Phaneuf hit on Kopitar

[BetweenThePipes00]

here is the link -

-- would love to embed it for you but I never do it right.

 

I have watched this over and over and I can't see anything other than interference ... it seems he got 5 for boarding and a game misconduct for hitting him too hard. In all these debates on here, I am probably seen as part of the "wussification-of-the-game" crew because I think the league is WAY too soft on headshots. But in this case, the only problem I see is that Kopitar does not have the puck. It is a penalty but he didn't deserve to be kicked out of the game, IMO.

 

If the roles had been reversed and it was a defenseman going to touch the puck with icing ending play when he touched it, maybe I see it differently. Yes, Phaneuf came a long way, but Kopitar was the offensive player and if he gets there and gets possession, it could e a scoing chance if Phaneuf doesn't finish his check. Phaneuf knew he was beaten to the puck and decided to take the body ... it's interference for sure but he didn't hit him from behind and for once never left his feet. I just do not see kicking him out for this one.

[Buffalo Wings]

Agreed. It was interference, but I don't think it was worth a misconduct. Maybe a 5-minute major because the hit was against the boards, but I wouldn't give him a misconduct.

[wjag]

I'm going to sit squarely on the fence with this and say it's hockey..

 

I think it was a good hockey check that should be punished with a game misconduct. He played hard, finished his check and creamed the guy. I don't think it was intentional, but it was ultimately wreckless and potentially could have ended the guys career.

[Taro T]

When they decided to give Phaneuf the 5 for boarding, the game was automatic.

 

I'd be interested in hearing Cherry's comments on the hit. He's been a long time advocate of no-touch icing. He also tends to promote it to protect D-men, and is unabashedly pro-Canadian players. If he says Phaneuf deserved the 5, then I'm definitely there. As it is, I'm leaning toward 5 being the right call simply due to the increased emphasis the league appears to be placing on icing obstruction/boarding hits.

[SabresFan526]

I'm all for getting head shots out of the game, but this seemed more like an accident in the way Kopitar fell into the boards than anything else. It happened to be a hard hit, and he was prone in a vulnerable position and hit his head, but it was not a head shot by any stretch. I agree, an interference call was the right call, and I'm not sure a justification for 5 minutes is there either. Phaneuf was totally playing the man and not the puck and that should be an interference call. But, I don't see boarding, charging, or anything like that. This is not like a Ruutu or Ovechkin hit on Kaleta where there was clear intent to go after his head. Kopitar fell awkwardly and hit his head, so I don't see this being a huge penalty even though it was.

 

The question I have is that if this is going to get called this way, will it be consistently called across the NHL? If you want to take head shots out and call anything and everything that involves a hit to the head as a game misconduct, what's the guarantee it will be called like that universally? I'm fine with the game misconduct if we are trying to completely eradicate any and all contact with the head, but that should be stated ahead of time, and every referee should call anything related to touching the head as a game misconduct from here on out. The lack of standard and consistency in these types of calls across the NHL is a big big problem in my opinion.

[ThePebble19]

That's a tough one, but I think the right call was made - though it should have been more interference than boarding. From the second that Kopitar crossed the blue line, Phaneuf was skating to play the skater, and not touch the puck. He deliberately interfered with Anze by turning him, and then delivered a completely unnecessary hit. There was not a LA player within a mile of Kopitar, and Phaneuf had the angle to hit him probably within a half second after he touched up. Phaneuf also had another defender behind him to come get the puck, so he had a backup to play the puck, even if Kopitar gets there first...

 

It was an ugly hit, and was probably punished fairly...No touch icing would have certainly prevented this, though.

[carpandean]

Kind of reminds me of this hit:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp-pLY1W-Gs

 

If I remember correctly from PA's rules thread, the hit by Phaneuf does actually meet the definition of boarding, though not how it has traditionally been enforced (the "from behind" part we all think of isn't in the rule, itself.)

[R_Dudley]

I was watching the game last night and saw the realtime original hit and subsequent replays. I do see a bit of an arm/elbow that is used to drive his head into the boards/glass. It is not what I would categorize as flagrant however with the scrutiny on head shots it can be looked at as intent to injure. I am sure his reputation has something to do with that "intent" intangible as well.

 

I do not have a problem with them calling it. What I see as the issue is the uneven application and enforcement of cracking down on the head shots. e.g. Roy's hit was with an elbow coming up to the head and could/should have also been called if they are really trying to eliminate hits to the head.

[Kristian]

Kind of reminds me of this hit:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp-pLY1W-Gs

 

If I remember correctly from PA's rules thread, the hit by Phaneuf does actually meet the definition of boarding, though not how it has traditionally been enforced (the "from behind" part we all think of isn't in the rule, itself.)

 

Somewhat similar yes, though it still pains me to see how nobody goes after what's-his-name, after watching the Kings trying to lynch Phaneuf.

[That Aud Smell]

there have been a handful of those 5-minute/match "interference" penalties, no? it was the right call under the current rules.

 

for me, the danger in that play is an unacceptable and unnecessary risk for the players to have to endure. if the league wants to retain the excitement in that kind of play, then it needs to issue extremely stiff penalties for anyone who plays the body rather than the puck in that situtation (e.g., 5 minute/match and an automatic additional suspension (starting with 2 or 3 games) and then escalating penalties thereafter (5, 10)).

 

failing that, they need to go to no-touch icing.

[jwdilly]

These two hits are not in the same category. Kopitar wasn't even close to touching the puck when he got hit. Paetsch clearly touched the puck and then got creamed. Which imo is a clean hit from the side. Phaneuf's hit would have been clean if Kopitar touched the puck but he did not.

[SwampD]

When they decided to give Phaneuf the 5 for boarding, the game was automatic.

 

I'd be interested in hearing Cherry's comments on the hit. He's been a long time advocate of no-touch icing. He also tends to promote it to protect D-men, and is unabashedly pro-Canadian players. If he says Phaneuf deserved the 5, then I'm definitely there. As it is, I'm leaning toward 5 being the right call simply due to the increased emphasis the league appears to be placing on icing obstruction/boarding hits.

With his comments, that announcer had the answer and it would be an easy change to the rules; On an icing call the players have to play the puck, not the man. This simple change would still promote offense yet give the players some protection.

[wonderbread]

Somewhat similar yes, though it still pains me to see how nobody goes after what's-his-name, after watching the Kings trying to lynch Phaneuf.

 

From your keyboard to Gods eyes.

[X. Benedict]

When they decided to give Phaneuf the 5 for boarding, the game was automatic.

 

I'd be interested in hearing Cherry's comments on the hit. He's been a long time advocate of no-touch icing. He also tends to promote it to protect D-men, and is unabashedly pro-Canadian players. If he says Phaneuf deserved the 5, then I'm definitely there. As it is, I'm leaning toward 5 being the right call simply due to the increased emphasis the league appears to be placing on icing obstruction/boarding hits.

 

5 is the right call with the icing situation IMO.

 

Unnecessary.

[LabattBlue]

Why has the NHL not adopted the no touch icing rule? It seems like a no brainer to me.

 

PS That was a cheap shot by Phaneuf. There was no attempt to play the puck on his part and if he decided to claim that he wasn't aware that the puck was not near Kopitar, then it was reckless play on his part.

[That Aud Smell]

With his comments, that announcer had the answer and it would be an easy change to the rules; On an icing call the players have to play the puck, not the man. This simple change would still promote offense yet give the players some protection.

i think that already is a rule.

 

Any contact between opposing players while pursuing the puck on an icing must be for the sole purpose of playing the puck and not for eliminating the opponent from playing the puck. Unnecessary or dangerous contact could result in penalties being assessed to the offending player. (Rule 81)

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26494

 

X said unnecesary - i'd add "dangerous" to that as well. i think the rule should be strengthened to make clear that you just can't do that stuff -- perhaps with a corresponding policy of supplemental discipline.

[That Aud Smell]

Why has the NHL not adopted the no touch icing rule? It seems like a no brainer to me.

there are people who justifiably want to preserve the excitement that comes with a race for the puck, an opportunity for a burner to create an exciting chance.

 

to which i say, fine, then make damn sure that your speed/skill guys are protected by rules and policies that punish this kind of sh#t.

[SwampD]

i think that already is a rule.

 

Any contact between opposing players while pursuing the puck on an icing must be for the sole purpose of playing the puck and not for eliminating the opponent from playing the puck. Unnecessary or dangerous contact could result in penalties being assessed to the offending player. (Rule 81)

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26494

 

X said unnecesary - i'd add "dangerous" to that as well. i think the rule should be strengthened to make clear that you just can't do that stuff -- perhaps with a corresponding policy of supplemental discipline.

:thumbsup:

[BuffalOhio]

Major boarding. If a game comes with it, so be it. Kopitar didn't help himself by trying to avoid Phaneuf and pulling up.

 

Good call. No headshot whatsoever.

[rbochan]

"Kopitar should have seen it coming and not put himself in such a vulnerable position."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:nana:

[deluca67]

Did someone change the video? I didn't see anything wrong with the hit on the video above. I guess interference for 2 is the call? Boarding? Not at all. The refs made the call based on the reaction not the actual hit.

[VansTheMans]

Kopitar put himself in a vulnerable position no doubt, but you CANNOT hit a star player like that.

 

You bet your ass the league isn't about to allow its electrifying players to be hit like that.

[deluca67]

Kopitar put himself in a vulnerable position no doubt, but you CANNOT hit a star player like that.

You bet your ass the league isn't about to allow its electrifying players to be hit like that.

Wouldn't Phaneuf be the bigger star? I will guess that hit will make a lot of NHL's and Calgary's video packages.

[Taro T]

Did someone change the video? I didn't see anything wrong with the hit on the video above. I guess interference for 2 is the call? Boarding? Not at all. The refs made the call based on the reaction not the actual hit.

On an icing play, if you hit the other guy when not playing the puck, it is boarding per the rulebook.

 

Rule 42 Boarding

...

Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an

obvious “icing” or “off-side” play which results in that player being

knocked into the boards is “boarding” and must be penalized as such.

In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should

be treated as “charging.”

 

Since you didn't see anything wrong w/ the hit, perhaps you can tell us what part of the hit was "necessary?"

[SwampD]

Wouldn't Phaneuf be the bigger star? I will guess that hit will make a lot of NHL's and Calgary's video packages.

:lol:

Everyone was complaining about the refs last night, which is funny because I thought the worst non-call was Montador's Carruba Collision.