Obviously it wasn't as easily done as you say or he would of done so. It didn't look like pure head contact to me. He caught some of both, but the position his head went when taking the shot was leaned in towards max's shoulder, it was pretty bang, bang and not something easily avoidable for a player who has already committed to the play.
Sure if you watch the replay in slow motion and break the play down in segments it's easily avoidable, but not at real time speed. If the head was unavoidable or if max could of hit himself elsewhere easily, I have no doubt he would of, max is not a dirty head hunter.
Yet he is being compared to Matt Cooke who is a dirty headhunter.
What really stinks about this is that "the victim" returned to the game and scored the winning goal, after Max apologized to him and acknowledged that he didn't mean to catch him in the head.
Should have been case closed with no need for investigation as there was no penalty on the play.
It was not a dirty play, not even close to being anywhere near what Cooke did to Savard, and when Max says he is "confused" what he really means is "betrayed".
Of course this is the same justice system that saw the guy who broke his neck and caused him to miss half a season not get a game. Getting compared to Cooke, one of the most reckless and dirty hitters in the game, has got to really hurt.
Yup, but when a Habs player get hits to the head (Campoli), they basically blame the Habs player for playing hockey...
and they also compare him to a player who has the reputation of being dirty (Cooke)...
and when HE has his head smashed (Chara) he was told it was an unfortunate incident, a strong hockey play gone bad...
and he's probably aware of the Bogosian and Wolski non-suspension...
so yeah! it's that simple...
I refuse to adhere to any conspiracy theory ******** against the Habs, but they make it harder & harder not to by the day!
Lucic is convoked by Shanahan, explains his side of the story, and Shanahan just accepts it (same thing last year with Chara convoked by Campbell). Meanwhile, the same happens with Patches and his perspective is immediately dismissed?
*I know the two hits have nothing in common, but still...
Yet he is being compared to Matt Cooke who is a dirty headhunter.
What really stinks about this is that "the victim" returned to the game and scored the winning goal, after Max apologized to him and acknowledged that he didn't mean to catch him in the head.
Should have been case closed with no need for investigation as there was no penalty on the play.
It was not a dirty play, not even close to being anywhere near what Cooke did to Savard, and when Max says he is "confused" what he really means is "betrayed".
Of course this is the same justice system that saw the guy who broke his neck and caused him to miss half a season not get a game. Getting compared to Cooke, one of the most reckless and dirty hitters in the game, has got to really hurt.
Insult to injury.
I agree, the problem lies with it being Letang being hit by Pac. If it had been Engelland that got hit, there's probably no suspension, but since it's was on one of the league's up and coming stars on a team that is the elite of the league he gets railroaded.
This was basically a big fu to pac. Not all players are treated equal in this system or any system tptb put forward.
I honestly believe shanny was told to change his ways after some of the preseason suspensions were handed out, he was doing exactly as he should of, then all the sudden **** got grey again. He's just towing the line of his corporate masters.
Comparing the play to Matt Cooke's play on Savard is kick in the nuts and not at all the reality of the situation.
Watched his interview and he's right. This guy is a boss.
The way I see it. Max was slighty starting to backpedal the last few games (don't get me wrong, he was still playing pretty good). Those 3 games out will pump him out and he'll come back on fire like he did at the start of the year!
I'll repeat what I said before: The punishment was too harsh for someone who isn't a chronic offender and who apologized without being coerced. The fact that Letang was able to continue in the game amounts to a poke in the eye with a lollipop stick. Remind me of how many games Chara was suspended.
Yet he is being compared to Matt Cooke who is a dirty headhunter.
What really stinks about this is that "the victim" returned to the game and scored the winning goal, after Max apologized to him and acknowledged that he didn't mean to catch him in the head.
Should have been case closed with no need for investigation as there was no penalty on the play.
It was not a dirty play, not even close to being anywhere near what Cooke did to Savard, and when Max says he is "confused" what he really means is "betrayed".
Of course this is the same justice system that saw the guy who broke his neck and caused him to miss half a season not get a game. Getting compared to Cooke, one of the most reckless and dirty hitters in the game, has got to really hurt.
Insult to injury.
Shanny seems to have intent to hit the head confused with negligence in hitting the head. If its negligence (like tripping or high sticking) regardless of intent then all head injuries should be punished. This would be interesting as prolly players would be judged on the extent of injury ie the result which is far from intent. Its possible that Shanny's views on headshots is evolving.
I don't see how he can get suspended for a play that wasn't even a penalty! If the refs saw it and didn't deem it illegal, it shouldn't be a suspension. That's like a cop letting a criminal commit a crime, then a judge calling the guy up and putting him in jail! Boston has been getting away with crap like this for a few years now. But oh, they are a "tough team", so I guess that's hockey.
How about watching the review of the OT goal and making a call on that, NHL? If that had been Thomas or Miller, the whistle would've gone lightning fast, no doubt. Price always seems to get slow whistles.
Direction yes, position no. Letang's head was within a couple of degrees of the plane it would have been on if he hadn't moved it. Pacioretty needs to be able to read that movement and adjust the hit -- or he's out of control and needs to not make the hit.
I agree with you - I think on the basis of the head Pacioretty should be suspended.
But I also believe based on the PRECEDENCE set by the league that he should NOT be suspended.
Malone engages Campoli all game long; is frustrated and getting into ruckus every whistle. Campoli reaches forward for a puck, Malone sees this and hits ONLY Campoli's head. The league decides no suspension because Campoli changed his position immediately prior to the hit (wrong but fine) and take note Campoli did NOT come back to play.
Chara has a history with Pacioretty. The shove after the GWG in OT. The slashing and constant scrums in the game after where he is chasing Patches around the ice trying to get revenge. Chara is then responsible in the next game to know WHERE he is on the ice and what he is doing. He delivers a reckless hit in a dangerous part of the ice where many of his colleagues say you know where the stanchion is when you play which results in a possible life threatening then career threatening injury but there is no suspension.
Lucic is going for the puck, sees Miller racing out to get the puck and poke it away. Instead of seeing Miller and trying to go around him with the puck Lucic decides to not alter his course and takes the free shot at the head of the goaltender. No suspension.
If you set a precendent - stick by it. If you are admitting your wrong then go review all the other hits that should've been suspensions and give those players a suspension for those actions to erase this stupid grey area.
All that matters is the sweater you wear - the sweater your opponent wears - and who is the victim of the hit.
I just don't get how he can be confused. League yells constantly to not have the principle point of contact be the head.
He picked Letangs head clean. Letang put himself in a position to get nailed, but Pac shouldn't of had the first point of contact be the head. Pretty simple if you ask me....
Maybe if you actually open your mind to what most people have been saying here, you may GET IT. Hint: Campoli hit.
Do you guys find Patches refreshingly honest? I've yet to see him answer a question sounding rehearsed or cliche.. He usually really tells the media how he feels about an issue
the only difference between him and his predecessor is that instead of making a standard statement he does it trough a video...
but the logic is the same : try to find any possible excuse not to suspend the player unless there's no excuses.
- OK to smashes the head of someone's trying to outrace you
(Paccioretty - I know, not the same clown handling the case)
- OK to headshot someone reaching for the puck (Campoli)
- OK to headshot someone who doesnt have the puck (Alfie)
- not OK to headshot someone who's about to shoot (Letang)
on paper or on vid, it's the same BS. "we allow headshots, only depends on the circumstances".
It's not like it would be that hard to have a "no headshots allowed, ever" rule...
In his video explanations he does not say any of that though. He thoroughly explains his decisions in regards to the rule he has to work with.
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted. However, in determining whether such a hit should have been permitted, the circumstances of the hit, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit or the head contact on an otherwise legal body check was avoidable, can be considered.
For example, what is "OK to headshot someone reaching for the puck (Campoli)" and "not OK to headshot someone who's about to shoot (Letang)" to you is "including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit" to Shannahan.
He explains it well and shows the postion of the head and its movement in super slow motion and freeze frame in his decisions when that it a factor or not.
In his video explanations he does not say any of that though. He thoroughly explains his decisions in regards to the rule he has to work with.
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted. However, in determining whether such a hit should have been permitted, the circumstances of the hit, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit or the head contact on an otherwise legal body check was avoidable, can be considered.
For example, what is "OK to headshot someone reaching for the puck (Campoli)" and "not OK to headshot someone who's about to shoot (Letang)" to you is "including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit" to Shannahan.
He explains it well and shows the postion of the head and its movement in super slow motion and freeze frame in his decisions when that it a factor or not.
he doesnt say it in his vids, he says so the way he handles the (non) suspensions...
