Wilson to have hearing on Aston-Reese hit, start the defense

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

While I can't argue about Wilson's reputation, I'm not so sure this was an illegal hit.  I disagree with the DoPS decision to suspend Wilson for 3 games.

 

My comments are based off the video below from the 0:42 through 0:48 second mark. 

This isn't one of those glancing off the shoulder head shots.  This is through the body, shoulder to shoulder, coming in almost 180 degrees from each other.  Both players are leaning into the hit.  Wilson keeps his elbow tucked.  Wilson elevates slightly as he explodes into the hit but does not leave his feet.  Aston-Reese also elevates but he is starting from a lower position, i.e., deep knee bend.  The main point of contact is the front of Wilson's shoulder (collar bone area) to the point of Aston-Reese's shoulder.  There is no "slide" after the contact.  You can see the NHL shield on Wilson's sweater through the entire hit.  

 

Wilson is 6'4" and Aston-Reese is 5'11".  I think this more a product of the size difference between the players than an illegal hit.

 

 

[MadDevil]

He's a reckless player who probably won't ever change unless he starts missing significant time from suspensions. 

[ruxpin]

29 minutes ago, nossagog said:

Okay, I'm done golfing, had my post round beer, came home, and have my pre-dinner mahgaritta in my hand.  Oh yeah, and the Bolts B's is on the TV at 3-1.   So I have some thoughts on this topic.   Obviously, since I'm a Pens fan, my opinion is biased here.    I have two points to make, the first there should be no bias in what I say, the second, on the actual hit, well yeah.

 

First, IMHO the NHL should not have ANYTHING to do with the DOPeS. For their own good financially, they need to just throw up their hands and turn this over to the NHLPA.   Honestly, no matter what they do here, the NHLPA will jump in to defend the aggressor. It always does, and the NHL caves.   At some point, just like with the NFL(oh wait, I think they've already started), the NHL is going to be sued almost to non existance by ex-players for head injuries due the the NHL's lack of concern with hits to the head.    Let the NHLPA have the DOPes, let them take the blame.   If the players want to let this keep happening, so be it.     When the NHL says, "Yeah, that was a hit to the head, but that ones okay", they've screwed themselves.   Let the players police themselves.    If they don't do a good job at it, it's their own fault.  

 

My second point, albiet biased because of this case, is this whole nonsense of "Well his tippy toe was still on the ice prior to the hit, and he only left his feet after the feet" is the most insane defense of these types of hits.  No, I never played hockey, but I've played plenty of contact sports, and have orbital bone and dental damage from a few hits. If you are going to hit me, PLEASE leave your feet prior to the hit.   Its really simple physics.  The moment the skates leave the ice, the body starts to decelerate because there is no force behind it any more.  So when a hit occurs, with the deceleration, and the "two opposing forces" thing", the brunt of the blow is actually less than if someones feet are still anchored to the ice accelerating towards the head.   The leaving the feet thing is for charging, but it used as a defense every time these hits come up. IT'S WORSE IF THE FEET ARE STILL ANCHORED.

 

Look, if you don't believe me, I have a simple experiment for you.    This works especially great if you have a small child in your home.  Take the child, and put them on a chair.  For safety reasons, put a helmet on them.    Now take one of those light little balls that all kids seem to have, about basketball sized,  and put it in your hands to make a two handed basketball pass.   Space yourself so that you are far enough away from the child so that when you step forward and push the ball as hard as you can, you are still six inches from their head when you release the ball up towards to his head. Now you should probably do this outside as you don't want the ball bouncing into something in the house as the ball, without acceleration and anchor, bounces off the childs head and bounces away.    As step two of this experiment, move one foot forward and repeat.  When the police are interviewing you in the hospital, tell them at least your feet were still on the ground.  Good luck.

You're not wrong with your physics.  But I wonder if both you aren't missing what this is about. 

 

Here's the thing, leaving the feet makes less difference when a 6'3" guy is hitting a 5'8" guy.  But when it's a 6' guy hitting a 6' guy, launching makes it easier to hit the target (the head). 

 

It still is the case with the 6'3" v. 5'8" but the head will probably be at risk without the launch (for the 5'8" guy or a guy appreciating his stickhandling or pass). 

 

The problem with the ball/child analogy is you're hitting the head in both instances.   Try the experiment where in the first instance you're hitting in the head and the second the shoulder. 

 

They're trying to stop head shots because those typically cause more concussion damage than hits on the shoulder or elsewhere. 

[nossagog]

https://www.nhl.com/video/wilson-suspended-3-games/t-277350912/c-60214803?q=player+safety

[nossagog]

19 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

You're not wrong with your physics.  But I wonder if both you aren't missing what this is about. 

 

Here's the thing, leaving the feet makes less difference when a 6'3" guy is hitting a 5'8" guy.  But when it's a 6' guy hitting a 6' guy, launching makes it easier to hit the target (the head). 

 

It still is the case with the 6'3" v. 5'8" but the head will probably be at risk without the launch (for the 5'8" guy or a guy appreciating his stickhandling or pass). 

 

The problem with the ball/child analogy is you're hitting the head in both instances.   Try the experiment where in the first instance you're hitting in the head and the second the shoulder. 

 

They're trying to stop head shots because those typically cause more concussion damage than hits on the shoulder or elsewhere. 

Not sure I agree, but after a few more margheritta's maybe I will.  Here's the point I was trying, and failing, to make.  When you drive a hit UP using your legs as an engine, you are going to through whatever and to the head.  With Wilson's size, why does he need to elevate? He could have made a devasting hit just driving straight through ZAR.  But with him driving UP, especially at 6'4", there nothing to hit but head.

 

And he LEAD with it. If he hit him straight up, the body takes some of the blow, but he's shoulder first, rising. So he hits the shoulder on the way through, slightly, no matter, he's still driving UP at the head.

 

Post Edit.

Oh, and with the child analogy. The point there was this whole leaving the feet thing.  If you hit the child in phase two of the experiment in the chest , you still going to send the child flying.   The point I was trying to make was this whole "Well he didn't leave his feet so its okay" thing.  I was trying to make the opposite point, that being on the ice driving with the feet is more devestating, no matter where, than if the feet are off the ice.

[ruxpin]

17 minutes ago, nossagog said:

Not sure I agree, but after a few more margheritta's maybe I will.  Here's the point I was trying, and failing, to make.  When you drive a hit UP using your legs as an engine, you are going to through whatever and to the head.  With Wilson's size, why does he need to elevate? He could have made a devasting hit just driving straight through ZAR.  But with him driving UP, especially at 6'4", there nothing to hit but head.

 

And he LEAD with it. If he hit him straight up, the body takes some of the blow, but he's shoulder first, rising. So he hits the shoulder on the way through, slightly, no matter, he's still driving UP at the head.

 

Post Edit.

Oh, and with the child analogy. The point there was this whole leaving the feet thing.  If you hit the child in phase two of the experiment in the chest , you still going to send the child flying.   The point I was trying to make was this whole "Well he didn't leave his feet so its okay" thing.  I was trying to make the opposite point, that being on the ice driving with the feet is more devestating, no matter where, than if the feet are off the ice.

Oh, I got your point with the child thing. The physics is certainly valid. 

 

And yeah, with someone tall like Wilson hitting a smaller player, the benefit of launch is greatly diminished, if not eliminated altogether (not to mention counter-productive, as your point suggests).  I do agree that there are many occasions that "he left his feet!" misses the point of why or when that might matter in terms of danger/potential damage. 

[intheslot]

Uncle Gary Uncle Gary ...  

 B s ......

[FD19372]

14 minutes ago, intheslot said:

Uncle Gary Uncle Gary ...  

 B s ......

I'm sure Regis showed up in his Penguin costume and did some convincing.

 

[nossagog]

 

[B21]

My first reaction was "wow - 3 seems like a lot especially considering this is the playoffs". I thought if he were going to be suspended it would be for a game. Then I read up and saw he's already been suspended twice this year. 2 games in the preseason and the first 4 games of the regular season for two separate incidents (both occurred in the preseason). He's "officially" been on notice since then yet has continued to play "on the edge" into the playoffs.  Then I listened to an interview on the sports talk radio this morning here in Pittsburgh. "Predatory player". Those were Kerry Fraser's words.  So now? I'm thrilled. 3 games is perfect for this putz. It might be a blind-squirrel-finds-nut situation but the league got this one right.

[nossagog]

Oshie's hit on Letang at the end of the game, for all of the "He Didn't Leave the Ice" people. I just don't understand the disregard to other players health. I know its the end of the game and you're trying to tie it up, but jeez.

 

 

https://twitter.com/Sportsnet/status/992218682758606849

[pilldoc]

14 minutes ago, nossagog said:

Oshie's hit on Letang at the end of the game, for all of the "He Didn't Leave the Ice" people. I just don't understand the disregard to other players health. I know its the end of the game and you're trying to tie it up, but jeez.

 

 

https://twitter.com/Sportsnet/status/992218682758606849

I may severely dislike the Pens.....

However..... Oshie did not leave his feet....he launched himself at Letang. I love good solid hits, but there is no room in the game for those types of hits. Now in this case Letang was not injured.  I just don't get it...   I get it... emotions run high in these types of games. Maybe I'm wrong....I dunno. IMO that type of hit is uncalled for. Why risk an injury or penalty?????

[B21]

36 minutes ago, nossagog said:

Oshie's hit on Letang at the end of the game, for all of the "He Didn't Leave the Ice" people. I just don't understand the disregard to other players health. I know its the end of the game and you're trying to tie it up, but jeez.

 

 

https://twitter.com/Sportsnet/status/992218682758606849

 

That was Downie-esque...

 

Edit: Oshie was by far - actually the only - Capitals player to make a stink about the Wilson suspension when asked. The other players took to high road with the typical PC cliched answer. Not Oshie. Can't help but wonder if he was 1) frustrated 2) trying to make a "point" or 3) both. 

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, pilldoc said:

I may severely dislike the Pens.....

However..... Oshie did not leave his feet....he launched himself at Letang. I love good solid hits, but there is no room in the game for those types of hits. Now in this case Letang was not injured.  I just don't get it...   I get it... emotions run high in these types of games. Maybe I'm wrong....I dunno. IMO that type of hit is uncalled for. Why risk an injury or penalty?????

Are we really saying he didn't leave his feet?  Looks like he did for me. The dude would make the Wright Brothers blush. 

[ruxpin]

56 minutes ago, B21 said:

 

That was Downie-esque...

 

Edit: Oshie was by far - actually the only - Capitals player to make a stink about the Wilson suspension when asked. The other players took to high road with the typical PC cliched answer. Not Oshie. Can't help but wonder if he was 1) frustrated 2) trying to make a "point" or 3) both. 

I haven't seen Oshie's rant, but I can't fathom what he's bent about. Wilson is actually lucky it wasn't more. Oshie will be lucky if he doesn't get a game. He should.  

[pilldoc]

6 hours ago, ruxpin said:

Are we really saying he didn't leave his feet?  Looks like he did for me. The dude would make the Wright Brothers blush. 

 Tongue in cheek Rux...I was trying to be funny. Epic fail on my part. I was trying to convey he didn't just leave his feet, but rather he launched himself like a Saturn V space rocket. My bad....

[ruxpin]

2 hours ago, pilldoc said:

 Tongue in cheek Rux...I was trying to be funny. Epic fail on my part. I was trying to convey he didn't just leave his feet, but rather he launched himself like a Saturn V space rocket. My bad....

 

Hey, you be more clear or I will misspell a bunch of curse words and put them together incoherently!

 

No worries, I really wasn't sure.  I was on Twitter and some Caps fans were actually arguing he didn't.  When I saw the two posts here I actually started looking at it really closely and thinking, "I must be drunk."

[SpikeDDS]

I'm very late to the discussion, but a few points from an unbiased observer and hockey fan (if I have a bias, it would be against Pittsburgh):

 

1. My first reaction to the hit was that I thought it was a good hit.

 

2. The explanation for the suspension by the DPS is BY FAR the longest explanation for any hit-related infraction that I have ever seen. When you have to take almost 5 minutes to justify your decision, it means that the hit was very close to being a legal one. Thus, anyone who says that this hit was egregiously illegal is full of it. To me, and to the DPS, this was a close call.

 

3. I'm conflicted in that I know that in the instant that a play like this occurs, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a player making the decision to hit or not hit to consider all of the things that DPS is spending minutes discussing, much less probably hours of analyzing. To wit, I feel for Wilson and other players who need to make these decisions instantaneously. OTOH, an analysis of the details of this hit does clarify the DPS's position on these kinds of hits, which is important in establishing a standard. So I appreciate that they went into detail on why they considered this hit illegal. DPS owes it to players to communicate the standards so that players can be properly held accountable. They have a history of being somewhat ambiguous about their standards, and their decision-making often seems ad-hoc. So I like the clarity here.

 

4. The decision of illegality hinged on 3 COMBINED things:

 

a. Wilson used his left shoulder instead of his right. This made head contact more possible and driving through body mass less direct.

b. Wilson drove up and left his feet AFTER making contact--which they admit, even in this video,  is a natural tendency to do on hits like this.

c. The jaw is broken which suggests that the major force went to the head rather than the shoulder. There was somewhat of a head clip. It was not, by ANY means, a black and white head clip. There was definitely shoulder contact. But the way Wilson bounced off him up and to the side does suggest his momentum was not going through the body mass as much as the head. Someone mentioned Kronwall earlier. This was one of the main differences between some of Kronner's better hits and this one. Kronner almost always finished through the body, even if the head was the primary point of contact. In today's rules, that would make the hit legal.

 

None of these things on their own makes the hit illegal in itself. But the combination goes to intent and execution, and after full analysis, my first impression was wrong, but not by much at all.

 

5. In the end, I think DPS did get this right, except I think 3 games is maybe one too many. Yes, Wilson is a repeat offender, but this was juuust barely illegal. This was nuances of a hit which added up to being juuust over the line, not a bully egregiously crossing it. The fact that it resulted in injury should give the extra game. I would have given 2 games instead of three.

 

I welcome comments/criticisms/discussions.

[ruxpin]

10 minutes ago, SpikeDDS said:

2. The explanation for the suspension by the DPS is BY FAR the longest explanation for any hit-related infraction that I have ever seen. When you have to take almost 5 minutes to justify your decision, it means that the hit was very close to being a legal one. Thus, anyone who says that this hit was egregiously illegal is full of it. To me, and to the DPS, this was a close call

 

I respectfully disagree with the reason for the length and the thought that this was "barely."  I think the explanation was to justify its not being longer.  It was an egregious hit by a punk player who's making a habit out of it.

[pilldoc]

22 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

I was on Twitter and some Caps fans were actually arguing he didn't.

 

How the hell can they argue that he didn't leave his feet! Even Stevie Wonder would say he could see Oshie leave his feet

[ruxpin]

5 minutes ago, SpikeDDS said:

Someone mentioned Kronwall earlier. This was one of the main differences between some of Kronner's better hits and this one. Kronner almost always finished through the body, even if the head was the primary point of contact. In today's rules, that would make the hit legal.

 

 

Exactly this.  Kronner was an artist (it's more fun if you say it "arr-teest") who perfected how to mutilate an unsuspecting victim, hide the body, and make it completely legal.   Much respect for it.

 

Wilson is not an arr-teest.   He's just a punk.  It was premeditated and carried out in a poor way (as in it displayed no hint of accident but rather intent).

[ruxpin]

3 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

 

How the hell can they argue that he didn't leave his feet! Even Stevie Wonder would say he could see Oshie leave his feet

 

Well, it's Twitter.  

 

On Facebook they're saying he doesn't have feet.

[SpikeDDS]

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

I disagree with the reason for the length.  I think the explanation was to justify its not being longer.  It was an egregious hit by a punk player who's making a habit out of it.

I disagree with you. If the hit is egregious, they usually go through the list of qualifications very quickly as to the illegality of the hit. They never go into such detail on egregious ones.

 

They even say in the video--correctly--that some of these qualifications are not blatently illegal on their own. If the hit is way over the lines, the reasons for illegality should be obvious. They are not. They require explanation.

[SpikeDDS]

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

Exactly this.  Kronner was an artist (it's more fun if you say it "arr-teest") who perfected how to mutilate an unsuspecting victim, hide the body, and make it completely legal.   Much respect for it.

 

Wilson is not an arr-teest.   He's just a punk.  It was premeditated and carried out in a poor way (as in it displayed no hint of accident but rather intent).

Agreed on Kronner's artistry.

 

But trust me, Kronner's hits were VERY intentional, just a bit more center-mass than this one.

[B21]

12 minutes ago, SpikeDDS said:

I'm very late to the discussion, but a few points from an unbiased observer and hockey fan (if I have a bias, it would be against Pittsburgh):

 

1. My first reaction to the hit was that I thought it was a good hit.

 

2. The explanation for the suspension by the DPS is BY FAR the longest explanation for any hit-related infraction that I have ever seen. When you have to take almost 5 minutes to justify your decision, it means that the hit was very close to being a legal one. Thus, anyone who says that this hit was egregiously illegal is full of it. To me, and to the DPS, this was a close call.

 

3. I'm conflicted in that I know that in the instant that a play like this occurs, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a player making the decision to hit or not hit to consider all of the things that DPS is spending minutes discussing, much less probably hours of analyzing. To wit, I feel for Wilson and other players who need to make these decisions instantaneously. OTOH, an analysis of the details of this hit does clarify the DPS's position on these kinds of hits, which is important in establishing a standard. So I appreciate that they went into detail on why they considered this hit illegal. DPS owes it to players to communicate the standards so that players can be properly held accountable. They have a history of being somewhat ambiguous about their standards, and their decision-making often seems ad-hoc. So I like the clarity here.

 

4. The decision of illegality hinged on 3 COMBINED things:

 

a. Wilson used his left shoulder instead of his right. This made head contact more possible and driving through body mass less direct.

b. Wilson drove up and left his feet AFTER making contact--which they admit, even in this video,  is a natural tendency to do on hits like this.

c. The jaw is broken which suggests that the major force went to the head rather than the shoulder. There was somewhat of a head clip. It was not, by ANY means, a black and white head clip. There was definitely shoulder contact. But the way Wilson bounced off him up and to the side does suggest his momentum was not going through the body mass as much as the head. Someone mentioned Kronwall earlier. This was one of the main differences between some of Kronner's better hits and this one. Kronner almost always finished through the body, even if the head was the primary point of contact. In today's rules, that would make the hit legal.

 

None of these things on their own makes the hit illegal in itself. But the combination goes to intent and execution, and after full analysis, my first impression was wrong, but not by much at all.

 

5. In the end, I think DPS did get this right, except I think 3 games is maybe one too many. Yes, Wilson is a repeat offender, but this was juuust barely illegal. This was nuances of a hit which added up to being juuust over the line, not a bully egregiously crossing it. The fact that it resulted in injury should give the extra game. I would have given 2 games instead of three.

 

I welcome comments/criticisms/discussions.

 

Good post. Agree with some. Disagree with some. One point...a hit is either illegal or not. "Just barely illegal" is still illegal and therefore warrants the three games based on him being a multiple repeat offender. If you feel it's illegal (barely or not) you can't take issue with the length.