Judging Neil's Hit

[That Aud Smell]

I was fit to be tied on Friday about the hit.

 

With the benefit of some time, perspective, and reading 23's thoughts on the incident, I will offer this: There was an incident in the NFL some time in the last several years involving a big DT (Warren Sapp, I think), an opposing skill player (QB, WR, RB), and an interception return. I can't recall the specifics, but I recall how the DT/Sapp was near the skill player, but far, far removed from the INT return play itself. Still, the skill player was ostensibly still "in the play." While that skill player was half-heartedly taking an angle on the return, Sapp came out of nowhere and, at about a 45 degree angle, just creamed the guy. Dude was concussed, and, I think, lost for the rest of the season. There was no flag on the play -- it was a legal play. But it was cheap, unnecessary and clearly done with the objective of hurting the guy.

 

I view Neil's hit on Drury in the same light: Borderline legal, and cheap, cheap, cheap.

 

p.s. May Bryan Murray burn in hell.

[ko12010]

I was fit to be tied on Friday about the hit.

 

With the benefit of some time, perspective, and reading 23's thoughts on the incident, I will offer this: There was an incident in the NFL some time in the last several years involving a big DT (Warren Sapp, I think), an opposing skill player (QB, WR, RB), and an interception return. I can't recall the specifics, but I recall how the DT/Sapp was near the skill player, but far, far removed from the INT return play itself. Still, the skill player was ostensibly still "in the play." While that skill player was half-heartedly taking an angle on the return, Sapp came out of nowhere and, at about a 45 degree angle, just creamed the guy. Dude was concussed, and, I think, lost for the rest of the season. There was no flag on the play -- it was a legal play. But it was cheap, unnecessary and clearly done with the objective of hurting the guy.

 

I view Neil's hit on Drury in the same light: Borderline legal, and cheap, cheap, cheap.

 

p.s. May Bryan Murray burn in hell.

 

 

 

 

Sapp actually hit a Green Bay lineman trying to take an angle, not a skilled player. That doesn't really matter however.

 

 

I don't see any difference between cheap and illegal.

 

 

A cheap hit is just an illegal hit not called.

[wnyguy]

While at the game I thought for sure it was an elbow to the head because I saw Neils elbow up after the hit, when I viewed it on television later I thought that it was a legal check and Neil just caught him unawares.

[That Aud Smell]

Sapp actually hit a Green Bay lineman trying to take an angle, not a skilled player. That doesn't really matter however.

I don't see any difference between cheap and illegal.

A cheap hit is just an illegal hit not called.

 

I disagree. If you focus on why people likely started using the term "cheap" to describe those kinds of plays, I think the distinction holds up. "Cheap" means something that was unnecessary, gratuitous -- something that added nothing to the game/play itself. "Illegal" is something that's against the rules, plain and simple.

 

So while it is probably both cheap and illegal to run a guy from behind into the boards, it's not illegal to hit a guy a split second after he releases the puck, although it may well have been cheap to do so (as it was here).

[ko12010]

I disagree. If you focus on why people likely started using the term "cheap" to describe those kinds of plays, I think the distinction holds up. "Cheap" means something that was unnecessary, gratuitous -- something that added nothing to the game/play itself. "Illegal" is something that's against the rules, plain and simple.

 

So while it is probably both cheap and illegal to run a guy from behind into the boards, it's not illegal to hit a guy a split second after he releases the puck, although it may well have been cheap to do so (as it was here).

 

 

 

 

Okay, maybe I should rephrase what I'm trying to say. I feel that the NHL should amend the rules so that hits that the players themselves and the fans would consider "cheap" but not illegal should be considered illegal. All they have to do is have all NHL players and coaching staff fill out a sheet of paper on what they consider cheap shots. The majority of them should be instituted as rules for next season and beyond.

 

Ruff was right, if it was Sidney Crosby the league would have come down so hard on Neil. He may have been suspended the rest of the year. Unfortunately, it's gonna take a serious injury to a major marketable star for the NHL to realize it is not protecting its assets.

[deluca67]

While at the game I thought for sure it was an elbow to the head because I saw Neils elbow up after the hit, when I viewed it on television later I thought that it was a legal check and Neil just caught him unawares.

 

There's nothing legal about charging a guy from across the ice then blindsiding him with a shoulder to the head.

TG had it right. There's nothing "manly" about it. Being cheap doesn't make a player tough. Players like Chris Neal, Todd Bertuzzi and Claude Lemiuex are some of the biggest P***ies the NHL have ever seen.

[wnyguy]

There's nothing legal about charging a guy from across the ice then blindsiding him with a shoulder to the head.

TG had it right. There's nothing "manly" about it. Being cheap doesn't make a player tough. Players like Chris Neal, Todd Bertuzzi and Claude Lemiuex are some of the biggest P***ies the NHL have ever seen.

 

There was no charging, charging involves taking strides toward your opponent. Neil turned towards Drury and glided into him, keeping his elbow at waist level until the hit was delivered. The check was delivered from the side, not the back, and the check was delivered before anyone else had a chance to play the puck. A perfectly legal hit. Had Drury simply been knocked down and gotten back up it would be viewed as just another hard hit.

[ko12010]

There was no charging, charging involves taking strides toward your opponent. Neil turned towards Drury and glided into him, keeping his elbow at waist level until the hit was delivered. The check was delivered from the side, not the back, and the check was delivered before anyone else had a chance to play the puck. A perfectly legal hit. Had Drury simply been knocked down and gotten back up it would be viewed as just another hard hit.

 

 

 

 

You are not even close to right here. It sure looked like Neil took strides to get there. There is no way neil could get enough force to fling Drury into the air w/o taking any strides. Just because he hit him in the side in no way makes that a legal hit.

[Taro T]

Sapp actually hit a Green Bay lineman trying to take an angle, not a skilled player. That doesn't really matter however.

I don't see any difference between cheap and illegal.

A cheap hit is just an illegal hit not called.

But what Neil did, while very close to violating 3 or 4 rules, didn't violate ANY rules IMHO. By your definition, that would mean the hit wasn't cheap. It was cheap, (I'd call it dirty myself, but cheap works) but it wasn't illegal.

 

I would like to see the NHL address in the rulebook this issue of hitting guys in the head. I don't want to see a blanket ban on all hits to the head, because you would end up taking a lot of the physicality out of the game and you would have a new problem of players ducking when a hit is coming to try to take the hit in the melon.

 

I would basically have a rule where if you get your elbow into a guy's head, unless the hitee is below a normal skating / standing stride (I'd allow the Schaefer-Connolly hit to be legal) you get a 5 or a game misconduct regardless of whether it is or isn't in the guy's face. I also would make it a game misconduct to go shoulder to head when the hit comes from outside of what the hitee's field of vision is/should be. A hit where a player leaves his feet and hits a player's head would also be illegal. (It's already illegal to leave your feet to hit someone, this would just reinforce that particular matter.)

 

So the Neil-Drury hit would be illegal (hit to the head from outside normal line of vision), and a hit similar to the Campbell-Umberger hit but where the shoulder hits the head first instead of the chest (unlike Soupy's hit which was shoulder to chest with the followthrough catching him in the head) would also be legal. And, although it was a dirty hit, the hit of Stevens on Lindros would still be borderline legal (shoulder to chin, although if it had been elbow to chin regardless of it being true elbowing would have been illegal). The ref would also likely have discretion to call a penalty if he determines the shoulder to the head was intentional even if it was square on (not sure if I'd add that or not).

 

Sticks to the head and punches to the head would still be illegal. The facewash would still be legal. (Gotta let 'em have some fun. ;) )

 

Obviously, this is just a 1st draft and the rule would require some careful crafting to avoid unintended consequences (like pretty much making it illegal for Chara to even look at Derek Roy although maybe that's not a bad unintended consequence ;) ), but that is generally the way I'd like to see it addressed.

[wnyguy]

You are not even close to right here. It sure looked like Neil took strides to get there. There is no way neil could get enough force to fling Drury into the air w/o taking any strides. Just because he hit him in the side in no way makes that a legal hit.

 

 

He took a stride after turning towards Drury but did not charge him. Bottom line is that Drury didn't see him coming and he got racked. Neil could have let up and turned away but he followed through with the check as is his nature.

[That Aud Smell]

Obviously, this is just a 1st draft and the rule would require some careful crafting to avoid unintended consequences ... but that is generally the way I'd like to see it addressed.

 

You call that a first draft?! Sir, you must be quite a draftsman.

 

Thanks for all that, Dave.

 

And I agree: Cheap/Dirty are interchangeable here.

 

Someone said something about the league acting to protect its assets -- I think that point is also well taken. As a hockey fan, I don't want to see something of this nature compromising the career of any of the great (young) players. On that score, I thought RJ's editorial following the Mair-Neil scrap (while a little over the top) was on point -- something about how Chris Neil's rule over the NHL continues. Neil's style of play has an important place in the game -- but such play shouldn't be allowed to unnecessarily imperil the careers of the elite players.

[Taro T]

...

 

Someone said something about the league acting to protect its assets -- I think that point is also well taken. As a hockey fan, I don't want to see something of this nature compromising the career of any of the great (young) players. On that score, I thought RJ's editorial following the Mair-Neil scrap (while a little over the top) was on point -- something about how Chris Neil's rule over the NHL continues. Neil's style of play has an important place in the game -- but such play shouldn't be allowed to unnecessarily imperil the careers of the elite players.

That is where the great debate in the league is currently. You have some who believe the way to protect assets is to water down the instigator and let the players police the game themselves. Unspoken clause to end that thought is: because the league certainly won't.

 

You have others that want to make more things illegal (I guess I marginally fall into this camp). The problem with this is, if you take too much violence out of the game it isn't really hockey. The hip check has already been effectively eliminated as clean ones are very often called as kneeing. Perhaps if headhunting is eliminated/reduced then things like the hip check will come back in vogue as players will try to keep their shoulders down more and will find themselves in position to throw the hip check more often.

 

I definitely want to see the league address hits to the head, and do think that guys that are barely qualified to be in the league shouldn't rip off Crosby's head or drive Malkin's spine through his sternum; but I want the league to be very careful not to remove the physical element from the game or (IMHO) even worse yet create a class system in the league. (Even more so than what you currently have where "goons" are expected to fight and everyone else is expected to play hockey.)

[Buffalo Wings]

You are not even close to right here. It sure looked like Neil took strides to get there. There is no way neil could get enough force to fling Drury into the air w/o taking any strides. Just because he hit him in the side in no way makes that a legal hit.

This is where the problem seems to exist....the hit wasn't really from the side or from behind. Neil actually hit Drury from the front - but the problem was that he came from what we know as the "driver's blindside" - the spot that your eyes and mirrors can't see a car behind or on the side of you. Obviously, in this case, Drury has no mirrors, so I'm just going on what I'd perceive to be his visionary range.

 

In this case, Neil kinda snuck in from behind and smacked Drury's head with his shoulder just as he skated in front of Drury (who had no time to see Neil, IMO). Neil also took at least one stride and knew exactly who he was hitting and how he was going to do it.

 

Of course, I'm not Chris Drury, so I don't know what he could've seen. I'm going on everything I saw in every video replay I've seen - both MSG's and (I believe) TSN's coverage.