HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

No Suspension for Kronwall

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-08-2012, 01:29 AM
  #226
StandingCow
Registered User
 
StandingCow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 3,537
vCash: 50
Watched the interview with JV... he is jacked up.

StandingCow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 07:43 AM
  #227
PAZUZU
Registered User
 
PAZUZU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Philly 'burbs
Country: United States
Posts: 131
vCash: 500
while i tend to agree that this was not a dirty hit, i think there was enough head contact to say it was not totally clean either. i realize vorachek says it's his fault, that he needs to keep his head up, and that's true. but with all the attention being paid towards concussions and hits to the head these days, i don't see how the NHL can say this is the type of hit they want to keep in the game.

PAZUZU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 08:41 AM
  #228
Hugh Mongusbig
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 48
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cromster View Post
What i've learned from this incident is that if you can line someone up with their head down, you basically have Carte Blanche hit them in the head as hard as you can, because ultimately it's their fault and you don't have to be held responsible because they put themselves in the position to be hit in the head.

Does that sound about right?
Not exactly. You have Carte Blanche to hit them as hard as you can in the body, and in doing so, it is OK if their head gets in the way, as long as you are targetting the body, not the head.

You guys that so badly want this to be a dirty hit all seem to be ignoring the fact that if Voracek isn't skating with is head down, then this is a clean body on body check by Kronwall. The NHL expects players to be aware when on the ice, and not skate with their head down while carrying the puck. This is not a new concept and the fans in Philly of all places should know this.

Hugh Mongusbig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 09:06 AM
  #229
PJStock*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
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.
I thought I told you not to get back to me until you had learnt hockey... what was the highest level you ever played at? Div 5 recreational league? This code you keep referring to isn't nearly as prevalent as you think it is. You lay a guy out with an entirely clean body check, then yes, you will be hard pressed to have the other teams teammates come after you. You headshot a guy like Kronwall did to Voracek, you are fair game to get KO'd. Too bad we don't have Stewart on our team. He'd know what to do.

PJStock* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 09:17 AM
  #230
Stockholm Syndrome
____________________
 
Stockholm Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: O'Neals Pub
Country: United States
Posts: 1,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Mongusbig View Post
Not exactly. You have Carte Blanche to hit them as hard as you can in the body, and in doing so, it is OK if their head gets in the way, as long as you are targetting the body, not the head.

You guys that so badly want this to be a dirty hit all seem to be ignoring the fact that if Voracek isn't skating with is head down, then this is a clean body on body check by Kronwall. The NHL expects players to be aware when on the ice, and not skate with their head down while carrying the puck. This is not a new concept and the fans in Philly of all places should know this.
So it's okay to knowingly demolish a players face because he isn't looking at you? There was little, if any contact to Voracek's body on the hit. It was all or mostly head. I don't necessarily agree that the hit was dirty, but to say that the blame is entirely on Voracek is simply wrong, whether you disagree with that or not.

The onus of responsibility is on both players.

Stockholm Syndrome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 09:35 AM
  #231
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockholm Syndrome View Post
There was little, if any contact to Voracek's body on the hit. It was all or mostly head. I don't necessarily agree that the hit was dirty, but to say that the blame is entirely on Voracek is simply wrong, whether you disagree with that or not.

The onus of responsibility is on both players.
no, there was plenty if body contact and the reason there was any head contact at all was because of voracek.

As seen in pics earlier in the thread he's lining the hit up 2+ seconds before he delivers it. Kronwall is setting up to apply a check "through the player"...which is what you are supposed to do. At no time does he single out the head (with something like a raised elbow or leaping to target the head), he's totally square to the body...look at rule 48 violations...there is a difference.

achdumeingute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 10:05 AM
  #232
Hugh Mongusbig
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 48
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StandingCow View Post
Watched the interview with JV... he is jacked up.
link?

Hugh Mongusbig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 12:25 PM
  #233
BleedOrange
BuildThroughTheDraft
 
BleedOrange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oshawa Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,055
vCash: 500
Kronwall is and always will be a dirty hitter most of his so called BIG hits are on players who he gets with their head down.And he targets the HEAD everytime then he hides never answers for it..

BleedOrange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 12:55 PM
  #234
Droid6
Registered User
 
Droid6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Norfolk, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 99
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedOrange View Post
Kronwall is and always will be a dirty hitter most of his so called BIG hits are on players who he gets with their head down.And he targets the HEAD everytime then he hides never answers for it..
You're right, why didn't he yell choo-choo to alert him he was about to get hit by a freight train. The head was not Kronwall's target, Voracek made it the target and that's why it was a clean hit. Show me more than two or three (I can only think of two) hits where Kronwall hits a guy and the head ends up being the principal point of contact. Of the two I can think of neither were outside of the rules at the time of the hits. Also, who should he have answered to? I asked before and didn't get an answer. Should he wait for Voracek to get better and meet him at a park and fight him to give Voracek a chance to win his honor back?

The lifespan of this thread is hilarious. 3+3=6... wait a second buddy, what if those 6 things aren't equal in size and average out to be closer to 4. Some people are having trouble adding some things up here. Takes the what ifs out of the equation and it's not that hard to understand.

Droid6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 12:59 PM
  #235
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 37,248
vCash: 156
I like how people make it sound like Voracek did it on purpose. If this hit is legal, then Richards' hit on Booth (which helped set off the headshot craze) is also legal once again, after being illegal for two years. It's Booth's fault for having his head down and being unaware, after all.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 01:36 PM
  #236
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I like how people make it sound like Voracek did it on purpose. If this hit is legal, then Richards' hit on Booth (which helped set off the headshot craze) is also legal once again, after being illegal for two years. It's Booth's fault for having his head down and being unaware, after all.
Beef, I think you missed this summer's rule change. Rule 48 previously read:

Quote:
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head—A lateral or blind-side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principle point of contact is not permitted.

This past off season, the NHL changed it to:

Quote:
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.

I bolded the big changes in the rule-- there is no more distinction between blind side hits and north-south hits, but more importantly, the NHL now considers whether the victim made himself vulnerable for the head contact.

I'm not exactly sure where the Richards/Booth hit would fall, but my understanding is that you are correct, it would not be suspendable. The rule now states that the head must be both targeted AND the principal point of contact (unlike before where it was and/or). I guess you could easily argue that the head was targeted, so that seems like a call that could go either way depending on whether you thought Richards targeted the head or not.



But regardless, you are correct that the Richards/Booth hit started the Rule 48 craze, but since they implemented Rule 48, they have altered the wording to remove the distinction between "blind side hits" and they have placed responsibility on the victim for putting the head in a more vulnerable position immediately prior to the hit. They have also made it necessary for the head to be targeted AND the PPOC rather than one or the other. It seems to me like you missed that rule change.

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 01:45 PM
  #237
Hugh Mongusbig
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 48
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I like how people make it sound like Voracek did it on purpose. If this hit is legal, then Richards' hit on Booth (which helped set off the headshot craze) is also legal once again, after being illegal for two years. It's Booth's fault for having his head down and being unaware, after all.
Those two plays are not even remotely similar. Richards targets Booth's head, never connecting with any kind of meaningful body to body check. So you can argue that the target of that hit was the head, not the body. The majority of that impact/hit was Richard's shoulder into Booth's head. That hit was illegal because the head was the PPOC AND also the target of the hit. In the Kronwall hit, Voracek's head was the PPOC, but was not the target. Kronwall managed a full body on body check, in addition to the contact with the head. So you can quite easily argue that Kronwall was targetting the body, which is the way the league and all the players involved saw it.

There isn't any gray area here despite some trying their best to make it seem like there is. The league didn't even bother calling Kronwall because the way they see it, and most fans see it, it was a completely clean hit, no question.

Hugh Mongusbig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 02:01 PM
  #238
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 37,248
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
Beef, I think you missed this summer's rule change. Rule 48 previously read:




This past off season, the NHL changed it to:




I bolded the big changes in the rule-- there is no more distinction between blind side hits and north-south hits, but more importantly, the NHL now considers whether the victim made himself vulnerable for the head contact.

I'm not exactly sure where the Richards/Booth hit would fall, but my understanding is that you are correct, it would not be suspendable. The rule now states that the head must be both targeted AND the principal point of contact (unlike before where it was and/or). I guess you could easily argue that the head was targeted, so that seems like a call that could go either way depending on whether you thought Richards targeted the head or not.



But regardless, you are correct that the Richards/Booth hit started the Rule 48 craze, but since they implemented Rule 48, they have altered the wording to remove the distinction between "blind side hits" and they have placed responsibility on the victim for putting the head in a more vulnerable position immediately prior to the hit. They have also made it necessary for the head to be targeted AND the PPOC rather than one or the other. It seems to me like you missed that rule change.
I did miss that rule change, actually. Maybe it went down when I was at the beach?

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 10:54 AM
  #239
CSKA1974
Registered User
 
CSKA1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Flyerville
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 1,336
vCash: 500
News Article from TSN.ca

Below is Kerry Fraser take on the Cronmall's hit

http://tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=390862

Quote:
On the other play you questioned, as Jakub Voracek turned and moved up the side wall with the puck he was exposed to a hit. Using Steve Tambellini's philosophy, Voracek must take some responsibility to be aware of his environment but so must his attacker.

What I absolutely don't like on this hit by Niklas Kronwall is that Kronwall didn't just turn his back to make an exceptionally hard check on a vulnerable player but elevated his entire torso to the point that when contact was made both of Kronwall's skates were off the ice. By utilizing this elevation Voracek's head became the principle point of contact as Kronwall snuck a peek and drove his left shoulder into the jaw of Voracek. Voracek's hands reached for the sky as he lay on his back not knowing where he was in the moment.

By plain and simple definition this is an illegal check to the head as defined in rule 48; "A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted."

If any minor alteration in body posture by Jakub Voracek immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit is used as a loop hole to avoid the penalty or further action, I say rubbish. The fact that Kronwall elevates and checks up with skates off the ice at impact demonstrates to me that the head area of Voracek was the intended target. (Even if it wasn't it became the principal point of contact).


Last edited by MiamiScreamingEagles: 03-20-2012 at 06:50 PM.
CSKA1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 12:29 PM
  #240
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSKA1974 View Post
Below is Kerry Fraser take on the Cronmall's hit

http://tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=390862
Pretty succinct.

Quote:
By plain and simple definition this is an illegal check to the head as defined in rule 48; "A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted."

If any minor alteration in body posture by Jakub Voracek immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit is used as a loop hole to avoid the penalty or further action, I say rubbish. The fact that Kronwall elevates and checks up with skates off the ice at impact demonstrates to me that the head area of Voracek was the intended target. (Even if it wasn't it became the principal point of contact).
And as for no suspension for Kronwall, or for Kunitz for that matter:


BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 05:36 PM
  #241
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
Pretty succinct.



And as for no suspension for Kronwall, or for Kunitz for that matter:

Why is Kunitz "getting suspended?".

And Frasier is wrong. Both hits referenced do not have a "head targeting" action as a result of the defender. Voracek doesn't look down...he gets it in the chest completely. Clearly not a 48 violation, as the rule is currently written.

achdumeingute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 05:41 PM
  #242
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achdumeingute View Post
Why is Kunitz "getting suspended?".

And Frasier is wrong. Both hits referenced do not have a "head targeting" action as a result of the defender. Voracek doesn't look down...he gets it in the chest completely. Clearly not a 48 violation, as the rule is currently written.
There was discussion about Kunitz's actions against Hartnell in the last game for a) ignoring repeated ref intervention and b) pushing Hartnell's face into the ice. That's all.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 06:03 PM
  #243
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
There was discussion about Kunitz's actions against Hartnell in the last game for a) ignoring repeated ref intervention and b) pushing Hartnell's face into the ice. That's all.
ahh, I was just curious if I missed something. Suspension...no, but he should have been kicked out of the game for not letting up when refs were trying to break it up.

achdumeingute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 06:23 PM
  #244
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 37,248
vCash: 156
I agree with Fraser.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 08:48 PM
  #245
Flyerfan4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Richmond BC, Canada
Country: England
Posts: 12,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I agree with Fraser.
when a ref with 36 years exp. tells you theres a problem. well you can take that to the bank.

Flyerfan4life 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 04:11 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.