Nastiness in the NYR - Dallas Game

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

 

http://kuklaskorner.com/hockey/comments/video-cody-eakin-hit-on-henrik-lundqvist?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

 

This happened a bit ago.

 

Henrik Lundvist tried playing a puck behind his net...Dallas' Cody Eakin sees him, lines him up, and runs him, shoulder to head, knocking The King silly, sending him to the back for concussion protocols, and Eakin didn't appear to even try letting up.

 

Eakin was assessed a 5 min major and a misconduct....interestingly enough, there wasn't as much outrage by the Ranger skaters in trying to get at Eakin (Nash half heartedly tried before he allowed the refs to step in), and there were no other dust ups afterwards.

 

The league should be looking at this hit....will Eakin get a multi-game suspension?

Is he a repeat offender?

 

What does Lundqvist think of his team's half-assed attempts at getting him some payback?

 

Should goalies be allowed to be hit behind the net if they are going to play the puck? Where is the line drawn?

 

Lots of questions here, but one thing is for sure:

The Rangers failed on a couple fronts.

 

1st, they should have been a bit more aggressive (screw the score, which was 0-0, Dallas just KO'd your goalie!) in either getting back at Eakin or landing some big booming hits on some other Dallas players.

 

2nd, the Rangers failed ROYALLY (pun intended) in getting revenge for The King on the ensuing 5 min major (part of which was a 5 on 3 as the Rangers were on a regular PP when the incident occurred)....I mean, the PP was just awful.

 

Lundqvist has been known to be somewhat vocal via the media at times....I would like to know what he has to say about this, about his team, and about the marbles he dropped all over the ice......

 

 

EDIT:

As I finished this post and put the link up, Lundqvist DID return to the game....and whaddya know, a scrum around him during a Stars' scoring attempt FINALLY results in the Rangers getting a bug up their rears and getting on Stars' players cases!

[hf101]

Looks like a deliberate elbow to Lundqvist's head receiving a 5 min elbowing major and a game suspension.

What type of a suspension does he deserve?

 

 

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

I voted 1-4 games.

 

Not sure if Eakin is a repeat offender, or if he really is the kind of player that would do the above or not, but if he is a first time offender, and seeing how Lundqvist was able to return, I'd say 2 games perhaps?

 

If he is a repeat offender, then we are probably looking at more than 4...probably in the 6-8 neighborhood.

 

Suspension does seem warranted though.

Eakin really didn't seem all that interested in avoiding contact...and he DID look like he braced his shoulder and/or elbow for making contact with the goalie's head, knowing full well Lundqvist's head was lowered a bit while he played the puck.

 

I still think the Rangers could have showed some more fire following the hit on their goalie.

[BluPuk]

Wow. That is a compilation of a lot of things that the NHL claims they want to do away with. The head hit, the unsuspecting victim, the rock hard shoulder  and elbow pads and just a general disrespect for your fellow competitors. I voted 5 games or more but I bet it won't happen. 

Actually, if it were my decision I would suspend Eakin for the same amount of time Lundqvist has to miss, or 20 games, whichever is longer.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

57 minutes ago, BluPuk said:

Wow. That is a compilation of a lot of things that the NHL claims they want to do away with. The head hit, the unsuspecting victim, the rock hard shoulder  and elbow pads and just a general disrespect for your fellow competitors. I voted 5 games or more but I bet it won't happen. 

Actually, if it were my decision I would suspend Eakin for the same amount of time Lundqvist has to miss, or 20 games, whichever is longer.

 

That's just it, Blu, Lundqvist not only WON'T miss time (from the last reports I read about anyways), but he was able to return to the game, finish it, get the win, and told reporters afterwards he actually felt "fine" even just after the hit, that the hit looked worse than what it was, and he only left (temporarily) because the trainers told him he HAD to.

 

Still though, Lundqvist DID look in a bad way right when the hit happened and I think the trainers did the right thing in making him leave the ice.

Also, it does NOT, IMO, excuse the play of Cody Eakins.

 

Haven't had a chance to look it up, but I think it will all come down to whether Eakins is a repeat offender or not, but a suspension of at LEAST 2 games I think is about right.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Here is a bit of a followup to the game:

https://www.nhl.com/news/new-york-rangers-dallas-stars-game-recap/c-284745484

 

 

Also on that page, which I will highlight here, is Eakins statement on the hit:

 

"I was coming in pretty fast, I was trying to create some energy and my intention was to go for the puck and not make contact with him or his head. It's a collision that my momentum carried me a little bit off my feet." -- Stars forward Cody Eakin on crashing into H.Lundqvist in the first period

 

For their parts, the Rangers don't seem to be making a big deal about this....not on the ice when it happened, not in the media.....hmm....if this would have happened to Mason, Bobrovsky, or Gibson for instance, you can bet those teams would have had the torches and pitchforks ready to go....

[nossagog]

I'm going to play devils (not the NJ ones) advocate here.  I have always been one whom has the attitude that if a goalie does not want contact, don't go and play the puck behind the net.  The general rule has been that you can't touch the goalie, even behind the net, and some goalies use that to their advantage, play the puck and use your body to shield or slow the fore checker so they can't get to the puck or the defenseman.  This should not be.   (Note: in this case the King is not doing this intentionally)

 

The NFL protects quarterbacks in the pocket, but if you decide to run out of the pocket downfield guess what, you're going to get hit like a running back. I think the same should be done with a goalie behind the net. if you go back to play the puck, you become a third defenseman.   If this was a defenseman, and not the King, would there have been a penalty/suspension talk?

 

The King was slow in playing the puck, and Eakin came in to make a play on it., which he ends up playing causing the puck to go in the opposite direction as the King is taking his time there. Could he have pulled up? Sure.  But I think making contact with the King was secondary(intentional or not).

 

In game they gave him a five minute penalty, in the wonderful world of NHL discipline they will probably feel even with todays rules that is enough.  

 

EDIT: Please note I'm not fully justifying Eakin's actions, I think the play was reckless because he lifted off the ice.

 

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

No worries, @nossagog , these days NO ONE plays NJ Devils advocates!  

[hf101]

 

[AJgoal]

Is the poll for how many games he should get, or how many games he will?

[hf101]

3 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

Is the poll for how many games he should get, or how many games he will?

 

good question

 

How about should he get..

[mojo1917]

@nossagog

I agree with your position of the goaltender playing the puck behind the net gets undue protection from contact. 

I do think the Eakin hit was bad though, the primary point of contact was shoulder to head, he leaped into him,  It's not a good hit. 

I don't think the fact of the hitee being the King (or any goaltender) should be weighed into the punishment. 

The protection from that hit should come from the Kings teammates. 

 

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

Eakin suspended 4 games

[BluPuk]

13 hours ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said:

Eakin suspended 4 games

And IMHO if the NHL is serious about wanting to protect "their" players, 4 games is not nearly enough.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

This is from Spotrac:

 

 

 

So...lemme get this straight:

Cody Eakins, 1st time offender, gets 4 games and is fined 85K on a hit that ultimately DOESN'T injure Henrik Lundqvist (The King, remember was able to return, finish the game, and win it too)....while Mike Hoffman, also first time offender, only gets 2 games for a vicious cross check that DID injure Logan Couture, and only gets fined 57K.......

 

Hey, I am NOT defending Cody Eakins, but simply trying to figure out the NHL's logic here.

What freakin formula are they using to determine how many games and how much money????

 

It's certainly doesn't seemed to be based on number of times offending or damage done.........

 

Maybe a Dallas Stars sweater is more "offending" than an Ottawa Senators one??

 

I bet if it was a Flyer sweater with the #3 on it hitting Lundqvist or crosschecking Couture he would have probably been banished to the KHL for 5 years..........without pay!

 

Again, not saying Eakins shouldn't have gotten a suspension, in fact, I said about 2 games would have been right unless he was a repeat offender, which, doesn't seem to be the case.

But these arbitrary punishments and fines handed out just make the NHL look very, very inconsistent (and THAT'S putting it nicely!)

[mojo1917]

2 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

This is from Spotrac:

 

 

 

So...lemme get this straight:

Cody Eakins, 1st time offender, gets 4 games and is fined 85K on a hit that ultimately DOESN'T injure Henrik Lundqvist (The King, remember was able to return, finish the game, and win it too)....while Mike Hoffman, also first time offender, only gets 2 games for a vicious cross check that DID injure Logan Couture, and only gets fined 57K.......

 

Hey, I am NOT defending Cody Eakins, but simply trying to figure out the NHL's logic here.

What freakin formula are they using to determine how many games and how much money????

 

It's certainly doesn't seemed to be based on number of times offending or damage done.........

 

Maybe a Dallas Stars sweater is more "offending" than an Ottawa Senators one??

 

I bet if it was a Flyer sweater with the #3 on it hitting Lundqvist or crosschecking Couture he would have probably been banished to the KHL for 5 years..........without pay!

 

Again, not saying Eakins shouldn't have gotten a suspension, in fact, I said about 2 games would have been right unless he was a repeat offender, which, doesn't seem to be the case.

But these arbitrary punishments and fines handed out just make the NHL look very, very inconsistent (and THAT'S putting it nicely!)

 

terrific post . couldn't agree more.

 

[AJgoal]

Just now, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

This is from Spotrac:

 

 

 

So...lemme get this straight:

Cody Eakins, 1st time offender, gets 4 games and is fined 85K on a hit that ultimately DOESN'T injure Henrik Lundqvist (The King, remember was able to return, finish the game, and win it too)....while Mike Hoffman, also first time offender, only gets 2 games for a vicious cross check that DID injure Logan Couture, and only gets fined 57K.......

 

Hey, I am NOT defending Cody Eakins, but simply trying to figure out the NHL's logic here.

What freakin formula are they using to determine how many games and how much money????

 

It's certainly doesn't seemed to be based on number of times offending or damage done.........

 

Maybe a Dallas Stars sweater is more "offending" than an Ottawa Senators one??

 

I bet if it was a Flyer sweater with the #3 on it hitting Lundqvist or crosschecking Couture he would have probably been banished to the KHL for 5 years..........without pay!

 

Again, not saying Eakins shouldn't have gotten a suspension, in fact, I said about 2 games would have been right unless he was a repeat offender, which, doesn't seem to be the case.

But these arbitrary punishments and fines handed out just make the NHL look very, very inconsistent (and THAT'S putting it nicely!)

http://www.nhlwheelofjustice.com/

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

3 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

http://www.nhlwheelofjustice.com/

 

LOL....that about sums it up I guess...

 

EDIT:

I put in Raffi Torress boarding Matt Cooke, result no injury...

Spun the wheel..Raffi got a 6 game suspension..

 

But then, did "upon further review", spun it again, and got "A Hockey Play".... 

[nossagog]

55 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

 

LOL....that about sums it up I guess...

 

EDIT:

I put in Raffi Torress boarding Matt Cooke, result no injury...

Spun the wheel..Raffi got a 6 game suspension..

 

But then, did "upon further review", spun it again, and got "A Hockey Play".... 

TFG, you should know better than to expect some kind of logic in NHL discipline.   The thing that kills me is the Hoffman play should be put up as a classic example of "Intent to Injure" another player.   He chased him down and hit him from behind with his stick. He should have had the book tossed at him.  

 

The Eakin hit you can at least try to justify as him trying to play the puck and hitting the King was just accidentally on purpose. 

[ruxpin]

On 12/15/2016 at 9:48 PM, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

I still think the Rangers could have showed some more fire following the hit on their goalie.

 

This.  Absolutely this.

 

I like the 4 games, and I like the explanation.  You just cannot hit a goalie like that.   I mean, if it was Brian Elliott then go ahead.  Who'd really notice the difference between an unconscious Elliott and a conscious one?

 

But good on the league for the 4 games.  

[ruxpin]

4 minutes ago, nossagog said:

The Eakin hit you can at least try to justify as him trying to play the puck and hitting the King was just accidentally on purpose. 

 

No, you really can't do what Eakin did.  I'll never believe there was anything remotely accidental about it.   I don't think Eakin is the type of player to deliberately run the goalie there, though.  It may have been the old "muscle memory" thing where you're coming in and you hit the player playing the puck and "oh yeah, that was the goalie" immediately after.   Sounds like BS, but I think it's possible.

 

But I like the 4 games.

 

As for your comment on Hoffman, I have to agree.  And in the context of comparing the two plays, I have to admit it's a head-scratcher that Eakin is 4 and Hoffman was what, 2?     I guess since both were clearly deliberate, the difference was the goallie.

[nossagog]

On 12/17/2016 at 1:15 PM, ruxpin said:

 

As for your comment on Hoffman, I have to agree.  And in the context of comparing the two plays, I have to admit it's a head-scratcher that Eakin is 4 and Hoffman was what, 2?     I guess since both were clearly deliberate, the difference was the goallie.

My take on the difference was that one used his stick as a weapon to injure another player.  And because of that, I'm scratching my head also.