Weise Suspended 3 games

[pilldoc]

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/sports/flyers/Flyers-Dale-Weise-suspended-three-games.html

 

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-flyers-dale-weise-was-suspended-three-games-for-holzer-hit-220943665.html

 

watch the video associated with the article.  Kind of agree, Weise left his feet and hit Holzer in the head area with either his shoulder or arm.

Bad move by Weise.....

 

[ruxpin]

I like the explanation.  I think the 3 games is appropriate, especially given that he's a repeat offender.

 

 

[hf101]

I think the department of player safety hates the  .

 

 

 

[ruxpin]

1 minute ago, hf101 said:

I think the department of player safety hates the  .

 

 

 

 

OrangeJulius, get off of HF's computer.

[hf101]

3 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

OrangeJulius, get off of HF's computer.

 

 

lol, name another team that has had 3 suspensions to start the season?   12 games thus far, incredible.

 

 

[ruxpin]

Just now, hf101 said:

 

lol, name another team that has had 3 suspensions to start the season?   12 games thus far, incredible.

 

 

 

They just hate the ugly sweaters.

[Howie58]

Does the league hate the Flyers or do the Flyers draft and trade for players with a penchant to let physicality get out of hand?

[ruxpin]

8 hours ago, Howie58 said:

Does the league hate the Flyers or do the Flyers draft and trade for players with a penchant to let physicality get out of hand?

That's the thing.  I mean, the answer to @hf101 's question "what other team...."  is "no one." 

 

But whose fault is that?   Because looked at individually, each suspension was arguably justified.   I'm guessing he third was Schenn. Memory is foggy, but I don't remember having a problem with his suspension. 

 

The hit Gudas actually got suspended on was "Meh," but he was starting to repeatedly have things looked at.  Sit down  son, and think about your game. 

 

Weise hit was just dirty, dumb, or both. 

 

The fact is, both Weise and Gudas are repeat offenders. 

 

So, I don't think this is about the league not liking the Flyers or their ugly jerseys.   This is about a rash of asinine behavior by people with a history of it. 

[AJgoal]

Just now, Howie58 said:

Does the league hate the Flyers or do the Flyers draft and trade for players with a penchant to let physicality get out of hand?

 

Just now, ruxpin said:

The fact is, both Weise and Gudas are repeat offenders. 

 

So, I don't think this is about the league not liking the Flyers or their ugly jerseys.   This is about a rash of asinine behavior by people with a history of it. 

 

That's the thing. I'd be fine with all three suspensions (even though I disagreed with the Schenn and Gudas ones) if they were the standard. But the DoPS is so maddeningly inconsistent. Here's two plays from the first week of the season:

 

 

 

Both are ridiculously dirty. Virtanen didn't have a hearing. Shaw had to attend a meeting so the NHL could tell him that slew-footing is bad, mm-kay, but he also didn't have a hearing. Virtanen was suspended last March. Shaw was suspended this preseason, so both are repeat offenders doing dumb, dirty things. The league even acknowledged in a way that Shaw was being dirty. But nothing. I tend to believe (and say) that it's just incompetence and inconsistency from the DoPS, but sometimes it gets really hard to argue against people saying that the jersey doesn't factor in somehow.

[pilldoc]

@AJgoal

 

That's just the thing and I agree.  I don't mind the suspensions / fines / etc....  It is the inconsistency of the League and the Player Safety committee handing out these suspensions which is frustrating and maddening. (Bolded for emphasis)

 

 An illegal hit for Player A gets suspended and yet the exact same hit for Player B gets a slap on the wrist.  This is were fans get upset and I totally get it.   And I totally understand that the fans perception of the color of the jersey influences these decisions.  That may or may not be true, but again I do understand their frustration.  Just look on this forum and the suspensions over the years against various players and that is a common theme we have seen posted over and over.  Again...not necessarily correct, but the perception is out there.  In fairness, the Flyers have had players over the years who made many of stupid hits and for the most part they deserved what they got. 

 

 

 

 

[ruxpin]

6 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

@AJgoal

 

That's just the thing and I agree.  I don't mind the suspensions / fines / etc....  It is the inconsistency of the League and the Player Safety committee handing out these suspensions which is frustrating and maddening. (Bolded for emphasis)

 

 An illegal hit for Player A gets suspended and yet the exact same hit for Player B gets a slap on the wrist.  This is were fans get upset and I totally get it.   And I totally understand that the fans perception of the color of the jersey influences these decisions.  That may or may not be true, but again I do understand their frustration.  Just look on this forum and the suspensions over the years against various players and that is a common theme we have seen posted over and over.  Again...not necessarily correct, but the perception is out there.  In fairness, the Flyers have had players over the years who made many of stupid hits and for the most part they deserved what they got. 

 

 

 

 

I agree. 

 

And with @AJgoal

 

But my biggest problem with the inconsistency is that it's counter productive to their stated aim of player safety.   If a play or behavior is met with discipline only a percentage of the time,  players are more likely to say "screw it"  and risk it. 

 

And you end up with players hurt.  It doesn't have to be 100% (things get missed sometimes)  but it has to be high enough that in the player's mind is "if I do X, there's a high chance I'm getting suspended." 

 

And then a consistent graduating scale for severity and repetition.   

 

The roulette wheel they seem to be using isn't very effective if the aim really is player safety. 

[pilldoc]

4 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

But my biggest problem with the inconsistency is that it's counter productive to their stated aim of player safety.   If a play or behavior is met with discipline only a percentage of the time,  players are more likely to say "screw it"  and risk it. 

 

Great point!  Did not think of that.  It totally makes sense too.  I think too that the players themselves will get confused to what they think is legal vs illegal.  If in Game #1 they make a hit and nothing is done, then they assume it is ok.  However, if in Game #4 they make the exact same hit on a player as in Game #1 and they get suspended for it, then as a player I would be confused to what is really legal.  It could possible change the way a player plays they game.  From playing on and edge to being to timid.

 

Great point!

[AJgoal]

Just now, ruxpin said:

And you end up with players hurt.  It doesn't have to be 100% (things get missed sometimes)  but it has to be high enough that in the player's mind is "if I do X, there's a high chance I'm getting suspended." 

 

And then a consistent graduating scale for severity and repetition.   

 

The roulette wheel they seem to be using isn't very effective if the aim really is player safety. 

 

Exactly. You have hits like the Gudas and Schenn hits:

 

 

 

Were pretty borderline. In the two examples above, both by repeat offenders, there's no mistaking the intent, there. If the goal really is player safety, there'd be a statement, via suspension, that those sorts of plays are unquestionably unacceptable. 

 

Compare the Gudas hit to the Rinaldo hit on Couturier last season:

 

 

Really, the only difference I can see is a scale of maybe a couple fractions of a second. Couturier gets hit 0.7, 0.8 seconds after he moves the puck. Gudas' hit was maybe a full second late. Both were late by previous standards laid out in other suspensions. Both caught the chest up into the head. Both players hit were concussed. Both hitters were repeat offenders. Rinaldo no suspension, Gudas six games. Nobody is going to know what's a good hit if that sort of thing keeps happening. And injuries will continue to occur because you haven't unequivocally said, "This hit is bad."

[canoli]

wow. that Virtanen hit pretty much defines "dirty" - intentionally shoving a guy's head into the boards. What makes it worse is the official #28 is staring right at the play. And nothing. No hearing, no meeting, not even a roughing minor.

 

the "roulette wheel" is obviously stuck on stupid. No suspension for Virtanen for that but Gudas gets six games for a hit that, not so long ago was just a routine hockey play.

[flyerrod]

If it wasn't for Bullies like Danny Briere, maybe the Flyers get a fairer shake when it comes to suspensions. The suspension for Schenn was a joke. It was not even worth a 2 minute penalty.  Gudas earned his suspension(maybe not 6 games worth) and Weise did too. There would be a lot less heartburn if the DOPeS and the NHL were fair across the board. They just simply are not.

[murraycraven]

On 10/22/2016 at 8:01 AM, ruxpin said:

So, I don't think this is about the league not liking the Flyers or their ugly jerseys.   This is about a rash of asinine behavior by people with a history of it. 

 

Stop being so logical @ruxpin

 

There is a population of Flyers fans that will always cry over every bad call and every hit that warrants a suspension.   Surely, the league has it out for only the Flyers organization.  Since Pronger joined the DOPS we have been treated unfairly...    he certainly has a gripe against the Flyers.

 

All joking aside we have 2 suspensions out of the 5 given  by the league.  Both our players were repeat offenders - Weisse was a bad hit and Gudas has been playing with fire for a long time so eventually the league will make the call for a suspension.   IMO, it is simple as that...

[SpikeDDS]

On 10/22/2016 at 9:06 AM, AJgoal said:

 

Exactly. You have hits like the Gudas and Schenn hits:

 

 

 

Were pretty borderline. In the two examples above, both by repeat offenders, there's no mistaking the intent, there. If the goal really is player safety, there'd be a statement, via suspension, that those sorts of plays are unquestionably unacceptable. 

 

Compare the Gudas hit to the Rinaldo hit on Couturier last season:

 

 

Really, the only difference I can see is a scale of maybe a couple fractions of a second. Couturier gets hit 0.7, 0.8 seconds after he moves the puck. Gudas' hit was maybe a full second late. Both were late by previous standards laid out in other suspensions. Both caught the chest up into the head. Both players hit were concussed. Both hitters were repeat offenders. Rinaldo no suspension, Gudas six games. Nobody is going to know what's a good hit if that sort of thing keeps happening. And injuries will continue to occur because you haven't unequivocally said, "This hit is bad."

I've got no skin in the game for either player, but I agree with the DPS on not giving Rinaldo discipline, and I agree that Gudas deserved what he got. Rinaldo skated into the player and it wasn't .7 seconds after the player touched the puck. It was more like .4 seconds, certainly within the allowance of being able to finish the check. He skates into him, and yes the head was the initial point of contact, but it wasn't "targeting the head." I've used the illustration before, but my definition of targeting seems very consistent with the DPS's and that is that if you were to remove the head and the neck from the body of the checked player, if there would still have been a significant body check, then it WAS a body check and the head just happened to be in the way, be it head down or whatever. If the body would have been essentially missed, that is targeting the head, and should be disciplined. So the Rinaldo hit was neither charging, late, nor targeting the head.

 

I believe the Gudas hit was disciplined primarily because he left his feet. That is why the head was the principle point of contact. If the skates had stayed on the ice, it would not have been so traumatic to the head and I would say it wasn't necessarily targeting of the head. That it was, ALONE, should be disciplined. But it also was a good bit later than the Rinaldo hit. In my opinion, it was "beyond the line" of being allowed to finish the check. So it was a late hit AND it was a charge which targeted the head. Three infractions on one hit. For a repeat offender like Gudas, 6 games is very fair.

 

Again, I have no bias here, and I agree that there ARE numerous times when the DPS is inconsistent with their calls, and that it creates a situation where people are going to get injured more than if they did things consistently. But this, IMHO, is NOT a good example of that inconsistency. I think you may be seeing things through orange and black tinted glasses because you WANT it to be a certain way.

[philaphansrefugee]

On 10/22/2016 at 8:10 AM, AJgoal said:

 

 

That's the thing. I'd be fine with all three suspensions (even though I disagreed with the Schenn and Gudas ones) if they were the standard. But the DoPS is so maddeningly inconsistent. Here's two plays from the first week of the season:

 

 

 

Both are ridiculously dirty. Virtanen didn't have a hearing. Shaw had to attend a meeting so the NHL could tell him that slew-footing is bad, mm-kay, but he also didn't have a hearing. Virtanen was suspended last March. Shaw was suspended this preseason, so both are repeat offenders doing dumb, dirty things. The league even acknowledged in a way that Shaw was being dirty. But nothing. I tend to believe (and say) that it's just incompetence and inconsistency from the DoPS, but sometimes it gets really hard to argue against people saying that the jersey doesn't factor in somehow.

 

 

Wow. Virtanen "hit" (really a shove with the hand) is terrible. You have to wonder what the Hurricanes did. Did they complain to the league? Send a tape? Vertanen is looking at the official while he does it to make sure he's not being watched.

[philaphansrefugee]

I don't think players should be allowed to leave their feet to make any checks. 

[AJgoal]

On ‎10‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 1:47 PM, SpikeDDS said:

Again, I have no bias here, and I agree that there ARE numerous times when the DPS is inconsistent with their calls, and that it creates a situation where people are going to get injured more than if they did things consistently. But this, IMHO, is NOT a good example of that inconsistency. I think you may be seeing things through orange and black tinted glasses because you WANT it to be a certain way.

 

Timing is tough on the Rinaldo hit, but I did math based on the OH view where the clock was actually shown to come up with my number. I said at the time that I didn't believe the hit was suspendable. Rinaldo does come off his feet in the video above. I'm sure Gudas does as well, but I have a tough time seeing when that happens from the angles - the best one for that determination is looking through Czirnas and another player.

 

And I'm sure there is some orange-coloring as I look at these things, but it's more likely "hit-coloring" I like hitting in hockey. I think they're really screwing with it in some respects. The reason I use examples on/against Flyers is they're ones I've seen live and have had a vested interest in whether a player is suspended or not.

 

Here's another one to compare to Gudas/Schenn/Rinaldo:

 

 

In this case, I think it's fairly obvious that he leaves his feet prior to the hit. Hit is high, though I admittedly can't see from the angles provided whether the head is a primary or secondary point of contact. Repeat offender. No hearing. I just want a line that stays in the same place for every player, and all the league seems to do is blur it.

[SpikeDDS]

1 hour ago, AJgoal said:

 

Timing is tough on the Rinaldo hit, but I did math based on the OH view where the clock was actually shown to come up with my number. I said at the time that I didn't believe the hit was suspendable. Rinaldo does come off his feet in the video above. I'm sure Gudas does as well, but I have a tough time seeing when that happens from the angles - the best one for that determination is looking through Czirnas and another player.

 

And I'm sure there is some orange-coloring as I look at these things, but it's more likely "hit-coloring" I like hitting in hockey. I think they're really screwing with it in some respects. The reason I use examples on/against Flyers is they're ones I've seen live and have had a vested interest in whether a player is suspended or not.

 

Here's another one to compare to Gudas/Schenn/Rinaldo:

 

 

In this case, I think it's fairly obvious that he leaves his feet prior to the hit. Hit is high, though I admittedly can't see from the angles provided whether the head is a primary or secondary point of contact. Repeat offender. No hearing. I just want a line that stays in the same place for every player, and all the league seems to do is blur it.

 

See, I like hits too, and I don't see Kulikov leaving his feet until AFTER the initial contact. One foot does, but not the other one. And this is one of those head shots that is only a head shot because Voracek's head is down and/or he is looking in the direction of where he sent the puck AND Kulikov's shoulder is actually at the height of Voracek's head (particularly when it is down).

 

Again, my rule for "targeting the head" is if you removed the head and neck from the victim's body, would there still have been a significant body check. If the answer is "yes," then that is not targeting the head. The body was targeted, and the head was just in the way. If the check would have been mostly a "miss" without the head/neck being there, THAT is targeting the head. That's how "principle point of contact" seems to be interpreted by the DPS, and I agree with that interpretation.

 

In my view, this is a legal, but brutal, hit. Apparently, Voracek hasn't learned his lesson since he got Kronwalled years ago while keeping his head down. This stroll down memory lane is brought to you in part by @yave1964. ;-D

 

 

This hit was similar in how the body was struck except in its force--far less than the Kronwall hit, and thus the injury was far less--and the fact that Voracek actually had the puck when he was hit. (For the record, Kulikov's came after Voracek passed it, but it was well within my and the DPS's acceptable "finish your check" rule of about half a second after the puck is gone). I'm surprised Voracek doesn't have chronic concussion issues after that hit. We looked at the Kronwall hit frame by frame, and his one skate stays down until the contact also. A classic "Kronwalled" hit that was similarly not disciplined.

 

Taking away hard, but otherwise legal, hits would neuter the game. I do not want to see that happen to hockey. So I am OK with the DPS not disciplining Kulikov there, just as I am OK with the Kronwall hit, even as I don't want to see any player get seriously hurt. The principle is, keep your head up when you have the puck and be aware of your surroundings or you're gonna get your bell rung.

 

And again, no bias, other than using the Kronwall hit as an acceptable standard for judging. But I use it for it's merit. I'm fair with Kronner. There was a Kronwall hit on Kesler that he left his feet 1 frame before contact. It was also not disciplined. There is only 1/30 of a second between one frame and another, and if someone wants to argue that is leaving your feet before the contact, okay, even though that's being awfully nitpicky IMHO. But OK. The Voracek hit in contrast was clean, even if it was monstrous. Thus I use it as a standard to judge other hits.

[AJgoal]

The league has said previously that head down does not equal "OK to hit player in the head." The obligation is on the person making a hit to not hit a player in the head. Period. The exception comes when the player puts themselves into the dangerous position after the hit has been committed to (a la Gudas on Vesey) (EDIT: and is unavoidable). A player skating with their head down is not fair game for a headshot. See: Thornton v. Perron (2 games):

 

 

Again, no hit is exactly alike. But a player with their head down does NOT mean that another player can hit the head.

[ruxpin]

15 minutes ago, SpikeDDS said:

Again, my rule for "targeting the head" is if you removed the head and neck from the victim's body, would there still have been a significant body check. If the answer is "yes," then that is not targeting the head.

 

Lee Harvey Oswald said similar, but something about a gun and books or suppositories or something.

[DaGreatGazoo]

13 minutes ago, SpikeDDS said:

 

See, I like hits too, and I don't see Kulikov leaving his feet until AFTER the initial contact. One foot does, but not the other one. And this is one of those head shots that is only a head shot because Voracek's head is down and/or he is looking in the direction of where he sent the puck AND Kulikov's shoulder is actually at the height of Voracek's head (particularly when it is down).

 

Again, my rule for "targeting the head" is if you removed the head and neck from the victim's body, would there still have been a significant body check. If the answer is "yes," then that is not targeting the head. The body was targeted, and the head was just in the way. If the check would have been mostly a "miss" without the head/neck being there, THAT is targeting the head. That's how "principle point of contact" seems to be interpreted by the DPS, and I agree with that interpretation.

 

In my view, this is a legal, but brutal, hit. Apparently, Voracek hasn't learned his lesson since he got Kronwalled years ago while keeping his head down. This stroll down memory lane is brought to you in part by @yave1964. ;-D

 

 

This hit was similar in how the body was struck except in its force--far less than the Kronwall hit, and thus the injury was far less--and the fact that Voracek actually had the puck when he was hit. (For the record, Kulikov's came after Voracek passed it, but it was well within my and the DPS's acceptable "finish your check" rule of about half a second after the puck is gone). I'm surprised Voracek doesn't have chronic concussion issues after that hit. We looked at the Kronwall hit frame by frame, and his one skate stays down until the contact also. A classic "Kronwalled" hit that was similarly not disciplined.

 

Taking away hard, but otherwise legal, hits would neuter the game. I do not want to see that happen to hockey. So I am OK with the DPS not disciplining Kulikov there, just as I am OK with the Kronwall hit, even as I don't want to see any player get seriously hurt. The principle is, keep your head up when you have the puck and be aware of your surroundings or you're gonna get your bell rung.

 

And again, no bias, other than using the Kronwall hit as an acceptable standard for judging. But I use it for it's merit. I'm fair with Kronner. There was a Kronwall hit on Kesler that he left his feet 1 frame before contact. It was also not disciplined. There is only 1/30 of a second between one frame and another, and if someone wants to argue that is leaving your feet before the contact, okay, even though that's being awfully nitpicky IMHO. But OK. The Voracek hit in contrast was clean, even if it was monstrous. Thus I use it as a standard to judge other hits.

I see it a bit differently---if you slow it down, at the 17-18 mark, you can see his head snap back before anything else on his body/torso moves.  Primary impact point is the head/neck/chin.  I don't think the hit was late, even though the Flyers announcers are saying it was.  

 

Bottom line;  every hit like this gets diagnosed like the Zapruder film because the league has been consistently inconsistent on this subject over the years.  

 

He seems to be fine, no concussion..which is all I care about at a Flyers fan. 

[DaGreatGazoo]

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

Lee Harvey Oswald said similar, but something about a gun and books or suppositories or something.

Dude, what the heck...look at my last response.  GET OUTTA MY HEAD.  There's enough people in there already.