HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

I dont supposed anyone saw this last night

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-11-2004, 08:12 AM
  #1
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
I dont supposed anyone saw this last night

at the end of the Bolts - Canes game, a Bolts player was on a breakaway to an empty net, the Canes player turned over his stick so the blade pointed it down and swung it at the Bolts players head. Luckily the blade came down on his shoulder.

No penalty was called, I really fail to see how they can miss that 2 handed swing but hey, maybe the player has to crumple to the ice in a pool of blood for it to be called, probably another feature of "game management"

This is exactly what should be called and the guy should be suspened, just because the blade didnt connect with his head doesnt mean he should get away with it.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 08:21 AM
  #2
Allan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: United Nations
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Rule 85 Slashing

Slashing is the act of swinging a player's stick at an opponent, whether contact is made or not.
....
(a) A minor or major and a game misconduct penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, shall be imposed on any player who impedes the progress of an opponent by "slashing" with his stick.
Quote:
Rule 43 Attempt to Injure

(a) (b)A match penalty shall be imposed on any player who deliberately attempts to injure an opponent and the circumstances shall be reported to the Commissioner for further action. A substitute for the penalized player shall be permitted at the end of the fifth minute.

A match penalty can be assessed for the following infractions:

1.attempt to injure in any manner*
....
11. slashing
It certainly qualifies according to the book. I didn't see it, though.

Allan is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 08:28 AM
  #3
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Wow, never thought I'd see that mentioned here. It was Craig Adams on Tim Taylor, and I really think he hit Tim on the helmet, not the shoulder. The ref had his arm up, but didn't call anything once Taylor scored, which seemed ridiculous to me because Adams should have been tossed for that. I'd be embarrassed too if I couldn't catch Tim Taylor, but that doesn't mean you should take a swing at his head. It's the type of thing that the league might look at afterwards and hand out a suspension for. Oddly enough, the incident wasn't mentioned in our local papers at all, and usually the coach has something to say about stuff like that.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 08:29 AM
  #4
bosox1256
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 111
vCash: 500
Penalty would've been called

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve L
at the end of the Bolts - Canes game, a Bolts player was on a breakaway to an empty net, the Canes player turned over his stick so the blade pointed it down and swung it at the Bolts players head. Luckily the blade came down on his shoulder.

No penalty was called, I really fail to see how they can miss that 2 handed swing but hey, maybe the player has to crumple to the ice in a pool of blood for it to be called, probably another feature of "game management"

This is exactly what should be called and the guy should be suspened, just because the blade didnt connect with his head doesnt mean he should get away with it.

Actually if you see the replay, the ref did have his arm up signalling a penalty, but the penalty was waived because a goal was scored. The ref would've only called a 2 min High sticking or slashing penalty.

bosox1256 is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 08:29 AM
  #5
Karl Pilkington
Registered User
 
Karl Pilkington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,068
vCash: 500
I saw it.. I'm not a big bolts fan, and still I was on my feet yelling at the ref in front of my TV.

Where does this disrespect come from? what the NHL needs to address is a way for players to stop acting like idiots, and respect one another on the ice. Oh they talk in interviews about how their opponents are "hard workers, and blah blah blah blah.. I respect them as players, etc etc.." but when they get on the ice they sure dont act like it. I know it has alot to do with adrenaline and getting into the game.. but come on.. thats attempted assault right there. I hope he gets suspended.. but he probably wont, since the NHL has the bertuzzi thing to worry about..

Karl Pilkington is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 08:34 AM
  #6
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosox1256
Actually if you see the replay, the ref did have his arm up signalling a penalty, but the penalty was waived because a goal was scored. The ref would've only called a 2 min High sticking or slashing penalty.
So the refs saw it and think a swing at a players head only warrants 2 minutes? Thats just as bad, if not worse as not seeing it.

This could have been another McSorley.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 08:41 AM
  #7
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosox1256
Actually if you see the replay, the ref did have his arm up signalling a penalty, but the penalty was waived because a goal was scored. The ref would've only called a 2 min High sticking or slashing penalty.
Well, that play should NOT have resulted in a 2 minute penalty, he should have gotten a match (or whatever it's called)

I'm not one for crying for suspensions for things people do to my players, especially if no one got hurt, but this was ugly and something the League should look into.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 08:46 AM
  #8
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve L
So the refs saw it and think a swing at a players head only warrants 2 minutes? Thats just as bad, if not worse as not seeing it.

This could have been another McSorley.
But it wasn't.

A referee's job is to react to what actually happens on the ice.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 08:48 AM
  #9
Allan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: United Nations
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
It could certainly be argued that it was an attempt to injure (I didn't see it, so I'm not actually making that argument, merely suggesting it). Attempt to injure does mean that you didn't actually hurt anybody.

Allan is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 08:50 AM
  #10
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan
It could certainly be argued that it was an attempt to injure (I didn't see it, so I'm not actually making that argument, merely suggesting it). Attempt to injure does mean that you didn't actually hurt anybody.
For sure. And I did not see the play either (thanks Sportsnet for not showing it). Obviously the referee judged the play to not be of the attempt to injure variety.

You can disagree with him all you want, but it won't do a lot of good.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 08:52 AM
  #11
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan
It could certainly be argued that it was an attempt to injure (I didn't see it, so I'm not actually making that argument, merely suggesting it). Attempt to injure does mean that you didn't actually hurt anybody.
To me, it looked like intent to injure. I dunno what else his intent was, really. He tried to hook him a bit and failed, deliberately turned his stick over so he'd get the tip of the blade aimed at Taylor's head, and gave a two hand swing.

Bolts-'Canes games are ALWAYS rough and frequently nasty, the guys seem to really hate each other, and this is just one in a long line of incidents.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 08:59 AM
  #12
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
For sure. And I did not see the play either (thanks Sportsnet for not showing it). Obviously the referee judged the play to not be of the attempt to injure variety.

You can disagree with him all you want, but it won't do a lot of good.
You dont swing your stick at a players head because you think he has a nasty itch on the back of his neck. The huy had time enough to turn his stick over so it was curve down and then take a swing.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 09:02 AM
  #13
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
But it wasn't.

A referee's job is to react to what actually happens on the ice.
Going by your logic, a player could take off his skate, try to slit a throat of another player but that would be ok if he missed or caught a shoulder pad instead.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 09:05 AM
  #14
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve L
Going by your logic, a player could take off his skate, try to slit a throat of another player but that would be ok if he missed or caught a shoulder pad instead.
You're misunderstanding what I said.

Going by what has been said here, the player in question made contact with the guy he was chasing. That is what happened.

The "never gonna happen" situation you describe here would be something happening on the ice. Therefore the referee would assess a Match Penalty because the guy with the skate is obviously trying to kill his opponent.

In the stick situation, the referee judged the play to be worth a minor penalty.

I said a referee's job is to react to what happens.....not to react to a worst-case scenario that did not happen.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 09:09 AM
  #15
matt4224
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
This play is the NHL's chance to change

If the NHL is really serious about wanted to eliminate unnecessary violence in the game, there is no better event than this play. I feel its time that they stop punishing the result, but punishing the action/intent. I saw a replay of the play and the only real difference between it and McSorley's swing was that it didn't hit in a place bad enough to knock Taylor out.

In my opinion, the penalty should not come as a result of the final outcome of the action, but it should be based on the action itself. McSorley and Adams both most likely intended to do the same exact thing (slap a guy in the head or shoulder, but not intending to cause a serious injury), but unfortunately for McSorley (and Brashear), Marty was off by a few inches and the rest is history.

I feel its time to take a stand and say that if a player purposefully swings his stick at someone's head/neck, the final result of the swing has little effect on the punishment. A 2 handed swing to the head that misses and one that hits should be punished the same, because in the beginning the player had the same intent.

If Bertuzzi's punch lands 3 inches to either side of where it does, Moore probably doesn't get knocked out, and in turn, either turns his body or is able to brace himself on the way down, quite possibly eliminating any serious injury and moving the whole story to a little blip on the back pages. Punishing the intent of the action may actually stop stupid plays like this in the future, since players may think twice when punching someone from behind or carelessly letting their stick fly.


One last thing, the refs should be ashamed of themselves for not doing more than they did last night (if not suspended and/or punished, but thats a completely different topic). As it was mentioned earlier, the definition of slashing in the rulebook gives them the power to help curb these events, but by making the decision to "ignore" the severity, they are doing nothing but hurt the situation here. (And I am not a "ref hater", as I am a lacrosse ref myself)

matt4224 is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 09:15 AM
  #16
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
You're misunderstanding what I said.

Going by what has been said here, the player in question made contact with the guy he was chasing. That is what happened.

The "never gonna happen" situation you describe here would be something happening on the ice.

I said a referee's job is to react to what happens.....not to react to a worst-case scenario that did not happen.
Why on earth would you defend the refs for something you didn't even see? Because they're always right? I won't even get into my opinion of the officials' overall performance in this game, because you'll just tell me I'm not entitled to an opinion on it.

The only thing I can think of Steve L, is that the ref was going to call hooking or something, and somehow didn't notice the two-handed swing (or decided to turn a blind eye to it, which wouldn't surprise me), so when Taylor scored, no penalty was called. That's about the only thing that can excuse Adams not being tossed IMO.

Like I said, I'm not one for wanting guys to get suspended, game's over, Tampa (somehow) won, Taylor's thankfully (and very luckily) not hurt, so no big deal to me as a Tampa fan. As a fan of the GAME however, I'd like to see something done about high stick and two-handed swings in general, because there is no reason for stuff like that.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 09:18 AM
  #17
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sotnos
Why on earth would you defend the refs for something you didn't even see? Because they're always right? I won't even get into my opinion of the officials' overall performance in this game, because you'll just tell me I'm not entitled to an opinion on it.
Now you're putting words into my mouth.

I am not defending the referee's decision because I did not see it. All I have done is state, based on what has been said here, what the referee's judgment was (calling a minor penalty), and what a referee's job description is (react to what happens on the ice).

Where have I said that I agree with the referee's judgment of this play?


And I thought mods weren't supposed to get into pissing contests.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 09:22 AM
  #18
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
Now you're putting words into my mouth.

I am not defending the referee's decision because I did not see it. All I have done is state, based on what has been said here, what the referee's judgment was (calling a minor penalty), and what a referee's job description is (react to what happens on the ice).

Where have I said that I agree with the referee's judgment of this play?


And I thought mods weren't supposed to get into pissing contests.
Close enough for me:
Quote:
Obviously the referee judged the play to not be of the attempt to injure variety.

You can disagree with him all you want, but it won't do a lot of good.
That is defending the refs, plain and simple.

And don't pretend you've never told anyone that they aren't entitled to their own opinions of refs because they are not refs themselves.

Let's keep to the topic at hand, shall we? It's much more important than what you or I think of the NHL refs.

Pissing contests? I made one comment, my friend, and now I'm dropping it. That is hardly a pissing contest.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 09:24 AM
  #19
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sotnos
Close enough for me:
That is defending the refs, plain and simple.
No it's not. All I did was state a fact. If you don't like the call, it's a disagreement with the referee.

Tell me the last time you saw somebody argue with a referee and get their way.

If I was defending the referee, I would say he made the right call.....and I have not said that.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 09:25 AM
  #20
Ironchef Chris Wok*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Red Sox Nation
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Ironchef Chris Wok*
This is exactly what I mean. Cheapshots that "miss".

Are we cracking down on these or no?

Ironchef Chris Wok* is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 09:26 AM
  #21
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironchef Chris Wok
This is exactly what I mean. Cheapshots that "miss".

Are we cracking down on these or no?
Matt Johnson did get suspended for 5 games for his swing at Matt Cooke.

And Cooke got 2 games for gutting Johnson like a fish.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 09:27 AM
  #22
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironchef Chris Wok
This is exactly what I mean. Cheapshots that "miss".

Are we cracking down on these or no?
Apparently not, but it's something I would like to see the league focus on, personally.

What I'm curious about is...did anyone who saw this see it outside of the game broadcast? It wasn't on any of the highlights I saw.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 09:30 AM
  #23
Ironchef Chris Wok*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Red Sox Nation
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Ironchef Chris Wok*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
Matt Johnson did get suspended for 5 games for his swing at Matt Cooke.

And Cooke got 2 games for gutting Johnson like a fish.
This is exactly what I mean.
If the league is gonna crack down, then it should have been 15 for Johnson, 6 for Cooke (I multiplied it by 3)

Ironchef Chris Wok* is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 09:32 AM
  #24
HughJass*
 
HughJass*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: High Point, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 5,677
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HughJass* Send a message via Yahoo to HughJass*
I didn't see it, but one: Craig Adams is not a dirty player. Did it look unintentional? Well, I've haven't heard anyone in Raleigh or Tampa mentioning this, nor the NHL. You guys making ado about nothing again?

HughJass* is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 09:35 AM
  #25
Poignant Discussion
I tell it like it is
 
Poignant Discussion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatineau, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,850
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Poignant Discussion Send a message via Yahoo to Poignant Discussion
He swung his stick at someones head? If I'm not mistaking this it deserves at the very minimum 15 games.

Regardless of injury the new bar has been established

If he gets less than this, then the Bertuzzi decision was just political

I hope it wasn't

Poignant Discussion is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:31 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.