HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

No Suspension for Kronwall

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-07-2012, 07:47 PM
  #201
Gert B Frobe
Registered User
 
Gert B Frobe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Morgantown PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by giraffywaffy View Post
There's nothing wrong with being unhappy that one of your players got hit hard, but is this a board where objectivity dies and emotion takes over?

Said poster is ignoring how the league, stating in writing that they have the right to define a hit based on circumstantial interpretation, and in a video, showing examples of checks in which this ruling fell under.

Whether he likes it or not, this hit is filed under that category. He can use this example in future situations when the league is going to make rulings.

The loss doesn't hurt too much, thought it was a spirited effort considering the personnel, and Bryz finally decided to earn that contract.
It's very courteous of you to stop by and so clearly explain to said poster the stance of Shanahan and the league. Now please stop with the sanctimonious scolding of our angry and somewhat irrational posters. Aka **** off.

The hit was clean we all agree including players on the ice at the time. The crappy thing is - we all know what the league's response would be if the hit had been on a "star" player. Rinaldo's suspension for his hit on Ericsson was a joke and shows just how bad the league handles these things.

Gert B Frobe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 07:56 PM
  #202
BleedOrange
BuildThroughTheDraft
 
BleedOrange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oshawa Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,055
vCash: 500
I dont care what everyone says i believe kronwall made the hit on jake and knew even before he made the hit that jake's head was his target.I know that every case is different, however, if Jake's proceeds like Giroux's has, in a few days he will begin to have concussion symptoms and be diagnosed with a concussion. While watching the statement Jakub made this morning with reporters after practice, he does not have any concussion symptoms now but, he has neck pain, neck pain can be a precursor to concussion symptoms and if one concussion symptom is prevalent than the athlete has a concussion. Jake will not be playing tomorrow, and I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't play Saturday against the Leafs. Taking precautionary measures with a player his age and ability are key, yes we want him to help the Flyers raise Lord Stanley's Cup and bring it back to Broad Street however think of the future for him and how it may affect his life after hockey.

BleedOrange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 08:02 PM
  #203
G Money
Registered User
 
G Money's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 292
vCash: 500
devastating hit forsure

G Money is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 08:09 PM
  #204
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Tebow View Post
The NHL is basically a stride behind the NFL when it comes to dealing with head shots, typically the NFL does something then the NHL follows. Headshots are illegal but the NHL still allows players to get blasted in the head if they have their heads down. Just like what happened a week ago when Nystrom hit Letang in the head when Letang had his head down and reached for the puck despite the fact that Nystrom never looked to play the puck and went directly for the big hit.

The rule will likely be changed within a season or 2 tops. Kind of like how the NFL added the defenseless player rule.
Except thats not even true. You can hit a non defenseless player in the head as long as you don't use your helmet. Shoulder is fine.

achdumeingute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 08:28 PM
  #205
BleedOrange
BuildThroughTheDraft
 
BleedOrange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oshawa Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,055
vCash: 500
I compare kronwall's hit with rome's hit on horton in the playoff last year same thing shoulder to the head of horton when u wasnt looking he got 4 games for that kronwall gets nothing now thats fair..

BleedOrange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 08:31 PM
  #206
giraffywaffy
Registered User
 
giraffywaffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedOrange View Post
I compare kronwall's hit with rome's hit on horton in the playoff last year same thing shoulder to the head of horton when u wasnt looking he got 4 games for that kronwall gets nothing now thats fair..
Not exactly similar. That hit was blindside and late, after Horton distributed the puck.

giraffywaffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 08:56 PM
  #207
BleedOrange
BuildThroughTheDraft
 
BleedOrange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oshawa Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by giraffywaffy View Post
Not exactly similar. That hit was blindside and late, after Horton distributed the puck.
Quote:
Now here is the kicker... If you watch that video a few times, the term "launching" will keep coming to mind. We have seen many suspensions this season from that very term. Andy Sutton was suspended for "launching" himself into Alexei Ponikarovsky. It's a very dangerous play!
In the following video link, the 0:38 second mark shows Voracek look directly at Kronwall. Kronwall at that moment is going west to east across the blue line. Literally a second later at 0:39, Voracek puts his head down and goes for the puck. Simultaneously, Kronwall shifts to north/south, sees the vulnerability of the opponent and delivers the hit.
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=42890

And kronwall hit and rome hit are alike both voracek and horton didnt have the puck horton passed it jake was looking for it. If hit on horton was late then voracek hit could be late and both could be called blindsided as well.And the puck wasnt even on jake's stick it was moving forward.The quote really tell that kronwall was head hunting..

BleedOrange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 09:27 PM
  #208
StandingCow
Registered User
 
StandingCow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 3,537
vCash: 50
Didn't think he would get one, and quite honestly, didn't think he deserved one.

StandingCow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 09:31 PM
  #209
sobrien
RAFFLCOPTER
 
sobrien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: South Jersey/Memphis
Country: United States
Posts: 6,581
vCash: 500
I thought I was doing a good job avoiding this argument on the main board, and a couple Red Wings fans decided to bring it here. Awesome.

sobrien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 09:35 PM
  #210
Lurch
Registered User
 
Lurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 200
vCash: 85
I wonder how many posts I can make on the Red Wings board arguing that the hit was dirty before I receive an infraction?

Lurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 09:55 PM
  #211
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedOrange View Post
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=42890

And kronwall hit and rome hit are alike both voracek and horton didnt have the puck horton passed it jake was looking for it. If hit on horton was late then voracek hit could be late and both could be called blindsided as well.And the puck wasnt even on jake's stick it was moving forward.The quote really tell that kronwall was head hunting..
Except Voracek has the puck 1 second before he's hit. He pushes it forward. The Rome hit is very different. It's late, puck is long gone. It's interference, but the hit is legal...in the sense that it shouldnt be a suspension.

Saying you don't like the rule and it should be stronger is one thing...but both hits are absolutely legal according to the rules.

achdumeingute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 10:07 PM
  #212
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achdumeingute View Post
Except Voracek has the puck 1 second before he's hit. He pushes it forward. The Rome hit is very different. It's late, puck is long gone. It's interference, but the hit is legal...in the sense that it shouldnt be a suspension.

Saying you don't like the rule and it should be stronger is one thing...but both hits are absolutely legal according to the rules.
I think the Kronwall hit is in a subjective gray area at best.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 10:42 PM
  #213
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
I think the Kronwall hit is in a subjective gray area at best.
I don't see how. Again, you can say the rule doesn't do enough, but as it stands its pretty clear.

Here are a few 48.1 violation:
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...d=60&id=148390
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...d=60&id=131979
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...d=60&id=125761

Here is a thread linking all suspensions this season:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=992217

These are night and day from the Kronwall hit.

achdumeingute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 11:03 PM
  #214
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achdumeingute View Post
I don't see how. Again, you can say the rule doesn't do enough, but as it stands its pretty clear.

Here are a few 48.1 violation:
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...d=60&id=148390
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...d=60&id=131979
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...d=60&id=125761

Here is a thread linking all suspensions this season:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=992217

These are night and day from the Kronwall hit.
Are they really? Explain how the Boyes hit is suspendable if the Kronwall hit is not. Both are clean hits save for the fact that they recklessly target the head of a defenseless player.

The NHL has already set precedent that lack of intent is not a good enough argument to get off the hook for Rule 48, even for players with no history.

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...d=60&id=124715

Shanahan states that targeting the head could be considered "intentional OR reckless" and that the onus is on the player delivering the hit not to make contact with the head if the vulnerable recipient of the hit makes "no sudden movements." Colborne is turning up ice just like Voracek was. If this hit is punishable, I don't see how Kronwall's is not. I am just applying the NHL's stated criteria.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 11:04 PM
  #215
Yourself
Registered User
 
Yourself's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
I think the Kronwall hit is in a subjective gray area at best.
If it was a grey area then Kronwall would have at least had a phone call. Its obvious by the leagues response that to them, this is not a grey area at all and that it was perfectly clean.

As for the argueing of those two hits being the same, they are not even remotely similar.

Yourself is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 11:18 PM
  #216
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Are they really? Explain how the Boyes hit is suspendable if the Kronwall hit is not. Both are clean hits save for the fact that they recklessly target the head of a defenseless player.

The NHL has already set precedent that lack of intent is not a good enough argument to get off the hook for Rule 48, even for players with no history.

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...d=60&id=124715

Shanahan states that targeting the head could be considered "intentional OR reckless" and that the onus is on the player delivering the hit not to make contact with the head if the vulnerable recipient of the hit makes "no sudden movements." Colborne is turning up ice just like Voracek was. If this hit is punishable, I don't see how Kronwall's is not. I am just applying the NHL's stated criteria.
Kronwall hit is not all head. Boyes hit is. Totally different.

achdumeingute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 11:21 PM
  #217
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yourself View Post
If it was a grey area then Kronwall would have at least had a phone call. Its obvious by the leagues response that to them, this is not a grey area at all and that it was perfectly clean.

As for the argueing of those two hits being the same, they are not even remotely similar.
My point is not about similarity of the hits, it's about precedent set by the NHL.

- The hit is not illegal in any way except that it is a check to the head

- "While this play develops quickly, Colborne makes no sudden movements just prior to the hit..."

This is the freeze frame the NHL uses to illustrate the threshold for "just prior" to the hit.



- "...placing the onus on Boyes not to hit him in the head."

- "While I believe Boyes' assertion that he did not intentionally target the head, this is a reckless hit that is now illegal.... Targeting the head can be defined as intentional OR reckless."

- Brad Boyes is now considered a repeat offender going forward.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 11:25 PM
  #218
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,936
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
Hats off to your players for admitting that Kronwall's hit was totally clean.

thadd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 11:26 PM
  #219
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achdumeingute View Post
Kronwall hit is not all head. Boyes hit is. Totally different.
I don't see how the head is still not the principal point of contact on the Voracek hit.

The precedent is now that you can hammer the head as long as you get a tiny bit of body after the fact? That doesn't make sense to me.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 11:35 PM
  #220
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
I don't see how the head is still not the principal point of contact on the Voracek hit.

The precedent is now that you can hammer the head as long as you get a tiny bit of body after the fact? That doesn't make sense to me.
Head isn't targeted. Kronwall gets plenty of body. Boyes gets none.

Look at the McCarthur hit. He goes right for the head. Kronwall doesn't do this on this hit.

Its pretty obvious we agree to disagree. I'm fine with the argument that the rule doesn't do enough.

achdumeingute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 11:35 PM
  #221
StandingCow
Registered User
 
StandingCow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 3,537
vCash: 50
I don't think this is the type of thing that the NHL can ever take a hard line stance on... hits aren't a black and white issue, there are so many variables. And they err on the side of not removing hitting from the game.

I think the NHL needs to make different changes to the players equipment, such as thinner pads (without the hard shell exterior) so that the hitter feels the impact more, as an example. Maybe increase the area behind the net a bit...

StandingCow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 11:46 PM
  #222
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achdumeingute View Post
Head isn't targeted. Kronwall gets plenty of body. Boyes gets none.

Look at the McCarthur hit. He goes right for the head. Kronwall doesn't do this on this hit.

Its pretty obvious we agree to disagree. I'm fine with the argument that the rule doesn't do enough.
Alright then, I'll just say this one last time. Voracek's head takes the brunt of the hit. The primary focus of the hit is bicep/shoulder to face. How is that not at least unintentional targeting? The NHL has already set the precedent that targeting can be unintentional. Therefore targeting does not need imply intent.

The precedent that you are allowed to recklessly clobber the head of a vulnerable opponent as long as you get some body on the follow-through is just senseless to me, and it is gray area at best.

I'll let you have the last word if you wish.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 12:26 AM
  #223
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,692
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
And some of you were calling for 15-20 games.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 12:31 AM
  #224
PJStock*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
And that's exactly what was going through Todd Bertuzzi's mind when he KO'd Steve Moore. If you really think a clean hit warrants that type of reaction than you are a pathetic hockey fan.


All these people who claim that the Flyers "should have responded" have absolutely no understanding about the code in hockey. Aggressors are held accountable when they take liberties on players that goes beyond the game of hockey. Kronwall's hit was a hockey play, and it was within the rules. Voracek has acknowledged that fact, and I'm disappointed that more Flyers fans havent either.

Kronwall did not need to take himself out of the game to fight over a clean hit. There's nothing more to it.
And look who is employing him now
But no. The Bertuzzi-Moore incident is really the exception, because Bertuzzi was not aiming to paralyze the guy. Had he just KO'd him, facing him from the front, and Moore would have been unhurt otherwise, many people including me would be applauding him. As it stands, it's not PC to pat him on the back for that hit because it was gutless and from behind. Take justice into your own hands, but from the front and like a man.

PJStock* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 01:12 AM
  #225
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJStock View Post
And look who is employing him now
But no. The Bertuzzi-Moore incident is really the exception, because Bertuzzi was not aiming to paralyze the guy. Had he just KO'd him, facing him from the front, and Moore would have been unhurt otherwise, many people including me would be applauding him. As it stands, it's not PC to pat him on the back for that hit because it was gutless and from behind. Take justice into your own hands, but from the front and like a man.
Wow.

I don't know where to start, so I'll only say this-- you don't understand the code of hockey nearly as well as you think you do.

hockeyfreak7 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 05:25 AM.

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.