AHL- Apolyton Hockey League 09/10 (II): We're very perverse

[notyoueither]

The play looked completely identical to one not too long ago on Booth. No suspension there.

Just depends if the guy doing the hit is a star or not.

Booth had just passed the puck, IIRC.

Drury never touched it.

[Asher]

Was near his person, which means it was within the rules. Certainly no farther against the rules than after a whole mississippi after he passed.

[notyoueither]

Review the Flubster's posts.

[Asher]

I can see his posts, thanks. I understand the reasoning, I'm just pointing out the NHL is inconsistent as if this was a suspension-worthy infraction (which it probably should be), then the Booth incident should've as well.

And while Mitchell's hit on Toews was definitely legal, that shouldn't be in the game.

[Asher]

[notyoueither]

... except for that bit about possession of the puck and finishing checks.

BTW, I agree Richards should have at least been fined. Part of the problem is that Campbell takes himself out of it for most Eastern Conference issues because his son plays for Florida.

I also agree that something has to be done about how the players are hammering each other.

[notyoueither]

If I were king...

Boarding would be called much more tightly. Something like high-sticking. Automatic. Serious? Bang, you sit for games.

I'm not sure about the OHL style ban on hits to heads, but might have to given the larger size, faster speed, better equipment making hitters impervious.

You can't remove the equipment, or the law suits will fly when someone gets a serious shoulder/elbow/knee injury (career sort of injuries). That's the same thing they are grapling with WRT goalie equipment, I think.

We could end these hits in a heart beat. Rescind the instigator.

[Asher]

... except for that bit about possession of the puck and finishing checks.

That wasn't finishing a check, and he wasn't in possession of the puck for at least a second and Richards was clearly able to see where the puck did go. He threw his shoulder right to the head of Booth over a second after Booth no longer had the puck, in the middle of the open ice with plenty of opportunity to change his direction towards the puck, and he didn't.

Drury was actually in closer proximity to the puck at the time of the hit than Booth was. A ranger was passing the puck through the skates of Drury to another Ranger.

[notyoueither]

Drury was never in possession of it.

[Asher]

Doesn't matter, he could've been had he positioned his stick to be.

Can you point out which section of the rule book says it's legal to hit somebody after they lost possession of the puck?

Neither Drury nor Booth were in possession of the puck when they were hit. Drury was closer to it.

There wasn't even a penalty called on the play on the ice, and it was within a couple feet of the puck so the excuse that the refs didn't see it is nonsense.

[notyoueither]

There is a lot of interpretation beyond the rulebook.

For instance, boarding is not called in most cases of players being fired into the boards by a check.

It is the very rare rule where the league expicitly removes their own interpretation as well as discretion from the referees (delay of game for puck over glass, and high sticking).

[notyoueither]

... and even that, removing discretion from the referees for certain penalties, is an interpretation by the league.

[Flubber]

I can see his posts, thanks. I understand the reasoning, I'm just pointing out the NHL is inconsistent as if this was a suspension-worthy infraction (which it probably should be), then the Booth incident should've as well.

I just watched the many angles in that replay of the Richards Booth hit. Its different as NYE says in that Booth did actually have the puck at some point (unlike Drury) but Richards hit is more than a second after puck release and it is absolutely high--- on some of the replays you can even see the upward movement of his shoulder prior to the contact. I'm with Asher and overall would put that equal with the Glencross hit due to the combination of lateness and height.

Glencross hit? I don't know that it was as high and it seemed to be more contemporaneous with the puck being near or headed for Drury but on some of those angles it looks like Drury never really had any opportunity to realistically make a play on the puck


Oh and Asher-- I agree the NHL has been far too inconsistent on these hits but in fairness many of them are tough calls. If Richards had been 3/4 of a second earlier with his hit on Booth and had dropped his shoulder, he might still have destroyed Booth but done so in a way that would be hard to call a foul. With Glencross, if the puck was just a little closer or Drury was touching the puck when he was hit, again it would be tough to see how it was a foul.

Hockey players are taught to body check with their shoulder. Given height differentials and some players bent-over stance, the natural level for one players shoulder is the head of another. These hits can and will occur in a game as fast as hockey without any necessarily dirty intent. To actually prevent them it HAS to be like quarterbacks in football where the onus is on the hitter not to deliver the illegal hit. Make a hit to the head a penalty all by itself

[Asher]

Flames win again...Kipper is playing awesome. Picked up a shutout.

His 200th win as a Flame also.

The defensive style of hockey is definitely starting to take shape in Calgary. Slowly but surely, Sutter is re-indoctrinating the players

Edit: 3 pts up on Vancouver (who were demolished by the lowly Blues today 6-1), with 3 games in hand...

[Asher]

http://www.downgoesbrown.com/2009/11/nhl-suspensions.html