Thread: Confirmed with Link: Upshall suspended two games
View Single Post
Old
02-24-2011, 11:49 AM
  #73
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
It's really not a bit much. A hit like that resulting in a serious injury will get suspended by the NHL 10 times out of 10.

Not a hockey play + violent collision + injury = suspension.
What constitutes a 'hockey play'? This seems to be one of those terms that is coined and then elasticized so as to fit whatever scenario one wants to. If you trip a player with your stick, is it a hockey play? To me, Upshall made late use of a hockey play (ie, a body check), and was appropriately assessed a charging minor. Is a charging hit a hockey play, since it is covered in the official NHL rules:

Quote:
42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

...

42.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent.

42.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent (see 42.5).

42.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by charging.

42.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

42.6 Fines and Suspensions – When a major penalty and a game misconduct is assessed for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall be imposed.

If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).
btw, wow a whole $100 fine! That'll get them thinking twice!!

And I agree with you about how it is regarding a foul resulting in injury. I disagree that that's how it should be. Under that logic, Steckel should still be sitting out a suspension. Conversely, Cooke was issued a suspension even though the player he hit jumped back up right away. Results have to be tempered with intent and degree of recklessness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangecrush18
The hit was disgusting and has no place in the game whatsoever. The purpose of body contact in hockey isnt to knock the other guy out/injure him, its to remove him for the puck for your own benefit.
There's quite the grey area between the two poles you have planted in your statement. "Finishing your check" has been preached, is preached and will be preached to players in the NHL, with the result to get your opponent thinking about being hit when he is playing the puck, and to wear him down (not injure). That's why there is an allowable delay of 1-2 seconds (and sometimes more) to hit a player who was in possession of the puck but who has passed/shot/lost possession.

And call me a lowbrow, but I subscribe to Jester's POV that Bartulis, being in a danger zone, has to plant himself better. He doesn't have to be ready to high-stick or coldcock an onrushing opponent, but he should be ready for some contact to protect the puck.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote