| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
 Posted - 03/30/2010 : 22:17:47
|
Ryan Kesler was ejected in the first period of tonights 'Nucks / 'Yotes (your two favorite nic's Beans ) for a boarding call. I can only imagine the thoughts all you Kesler haters will have on this one!
Have a look, then fire away!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQug6qoqBOc
Personally, and i'll prob hear the "bias' word immediately, i don't think it was all that bad. It appears as though he lined Morris up from the side but Morris turns to reverse the puck and bingo, it's a hit from behind! There's no denying that Kesler makes some contact with "the numbers" but it's one of those ones that looks to me as though the player with the puck is part to blame. These guys gotta stop turning to face the boards when they know a guy is closing on them with speed, likely looking to hit them!
Interestingly enough, no penalty was being called originally and it wasn't until the refs got together and chatted that a call was made!
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2010 : 22:24:05
|
| Watched the game. I thought it was a great hit! Damn at full speed at ice level it looked impressive. It wasn't from behind, wasn't a blind side, wasn't to the head, and he didn't charge. Boarding call was a tad weak in my opinion but it's the ref's discretion - so be it. I think the league will look at it and let it go. |
 |
|
|
Nucks07
Top Prospect
Canada
45 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2010 : 23:03:10
|
I watched the hit live and rewinded it acouple times you can totally see Morris look at kesler coming towards him then right after he turns towards the boards, it was a clean hit in my books.
I also dont get how there was no penalty on the play then after the coyotes jump kesler he gets kicked out of the game and the coyotes get a 5 minute powerplay. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 05:40:46
|
Clean, solid hockey hit, and of course, once again, a terrible call by the ref.
A real statement game from Vancouver and they came to play. This is why I will never choose a Phoenix player in any playoff pool this year . . . they are utterly unprepared for what the playoffs is about and with all the strong teams in the lower half of the western bracket, I see them falling flat in the first round.
Sort of like Derek Morris falling after a good hit along the boards.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 06:17:03
|
Good hit in my books.
I am suprised Slozo thinks this was a good hit though. This hit to mee looks no different then the one we all argued about in the OHL this year.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 07:15:30
|
tbar - I am surprised that you think both hits were so similar.
Liambas hit: bigger run, probably a bit faster (but maybe not much). Definitely a blind-side. And definitely 100% from behind.
Kesler hit: Morris STILL HAS THE PUCK when hit. Morris is sideways when hit. Kesler doesn't appear to take quite the same run as Liambas, and going by body positioning, it doesn't look like a run at him with intent to injure. And most importantly, Morris defends himself (because he has time to prepare for the hit) by lifting his elbow, so that Kesler actually gets elbowed in the head as he attempts to lay his clean check.
All things being equal, it could have EASILY been Kesler getting elbowed in the head and possibly knocked out, as opposed to Morris just falling awkwardly.
Totally different hits, please look again.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 07:51:55
|
I saw the Elbow come up on Morris and agree 100% that it will of helped him out here.
What I find very simmilar is they both new they were going to get hit and they both turned to protect the puck and the way Morris went into the boards. Both plays could have ended equally as bad or if everything worked out the way we would all like it to then they could have both ended up like the Kesler on Morris hit with everybody Ok.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 08:16:54
|
Never watched the hit, can't watch it at work. I will check it out later.
Perhaps this is the NHl going way to the right to get all this crap cleaned up???
Again, don't jump all over me because I have not watched the hit. I do find it interesting that some of the people posting on here have also posted in the past few weeks about the lack of Reffing using both the boarding and charging calls effectively. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 08:32:36
|
I thought the hit was hard but fair. In the pre Ovechkin-Wisnewski-hit days, I suspect it would have possibly been 2 minutes boarding (because Morris went down like a wet fish), and they probably would have evened it out with a retaliation penalty for PHX. Those days are over, perhaps this is the new way that sort of hit will be called going forward. Time will tell.
The fact that Morris had the puck at the time, and was sideways up until the very last second that Kesler came in, and Kesler didn't leave his feet, raise an elbow, or hit above the shoulder make this hit pretty clean compared to other recent suspendable hits. I cannot see the league looking any further at this.
I hope new rules and overcalls don't get in the way of otherwise good hard hockey. Kesler (and others) play this way all the time - frankly I've seen him throw harder hits than that with no call - and it would be a shame if fear of game misconducts took that style of play away. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 09:03:14
|
A question for someone who did not see the hit. Before turning, how far away was Morris from the boards??
Also, is this simply a clean hit, a 2 minute, a 5 minute or a game??
The NHL defintion of the Boarding Penalty.
42.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.
Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing” or “off-side” play which results in that player being knocked into the boards is “boarding” and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.” |
|
|
|
ReyR
Top Prospect
13 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 09:19:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
A question for someone who did not see the hit. Before turning, how far away was Morris from the boards??
Also, is this simply a clean hit, a 2 minute, a 5 minute or a game??
The NHL defintion of the Boarding Penalty.
42.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.
Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing” or “off-side” play which results in that player being knocked into the boards is “boarding” and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.”
To me, it looked like Morris was right against the boards. Morris did make it worse by turning away a bit though. It's only a penalty because of how "violent" or hard Kesler's hit was. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 09:25:37
|
Beans - the reason I say this is a terrible call is that there is no way to be "thrown" into the boards when one of your skates is right up against it sideways (ie you are not facing the boards and are right beside it).
The thing is, Morris makes a decision when he sees Kesler come in - instead of fully bracing and welcoming the hit, he chooses to try and protect the puck while lifting his elbow in the direction Kesler's face is approaching.
Again, this could easily be an elbowing call in my mind - dirty play by Morris (I know it's common, but I am calling it like I see it).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 10:36:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReyR
-------
There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.
-------
Thanks ReyR for providing this defintion of boarding and excuse my paraphrasing of your post. I am pointing out this particular section of the rule, simply, because it was followed correctly, by the referees.
Argue all you want about who did what, by definition, the call was correct. I've been saying on many posts now, these type of hits are cheap, the same play would have happened without the excessive force, any sort of contact would have removed the puck from the puck carrier, period,
All the specualtion in the world about positioning, body angle, sight lines, etc, do not detract from, IMO, the disregard when these types of hits are thrown, asking for disaster.
I like the call, the refs need to start to establish what is acceptable physically and what isn't, and as long as they stay consistent, there is nothing wrong with that.
Nothing but conjecture as to whether he saw it coming, raised his elbow, whatever, nothing conclusive, he could just as easily been looking for the outlet pass, not the semi-blindside hit coming, and he could have been playing the puck against the boards, not raising his elbow for protection, all speculative.
What is conclusive though, is the bodycheck was thrown with intent and force, and in my opinion, it's a cheap shot, in the way it's done. Just my opinion, but I'm glad to see the refs agreed.
Let the hard checking physical play happen, but keep it away from these types of hits. The ensuing scrums that happen every time alone, shouldl be enough to work towards stopping them, it makes the game appear more and more minor league every time these happen. Questionable hit, useless scrum. Charlestown Chiefs bullsh*t. Loved the movie, just don't want the real thing to become that. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 10:41:33
|
I was mildly shocked to hear the local radio guys here in Van calling it "a good call and nothing more should come of it once the league has a look at it". Ray Ferraro, FWIW, agreed.
The only part that continues to confuse me and will likely continue further is the whole point of the guy with the puck, turning to face the boards and thus exposing his back to the player. If a guy does this at the last second, how in the world is a guy, who's committed to what would be a clean hard hit, supposed to alter his course or not hit him?
I still see the hit as clipping him slightly "on the numbers" (from behind) as well as partially on the side. It's borderline, but would have been 100% clean if Morris hadn't turned like he did. The point Ferraro made was that Morris has to be able to make what would be considered the "smart play" and in this case, it's to circle the puck back around the net. This meant he needed to turn the way he did?
Really tough to call. Def don't see a suspension of any sort but even getting kicked out of the game may have been a little harsh?? |
|
|
|
Utemin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
451 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 11:04:31
|
| I can see a two minute penalty maybe more; don't really think a misconduct is that bad, as long as he is not suspended everything is good in the hood. Kesler is a fast player, with great abilities to play gritty like Ovechkin! Not Clean but Not Dirty |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 12:00:32
|
Oh...and by the way, my old eyes aren't what they used to be. Was it 5?, or only 4 strides that Kesler took before he hit him?
Apparently my memory is failing as well, can't remember if charging is 2 or 3 strides....hmmmm.
Still sound like a clean hit? |
|
|
|
baumer
Top Prospect
82 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 12:11:35
|
I'l call this one a borderline "dangerous" play. Kesler did take a few too many strides and Morris turned at the last minute. I'm getting the impression from the league lately that not only are they cracking down on headshots but judging by the Tucker and Carcillo suspensions lately the referees had the riot act read to them.
It seems that any play that is somewhat in the grey area of a major or minor penalty they have really leaned towards the 5 minute penalty. Personally, Kesler should have recieved a minor penalty for charging. No way that is worth 5 and a game. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 12:30:48
|
quote:
A question for someone who did not see the hit. Before turning, how far away was Morris from the boards??
Also, is this simply a clean hit, a 2 minute, a 5 minute or a game??
This is probably the reason it was called the way it was. At the time Morris gets the puck, he is against the boards, one skate is riding the boards. When he sees Kesler coming in hard he turns his back, and in the process moves his upper body about 6-8 inches from the boards. The result is that when Kesler hits him, he does appear to go pretty violently into the boards and bounces off hard. The best view of the hit is the slow motion replay about a minute in (from the endboards).
I think this is a boarding penalty, 2 min. But hey, as I said, these are different days now. |
|
|
|
Guest9165
( )
|
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 12:59:02
|
There never used to be injuries resulting from hits from behind... Why so much speed to hit a guy along the boards? It doesn't take that much to knock a guy off the puck when you're close enough in weight and size. And since we're bringing the rules into it, it clearly states that any violent contact shall be penalized...
Answer me this: If a player takes 10 strides then coasts to a player and hits him, would it be called charging?
Keep in mind that skates these days allow you to keep almost full speed without even using strides. At the speed Kesler was going, had it been head to head, and had Kesler lifted an elbow, he would have decapitated the guy. Now I know this is not the case, but that is exactly my point. It wouldn't happen at that speed on open ice, it's too dangerous (besides, missing that open ice check means being out of position...) , so players seem to have gone to smothering others along side the boards at break neck speeds. So of course Morris didn't see Kesler, and with the speed being carried in there is no way to stop. "Morris turned"? Maybe. But without going in full pin, Kesler could have either A. Played the puck or B. Pinned the player, keeping pressure and the puck in the zone.
Also, if Morris was perfectly sideways and Kesler is coming from one degree off to Morris' back, then he will automatically be spun around towards the boards.
To me, Morris never saw the hit, and could not have braced himself even if he had seen Kesler coming. Too much speed, too dangerous... |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 13:44:29
|
People are bringing in things such as 'new equipment', how hard you hit based on 'size and weight'... I mean...
I'm all for trying to make every hit clean, but it will never happen.
And, I'm not so sure a player going in as fast as these guys move, have the time nor ability to calculate weight, height, speed & the kind of equipment he and the other player are wearing in order to judge how hard to hit the guy. heh.
Morris turned last second, no question. I mentioned this in another thread, where Fat_Elvis_Rocked and I have been discussing similar hits. And, I see it so often... this is a decent example of what I meant. Guys turn, face facing the boards, to protect the puck. Yet, they should be bracing for a hit and facing oncoming traffic.
They know it's coming! If they have the puck, someone is coming for a hit. ALWAYS! Be prepared... do not turn and hope nothing happens, or to gain a penalty, or to 'protect' the puck and yourself.
You open yourself up for a big, bad, brutal hit that could cost you more than a headache. We can't keep blaming the guys hitting the player, sometimes it's a two way street. They need to protect themselves more than they are. They are getting too comfortable in taking hits from behind, and I admit, giving them.
Two way street. They need to educate both parties more. The hitter, and the hitee.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 14:13:42
|
Still have not watched the hit, but I have to ask one questions.
When did hitting stop being about separating the man from the puck and become more about separating the man from his body parts??
If this was an excessively big hit, and as one fella put it, an elbow up would have caused a decapitation, who in their right mind can argue the penalty?? |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 14:59:41
|
quote:
When did hitting stop being about separating the man from the puck and become more about separating the man from his body parts??
If this was an excessively big hit, and as one fella put it, an elbow up would have caused a decapitation, who in their right mind can argue the penalty??
Beans, hard hitting is not new to the NHL. You're an Oilers fan, think back to the CGY/EDM games of the mid-late 80's. They were wars. Or Stortini - that guy runs at everything he sees on the ice, imagine if he actually made contact once or twice. Kesler's hit was a good hard bodycheck - not the sort of bodycheck you usually see, but one of those "perfect storm" checks that happen every other game or so, where a players has another one lined up cleanly, has some room to move in, and gets all of him on the hit.
Anyway, I don't think most are really arguing that this was not a penalty - IMO it was. Question is, was it a 2 minute charging/boarding call, or is it 5+game?
I've said this before, you can't start throwing ifs into it. If this, if that, what if he'd done something different? The problem is, who knows - everything changes if Kesler gets an elbow up into Morris's head, or Morris suddenly ducks down and goes headfirst into the boards, or if Morris doesn't turn on the puck and gets hit sideways into the board. You're introducing variables that change this from no penalty at all to a multi-game suspension.
quote:
To me, Morris never saw the hit, and could not have braced himself even if he had seen Kesler coming. Too much speed, too dangerous...
Guest, watch the slowmo replay, just before the minute mark. Just before Morris gets hit, he clearly looks over his shoulder and sees Kesler coming, then looks back down at the puck and starts turning inwards. No doubt Bryzgalov or someone else was yelling at him that the Kesler train was coming into the station. He knew it was coming. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 15:27:31
|
I realize that hard hitting has been part of the game. But there is a difference between a hard hit and a dangerously agressive hit.
The later is what you see causing injuries a plenty and what seems like a player every couple of nights being wheeled off the ice(or in Colorado drug off the ice on a sled). I don't recall this happening much if at all in those 80s Cgy/Edm tilts and they were as nasty as they come. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 15:33:29
|
I guess another question that needs to be asked, is if the refs took the time, collectively, to review the play, for as long as they did, and still came to the conclusion that is was a bad hit, deserving of 5 and a game, how can we possibly sit here, with visions of omniscience, thinking we know what they don't?
Good call by the refs to call it a penalty, better call to review the play before making final judgement, and best call to relay the message with 5 and a game.
I don't think it warrants any additional discipline in any way, but I, for one, am glad the refs are laying some groundwork regarding these particular types of hits. |
|
|
|
Guest9165
( )
|
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 17:02:21
|
I had more looks at the hit...
I do agree, Irvine (and others) that you cant measure weight, size, etc. as a player is coming at you. But the hitter usually does have time to calculate to some degree at least part of a guy's build/height. Otherwise Cooke would have lined up Boogaard a long time ago, eeeck. Anyways, shouldn't that deter someone from skating at full speed to hit someone, I mean, the guy can't really protect himself as you suggested.
My elbow to the head - decapitation incident was a hypothetical situation, I was just trying to explain the speed and aggression of the hit (and for beans because he could not see it, and because he knows, as everyone else does, just how incredibly fast Kesler is when he gets a head of steam).
For the sake of argument though, lets throw another "if" in the mix. IMO, IF Morris would have turned towards the play, no matter who would have hit him, at that speed and without the proper time to protect ones self, he would have flown backwards into the boards. He would probably have lost balance as he was being knocked down, back and back of head both go straight to the boards with alarming force, concussion?, spine injury? (insert hypothetic injuries here).
I'm not giving Morris a free pass at all, both are to blame. As I said at the start, I looked at the hit 3-4 times just at where he's looking and as far as I could tell he was looking up ice and couldn't see Kesler coming, but only Morris knows for sure, If he can remember...
But despite all by biting at this, I think taking him out of the game was a good call and that no suspention is needed. We can't make an example for the NHL out of a hit that is debatable. Major are, as Fat Elvis says, "groundwork", which I think is the appropriate word for the call.
I don't take my opinion as the be all end all of this, and I completely understand the opposing arguments. All I know, is that I have never been hit from behind, not once in all my minor hockey (14 years?, granted only about 8 of those were contact leagues)... Might skew my view of things...
Sorry for the long post, I just wanted to touch all bases :s
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 17:06:15
|
OK, finally had a chance to watch the hit.
Absolutely, without question the dead right call. Both in defintion of the rule as well as what the NHL is trying to do to clean up the game.
Regardless of Morris seeing Kesler, there was NOTHING he could have done differently to avoid the hit. Secondly, Morris"turning his back" is complete crap. Kesler was on back of his shoulder right before the hit. Even if Morris turned his back(which I don't believe he did) it does not change the play at all.
Furthermore, I also counted 5 strided, basically from the goal mouth to the hit. Also, from the clip. Kesler is at the front of the net at the 0:02 mark and Morris's face is pasted to the glass at the 0:04. So in 2 seconds, you are telling me that Morris had the chance to look up, down at the puck, over his shoulder to Kesler, THEN turn his back all before getting hit???
Is Morris the Flash in his spare time??
I completely agree with 5 and a game for ANY player who makes a hit like this. Regular time, slo mo, anyway you look at it, it's ugly and it's definately boarding.
Turn the tables and have Kesler being the one getting hit and some would be calling for a suspension.
Now, I loved that the officials got together and talked about it and made a decision. Awesome. That needs to happen more. |
|
|
|
Guest9165
( )
|
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 17:46:47
|
Just saw Frasier (hawks) get hit from the side with about half the force Kesler used on Morris... He's in some pain right now. Oh and Lashoff is gone, that hit is suspendible though (I'd say 3 games, it's barely a hockey play), Fedotenko had NO chance.
Just a few notes to compare on... |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 18:26:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
OK, finally had a chance to watch the hit.
Absolutely, without question the dead right call. Both in defintion of the rule as well as what the NHL is trying to do to clean up the game.
Regardless of Morris seeing Kesler, there was NOTHING he could have done differently to avoid the hit. Secondly, Morris"turning his back" is complete crap. Kesler was on back of his shoulder right before the hit. Even if Morris turned his back(which I don't believe he did) it does not change the play at all.
Furthermore, I also counted 5 strided, basically from the goal mouth to the hit. Also, from the clip. Kesler is at the front of the net at the 0:02 mark and Morris's face is pasted to the glass at the 0:04. So in 2 seconds, you are telling me that Morris had the chance to look up, down at the puck, over his shoulder to Kesler, THEN turn his back all before getting hit???
Is Morris the Flash in his spare time??
I completely agree with 5 and a game for ANY player who makes a hit like this. Regular time, slo mo, anyway you look at it, it's ugly and it's definately boarding.
Turn the tables and have Kesler being the one getting hit and some would be calling for a suspension.
Now, I loved that the officials got together and talked about it and made a decision. Awesome. That needs to happen more.
-----------------------
Can't agree with you Beanie. But that's not a surprise since we have never agree on hitting in NHL hockey.
Morris saw him coming - He looked right at him at 3 seconds into the clip. If he didn't see him coming why did he turn back? The answer is he was trying to elude the checker, Kesler. If he didn't see him coming he would have kept skating up the ice as there was no attacker in front of him, it was clear sailing going forward. He knew he couldn't beat Kesler up ice because he had speed on him, so instead he turned his back as Kesler came in - and in the process Kesler caught him on the back half of his shoulder, yes the shoulder! This is a perfect example of a player knowingly turning his back to an attacker to elude the check. He probably assumed that since the Canucks were on a PK that he wouldn't hit him...wrong choice.
As for his strides, Kesler took strides because it is hockey and that is how you create mobility (no stride, no move) He coasted the last 6 or 7 feet (still well within the circle when he began coasting). It was a high speed hit and that's all. I'd even say boarding was borderline. Stop the video at 1:02 and look. They are beside each other and Morris is a foot off the boards a only fraction of a second before impact...and then Morris turned away. I'd love to see a frame by frame view of this but this video will have to do. Tell me Kesler could change his mind at that time. Doesn't even look like boarding to me.
I doubt that he'll get any supplementary discipline and that is exactly how I would have it. |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 20:12:48
|
When looking at a hit like this for me, the bottom line becomes...
When you take the puck and move towards the boards to protect it, prepare to be hit. Why do guys not expect to be nailed these days? They have the puck, they are out-maned, killing a penalty, they have to know somebody is looking to hit them.
No, he should not have to worry about guys coming from behind, but Kesler did not hit him from behind. We see Morris turn his head, expecting a guy to be coming in for the hit to the side (and it was coming), but he did not have himself in the proper position to be hit, even though he knew he would be... and all players should know.
Kesler comes in from the side, at an angle to me that is legal. Had Morris stayed in the position he originally was, without moving even more so towards the boards just before the hit, we'd not be having this conversation in my opinion.
I'm not say blame Morris here, but I am saying I see nothing wrong with the hit. Boarding? I can agree with that. I don't see it as boarding, personally, but I won't disagree with the call. In a situation such as this, a boarding call can be made. But anything more to me, is just keeping up with the recent madness.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 20:21:53
|
Wow, I'm all for eveyone having their opinions, but being entitled to such shouldn't distract from the B.S. that is quickly becoming the norm in today's NHL.
I'm shaking my head at all the long time fans who seem to be educated about the game, and for the most part prove their level of understanding and education about the game with numerous positive, well thought out posts over and over again.
These hits,(another one tonight in the Pittsburgh game, surprise, surprise), have never been a mainstay part of the game. I have been both a player and a fan of the game for at least 40 of the 45 years I have been plodding around this rock, and I have never been more dismayed with the physical nonsense that is considered 'good' hockey nowadays.
Either some people argue just for the sake of arguing, or there is a serious lack of sensibility in understanding what is right and wrong in professional hockey. I am at a loss, as to how anyone defends these malicious chickensh*t types of plays as good hockey, totally at a loss.
This is bloodlust, gladitorial crap, that should be frowned upon at the very least, if not outraged at, yet because it's hockey, sensible people continue to try and pull various allowances out of their backsides defending this part of the game.....
It's lucky I'm a happy go lucky old dude, otherwise I'd take up a couple of the more ridiculous rebuttals, whose only repose seems to always gravitate to either don't watch then, or it's always been this way, or the ever assinine, 'leave the game alone, it's fine'.
Sorry, if looks like bullsh*t, sounds like bullsh*t, smells like bullsh*t, it most likely ain't roses, no matter how you try to sell it.
I guess we'll have to wait until someone finally gets a broken neck or worse before common sense kicks in, but I guess the adage about common sense is true....it's not that common.
Awful, just awful |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 20:28:18
|
I still don't believe that Morris did turn his back. Stop the clock at :54 and tell me that Kesler does not already have contact with Morris and then click play and stop as fast as you can. You will clearly see that Kesler makes initial contact on the side or Morris under his left arm. Kesler then extends his right arm through the check which is what makes Morris kiss the glass.
Don't listen to the play by play, watch it with your eyes.
One more thing:
The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact.
It is not Morris's responsibility to avoid the check, it was Kesler's as he was the player applying the check.
Severity dictated (according to the officials) that is was 5 and a game. I would rather see the refs err on the side of caution and lay the 5 and a game then not lay anything or 2 and watch the Coyotes head hunt for the rest of the game.
Still dead right call. This was not a straight up hockey hit. By definition of the rule, it was boarding.
That part is pretty clear.
Now, I think the punishment does fit the crime. 5 and a game and nothing more. Suspensions are for players that intend to injure. I do believe that this was simply an over agressive play by an agressive player on a forecheck. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 21:04:42
|
Beans, not surprisingly, i'm shocked at your opinion of this incident. While i do agree it is "boarding" as per the rules, this again goes back to the whole debate about the actual definition of the rule! I'll come back to that later, after i pick apart your post . Just kidding, in fact to avoid another multi-page debate, i'll ignore most of which i vehemently disagree with and just touch on a couple things:
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Now, I loved that the officials got together and talked about it and made a decision. Awesome. That needs to happen more.
I'm good with that as well. However, NO CALL was originally being made by EITHER referee. First, with two refs, do we really need a linesman's opinion thrown in there? C'mon, there's two refs with different views of the incident and neither thought it was bad enough to call ANY penalty? Second, and don't quote me on this as it's something i heard and didn't research, but i understand that when a linesman is involved, he is only able to recommend a major. Perhaps this incident was worthy of a minor penalty but seeing as the refs hadn't called on on the play, they couldn't go back and call a minor after conversing with the linesman. Therefore, it was a major or nothing. Thirdly, aside from no penalty being given for a retaliation that resulted in a mini brawl / scrum, it's likely the Coyote's reaction to the hit had the typical "knee jerk" reaction which made the refs think maybe just maybe this hit was worse than we thought?
quote:
Turn the tables and have Kesler being the one getting hit and some would be calling for a suspension.
NEVER! Now, you prob won't believe this, but i could care less if it was Kesler being hit in this manner. You will see, it's only a matter of time before a Canuck makes the same move or similar and i will come on here and admit they're part to blame!
Here's the thing, it all boils down to the definition of the calls of "boarding" and/or "checking from behind"
Here they are again to review, including a link to the rules in case you want to read them in their entirety as i won't copy the entire thing.....
Rule 42 - Boarding
42.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.
Rule 44 - Checking from Behind
44.1 Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed.
It could be argued that the Kesler hit was checking from behind, especially if you want to claim Morris had no clue he was coming, which i find beyond the realm of belief. Either way, look at that boarding penalty description. Please tell me your opinion. Does the wording not need to be tweaked? If not, we may as well take hitting out of the game. I'd venture to guess that 95% of all hits are at or near the boards and they could all be described as "violent" to some degree! That'd be a lot of boarding calls game in game out. Get your power play working! And be sure to tell Tambellini to resign Souray!
Anyway, i don't wanna get into a huge debate about this but in my mind, you can't take hits like this out of the game without taking hitting out of the game pretty much all together. What did you want Kesler to do? Determine that Morris "MAY" reverse the puck and therefore put himself in a vulnerable position, therefore not hit him? He's to decide this in a matter of seconds? If hits like this continue to be called like this, guys won't be able to chance a check like this and it will change the game of hockey drastically! At worst, i think if the ref's get together on a call like this, they should be able to call a minor penalty by coming to the conclussion that the "hittee" was part to blame. I'd like to think that a guy won't risk a major injury just to "take one for the team" however, you never know come playoffs!
I'm glad this didn't really have a major affect on the outcome as the Canucks went on to win anyway. It did hurt Kesler's chances to finish at a ppg pace though as it was obvious he was gonna pop in 6-8 points last night |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 21:48:00
|
Alex, I think you are arguing what you would like the points/rules to be, not what they are.
Again, I think the video, at the :54 - :55 second mark clearly shows that Kesler did not hit Morris from behind, he hit him from the side and spun him into the glass. That is what my eyes see anyways. I don't see Morris turning at all.
Ultimately, the refs agreed that it was boarding and that Morris did not turn. The NHL agreed that the refs applied a fair punishment and did not go further with any suspension, Vancouver ended up winning the game anyways, and Kesler will be back in the next game.
All is right in the world. |
|
|
|
Guest9165
( )
|
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 22:15:54
|
Alright guys, we clearly know that both players are in the wrong here. Morris shouldn't have turned, even to the slightest degree, but didn't have time to even brace himself for the hit, which is what caused the whole boarding incident. An overaggressive forecheck and a millisecond brain fart on Morris' part (or for any other play and player).
Most hits are like this and with all our new rule changes and the increased speed, it was bound to happen. Combine that with the fact that this is basically what has been going on in minor hockey in the last 10 years and you get players that only make it to the NHL on pure aggression. Unfortunately, the NHL will keep being filled with the Cormiers and others of the like, that play the game with reckless abandon.
Here's my beef with all this. What's gonna happen when a guy really gets drilled from behind. I mean REALLY gets hit. And the reason for him not facing the hit is because he mishandled the puck and turned towards the boards to pick it up. Player coming in had to much speed and intended to knock the guy senseless, which SHOULD be taken as intent to injure. Player being hit is Ovechkin (by lets say Cooke), and he'll never be able to play again.
What then?
I know it's another hypothetical situation, but I want you guys to think about this for a second. In business you don't plan for things to fix themselves and go along great, you plan for the absolute worst situation and find ways to fix it before it happens. Just look at the damage done from races to pucks just to save an icing...
Imagine the impact for kids, say your kids, playing at a 14-15 year old level and a player just runs around trying to hit everyone (as it already is in some cases, even enforced) and hits your son/daughter from behind. You spend the night in the hospital not knowing if he'll ever even get to play again, and the kid who did it, got a 2 minute boarding call...
You can't let the current state of the hits in the NHL set a precedent for hockey, it'll ruin itself from the inside out, or at least what little integrity it has left if you ask Don Cherry... So this call has to be made, if not for the respect of the game, then for the protection of it's players. If there is not hit, there is nothing to have to avoid.
|
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 22:28:45
|
Why is it that the only recurring defense for these types of hits is the standard, 'if you take this away, then you have to take all hitting out', or 'all hits will be penalties then', or my favorite, 'it may as well be figure skating then'.
Please, and I point to no one in particular, if that's the best argument you can debate with, then you win, your dad is bigger than my dad, because it carries as much validity as that ageless classic.
5 and game is a pretty easy payment, to make the game smarter and safer.
PS. I was watching the Montreal, Carolina game, and wouldn't you know it. Cammalleri got 2 for a blatant hit from behind.
Makes me want to scream, 'what the f*ck is the matter with you guys!', to the NHL.
I don't profess to know any more about the game than anyone else, I played, I watch. I don't profess to being a daisy regarding the physical game. I certainly don't profess to suggest that hitting isn't a huge, positive part of the game.
I just don't get when this crap type of play became acceptable, or, when it's deemed not acceptable due to a discretionary call by the referees, it's become justifiable, and a bad call by said referees.
I guess I never will, and will have to settle for a 'told ya so' when the game loses someone for something this stupid, and I fear unless change happens, it's coming.
If I'm wrong, someone, please enlighten me, so I can watch a game without the useless scrums, the tense moments when I wonder if the player hit cheaply is all right, and enjoy the real game, I miss it dearly. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 23:11:30
|
BEANS
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Alex, I think you are arguing what you would like the points/rules to be, not what they are.
Yup, pretty much bang on, except for the fact that the boarding rule, as i noted above, clearly states that "there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position." Now, if you see it as Kesler hit him from the side and somehow spun him face first into the boards, that could be different i guess, and i watched it again and i can see where you're coming from. I can live with that, but i really do feel that if they continue to lay ALL the blame on the hitter, the game is about to change.
As for your comments about "all is right", in this situation, we're saying that only because it didn't really cost the Canucks much if anything. Can you imagine if this were a team fighting for their playoff lives such as Calgary or Colorado? There's be some really pissed off fans, players and coaches i'd say.
Fat_Elvis
quote:
Why is it that the only recurring defense for these types of hits is the standard, 'if you take this away, then you have to take all hitting out', or 'all hits will be penalties then', or my favorite, 'it may as well be figure skating then'.
Please, and I point to no one in particular, if that's the best argument you can debate with, then you win, your dad is bigger than my dad, because it carries as much validity as that ageless classic.
I know you're not pointing to anyone in particular but i obviously am one of the ones you're referring to so i felt compelled to reply. I'm def not the one to use the figure skating analogy, but will own up to a comment along the lines of "all hits will be penalties" or something to that nature. The reason i said this is because if they're going to call the rules as they're stated, then clearly this is true. I don't care about "your dad / my dad" BS, read the rule and explain to me otherwise if you don't see my point. If you wanna know why this is the defense i use for my argument, look no further than the rule itself. It clearly backs that up. What i'm ultimately trying to get across is the fact that it will change the game drastically even if they don't call "every" hit. The hits like Kesler threw will forever be changed. How many guys are gonna forcheck aggressively if they have a 5 and a game to look forward to. Not many i'd guess. Now, if that's the sort of change to the game of hockey you want to see, good for you. I will admit, it will open the game up to a quicker display of skill, less contact and diminish the value of many players and i don't just mean goons. If this is the sort of change you want, we just won't see eye to eye on the matter. I got no prob with ridding the NHL of the Boogards, Parros', etc, but i don't wanna see the value of pk specialists and gritty 3rd and 4th line players/checkers disappear.
BTW, while typing this, i saw for the first time, the Camalleri bump. Yeah, i'm calling it a bump cuz if he'd gotten any more than 2 mins for that, i'd have been totally horrified.
Oh, and please send me tapes of some of these games you seem to have watched in years past where there were no cheap or questionable hits and no scrums? I'd love to see this game you speak of, you know, the one you miss???
GUEST9165
quote:
Here's my beef with all this. What's gonna happen when a guy really gets drilled from behind. I mean REALLY gets hit. And the reason for him not facing the hit is because he mishandled the puck and turned towards the boards to pick it up. Player coming in had to much speed and intended to knock the guy senseless, which SHOULD be taken as intent to injure. Player being hit is Ovechkin (by lets say Cooke), and he'll never be able to play again.
Very good point. This is kinda like what i was mentioning above to Fat_Elvis. I still feel that some blame lies with the guy being hit. To me, it's no different that a guy losing control mid ice, putting his head down to look for the puck and getting drilled. SOME blame has to lie with the guy getting hit as it's his responsibility to know his surroundings and the danger he faces at all times he has the puck!
Again, if a guy is already committed to hitting a player, what's he supposed to do? Without getting Elvis too riled up about "there'll be no hitting", no guy is gonna try to hit a guy near the boards EVER if he thinks the guy could turn at any point. I don't know how else to explain this or try to get anyone to understand it. Do you not think the forechecking and hitting / finishing a check is going to change in a HUGE way???
|
|
|
|
Guest4624
( )
|
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 23:11:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Why is it that the only recurring defense for these types of hits is the standard, 'if you take this away, then you have to take all hitting out', or 'all hits will be penalties then', or my favorite, 'it may as well be figure skating then'.
Please, and I point to no one in particular, if that's the best argument you can debate with, then you win, your dad is bigger than my dad, because it carries as much validity as that ageless classic.
And why is it that all you on the other side always say "wait til someone breaks a neck" or my favourite "he's going to kill someone some day" If you disagree then say you disagree and give your reasons, but don't call the rest of us who don't agree with you a bunch of children, it's insulting and you clearly intended it that way even from behind your smiley emoticon. If you can't defend your point then don't, but throwing your arms up in the air and yelling "well you're just stupid" is at least as bad as you're claiming us to be. You're a better poster than that! |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 23:23:27
|
I am usually with you on the the bad hits discussions we have had in the past, Fat Elvis . . . but not this one.
Folks, some excellent comments here - let's keep out the personal attacks and keep the discussion on track.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 01:24:57
|
Fair enough.
This particular hit is not the one that causes me to ask these questions, but it is one of the many as of late, that do.
Had this hit had more dire results, I am sure the discussion would be completely different, but such is the beauty of hindsight.
My concern has never, in any of my posts regarding these hits, and there have been many, had anything to do with anything other than to ask why these hits are;
- necessary with the position of the players involved
- necessary with the excessive force involved in conjunction with the postion of the players involved
- necessary as anything other than a malicious bodycheck with intent to cause havoc, as opposed to a legal hockey play
- necessary as part of the game, when lately the consequences are proving to be anything but beneficial to the game, and even less so to the players involved, with the suspensions and injuries these plays incur.
If these are not only questions, but reasons for why I support my stance, then I am not sure what else can reasonably be expected of me regarding my purported inability to give reason to my disagreement.
And as to my stance, on this particular hit,I only said the call was correct and am glad to see these calls made on these plays, anything further than that is someone putting words in my mouth.
Guest4624 it is presumptuous of you to assume you know my intentions when I post, my arms were down, and I never consider anyone stupid, I think I have posted with enough reparte for all to know that other than a smartass comment here and there I give all respect when it's due.
The reason I used the analogy of the apparently offensive Dad vs. Dad argument is simply to help illustrate the lack of rebuttal to my concerns about these hits, that's it.
I have asked the questions and given my reasons, I'm not asking anyone to agree, I am only lamenting the fact, that these plays are continuing, even with all the negative attention.
I'd welcome any of the aforementioned request for enlightenment for these types of hits to continue, but apparently instead of substantial debate, I have sparked emotion and am getting that response instead.
Please, I am not trying to fan flames here, I am just asking for reasonable response. There are no reasons for these type of hits. That is why it was called, in this case, a 5 minute major, after consultation amongst the referees. I am not sure where the issue against that lies.
The penalty structures are there, don't want a penalty? Don't make a play that brings the penalty call into action. Does that not simplify things?
If you have to think about whether the actions you are commiting to on the ice may result in a infraction, are you making the right play to start with? |
Edited by - fat_elvis_rocked on 04/01/2010 01:44:09 |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 01:36:27
|
Alex, I'll touch on my interpretation of a section of the boarding penalty briefly.
The first line and last line carry a more liberal interpretation;
'There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.
Kinda gives some leeway here doesn't it.
To me it means take the hit if you want, but if it's excessive to the ref, the call is there. What it doesn't say is that hitting isn't allowed.
An aggressive forecheck has everything to do with forcing the puck carrier to hopefully make a bad play. Not sure when driving the guy through the boards became the pre-requisite.
I'm using the smiley face, hope others don't find that demeaning.....see, example of those moments of smartassedeness?, I refer to. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 09:20:51
|
Fat_Elvis....
I understand where you're coming from and i agree with the fact that "driving the guy through the boards" isn't necessary. What we're seeing (IMO) though is guys progressively getting bigger and faster over the years and therefore either having the speed or size to increase the results of checks. Let's face it, what're Keslers options here:
a. Hit him hard as he can and hope to steal the puck and have Morris on his butt. This allows a free attempt towards goal.
b. Bump him, maybe enabling him to steal the puck and kill more of the penalty
c. Bump him and allow him to clear the puck up the boards or back around the net to a teammate
d. abort, try to stick check and return to a defensive postion to continue the PK.
While i won't argue that "d" would be fine, i will argue that "a" would be best for the Canucks. And i know you're gonna argue that if "a" is chosen, it should be done cleanly and i'll agree. It is my belief that Kesler attempted to do this cleanly in a way that he's been taught since he was first allowed to throw a body check. At no point do i think he tried to hit him from behind and force him face first into the boards. This goes back to what i alluded to earlier. If calls like this are going to be made, then players will have to change their games significantly! If that's what the league has decided, i can learn to live with that and accept it though i'd prefer to see hard nosed (but clean) hockey.
To your point of quote:
To me it means take the hit if you want, but if it's excessive to the ref, the call is there. What it doesn't say is that hitting isn't allowed.
i never intended to say hitting wouldn't be allowed. What i meant was that very few players, especially come playoffs, would risk a hit like this if a 5 and a game could be such an easy result. Again, this would change the way the game is played and it'd take me a little getting used to i suppose. It would def increase the speed and fluidity of the game, but i prefer to see a guy able to throw the body a bit more than i'm guessing it will amount to if these calls continue.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
