Jump to content

Was Matheson's hit on Pettersson Dirty?


OccamsRazor

Was Matheson's hit on Pettersson Dirty?  

11 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the League suspend Matheson?

    • This is intent to injure and deserves at least one game
      7
    • A fine is still too much, let them play
      4


Recommended Posts

 

Is this a dirty play that needs to be punished?? It has been in the game for a while. Matheson was not penalized on the play. 

 

 Pettersson is now in concussion protocol as the team travels to Pittsburgh for a game on Tuesday. Matheson, meanwhile, will have a phone hearing Monday with the NHL Department of Player Safety for “interference and unsportsmanlike conduct.”  

 

 

I think no need in the extra slam and maybe should be punishable.

 

Thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is the hit along the boards that is the issue here, but the extra slam to the ice is dangerous and should be suspended as intent to injure.  Matheson should definitely sit a couple of games.  One game won't be enough to send a message that the league wants to protect it's young stars.   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. It's the ragdolling of Pettersson after the hit that is particularly unnecessary. 

 

As a side note, I was reading about this hit last night, and it led me to this.. 

https://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Carol-Schram/Canucks-pass-on-revenge-after-Pettersson-is-injured-in-win-over-Panthers/194/95305

 

 

So, he's in concussion protocol, and takes a flight immediately after the game. Normally, you assume that the team has the players' interests in mind. But then... 

 

 

 

Quote

Demko's concussion symptoms did worsen when he got to Utica, and he has just recently resumed intense physical activity, with the hope of being ready for game action soon. Botchford also mentions that Antoine Roussel's flight from Montreal to Vancouver for training camp after his offseason concussion might have set back his recovery.

 

Just some food for thought on how the NHL and teams treat their own players. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hf101 said:

@brelic

 

Yeah, that is interesting.  I can see why the team would want to fly him back to Vancouver as he wasn't hospitalized, but that may not be in the best interest of the player either.

 

Exactly. I also remember the Lindros situation, where he told the coaching staff he was seeing yellow, and they told him to play through it. 

 

To be fair, that was also a different time when the emphasis on player safety was not an NHL priority the way it is now.

 

But when I see stories like Demko and Pettersson (who was told to fly anyway), it just makes me wonder if anything has changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

Exactly. I also remember the Lindros situation, where he told the coaching staff he was seeing yellow, and they told him to play through it. 

 

To be fair, that was also a different time when the emphasis on player safety was not an NHL priority the way it is now.

 

But when I see stories like Demko and Pettersson (who was told to fly anyway), it just makes me wonder if anything has changed. 

 

You would think doctors would consider the pressure difference from the altitude change...but they are doctors and common sense ain't common....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The subject asks one question (was it a dirty hit?) but the poll asks a different one (should Matheson be suspended?).

 

First, I don't think every "dirty" play should result in a suspension or fine.  

 

Do I think it was a dirty play?  By today's standards, yes.  A few years ago, that's a "Welcome to the NHL, kid..." hit.  Remember  Hatcher's first game against Crosby?

 

In any event, in today's NHL that's probably a suspend-able play.  But it's getting to the point where almost any sort of violent contact is coming under the lens of "Should he be suspended?"  Do I think Matheson deliberately tried to give him a serious injury?  Nope.  But I bet he did try to make him feel that hit a little more.  Which is fine by me.  It's a rough sport.  I really hope that Matheson only gets a fine.  I am starting to worry about the spiral effect the efforts to curtail rough play are starting to have.

 

Also, a few things bother me about this event in particular:

(1) if that hit is against a fourth liner, I doubt anything comes of it;

(2) if Pettersson doesn't get concussed, I doubt anything comes of it;

(3) if that hit was against a Coyote player, I wonder if there would be the same uproar;

(4) I think the fact that Pettersson made Matheson look foolish beforehand is driving some of the suspension talk; and

(5) age, size and strength matter; Matheson is 26 years old and listed at 6'2, 193 pounds; Pettersson is 19 and almost 20 pounds lighter.  I wonder if some of the "violence" of the hit is attributable to the size differential.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really have a problem with it. Both the hit and the extra throw down. For years Mike Matheson has been told that if he's not willing to do precisely more of that he will never play in the NHL. 

 

So that's why I don't really have a problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would give Matheson a one game suspension. He doesn't have a dirty reputation like a Tom Wilson. I have a problem with the throw down onto the ice after the hit more than the hit itself. I think Pettersson might contributed to his own problems here by not properly protecting himself from the check, but the mini body slam into the ice wasn't necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a dog in this fight, I dislike Van a lot and Fla a little.  IMO that was a very dirty play, easily worth a two game suspension.  Finishing the check no big deal but it's easy to see Matheson slammed Petterson to the ice.  VERY dirty, dangerous action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, vis said:

Remember Lindros' hit on DiMaio?

 

 

How many games would that be nowadays?

Depends on priors but easily two.  BUT you can see Dimiao could be called the aggressor.  Stupid play by Dimiao, he got what he deserved.

 

Thanks for the link! I'd never seen that play before!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2018 at 7:09 PM, Fargocase said:

Depends on priors but easily two.  BUT you can see Dimiao could be called the aggressor.  Stupid play by Dimiao, he got what he deserved.

 

Thanks for the link! I'd never seen that play before!

It is never fair to compare to hits from 20+ years ago. It was a different game back then. Scott Stevens looks like Tom Wilson by today's rules.

 

I do miss seeing the panicked look on defensemen's faces as they went into their zone to retrieve a puck and Cam Neely was on the forecheck bearing down on them. Before 91-92 when hitting from behind was legal, defensemen literally just coughed up the puck and got the **** out of the way instead of him putting them through the boards or they got bulldozed.

 

 

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...