Kaleta with concussion

[spndnchz]

Kaleta concussed by the hit last night. I still can't believe that was only two minutes.

[wonderbread]

Laperrier should get a few games for that hit. It was from behind to the head and disrespectful. Its hits like these that plague this league. Of course the count will not do anything to the Habs in the 100th year with their playoff push on the line. <_<

[Stoner]

Laperrier should get a few games for that hit. It was from behind to the head and disrespectful. Its hits like these that plague this league. Of course the count will not do anything to the Habs in the 100th year with their playoff push on the line. <_<

 

He didn't hit Kaleta in the head. He hit Kaleta in the back, and Kaleta went face first into the glass. (Loved homer John Vogl's description, which was even more imaginative than wonder's: "(Lapierre) drove the winger headfirst into the boards...")

 

The severity of the penalty is based on the degree of violence and any intent to injure. It was bad, but Kaleta did not go crashing headfirst into the boards. Intent is dicy. It can be argued every player in the NHL wants to hurt Kaleta. But I don't think it rose to an extreme level of viciousness.

 

Also, the rule as written allows the ref the discretion of determing if the "victim" has deliberately placed himself in harm's way, and there isn't much doubt Kaleta turned to face the boards and invite the hit. Has he spent time in a Turkish prison? Ruff can bemoan the lack of respect and all that, but at the end of the day, a player is concussed, and one of the reasons a player is concussed is that NHL coaches like him teach the players to put themselves in that position. Scrambled brains vs. getting a lousy power play. Pretty sad in the big scheme of life.

[deluca67]

He didn't hit Kaleta in the head. He hit Kaleta in the back, and Kaleta went face first into the glass. (Loved homer John Vogl's description, which was even more imaginative than wonder's: "(Lapierre) drove the winger headfirst into the boards...")

 

The severity of the penalty is based on the degree of violence and any intent to injure. It was bad, but Kaleta did not go crashing headfirst into the boards. Intent is dicy. It can be argued every player in the NHL wants to hurt Kaleta. But I don't think it rose to an extreme level of viciousness.

 

Also, the rule as written allows the ref the discretion of determing if the "victim" has deliberately placed himself in harm's way, and there isn't much doubt Kaleta turned to face the boards and invite the hit. Has he spent time in a Turkish prison? Ruff can bemoan the lack of respect and all that, but at the end of the day, a player is concussed, and one of the reasons a player is concussed is that NHL coaches like him teach the players to put themselves in that position. Scrambled brains vs. getting a lousy power play. Pretty sad in the big scheme of life.

Why do players face the boards like that?

 

Kaleta, being a player that likes to hit, should know better to put himself in that type of position. Players are going to take runs at him. You would think he would be prepared at all times keeping his head up and facing the play.

[Stoner]

Just to clean this up a bit... According to the rules, "degree of violence" refers to "degree of violence of the impact with the boards." I guess the glass doesn't count? :)

 

Also, intent to injure comes into play only when considering a match penalty.

 

Checking from behind is defined thusly: "A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself..." Kaleta saw Lapierre coming and stuck out his rear end.

 

Charging? Good luck with figuring out what "distance traveled" is.

 

The rules are a hound's breakfast.

[X. Benedict]

Kaleta concussed by the hit last night. I still can't believe that was only two minutes.

 

Cowardly call by the Refs.

 

Refs don't fear the league as much as their own reputation in the Montreal media.

 

Cowardly, cowardly, cowardly call.

2 minutes is a joke.

 

Why have two refs on the ice at all?

[VansTheMans]

It was a despicable hit on Kaleta. They should have thrown Laperrier out of the game for that hit. But of course, that didn't happen. They were after all playing in Montreal :wallbash:

 

The refs were disgustingly biased the entire night, making terrible calls.

 

Cheaters never prosper though. The Sabres came through, and Laperrier screwed up in his shootout attempt. Karma is a b!tch. :thumbsup:

[Stoner]

It was a despicable hit on Kaleta. They should have thrown Laperrier out of the game for that hit. But of course, that didn't happen. They were after all playing in Montreal :wallbash:

 

The refs were disgustingly biased the entire night, making terrible calls.

 

Cheaters never prosper though. The Sabres came through, and Laperrier screwed up in his shootout attempt. Karma is a b!tch. :thumbsup:

 

I guess the minor penalty on Montreal for consecutive faceoff violations was just a ruse to make it appear like the officiating was even-handed. Brilliant!

 

By the way, Montreal ended up with only one more power play than the Sabres, the difference being the two man advantage after Hecht's brainless, and obvious, penalty.

[carpandean]

I guess the minor penalty on Montreal for consecutive faceoff violations was just a ruse to make it appear like the officiating was even-handed. Brilliant!

Well, to be fair, they actually had three consecutive faceoff violations. The ref gave the replacement player a warning instead of a penalty the first time that he had a violation. When he did it again, there was really no way that the ref could not give a penalty. Hardly convincing evidence.

[tom webster]

Why do players face the boards like that?

 

Kaleta, being a player that likes to hit, should know better to put himself in that type of position. Players are going to take runs at him. You would think he would be prepared at all times keeping his head up and facing the play.

 

Kaleta turned his back long before the hit and did it for the same reason all players do it, to control the puck better knowing that most players aren't going to take a run at them. I understand, as PA said, that players turn their back at the last minute to try and draw a penalty but this was not the case last night. Laperriere had plenty of time to pull back and clearly went after Kaleta.

[Stoner]

Well, to be fair, they actually had three consecutive faceoff violations. The ref gave the replacement player a warning instead of a penalty the first time that he had a violation. When he did it again, there was really no way that the ref could not give a penalty. Hardly convincing evidence.

 

Evidence of what? That the officials weren't cheating for Montreal?

 

I don't know why I do this...

[carpandean]

Evidence of what? That the officials weren't cheating for Montreal?

Yes, you suggested that the penalty was evidence that they weren't cheating (sarcastically calling it a ruse.) My point was simply that they should have called a penalty the first time and it would have been just ridiculous to not call one on the second infraction, so they were left without much choice. As such, using it as a counter-point to unfair reffing is not very convincing.

 

Of course, it always feels like the refs are against you; that's a normal fan reaction. It just seems particularly bad against Montreal. I wouldn't suggest that refs are generally against Buffalo, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Montreal-born refs are biased in their penalty calling, even if only on a subconscious level.

[Stoner]

Kaleta turned his back long before the hit and did it for the same reason all players do it, to control the puck better knowing that most players aren't going to take a run at them. I understand, as PA said, that players turn their back at the last minute to try and draw a penalty but this was not the case last night. Laperriere had plenty of time to pull back and clearly went after Kaleta.

 

Kaleta looked over, saw Lapierre and turned his back to face the boards. The hit came a second later. Because of the timing, no charge and Lapierre keeping his elbows down and in, I don't think the intent to injure was clear enough for a match penalty. Hitting from behind, a major, is called when the player hit is not aware of the impending hit. Kaleta knew what was coming. That said, of course Lapierre could have held up.

[Stoner]

Yes, you suggested that the penalty was evidence that they weren't cheating (sarcastically calling it a ruse.) My point was simply that they should have called a penalty the first time and it would have been just ridiculous to not call one on the second infraction, so they were left without much choice. As such, using it as a counter-point to unfair reffing is not very convincing.

 

Of course, it always feels like the refs are against you; that's a normal fan reaction. It just seems particularly bad against Montreal. I wouldn't suggest that refs are generally against Buffalo, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Montreal-born refs are biased in their penalty calling, even if only on a subconscious level.

 

It could go the other way too. Refs from a particular city could subconsciously bone "their" team, so they are not accused of being biased.

 

Sorry, I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that shenanigans like that take place. None are so blind as those who refuse to see. I want to ensconsce myself in naivete. The minute I believe the league is rigged, I'm done.

 

Amazing, isn't it, how few Cups league darlings Montreal, Toronto and the Rangers have won in recent decades.

[wonderbread]

Kaleta looked over, saw Lapierre and turned his back to face the boards. The hit came a second later. Because of the timing, no charge and Lapierre keeping his elbows down and in, I don't think the intent to injure was clear enough for a match penalty. Hitting from behind, a major, is called when the player hit is not aware of the impending hit. Kaleta knew what was coming. That said, of course Lapierre could have held up.

 

 

Man it must be hard.

 

Knowing everything. You should meet my wife. You two have that in common.

[Stoner]

Man it must be hard.

 

Knowing everything. You should meet my wife. You two have that in common.

 

Yes, it is a terrible burden. It is my cross to bear.

 

I realize it's tough when it comes to sports fans for people to hear the truth. They'd rather swallow the pablum, go on believing Chris Neil hit Chris Drury four seconds after the pass. Or that it was a lateral (edit: forward pass, doh). :)

[Stoner]

Hey Carp, here are some interesting numbers. This doesn't challenge the notion that refs from the Montreal area "favor" the Habs in their calls, but it does seem to disprove the idea that Montreal enjoys "home cooking" in general.

 

While Montreal is 4th this year in home power plays (Buffalo is 7th), they were 15th in 07-08, 27th in 06-07 and 14th in 05-06.

[X. Benedict]

Kaleta looked over, saw Lapierre and turned his back to face the boards. The hit came a second later. Because of the timing, no charge and Lapierre keeping his elbows down and in, I don't think the intent to injure was clear enough for a match penalty. Hitting from behind, a major, is called when the player hit is not aware of the impending hit. Kaleta knew what was coming. That said, of course Lapierre could have held up.

 

Kaleta was playing the puck on his backhand to the deep end of the offensive zone.

Onus is on the hitter.

[Taro T]

Kaleta was playing the puck on his backhand to the deep end of the offensive zone.

Onus is on the hitter.

Not that this matters a hill of beans, but during the late HNiC game, the studio guys were all pretty unanimous that the hit was dirty, should have been a major, and should warrant a 1-3 game suspension. They also were unanimous of opinion that Kaleta did not turn to avoid a hit, rather he turned to play the puck and that his back was clearly exposed prior to Lapierre starting to go for the hit.

[tom webster]

Kaleta looked over, saw Lapierre and turned his back to face the boards. The hit came a second later. Because of the timing, no charge and Lapierre keeping his elbows down and in, I don't think the intent to injure was clear enough for a match penalty. Hitting from behind, a major, is called when the player hit is not aware of the impending hit. Kaleta knew what was coming. That said, of course Lapierre could have held up.

 

You watch this without your "holier then thou contrarian view point" and tell me that Lapierre had no time to pull up or that Kaleta's motion wasn't the only motion possible to play the puck back along the boards.

 

[Stoner]

You watch this without your "holier then thou contrarian view point" and tell me that Lapierre had no time to pull up or that Kaleta's motion wasn't the only motion possible to play the puck back along the boards.

 

 

I already said Lapierre could have avoided the hit. We all see things differently. I see Kaleta taking a look at Lapierre bearing down, turning and bending over slightly to brace for the hit. He thought he was going to buy a call. He did. He also apparently bought another concussion. I'm not saying it was a clean hit or not worthy of a penalty. I just think the ref saw it for what it was and got it right. Being a Sabre fan doesn't require me to think otherwise. Sorry.

 

That's a great video by the way. I think Ed Sullivan just introduced Elvis.

[tom webster]

I already said Lapierre could have avoided the hit. We all see things differently. I see Kaleta taking a look at Lapierre bearing down, turning and bending over slightly to brace for the hit. He thought he was going to buy a call. He did. He also apparently bought another concussion. I'm not saying it was a clean hit or not worthy of a penalty. I just think the ref saw it for what it was and got it right. Being a Sabre fan doesn't require me to think otherwise. Sorry.

 

That's a great video by the way. I think Ed Sullivan just introduced Elvis.

 

And I see it as a smart player surveying the scene and making a smart play with the puck. He had no other motion possible unless you wanted him to shoot the puck back into his own end or maybe you would have preferred he run away from the puck because a couple of Canadiens were coming towards him. You continously go to great pains to prove that you are above all the hometown biases you asume the rest of us misguided souls have. Kind of like your own affirmative action plan to help those incapable of helping themselves,

[X. Benedict]

And I see it as a smart player surveying the scene and making a smart play with the puck. He had no other motion possible unless you wanted him to shoot the puck back into his own end or maybe you would have preferred he run away from the puck because a couple of Canadiens were coming towards him. You continously go to great pains to prove that you are above all the hometown biases you asume the rest of us misguided souls have. Kind of like your own affirmative action plan to help those incapable of helping themselves,

 

He could have played it back to Miller. :beer:

[Stoner]

And I see it as a smart player surveying the scene and making a smart play with the puck. He had no other motion possible unless you wanted him to shoot the puck back into his own end or maybe you would have preferred he run away from the puck because a couple of Canadiens were coming towards him. You continously go to great pains to prove that you are above all the hometown biases you asume the rest of us misguided souls have. Kind of like your own affirmative action plan to help those incapable of helping themselves,

 

Fair enough. You can have the last word. Can we at least agree Kaleta's play has been one of the bright stories in a disappointing season where some other young players have regressed? Butler too. With a strong finish Miller could be the best story. Vanek's season has gone in the dumper. He was a feel good story for awhile. Connolly is shoving it down his critics' throats, for the most part.

 

Can we find common ground, brother?

[Stoner]

He could have played it back to Miller. :beer:

 

Might have scored on it. See, I just like to instigate.