I have a question I ask of Wild fans, or more purely, hockey fans who prefer the Wild.
Should Nick Schultz or James Sheppard (I can't for the life of me remember which player, but I know it was one of them) be suspended for his hit to Jarret Stoll's head in the game against the Kings last night?
I wrote an article about it and am curious to hear opinions from you guys on the interpretation of the NHL's new rule banning "a lateral, back-pressure or blind-side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principal point of contact."
Originally Posted by HOW SERIOUS IS THE NHL ABOUT HITS TO THE HEAD?
I expect to have the answer to this question by the end of the day tomorrow. For those of you who watched the nearly back-breaking loss to the Minnesota Wild last night, one that puts the Kings’ on the verge of their longest losing streak of the season pending the outcome of tonight’s game, you saw a hit the head that in my opinion, should garner Minnesota’s James Sheppard a suspension. It could have been Nick Schultz. I apologize for my lazy memory. It was one of the two, but you should remember the hit that occurred just under 2 minutes into the third period.
I was at the game ... I honestly don't think it was, "an elbow straight to the back of Stoll’s head" as you described. The check started out clean, but Sheppard's elbow slid up Stoll's back as Stoll put his head down when he reached the boards. The check looked worse than it was because Stoll's helmet came off - which seems more likely due to a loose chin strap than the actual force of the blow.
I think he deserved the elbowing call that he got. But, Sheppard did not intentionally target his head nor was the head "the principle point of contact". No suspension is warranted here.
Lol. I had no idea you guys had it in for Sheppard.
I saw the "James Sheppard Appreciation" and assumed it was a normal appreciation thread. After the posts in this thread I went and read it and, well... I repeat, LOL!
I was at the game ... I honestly don't think it was, "an elbow straight to the back of Stoll’s head" as you described. The check started out clean, but Sheppard's elbow slid up Stoll's back as Stoll put his head down when he reached the boards. The check looked worse than it was because Stoll's helmet came off - which seems more likely due to a loose chin strap than the actual force of the blow.
I think he deserved the elbowing call that he got. But, Sheppard did not intentionally target his head nor was the head "the principle point of contact". No suspension is warranted here.
Well to be fair, there was no elbowing penalty. In fact there was no penalty at all for that play. There were two penalties on the play, but they were for things (a cross-check and a hook) that happened after Stoll was hit in the head.
I'll watch it again tonight when I get home, but from my recollection, watching the replay on TV several times, that elbow slid up pretty violently. It is almost like a high-sticking call, where the player needs to be in control of his body. His elbow obviously was not tucked in as it should be or else it wouldn't have slid up so easily and hit Stoll's head as hard as it did.
But again, I kind of want to gauge interpretations of the new rule. It states that it applies when the head is either targeted, AND/OR is the principal point of contact. So even if Sheppard wasn't going for his head, he still hit him in the head, and that last line, "and/or the principal point of contact" reads to me like the rule provides for plays where the head is hit directly, even if inadvertently.
Which then goes into that debate about how to define 'principal.'
As for "an elbow straight to the back of the head", I don't mean that he led with his elbow, but just the simple fact that Stoll's head was hit directly by the end of Sheppard's elbow.
Your point about Stoll's chin strap being loose may very well be true though, but it still doesn't discount that he was hit hard in the head.
Lol. I had no idea you guys had it in for Sheppard.
I saw the "James Sheppard Appreciation" and assumed it was a normal appreciation thread. After the posts in this thread I went and read it and, well... I repeat, LOL!
I don't think there are any normal threads in this forum, but in all seriousness it is really hard to be happy with the 9th overall draft pick who has one point in three months and has been sold as the second coming since making the team as an 18 year-old.
I don't think there are any normal threads in this forum, but in all seriousness it is really hard to be happy with the 9th overall draft pick who has one point in three months and has been sold as the second coming since making the team as an 18 year-old.
Well, I haven't followed other teams as much this year. I just remember last year thinking he was really good and remember a lot of goals from him on NHL On The Fly. Since I got season seats this year and started the website, I've focused so much on the Kings that I haven't had time to stay up to date on the rest of the league as much.
Had no idea he has only one point in 3 months. That SUCKS. Sorry to hear he isn't working out this year.
Don't worry, we have a prospect everyone has turned on as well, only difference is our prospect isn't even in the AHL yet, virtually no one has seen him play much, but half our board is convinced his pick is like the worst thing to happen to the Kings sine we drafted him (Teubert) over Tyler Myers.
Well, I haven't followed other teams as much this year. I just remember last year thinking he was really good and remember a lot of goals from him on NHL On The Fly.
Well, I haven't followed other teams as much this year. I just remember last year thinking he was really good and remember a lot of goals from him on NHL On The Fly. Since I got season seats this year and started the website, I've focused so much on the Kings that I haven't had time to stay up to date on the rest of the league as much.
Had no idea he has only one point in 3 months. That SUCKS. Sorry to hear he isn't working out this year.
Don't worry, we have a prospect everyone has turned on as well, only difference is our prospect isn't even in the AHL yet, virtually no one has seen him play much, but half our board is convinced his pick is like the worst thing to happen to the Kings sine we drafted him (Teubert) over Tyler Myers.
Atleast your complaints are legitimate
This sums up about sixty percent of Hockey's Future. You can't judge a player on stats alone because if you don't see the player, you don't know what the context of it is.
This sums up about sixty percent of Hockey's Future. You can't judge a player on stats alone because if you don't see the player, you don't know what the context of it is.
Seriously. Don't have to tell me twice. Anytime you want a laugh, look for a discussion of Jack Johnson and his +/- and how bad he is because of his +/-, and yet Teddy Purcell rules in Tampa even though his +/- is bad. In fact, for a better laugh, look at the Purcell threads since the deadline. Those are an absolute riot.
Sheppard for Teubert. Lats/Pouliot part two!! Get it done Chuck.
I actually don't really have it in for the kid. If anything, management deserves a lot of the blame rushing him. I just hate it when top ten picks don't pan out. Especially when my favorite hockey club did it 2 years in a row.
Oh people using +/- as a stat to compare players on different teams...when will it end?
I mis-spoke a little. They aren't directly comparing Johnson and Purcell, just that in one thread people point to JJ's +/- as a reason he sucks and in another thread they ignore Purcell's +/- when talking about how good he is for Tampa and how we got hosed in the trade for Halpern.
Although I have seen what you are talking about... The height of stupid stat mongering.
Oh gotcha. I'm not a fan of using +/- for anything other than comparing between your team who has been on the ice for goals for or against. There are a lot of variables for why players are on the ice and it just doesn't give a clear picture.
