player whose stick is in my skates"... this is the context in which i viewed the hit live and in subsequent viewings. the hit was unnecessary and i felt it was dirty . I'm okay with Zac not being suspended , he was penalized in the moment and i feel that was a correct call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 He is engaged with another player who is closer to him and is trying to stop that play....this is why 14's head is down. his head isn't down until he releases the puck. he looks at rinaldo, then at the puck in his skates, then tilts his head forward and turns to look past his shoulder to see what how the pass worked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I think the thing that sticks with me is that Rinaldo was given a 5 minute and a game misconduct, which generally denotes intent. I look at the hit and see both arguments for why he should/shouldn't have been suspended, but it's nonsensical to me that the league didn't suspend him, and also didn't rescind the match penalty. If it was a bad enough hit that the league felt the game misconduct was warranted, then a player, especially one with Rinaldo's history, deserves a suspension in that case. If they didn't feel it was suspension worthy, then they should have rescinded the penalty. Either would have been acceptable IMO. To do neither makes no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 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 think this is accurate. And I'm okay with no suspension based on this. It's the "he didn't hit his head" stuff that drives me nuts. That part is as clear as day. And yeah, I'm usually on board with the "you can't admire your pass!" sentiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerrod Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I just look forward to seeing Bergeron getting "Rinaldo'd" by Gudas the next time they play........... Ya know it's just good clean hockey....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 No, it really doesn't. There weren't 66 hits where a player charges twenty feet before impacting a player. of course there were. very few hits happen when players begin the play standing side by side. every single hit involves "distance traveled". every single hit is "violent" in some manner. every single hit is illegal, if the referees on the ice decide they didn't like it. it is a rule written intentionally broad and non-specific. to hang your hat on that catch-all alone.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 his head isn't down until he releases the puck. he looks at rinaldo, then at the puck in his skates, then tilts his head forward and turns to look past his shoulder to see what how the pass worked out. because he has no reason to think that Rinaldo will deliberately commit a penalty with an "unnecessary" hit. The "hockey play" for Rinaldo is to pursue the puck NOT recklessly charge Couturier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I'm usually on board with the "you can't admire your pass!" sentiment. Yeah, me too, although it has to be said, easier said than done. It's natural to want to know if your pass succeeded, especially there in the ice where, if it doesn't, it's coming back towards your net and you need to know that so you can get back to defend (here, note that the pass is to a D-man, MDV) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Well put. I hadn't thought of it like that. Obviously it was Lindros' fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I think the thing that sticks with me is that Rinaldo was given a 5 minute and a game misconduct, which generally denotes intent. I look at the hit and see both arguments for why he should/shouldn't have been suspended, but it's nonsensical to me that the league didn't suspend him, and also didn't rescind the match penalty. If it was a bad enough hit that the league felt the game misconduct was warranted, then a player, especially one with Rinaldo's history, deserves a suspension in that case. If they didn't feel it was suspension worthy, then they should have rescinded the penalty. Either would have been acceptable IMO. To do neither makes no sense to me. the match penalty is automatic with a major for charging when there is any contact with the head. the refs saw couturier hit the ice, saw contact with the head. the optics there convinced them in the moment to hand out the major (which, i'm fine with, they made the call as they saw it at game speed). from there, the match penalty was required to follow. from what i can tell, the league is saying the refs on the ice made a valid call from their perspective, but after reviewing the play in slow motion and from different angles, decided the outcome was not intentional and thus not suspension worthy. calls by the refs and decisions by the league happen under different circumstances. the league can respect the call made in a live-game environment, but opt against adding further punishment after careful review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedZep Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Former referee Paul Stewart thinks the league seriously blew it by not suspending Rinaldo. ...We are not talking about a reputation call here. We are talking about a clearly predatory, illegal and reckless action that seemed suspiciously close to being premeditated. This was the accused player's first game against his former team -- a classic motivating factor for trying to show the old team they made a mistake and show the new team they made the right decision -- and the time, place on the ice and opportunistic nature of the hit raises a red flag of being something the player was actively seeking to do.Even if causing injury was not the explicit goal, the utter recklessness of it and the fact that the NHL Rule Book explicitly states that reckless plays that could reasonably be expected to inflict injury are worthy of supplemental discipline should have made this one a no-brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 To me it is a penalty... the league will do whatever they want and they are wildly inconsistent in their determinations of incidents. With that being said if this same exact hit occurred w/ Rinaldo taking the hit and Gudas making the hit - you can bet your ass this is a suspension against the Flyers. I hope next game someone targets Rinaldo's head... sorry, he has had it coming for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 of course there were. very few hits happen when players begin the play standing side by side. every single hit involves "distance traveled". every single hit is "violent" in some manner. every single hit is illegal, if the referees on the ice decide they didn't like it. it is a rule written intentionally broad and non-specific. to hang your hat on that catch-all alone.... You honestly believe there were sixty six hits where players traveled 20 feet to hit the opposing player? That every hit in the game was that way? You're beyond the pale here. Absurd. Come on, now... To try to fob off the idea that every hit was like Rinaldo's on that play is simply ridiculous. Yes there is a lot of discretion here because hockey is a high contact sport. I am all for hard hitting hockey. I believe that the Stevens hit on Lindros was perfectly within the confines of the game, for example. I believe that Lindros put himself into a bad position and paid the price for it while carrying the puck. There was nothing "hockey" about Rinaldo's hit - a hit you yourself described as "unnecessary." Rinaldo decided to lay the hit before the puck got to Couturier and never considered whether Couturier still had the puck. It didn't matter to him. He was going to lay the hit and couldn't care less about playing the puck - or the actual game of hockey. It's exactly the reason he's no longer in Philadelphia. You want to say he shouldn't be suspended? Fine. No problem. I disagree for the reasons I stated - repeat offender chief among them. You want to say that there was no penalty and it was entirely Couturier's fault? That "every hit" could be called charging? That's nonsense. And you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 You want to say that there was no penalty and it was entirely Couturier's fault? That "every hit" could be called charging? That's nonsense. I don't know about nonsense, but it's sophistry. It could maybe be true in a theoretical sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 You honestly believe there were sixty six hits where players traveled 20 feet to hit the opposing player? That every hit in the game was that way? You're beyond the pale here. Absurd. Come on, now... To try to fob off the idea that every hit was like Rinaldo's on that play is simply ridiculous. Yes there is a lot of discretion here because hockey is a high contact sport. I am all for hard hitting hockey. I believe that the Stevens hit on Lindros was perfectly within the confines of the game, for example. I believe that Lindros put himself into a bad position and paid the price for it while carrying the puck. There was nothing "hockey" about Rinaldo's hit - a hit you yourself described as "unnecessary." Rinaldo decided to lay the hit before the puck got to Couturier and never considered whether Couturier still had the puck. It didn't matter to him. He was going to lay the hit and couldn't care less about playing the puck - or the actual game of hockey. It's exactly the reason he's no longer in Philadelphia. You want to say he shouldn't be suspended? Fine. No problem. I disagree for the reasons I stated - repeat offender chief among them. You want to say that there was no penalty and it was entirely Couturier's fault? That "every hit" could be called charging? That's nonsense. And you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.