yave1964 Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 Ryan Reaves destroyed Matt Tennyson last night. A couple of nights ago Leo Komarov killed Ryan McDonough. Boarding or targeting the head is becoming more and more prevelant all the time. If the league wants to get rid of the problem, here is my two part solution. 1) If a player is suspended for a dirty hit, the team cannot replace him on their roster. 2) his salary still counts against the cap as well. To many teams losing a Ryan Reaves or a Tanner Glass is addition by subtraction, they go out and lumber up to an unsuspecting player and simply crush them, get a phone call the next day and are informed of taking the next two games off. It is no big deal, a lot of these guys who get these suspension spend a lot of time in the pressbox watching the game anyway. The team plugs in their 13th forward or 7th d-man and go about their business. Imagine what would hapen if Hitchcock was informed that Ryan Reaves is suspended 3 games and he has to adjust his roster accordingly. Not plug in Jaskin or whoever in his place but play a man, seventeen skaters for the next three games. How much love would Reaves feel when he returned to the team, both from his coach and his mates? It makes sense to me, undoubtedly the players association would never in a million years allow it but I really think it would cut down the boarding and elbow to the face plays drastically.
BluPuk Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 I agree @yave1964. I would also like to see in these cases, the length of the suspension should match the victim's abscence from the team. If the victim loses 20 games, so should the offender. Doubt the NHLPA would go for that, but both the victim and offender belong to them.
MadDevil Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 I'm not sure I agree with that last part. I think you need to focus more on intent than result. Say a player viciously hits another player from behind, but the player being hit only misses a couple of games. Now say another player gives a little shove from behind and the player goes awkwardly into the boards and misses 4 months. Is the second incident worth a longer suspension because the result was worse, or is the first one worse because of the intent?
AJgoal Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 50 minutes ago, yave1964 said: Ryan Reaves destroyed Matt Tennyson last night. A couple of nights ago Leo Komarov killed Ryan McDonough. Boarding or targeting the head is becoming more and more prevelant all the time. If the league wants to get rid of the problem, here is my two part solution. 1) If a player is suspended for a dirty hit, the team cannot replace him on their roster. 2) his salary still counts against the cap as well. To many teams losing a Ryan Reaves or a Tanner Glass is addition by subtraction, they go out and lumber up to an unsuspecting player and simply crush them, get a phone call the next day and are informed of taking the next two games off. It is no big deal, a lot of these guys who get these suspension spend a lot of time in the pressbox watching the game anyway. The team plugs in their 13th forward or 7th d-man and go about their business. Imagine what would hapen if Hitchcock was informed that Ryan Reaves is suspended 3 games and he has to adjust his roster accordingly. Not plug in Jaskin or whoever in his place but play a man, seventeen skaters for the next three games. How much love would Reaves feel when he returned to the team, both from his coach and his mates? It makes sense to me, undoubtedly the players association would never in a million years allow it but I really think it would cut down the boarding and elbow to the face plays drastically. I'm pretty sure at least the bolded is the case - it's part of the problem the Kings had last season with replacing Voynov, they couldn't recall anyone to fill his spot because of the cap. In addition, the player has to be on the active roster for the games to count (ie, he can't be in the AHL). I don't think you get an extra roster spot over 23 as if the player was placed on IR.
flyer4ever Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 If you did what Reaves and Komarov did on the street or in a bar you would go to jail. I really don't understand the NHL not taking these malicious brain injury assaults more seriously and start suspending players big number of games. I also don't understand the players associations deafening silence on this issue, watching so called brothers in arms trying to hurt each other. I'm not being girlish here, I played junior hockey in Ontario 35 years ago and suffered my share of concussions. I am getting more and more disgusted at the leagues reluctance. 40 years ago we didn't wear seatbelts or have smoke detectors either, but now we do. Now we have the knowledge about what these head injuries are all about. I don't give a **** about lawyers and litigation, as the little turd Bettman does, this is about quality of life after retirement. Enough already.
yave1964 Posted February 23, 2016 Author Posted February 23, 2016 5 hours ago, AJgoal said: I'm pretty sure at least the bolded is the case - it's part of the problem the Kings had last season with replacing Voynov, they couldn't recall anyone to fill his spot because of the cap. In addition, the player has to be on the active roster for the games to count (ie, he can't be in the AHL). I don't think you get an extra roster spot over 23 as if the player was placed on IR. Voynov was treated as a special case, usually when a player is suspended his salary stops while he is suspended as well. Voynov was suspended with pay which is why the salary counted against the cap. I am typing this and starting to doubt myself, but that is how I have always understood it. If the salary still counted against the cap, teams that lose a cheapie player like a Reaves who are up against the cap might be unable to recall anyone anyway which is fair. Punish the team as well as the player and this will clear up in no time.
AJgoal Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 Well, currently, General Fanager has Leo Komarov counting against the Leafs' cap. Not that that's official, but I've never seen anything that indicates it's not the case.
yave1964 Posted February 23, 2016 Author Posted February 23, 2016 1 hour ago, AJgoal said: Well, currently, General Fanager has Leo Komarov counting against the Leafs' cap. Not that that's official, but I've never seen anything that indicates it's not the case. DURING THE SEASON: Players assigned to the minors – even if on one-way contracts – do not count (as long as they are not on conditioning assignments) as well as players signed to a contract that are in Major Junior hockey (CHL) or overseas (Europe). Players suspended by either the team or the NHL will not count for the duration of the suspension as long as the player is not receiving his salary; however, teams must keep enough payroll space available to be able to accept the player should his suspension end immediately. This comes from an article in Hockey Writers that talks about ways that teams circumvent the cap. http://thehockeywriters.com/8-ways-to-legally-circumvent-the-nhl-salary-cap/
DaGreatGazoo Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 One potential problem with this theory; the complete arbitrary nature of what's called a penalty and what isn't. Players, fans, coaches are up in arms now with questionable calls/non calls. Imagine if a lousy calls leads to a player's suspension under this theory...say in March during a playoff push. I don't disagree with the premise, and understand where you are coming from though.
aziz Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 10 hours ago, yave1964 said: How much love would Reaves feel when he returned to the team, both from his coach and his mates? It makes sense to me, undoubtedly the players association would never in a million years allow it but I really think it would cut down the boarding and elbow to the face plays drastically. only if players adopting the tennyson position were also penalized harshly. this is my personal ax to grind, but your comment about these things increasing is true. and it is true because players are increasingly putting themselves in these horrifically vulnerable positions. tennyson gets to the puck, comes to an almost full stop, executes a fully-in-control backhand shovel pass, and then waits, facing the boards. like he feels that he is under zero threat from contact. back in the day, when no player pulled up one iota on a check just because the other player wasn't ready for it or was in a bad spot, no dman in north america would have played that puck in that way. 20 years ago, the dman continues his motion around the net, gets a solid wack at the puck as he passes -but only a wack- and then absorbs the anticipated contact into his side as he keeps himself moving parallel to the boards. makes a somewhat less cleanly executed play and puts himself at very little personal risk, because he doesn't doubt for a second that he about to get hit. if tennyson does that, the contact is completely unremarkable, and both players come from behind the net and keep playing. if you do what you are talking about, dropped absolute hammers on guys that lay hits like reaves does on this one, you will reassure the tennyson's of the league to play this kind of "my safety is in your hands, forechecker, and i trust you will not hurt me, so i will take my time and make a perfect play, safe in the knowledge i am in no danger due to how i have failed utterly to protect myself" game. and while you will certainly reduce the number of guys willing to go into corners and play physically (like that is something to hope for), the comparatively rare times someone does decide to play hockey as though it were a contact sport will result in brutal injuries, as players feel less and less in danger minute to minute, and thus escalate the refusal to keep their own safety in mind. because they are being told their safety is not their responsibility, it is their opponents. this very hit is a result of a decade's worth of attempts at this very assurance. this hit doesn't happen 20 years ago because the defender doesn't let it, and it was entirely in tennyson's power to make that decision. these things frustrate me so much, because the only aspect of this play that makes it bad is tennyson's positioning. the hit wasn't late, it wasn't particularly high, he led with his shoulder, didn't leave his skates, his speed wasn't measured in mach numbers. it was 100% how tennyson decided to make that play. from reaves position, he had a dman in his sights going for a loose puck behind the boards, he pressures aggressively hoping to force a hasty and off target pass as any forechecker should, closes for the hit....and then tennyson stops. stops and turns to face the boards. hangs out the "don't hit me, please" sign. and bad things happen. do we want that? do we want to encourage that? players being allowed to "fair catch" pucks along the boards by putting themselves at significant risk of injury? that's what is happening. a defenseman turning his back to a forechecker has become a valid defensive measure. feel pressure behind you, and want an extra couple of moments to make a really clean play? turn your back and face the boards, the forechecker will have no choice but to peel off and give you the space you want. is that how we want this game to develop? to all the hundreds of professional hockey players that lurk this board: stop it. play every second you are on the ice like someone is out to hurt you. assume at all times that someone has you in their crosshairs, and one instant of forgetting that could erase ages 5-15 from your memory, along with long division and how to drive a manual transmission. NEVER put your safety in your opponents' hands, ALWAYS keep yourself aware of threats and treat them as such. if players were to do that, always, these things stop happening. or at least would be limited to the chris simon's of the world who actually are trying to hurt people more than they are trying to play hockey. reaves did not appear to be that, he was forechecking. and now he is sitting because tennyson thought he was not a legitimate target for a check. after having played the puck behind his net a split second prior. encourage that, and you have a mess.
yave1964 Posted February 23, 2016 Author Posted February 23, 2016 10 minutes ago, aziz said: only if players adopting the tennyson position were also penalized harshly. this is my personal ax to grind, but your comment about these things increasing is true. and it is true because players are increasingly putting themselves in these horrifically vulnerable positions. tennyson gets to the puck, comes to an almost full stop, executes a fully-in-control backhand shovel pass, and then waits, facing the boards. like he feels that he is under zero threat from contact. back in the day, when no player pulled up one iota on a check just because the other player wasn't ready for it or was in a bad spot, no dman in north america would have played that puck in that way. 20 years ago, the dman continues his motion around the net, gets a solid wack at the puck as he passes -but only a wack- and then absorbs the anticipated contact into his side as he keeps himself moving parallel to the boards. makes a somewhat less cleanly executed play and puts himself at very little personal risk, because he doesn't doubt for a second that he about to get hit. if tennyson does that, the contact is completely unremarkable, and both players come from behind the net and keep playing. I have no problem with putting a certain culpability on Tennyson as well, watching the video multiple times I thought that he left himself in position to get destroyed. Like you said, 20 years ago, Hell, more like 10 years ago even that would never have happened. The game has changed to where if you lay a pinkie on a player it will be reviewed 10 ways from Sunday by the lords of discipline and it makes players less afraid of being hit, basically, if you hit me the league might suspend you so don't you dare seems to be the prevelant attitude. And again Aziz, my own personal soap box I blame a lot of it on the instigator rule and on zero accountability on the ice. I brought up before the Simmonds situation, bad blood from one game spilled over into trash talk by Tanner glass and the next time they met Simmonds fought a few seconds in, followed by Ryan White taking on Tanner Glass. End of story, that is the way it has been dealt with forever, it was perfect, and they went on to play a fun, hard hitting but clean spirited Hockey game. It was refreshing, that is what fighting is for. So lets say that Reaves runs Tennyson, knocking him out cold and Nieto or Tierney or whoever the Hell decides to take exception to Reaves after he serves 4 minutes, and they have a fight, the Sharks make a statement that they will protect their own. That is how the game is supposed to be dealt with, policing their own on the ice, not this ridiculous weekly 'oooh he is going to get a call from New York for that one' that has taken over the game. Agreed Aziz with much if not most of what you wrote. But you know what they say about great minds, lol.
aziz Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 1 hour ago, yave1964 said: And again Aziz, my own personal soap box I blame a lot of it on the instigator rule and on zero accountability on the ice. I brought up before the Simmonds situation, bad blood from one game spilled over into trash talk by Tanner glass and the next time they met Simmonds fought a few seconds in, followed by Ryan White taking on Tanner Glass. End of story, that is the way it has been dealt with forever, it was perfect, and they went on to play a fun, hard hitting but clean spirited Hockey game. It was refreshing, that is what fighting is for. i get what you are saying, and i agree fighting has a place in the game, but....i don't think they are related things, really. ok, so, retribution on reaves is marginally restricted by the threat of a 2 minute minor. that has nothing to do with how tennyson decided to make that play. you are saying reaves' desicion making is different now than it was 10, 20 years ago, because he has less fear of getting into a fight afterwards. i'm saying that reaves' desicion making is exactly the same now as it was 10, 20 years ago -forecheck aggressively and finish your check- but tennyson's is entirely different. tennyson did a thing that OMG would have gotten him lit up in the old days. would have gotten him lit up, and everyone would have said, "good freaking lord, eh, what the eff were you thinking, you're gonna get killed out there". the idea that reaves had somehow crossed a line by rubbing out D1 deep in the zone immediately after D1 had played the puck.....that's new. even the idea that it somehow deserved some kind of retaliation.... again, that play turned out the way it did because tennyson did an amazingly stupid thing. like, race-car-driver-turning-sideways-so-no-one-can-pass-him stupid. the current rules say that from there, it is on reaves to recognize the stupid thing tennyson has done -and done in the name of making a better play than had he hurried and protected himself- and pull up. tennyson was being very careful with how he distributed that puck, and so reaves needs to allow him the time to do that and not punish him for the decision. he failed, and is thus suspended. and this thread is suggesting the league up it from there, that teams should lose roster spots because of what reaves did. which happened because of what tennyson did. which happened because people keep talking about making insane rules designed to encourage exactly what tennyson did. whether or not reaves had to fight a guy after has nothing at all to do with it. forecheckers of every era make that play. only defensemen of this specific era make the play tennyson did. that is the thing that has changed. the instigator rule has not a lick to do with it. edit: sorry, don't know if he is suspended or not.
flyer4ever Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 All these issues in this discussion (Tennyson being culpable, cap hit, roster spot, CBA) are parts of the conversation that must be included going forward. Respectfully, you are all missing the point. They are opinions , not fact. The one fact in the conversation is the brain trauma. Broken bones heal, knees and hips and shoulders get replaced, but a brain injury is FOREVER. When are people going to get that. FOREVER. There is no recovery. you only feel better. The trauma is FOREVER. That is the singular issue here. Not the cap hit. Not the roster spot. Living life after retirement, having a family, getting up each day and going outside, charity work. All these daily functions you take for granted are permanently compromised every time you suffer a concussion. When is the NHL going to get that? Probably never.
aziz Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 11 hours ago, flyer4ever said: All these daily functions you take for granted are permanently compromised every time you suffer a concussion. When is the NHL going to get that? Probably never. i'm not sure what you are getting at, here. yes, concussions are bad things. what is it you want to see the league do, what would represent "getting it"? are you saying that all possible steps to reduce concussions should be taken? what are you willing to compromise to that end? you really could make hockey a "safe" sport, if you wanted, but it would look very different than it is today. could move to a foam rubber puck with a weighted core, could implement a no-sticks-above-the-waist rule, could make all non-incidental contact illegal, could make full face shields mandatory. heck, could work towards having the game be played by drones controlled by "players" that spend the entire game in street clothes in the lockerroom. so, like i said, i'm not sure what, specifically, you are saying. can you elaborate on what it would mean for the league to "get it"?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.