View Single Post
Old
01-02-2012, 09:13 AM
  #170
blue bleeder 24-7
Registered User
 
blue bleeder 24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 1,738
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by X8oD View Post
You clearly have a youtube video that shows the elbow didn't make contact with the head. That it was a shoulder, and it was after initial contact t the sternum. If you keep rocking the pause/play button you will get a pause at 38 seconds, which shows Jackman flailing away from the hit, before datsyuk's follow thru. The Elbow _NEVER_ made contact.

And yet you bark up "this is a youtube" generation as your argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8SX1ujpgf

37 seconds, the elbow is tucked. The white stripe on the jersey is above the elbow on both his arms. And on the left arm, the one making contact, its on the chest of Jackman. He "chipped" the chin with his shoulder. But contact was square on the chest.

But il contend, again at 37 seconds, Datsyuks knees are bent, not straight. And Jackmans are bent even farther. Meaning he was leaning down at the point of contact.

The after effect embellishment and subsequent tantrum he thru was more of an impact.
I began making these before you edited your post, as such, we could be agreeing, I haven't reread your post.

But you challenged my YouTube age comment, and so sure, that's fair, I guess I'll have to provide evidence now from YouTube:

I think what we need to determine here is not if the head was hit. I think in both cases, the head was hit. Cole hit Abdelkader's head, Datsyuk hit Jackman's head. And I also think it's fairly obvious that the head was the initial point of contact.

If you can not agree with the above statements, then there's no reason for me to continue talking, because I can't see a way to logically disagree with those.

So, assuming we agree that both hits were to the head, we need to consider what the target would be. I think figuring out what the target of the hit is will determine motivation, and motivation is going to determine if the hit was an unfortunate collision or a dirty hit.

Let's look at the Cole hit:

We need to figure out what Ian Cole was targeting. Sometimes you can miss your target. Therefore, we need to find Cole's intent. As such, I have removed all but Ian Cole in this picture, which is from the YouTube video, a fraction of a second before the hit. This will help us see what he was intending to do, without external influence. Just Cole's actions:



The shoulders look relatively level, and the elbows are level too. Also note that the left elbow is tucked, not extended. If it were extended, there would be daylight. So we must assume that the intent of Cole is for the hit to be below the shoulder and above the elbow.

Also note that Cole is not standing straight up. He is leaning into the hit, which will lower his target by a matter of a few substantial inches.

Based on this, I have concluded that Cole's intended target would be at the same level as his own chest and shoulder. This is indicated with a circle with a question mark.

Ian Cole is 6'2", an averaged sized player in the NHL, and he is crouched in this picture. As such, we can assume that Cole was NOT trying to hit an average player's head with this. Had the player been upright, or even crouched to the extent that Cole was, this would be a shoulder-to-shoulder or shoulder-to-chest impact.

Here is the unaltered image:



The 6'1" Justin Abdelkader is crouched, with his head forward and down following the puck. Thus, there was a head hit. Abdelkader's head is not in an anticipated hockey position.

His head is down.

The onus is always on the hitter to not hit the head, which is why this is fine in my book as a 1 game suspension. Based on the evidence and explanation here, you can now see why I do not believe Cole meant to target Abdelkader's head. But nevertheless, he hit it, and needs to learn more control and forethought. So sure, a 1 game suspension.

Remembering back to my bolded premise, we need to find target for motivation, and the motivation will tell us if it was a dirty hit, or an unfortunate collision.

Given that I can find no evidence for intent, I find this an unfortunate collision, and a 3 game suspension to be flat out ridiculous.

Now, let's look at the Datsyuk hit:

One again, we need to find out what the target was Pavel Datsyuk was going for. So once again, I will use measurements based on the player's stature, and again in particular, the relation of his elbows and shoulders. If the difference between the shoulders and elbows is flat, we can assume that Datsyuk's hit is much like Cole's hit, an unfortunate collision.



This is entirely different. As you can see, both Datsyuk's left shoulder and elbow are significantly raised from his right shoulder and elbow. Applying the same targeting definitions we've established for Cole, we can assume that Datsyuk's target is between his shoulder and elbow (unless he was intentionally doing something like leading with the elbow).

As such, the target here is not at chest level with Datsyuk, it is at head-level with him. While the left knee is bent, the right one appears fairly straight, so we can assume that Datsyuk isn't trying to get down on the hit either. And as I was saying, his target is clearly above his shoulders.

Pavel Datsyuk, however, is a shorter player, at 5'11". And as such, perhaps he was trying to hit a much taller Barret Jackman. However, this is not the case, Barret Jackman is 6'0". There is no reason for Datsyuk, who is nearly standing up right, to be targeting above his shoulders to a player of similar stature, unless the target is intentionally the head.

As we factor in everything else going on with the play, we can see that Datsyuk will hit his target:



This isn't a case of camera-angle trickey either. The two players are about to collide, with Datsyuk's left foot underneath Jackman already.

Again, remembering back to my bolded premise, we need to find target for motivation, and the motivation will tell us if it was a dirty hit, or an unfortunate collision.

Given that I have demonstrated that Datsyuk's target was clearly something about head-height with Datsyuke, where Jackman's head happened to be, I find this to be a dirty hit, where we have established with enough evidence to reasonably conclude that Datsyuk was targeting Jackman's head, and indeed hit it. Given the severity of a hit like this, and the intent, I find it absolutely ridiculous that Datsyuk received no sort of punishment on the hit.

None. Not a penalty, not a fine, not a suspension.

This leads me to conclude that the NHL is either grossly negligent or actively biased in handing out discipline for players. And both times, we are seeing a pro-Red Wing trend in the rulings.

We saw this same pro-Red Wing ruling trend in November, when Stewart was handed a 3 game suspension on this play:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p...3#post39515363

Now, I will admit, there is much more evidence against Stewart than I lead on in that post, and while what I say there is what I believe, I think the suspension to Stewart would have been justified had it only have been for a game.

And then, a few games later, we continue an anti-Blues trend in the officiating with this hit from Doughty on Oshie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq0OecERDlw

Very very very very similar to the Stewart on Kronwall hit, only instead of a 3 game suspension, Doughty was given a wrist-slap of a fine.

Why? These are clearly unequal calls on very similar sitautions.

Is it the star power of Doughty and Datsyuk? Is it the fact that no one cares about if St. Louis players get mauled and maimed? St. Louis isn't a big market, afterall. Why is it that the NHL comes down so hard on Blues players, and yet allows other players to go scott-free?

Continuing this trend, let's look back to April 6th of 2011:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w32LhH4HJA

Let's analyze this play:
Marian Hossa intentionally kicks the puck at the net
The puck does not cross the goal line
After review by the NHL's War Room, the Chicago Blackhawks are given a goal they did not score under any definition.

This game decided if the Blackhawks made the playoffs or not. And it was a 1-goal game decided in Overtime.

Am I really wearing a tinfoil hat, or am noticing a trend of Anti-Blues, Pro-large-market calls in the NHL?

I mean, these aren't even close to correct calls. And the suspensions aren't even close to justice.

Really, think about it. Can you watch this clips, see these pictures, look at this evidence, and tell me that I'm way off base? Can you really? At worst, I've been fooled somehow by camera angles, and some shred of homerism is pushing the to extremes. But so often? In a trending manner? I doubt that, but it's possible.

Isn't it more likely that I'm actually picking up on something? And if I am, can you say the NHL has one shred of respectability left as a governing body? Can you tell me they are doing their absolute best to make the correct calls?

Or are they just playing a money game, screwing the small teams, such as St. Louis, in order to help out the larger markets, such as Detroit, Los Angeles and Chicago?

blue bleeder 24-7 is offline   Reply With Quote