HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Marty St. Louis Gets high sticked...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-14-2011, 01:29 PM
  #101
pirate94
Registered User
 
pirate94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingbobert View Post
so if a players is lying down and gets a stick to the face thats high sticking? even though the stick never left the ice?
i won't partake in vague scenarios, be more specific on the situation.

pirate94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 01:37 PM
  #102
pirate94
Registered User
 
pirate94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReaper View Post
pirate94, just to clarify: Do you think it should've been a high-stick or a slash?
I see it as possible falling into either category depending on a refs interperetations of the rules. now the peson who quoted the rulebook earlier seemingly left out info on purpose
under high-sticking
Quote:
60.2 Minor Penalty - Any contact made by a stick on an opponent above the shoulders is prohibited and a minor penalty shall be imposed.
Quote:
60.3 Double-minor Penalty - When a player carries or holds any part of his stick above the shoulders of the opponent so that injury results, the Referee shall assess a double-minor penalty for all contact that causes an injury, whether accidental or careless, in the opinion of the Referee.

pirate94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 02:05 PM
  #103
TheReaper
Registered User
 
TheReaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Glasgow
Country: Brazil
Posts: 4,271
vCash: 500
What if the guy is on the floor or falling down and it's incidental accidental? It's open to the refs interpretation whether it was "high" or not, which is a relative term. So there isn't only one right call, depending on whether the ref saw the contact as being high or not the call could've gone either way.

TheReaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 02:09 PM
  #104
pirate94
Registered User
 
pirate94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReaper View Post
What if the guy is on the floor or falling down and it's incidental accidental? It's open to the refs interpretation whether it was "high" or not, which is a relative term. So there isn't only one right call, depending on whether the ref saw the contact as being high or not the call could've gone either way.
I don't play the "what if" game. If he's falling on the floor, he's obviously not in a game.

rule says contact above the shoulders. its simple. contact was above the shoulders and resulted in the injury.

It's obvious the ref dropped the ball.

pirate94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 02:15 PM
  #105
71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moundsville, WV
Country: United States
Posts: 5,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate94 View Post
I don't play the "what if" game. If he's falling on the floor, he's obviously not in the game.
Nice!

71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 02:20 PM
  #106
Cowboy Dan
Reader Since '06
 
Cowboy Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 320
vCash: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate94 View Post
Have to correct you on that. Michalek was swinging his stick wildly, lost control of it and it hit St.Louis in the face drawing blood.
Michalek should have been given the penalty and extra for the blood.
Regardless of where St.Louis is, Michalek lost control of his stick.
Alot of penalties Tampa took were their own fault, but there were alot of penalties that were questionable from what i saw. Pens got away with more than Tampa did, plain and simple.
I never said Michalek did have control of his stick, but when St. Louis' head is a foot off the ice, that is neither a high stick or a slash.

60.1 High-sticking - A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players and goalkeepers must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.

St. Louis was basically on the ice, so whether he was in control of his stick or not, it is not a penalty according the to NHL high sticking rule.

61.1 Slashing - Slashing is the act of a player swinging his stick at an opponent, whether contact is made or not. Non-aggressive stick contact to the pant or front of the shin pads, should not be penalized as slashing. Any forceful or powerful chop with the stick on an opponent’s body, the opponent’s stick, or on or near the opponent’s hands that, in the judgment of the Referee, is not an attempt to play the puck, shall be penalized as slashing.

Yes, I'm aware it did not hit St. Louis in the pant or shin pad, but that was due to the fact, as everyone in the thread has stated, that he was on his way to the ice. It was obviously not an aggressive play by Michalek, more an awkward fall, and therefore, by the rule, should not be penalized.

As for the officiating argument, that's a whole different discussion. I will say however, that I disagree with you're view on that, but that's neither here nor there.

Cowboy Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 02:39 PM
  #107
pirate94
Registered User
 
pirate94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy Dan View Post
I never said Michalek did have control of his stick, but when St. Louis' head is a foot off the ice, that is neither a high stick or a slash.

60.1 High-sticking - A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players and goalkeepers must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.

St. Louis was basically on the ice, so whether he was in control of his stick or not, it is not a penalty according the to NHL high sticking rule.

61.1 Slashing - Slashing is the act of a player swinging his stick at an opponent, whether contact is made or not. Non-aggressive stick contact to the pant or front of the shin pads, should not be penalized as slashing. Any forceful or powerful chop with the stick on an opponent’s body, the opponent’s stick, or on or near the opponent’s hands that, in the judgment of the Referee, is not an attempt to play the puck, shall be penalized as slashing.

Yes, I'm aware it did not hit St. Louis in the pant or shin pad, but that was due to the fact, as everyone in the thread has stated, that he was on his way to the ice. It was obviously not an aggressive play by Michalek, more an awkward fall, and therefore, by the rule, should not be penalized.

As for the officiating argument, that's a whole different discussion. I will say however, that I disagree with you're view on that, but that's neither here nor there.

OK i quoted the Highsticking rule, i shouldn't have to do that again but here is what it says

Quote:
60.2 Minor Penalty - Any contact made by a stick on an opponent above the shoulders is prohibited and a minor penalty shall be imposed.
Michalek had no control of his stick, he spun, and whipped his stick around. To me that's dangerous play, and it gave St.Louis an injury. Regardless of attempt to play the puck, or not, there was contact above the shoulders from a danerous play.
interperet it as slash, high-stick, roughing. Doesn't change the fact it's a botched call



the rule says what it says.
botched call

pirate94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 02:47 PM
  #108
Zen Arcade
eat the record cover
 
Zen Arcade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 13,977
vCash: 500
Back in 2009, St. Louis got high sticked by his own teammate and Max Talbot got a 4 minute penalty for it.

It's an even up call, two years later.

Zen Arcade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 03:16 PM
  #109
TheReaper
Registered User
 
TheReaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Glasgow
Country: Brazil
Posts: 4,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate94 View Post
I don't play the "what if" game. If he's falling on the floor, he's obviously not in a game.

rule says contact above the shoulders. its simple. contact was above the shoulders and resulted in the injury.

It's obvious the ref dropped the ball.
It's nearly impossible to have a reasonable discussion with a homer.

I present you with the hypothetical scenario where a player is nearly on the ice, and gets hit by a stick on his face accidently because of his position. Should that be a penalty?

And congrats on making fun of somebody's english "mistake" when his native language. You obviously knew what I meant by "floor" and could've easily answered my question.

TheReaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 03:16 PM
  #110
Oil Gauge
Registered User
 
Oil Gauge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate94 View Post
OK i quoted the Highsticking rule, i shouldn't have to do that again but here is what it says



Michalek had no control of his stick, he spun, and whipped his stick around. To me that's dangerous play, and it gave St.Louis an injury. Regardless of attempt to play the puck, or not, there was contact above the shoulders from a danerous play.
interperet it as slash, high-stick, roughing. Doesn't change the fact it's a botched call



the rule says what it says.
botched call
There is no was that can be called as a high stick. The rule says that "any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders" shall be penalized as a high stick.

None of St. Louis body was above the height of his shoulders. And to make it clear it is the height of his shoulders while he is standing not the height of his shoulders at the time.

However I would call it slash.

Oil Gauge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 03:16 PM
  #111
peacepipe
Registered User
 
peacepipe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Philadelphia,PA
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
The rulebook says it a penalty but I dont agree that it should be, isn't this like saying there can be no incidental contact with a goalie you should be in control of yourself at all times?

peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 03:20 PM
  #112
pirate94
Registered User
 
pirate94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Gauge View Post
There is no was that can be called as a high stick. The rule says that "any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders" shall be penalized as a high stick.

None of St. Louis body was above the height of his shoulders. And to make it clear it is the height of his shoulders while he is standing not the height of his shoulders at the time.

However I would call it slash.
ok not only does the bolded part make zero sense, the following sentence was even worse.


again 60.2 states very clearly a difference from 60.1
If you like being stuck on 60.1 then yay, but you aren't right

Quote:
60.2 Minor Penalty - Any contact made by a stick on an opponent above the shoulders is prohibited and a minor penalty shall be imposed

pirate94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 03:24 PM
  #113
Waltah*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Upstate NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryI View Post
Kinda got low sticked.
lol'd. well played sir.

Waltah* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 03:25 PM
  #114
Eli Cash
Registered User
 
Eli Cash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: Tuvalu
Posts: 2,012
vCash: 170
That's something that rarely happens in a game. The ref most likely is going to chalk it up to incidental contact if it's a split-second decision.

Michalek does not have any reason to watch where his stick is going in that instance. If he's swinging it anywhere above his knees, yeah, it's something that's going to be watched closely and called. If the dude is falling or on the ice, and Michalek is moving his stick around in a hockey manner (i.e. not slashing St. Louis on purpose), then it's just an unfortunate accident.

It's pretty telling that this is a non-issue when only one or two people are actually arguing against this. I'd probably invest my energy in arguing about the missed high stick on Downie by Michalek, which was an actual missed call that should be routine. Or Kovalev being tripped before his goal.

Eli Cash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 03:33 PM
  #115
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 21,676
vCash: 500
So just from what I could get from this topic, just about everyone agrees it was incidental and was a good non-call, except pirate94, who's taking the rule and applying it as a coverall and completely ignoring the circumstances of the actual play.

Blueline Bomber is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 03:39 PM
  #116
Montag DP
Sabres fan in...
 
Montag DP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ...Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 6,608
vCash: 500
It wasn't a "high stick" as the stick wasn't high. That's good enough for me. I think the ref has the right to use that discretion.

Montag DP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 03:41 PM
  #117
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: uOttawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,645
vCash: 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickSP0 View Post
A high stick - no.

A slash - yes.

Regardless of where a player is you have to be in control of your stick and if you thwack someone (especially in a vulnerable area) you should be held accountable.

But, the lack of penalties didn't cost the Bolts the game as the Pens outplayed us. Hopefully MAF isn't so wired in on Friday.
This is what I came to post. It's a 2min slash, not a high stick. Tampa was outplayed by Pittsburgh after Fleury shut them down early.

CanadianHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 03:53 PM
  #118
Bruinsfan_37
Stanley Cup Champs
 
Bruinsfan_37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Laval
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,896
vCash: 500
Watched the replay, sorry Bolts fans, that was a good non call by the refs which is very rare from the zebras

Bruinsfan_37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 04:02 PM
  #119
BadHammy*
MSL For Hart!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Right Behind Me!
Posts: 10,444
vCash: 500
Someone gets two teeth knocked out by an opponent's stick and it's a penalty, period. The fact that people are seriously trying to argue it is way beyond me.

That rule goes for everyone in the league, whether it'd hurt my team or not, it's black and white. I can imagine an exception if someone intentionally skated/jumped into a stick but beyond that

BadHammy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 04:23 PM
  #120
SID87BORG
Registered User
 
SID87BORG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 325
vCash: 500
Right call, IMO. Unless you want to call low-sticking Unfortunate that MSL got his teeth knocked out + a root canal.
No conspiracy here. Moving on...

SID87BORG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 04:25 PM
  #121
SID87BORG
Registered User
 
SID87BORG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by donGjohnson View Post
Someone gets two teeth knocked out by an opponent's stick and it's a penalty, period. The fact that people are seriously trying to argue it is way beyond me.

That rule goes for everyone in the league, whether it'd hurt my team or not, it's black and white. I can imagine an exception if someone intentionally skated/jumped into a stick but beyond that
Not when humans are involved......not that I think it wasn't the right call, this time, like I said in my previous post.

SID87BORG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 04:31 PM
  #122
Sty1877
Registered User
 
Sty1877's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate94 View Post
It's obvious the ref dropped the ball.
whether accidental or careless, in the opinion of the Referee.

Obviously the opinion of ALL the referees at the game was that it wasn't careless of him to turn around while St.Louis was laying on the ice.

I guess no one is dropping the ball, but you're mad that a call didn't go your way. Get over it.

Sty1877 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 04:37 PM
  #123
SidNeedsNoWingers
He can do it all!
 
SidNeedsNoWingers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Phoenix via Pgh
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate94 View Post
ok not only does the bolded part make zero sense, the following sentence was even worse.


again 60.2 states very clearly a difference from 60.1
If you like being stuck on 60.1 then yay, but you aren't right
Taking what Oil Gauge said:

"None of St. Louis body was above the height of" where his shoulders would have been had he (St. Louis) been standing. Better?

SidNeedsNoWingers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 04:48 PM
  #124
Human
cynic
 
Human's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Bandwagon
Posts: 4,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGoBears View Post
People are still debating the issue when this statement was made?
that was Errey, same Errey who said a couple of minutes after that Michalek should've gotten a high stick penalty for a follow through on Downie. if he's a Pens homer doesn't mean he's always right. apparently he's never right when he calls the game pro-Penguins, now how does it make him absolutely right when he calls something against the Penguins?

Human is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2011, 04:52 PM
  #125
IdealisticSniper
Registered User
 
IdealisticSniper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
This is what I came to post. It's a 2min slash, not a high stick. Tampa was outplayed by Pittsburgh after Fleury shut them down early.
While I agree its a slash. If a slashing penalty is called that resulted in an injury, its an automatic 5 minute major.

IdealisticSniper is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:53 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.