Jump to content

Hagg hit on Rust


brelic

Recommended Posts

On 3/16/2018 at 12:36 PM, King Knut said:

The Ghost hit was created after he got the puck.

 

with respect.....that just isn't true.  watch the looping gif again, the contact comes at almost the same moment as ghost's **one touch** pass back to giroux.  at a guess, i'd say it happens...1/10th of a second after, maybe?  i don't think there is more than one frame of video between the pass and the check.  ghost doesn't skate with the puck, or hold it, he slows down to receive and one-touches it back to giroux.  so, to whatever extent your read on this is based on matthews seeing ghost with the puck and deciding then to hit him needs to be re-thunk.  matthews saw a pass being made to his check in the neutral zone, lined up the hit on the will-be puck carrier, and then ghost throws on the brakes rather than continuing his motion into a safer area.  I'll concede that matthews probably noticed ghost slowing down in time to avoid hitting him.  the time between receiving the puck and being hit, though, was just shy of nil.

 

On 3/16/2018 at 12:36 PM, King Knut said:

I believe players should be allowed to make hockey plays.  The whole idea of boarding isn't to protect players from getting hit, it's to protect players from having the playing surface used as a weapon against them. 

 

is defensive checking not a hockey play?  "finishing your check," as taught by every hockey coach ever, means you hit your check every time he touches the puck.  even if the tactical benefit of the check is no longer relevant (i.e., the player has already released the puck), the strategic benefit of putting in the other guys' heads that they will be hit every time they touch the puck remains, and creates tactical benefits as the game goes on.  players start making passes too quickly, getting rid of the puck for fear of the inevitable contact.  that entire concept goes away entirely when the puck carrier can become immune to hits simply by putting himself in a bad spot.

 

while i agree the "point" of boarding calls isn't to protect players from being hit, that has become its real-world application.  it just has.  according to the people objecting to my point of view on this, there are places on the ice and positions players can assume that should render them unhittable.  with that perspective, how can boarding calls NOT be a thing used to protect players from being hit?  how can that not fundamentally change how the game works?  players are obviously being trained around the concept, else ghost wouldn't have made that play in that way (because, again, i *don't* think ghost was trying to game anything, i think he felt comfortable slowing down and getting the puck in his skates back to giroux cleanly, which....how are you not horrified that a player feels comfortable in that spot??)

 

On 3/16/2018 at 12:36 PM, King Knut said:

In my head there's a stark difference between Nolan Patrick not paying attention to a clean check coming directly at him within his field of vision and Ghost not anticipating a hit that he couldn't possibly see coming.  

 

It seems to be your assertion that players should anticipate hits coming and make plays accordingly even when they can't possibly sense them.

 

woof, really?  how long have you been watching hockey?  i mean that rhetorically, not questioning your hockey knowledge or anything dumb like that.  but, based on the years and years you've watched and possibly played the game, how common is it for there to be tight pressure in the neutral zone when running a breakout?  like, absolutely every time, always?  you think it was somehow unpredictable that ghost would have a leaf closing on him quickly?  really??

 

but, yes, my assertion is that players should always assume there is a truck bearing down on them, and should never ever put themselves in a position to be run over by that assumed truck.  that their habit and instinct should always be to not compromise their safety, even if that means making a less that perfect play.

 

On 3/16/2018 at 12:36 PM, King Knut said:

Don't try to kill someone who can't see you.  Why is that such a problem?  

 

because it contaminates the concept of defensive hockey.  from where i sit, matthews had 3 choices on that play:

 

1.  go for the puck before it got to ghost.  this is a no-no from a coaching perspective, first man on the puck carrier always takes the man, f2 takes the puck.  if matthews reaches for that pass and misses, he is now behind ghost and has given him 30 feet of open ice.  would have been physically safe, but a bad hockey play.

 

2.  bail on the hit entirely and play ghost passively.  he'd have to cut left hard and have played the boards to contain ghost from moving up ice.  he would be surrendering the pass and whatever ghost did with the puck immediately after, and could then try to limit the damage, but ghost and the flyers would have broken out of their zone uncontested.

 

3.  continue with the hit.  a hit that, i want to point out, would have been completely normal, predictable and un-noteworthy were ghost facing any other direction and/or had not just slowed down suddenly.

 

what you are saying is that, due to how ghost placed himself, option 3 should have been off the table, leaving matthews with a choice of two bad hockey plays that each gave ground to the flyers' breakout.  ghost's positioning and facing, not his skill, should have nullified the forecheck.  in fact, the bad pass into ghost's skates would have been the thing that started events forcing matthews to back off.  that....is a game in trouble, when a bad pass is the one that most easily moves the puck up ice because the receiver can't receive it cleanly.

 

i don't like this because it removes what i've always considered to be a hugely interesting aspect of the game: that to get anywhere, a team has to run a gauntlet.  that the threat of a large check SHOULD impact decision-making, players SHOULD have to choose between slick plays and not getting destroyed.  that sometimes a less constructive play needs to be made because the other choice is too dangerous.  that "finishing your check" is specifically about putting fear in the heads of puck carriers, and that kind of intimidation is entirely valid.

 

but all of that aside, there is the actual safety issue.  you and others keep talking about how dangerous my position is.  and i...can't figure that angle out.  i'm saying players should always assume they are about to get run (especially in the neutral zone or the end boards), and should always carry their safety as a top priority.  they should never say to themselves, "meh, i'm fine, i'm sure no one will hit me here."  that they should never stop 5 feet out from the boards, that they should never play a puck in their feet while near the boards, that they should never put themselves in those kinds of uber-compromised situations, whether they explicitly see the checker coming or not.  that the only person that can keep a given player safe is that player. 

 

you are saying players SHOULD feel safe stopping 5 feet out from the boards.  that they should play pucks in their skates while along the boards.  that they should put themselves in uber-compromised situations if the best hockey play available demands it.  and that a player on the other team is best situated to keep the puck carrier safe.

 

here's the thing:  whatever rules you put in place, whatever conditioning you beat into the heads of would-be checkers, someone is going to forget.  someone is going to get their timing off, or get caught up in the moment, or something....and that illegal check will happen.  worse, it will happen to a player utterly convinced he should have no reason to fear and is completely unprepared for the contact.

 

so...i say players should keep themselves safe at all times and make plays based on the assumption that someone is looking for your head.  you say players should make the best plays available and their opposition should realize and be gentle if making that best play puts the carrier in a bad position.

 

you really think mine is the more dangerous approach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2018 at 12:53 PM, King Knut said:

Like the guy couldn't have played the puck or just skated Ghost into the boards

 

btw, from my viewing of that play, matthews DID skate ghost into the boards, he didn't blow him up like he could have.  look at the replay again.  ghost is stopping, his skates are parallel to the boards and his direction of travel.  matthews makes contact, and ghost's upper body launches forward while his skates stay mostly in place.  it's what happens when you apply pressure to a one end of a lever while the other end is fixed in space.  his skates became a fulcrum. 

 

any contact on ghost there was going to leave him in a world of hurt, his balance and skate positioning at the time ensured that.  matthews had no "soft check" option, it was basically all or none.  if you say he should have gone for "none", then fine, but the idea that he could have checked him less, somehow, is fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2018 at 12:29 PM, OccamsRazor said:

So since the players put themselves into these positions they are fair game....bag em up!!! Right?? Discuss!

 

in case you were curious:

 

1.  hit by backes on trocheck was fine.  reaching for a bouncing puck in the neutral zone with your head down is a bad idea.

2.  ritchie hit on backes, also fine.  backes had just released the puck and so was still a valid target for a hit.  textbook finishing of a check.

3.  hornqvist hit on mcavoy, i don't see any problem here, either.  mcavoy bends at the waist for a bouncing puck, and hornqvist hit the part of him that was sticking forward.  i don't know what the league is doing these days regarding head shots, I know that would have been called in the recent past.  didn't like those calls then, and if they are still being made, don't like them now.

 

are you saying you think those were all bad and should be called?

 

i really have to ask, and i don't mean disrespect, but....when did you start watching this game?  i'm trying to figure out the root of this fundamental change of attitude on checking and personal responsibility for your own safety.  if you started in like 2008 or something, then i guess i understand.  if you were a fan in the 80s and 90s, though, how did you survive?  at what point did you go from "that's completely normal" in 1997 to "that is outrageous and i can't believe anyone could think this stuff should be allowed" today?  or were you generally appalled at the NHL the whole time until recently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aziz said:

 

with respect.....that just isn't true.  watch the looping gif again, the contact comes at almost the same moment as ghost's **one touch** pass back to giroux. 

 

You realize this is even worse right?  That means Matthews was lining up Ghost for an inevitable hit whether Ghost touched the puck or not?  That's even MORE illegal and dangerous.  But to play along with you, my ultimate point is that Patrick's hit came within full sight of Patrick.  He just wasn't looking.    Rust and Bergeron saw their hits coming and made strange moves for no reason to make themselves more vulnerable.  


Ghost COULD NOT SEE THE HIT COMING.  You're suggesting all players should protect themselves from hits they can't see coming. I think that's stupid.  We'll call it a difference of opinion, but in my heart, I'll know that you're just a psychopath that I should just be placating and being nice to because clearly you have no sense of regard for human live or personal safety and I'm probably taking my life into my hands by disagreeing with you.  

 

2 hours ago, aziz said:

is defensive checking not a hockey play?  "finishing your check," as taught by every hockey coach ever, means you hit your check every time he touches the puck. 

 

EXCEPT FROM BEHIND (EVER) and ESPECIALLY WITHIN A FEW FEET OF THE BOARDS!!!! COACHES DON'T COACH THAT!  THEY COACH AGANST THAT!

 

2 hours ago, aziz said:

 that entire concept goes away entirely when the puck carrier can become immune to hits simply by putting himself in a bad spot.

 

By that definition, Every player on the ice with a BACK is in a bad spot at ALL TIMES.  That's just not making any sense, dude.  

 

I'd love to go through point by point,  but long story short, you prefer the rules of professional wrestling and I prefer the rules of the NHL, The Old West and you know... civilization.

 

I'm really not sure there's any more to discuss.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maxresdefault.jpg

 

The shot from the back is getting coached out of the game, these sweaters have a damn stop sign on them.  Every team in our youth leagues has a form of this patch above the numbers too.

 

I don't know what point this makes other than young players have this "don't hit a guy in the back" reinforced by coaching and visually on the ice, so maybe the answer is to sew stop sign patches on NHL sweaters too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, aziz said:

 

in case you were curious:

 

1.  hit by backes on trocheck was fine.  reaching for a bouncing puck in the neutral zone with your head down is a bad idea.

2.  ritchie hit on backes, also fine.  backes had just released the puck and so was still a valid target for a hit.  textbook finishing of a check.

3.  hornqvist hit on mcavoy, i don't see any problem here, either.  mcavoy bends at the waist for a bouncing puck, and hornqvist hit the part of him that was sticking forward.  i don't know what the league is doing these days regarding head shots, I know that would have been called in the recent past.  didn't like those calls then, and if they are still being made, don't like them now.

 

are you saying you think those were all bad and should be called?

 

i really have to ask, and i don't mean disrespect, but....when did you start watching this game?  i'm trying to figure out the root of this fundamental change of attitude on checking and personal responsibility for your own safety.  if you started in like 2008 or something, then i guess i understand.  if you were a fan in the 80s and 90s, though, how did you survive?  at what point did you go from "that's completely normal" in 1997 to "that is outrageous and i can't believe anyone could think this stuff should be allowed" today?  or were you generally appalled at the NHL the whole time until recently?

 

I've been watching since 1990.

 

I see we are not going to see eye to eye.

 

I have the players future in mind and by that i mean after hockey.

 

These are the toughest athletes in all of sports.

 

Regardless of how it use to be doesn't mean we can't make the game safer and evolve from where they were years ago.

 

They use to not wear helmets or goalies face mask but they evolved there for the players health.

 

This is no different, we have to protect the players from themselves.

 

So i have the safety of the players in mind and with that they must change how they play and show each other that respect (quarter if you will).

 

And with that that means not checking a guy even though he has his head down and he can. Pull up.

 

That could be you one day mentality.

 

But just because it was a certain way 20 years ago doesn't mean it has to remain that way.

 

Guys are bigger stronger and faster today too.

 

Just my thoughts on it i love the physicality of the game but it needs to be with the rules that are set up to keep them safe.

 

The refs getting it right and consistent is a different arguement/debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boarding has been a penalty forever. The big difference I see is simple:

 

Rust turns into a vulnerable position right before Hagg makes contact. 

 

While Gostisbehere is in a vulnerable position, he is in that position and remains in that position from a point well before Komarov initiates the process of hitting him. Komarov isn't about to hit him when Ghost turns to face the boards. I can see the argument where Ghost should be more careful in order to protect himself from this kind of hit, but the onus is still on Komarov to not make the hit. It's textbook boarding and it is, and has been, a penalty. Players are going to end up facing the boards while playing the puck from time to time - it's the nature of the sport. While they could possibly make a better decision that is more protective of themselves, it's not their fault somebody else chooses to hit them illegally when they do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...