Marc Savard knocked out/ Bruins don't react

[SwampD]

Here comes the memo. Everyone pay attention, please!

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=521669

"It's a process that has never been done before in the season," NHL senior vice-president of hockey operations Colin Campbell told the Globe and Mail in a story published online early Wednesday. "But this is so important an issue that if we can possibly avoid just one concussion, we should do this."

 

Hmmm. That's very interesting Colin. But I thought this very process took place in '99?

[Taro T]

"It's a process that has never been done before in the season," NHL senior vice-president of hockey operations Colin Campbell told the Globe and Mail in a story published online early Wednesday. "But this is so important an issue that if we can possibly avoid just one concussion, we should do this."

 

Hmmm. That's very interesting Colin. But I thought this very process took place in '99?

Not really. That was a "clarification" memo, this is an actual rule change. The fact that even under the clarifications we are still waiting for the puck to be dropped properly so we can find out who will win Game 6, doesn't change the fact that the rule wasn't officially changed until the next Governor's meeting. The rule was merely ignored (clarifications and all). :censored:

[SwampD]

Not really. That was a "clarification" memo, this is an actual rule change. The fact that even under the clarifications we are still waiting for the puck to be dropped properly so we can find out who will win Game 6, doesn't change the fact that the rule wasn't officially changed until the next Governor's meeting. The rule was merely ignored (clarifications and all). :censored:

Not to hijack, but that just sounds like semantics to me.

 

When a rule says, "Under no circumstances ..." is then changed to, "Well,.. we thought about it,.. and here are some circumstances ...", that's a rule change.

 

 

 

 

"Plus ça change,

Plus c'est la même chose"

[Taro T]

Not to hijack, but that just sounds like semantics to me.

 

When a rule says, "Under no circumstances ..." is then changed to, "Well,.. we thought about it,.. and here are some circumstances ...", that's a rule change.

 

 

 

 

"Plus ça change,

Plus c'est la même chose"

Not really, as apparently the league comes up with clarifications quite regularly. (Primarily because they wordsmith their rules about as well as your typical 3rd grader crafts a social studies essay.) The clarifications are typically along the line of "we wrote this, we meant that, from hereforth this is the way we are interpreting what we wrote" or "we've seen several gray areas regarding this rule and this is which side of the line we are placing the following items that fall into the gray area."

 

I won't go into the merits of the "crease violation" rule and/or it's clarifications, as I think we both would agree on their merits. (There weren't (m)any.) And technically, even with the clarification memo in place and being followed, what Brett Hull did was not considered a legal goal in the Spring of '99.

 

But I cannot think off-hand of an instance where the league actually added an entirely new rule (or officially got rid of a rule) mid-season. I've seen the NFL do it occassionally, but not the NHL.

[shrader]

Is there some sort of bounty against Chicago defensemen or something? The Wisniewski hit on Seabrook last night ranks right up there on the suspension list. It was downright scary seeing how Seabrook fell to the ground. The lights were out long before he hit the ground.

[Stoner]

Is there some sort of bounty against Chicago defensemen or something? The Wisniewski hit on Seabrook last night ranks right up there on the suspension list. It was downright scary seeing how Seabrook fell to the ground. The lights were out long before he hit the ground.

 

Was the game played outside? :blink:

[carpandean]

Is there some sort of bounty against Chicago defensemen or something? The Wisniewski hit on Seabrook last night ranks right up there on the suspension list. It was downright scary seeing how Seabrook fell to the ground. The lights were out long before he hit the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8vhXmCwt5w

 

Once again ... yikes!

[Stoner]

Is there some sort of bounty against Chicago defensemen or something? The Wisniewski hit on Seabrook last night ranks right up there on the suspension list. It was downright scary seeing how Seabrook fell to the ground. The lights were out long before he hit the ground.

 

Lights out, but he managed to put his arm down to brace his fall?

 

The first hit seemed OK. At least I couldn't see the head shot the announcer was talking about. IF it's a good hit, and that's a big IF, why does it have to precipitate a cheap shot? We've seen it time and again after a clean hit.

 

The second hit was dirty, but get used to it. That's exactly the kind of hit the league seems to want to stay in the game.

[Taro T]

Lights out, but he managed to put his arm down to brace his fall?

 

The first hit seemed OK. At least I couldn't see the head shot the announcer was talking about. IF it's a good hit, and that's a big IF, why does it have to precipitate a cheap shot? We've seen it time and again after a clean hit.

 

The second hit was dirty, but get used to it. That's exactly the kind of hit the league seems to want to stay in the game.

The 1st hit was a 'head shot' in a similar manner to the Schaefer hit on Connolly. The hit Seabrook threw looked to me to hit Perry in the head, but that's because Perry's head was down very low and he was twisting around kind of awkwardly. I don't think either one was dirty or illegal.

 

The hit Wisniewski threw is the sort of stuff that you get when 'players police themselves,' at least IMHO it is. Players don't react to only cheap hits, a lot of times they also react to big ones. And, just for the record, had Seabrook had the puck, there was nothing particularily illegal about the hit. (It wasn't a charge, he hit him from the front, and he didn't have his elbows up; I don't think he got head primarily, it looked more shoulder to upper chest on the tiny version I saw, and I don't think he left his feet although it was close. I could be wrong on the last 2 points, in which case the hit would have been illegal even if Seabrook did have the puck.) Since he didn't have the puck, and wasn't engaged in a battle for the puck, it was illegal.

[shrader]

Lights out, but he managed to put his arm down to brace his fall?

 

The first hit seemed OK. At least I couldn't see the head shot the announcer was talking about. IF it's a good hit, and that's a big IF, why does it have to precipitate a cheap shot? We've seen it time and again after a clean hit.

 

The second hit was dirty, but get used to it. That's exactly the kind of hit the league seems to want to stay in the game.

 

Look at his face. You can't fake that. He was out. The arm coming down was gravity. And that isn't the kind of hit they want to keep. They gave him 8 games for the hit.

 

Taro, I have to disagree with you on this one. He clearly left his feet on that hit. The strange thing is that the NHL will probably acknowledge the intent to injure there, yet they didn't with Matt Cooke.

[Stoner]

Look at his face. You can't fake that. He was out. The arm coming down was gravity. And that isn't the kind of hit they want to keep. They gave him 8 games for the hit.

 

Taro, I have to disagree with you on this one. He clearly left his feet on that hit. The strange thing is that the NHL will probably acknowledge the intent to injure there, yet they didn't with Matt Cooke.

 

OK, glad to be wrong about the league's response to the hit. Eight games, wow. A good start for the NHL.

[shrader]

OK, glad to be wrong about the league's response to the hit. Eight games, wow. A good start for the NHL.

 

He's a repeat offender, but so was Ovechkin. The star treatment in full effect again.

[Eleven]

Posted something about this in the Ovie thread, but the discussion looks more developed here. Look, if The Big Wisniewski hit was "self-policing," then I don't want to see self-policing. (It was, after all, a reaction to Seabrook's hit on a temamate.) This crap needs to be out of the game asap, and if the league can't/won't do it with suspensions, well, maybe it should be the end of hard pads. I'm sick of seeing skilled players--and Seabrook is one, believe me--knocked out by bullsh*t.

[Eleven]

He's a repeat offender, but so was Ovechkin. The star treatment in full effect again.

 

shrader, NOT the same hit! Not even close. I would have liked the OV suspension to be a little more severe, but the Seabrook hit was crazy and justified 8 games.

[shrader]

Posted something about this in the Ovie thread, but the discussion looks more developed here. Look, if The Big Wizniewski hit was "self-policing," then I don't want to see self-policing. (It was, after all, a reaction to Seabrook's hit on a temamate.) This crap needs to be out of the game asap, and if the league can't/won't do it with suspensions, well, maybe it should be the end of hard pads. I'm sick of seeing skilled players--and Seabrook is one, believe me--knocked out by bullsh*t.

 

Charging

Roughing

Interference

possible and elbow

 

This hit violated so many rules. That's why I'm a bit surprised when I see PA's comment in the other thread about the NHL overreacting. I don't see it that way at all. What I really want to know though is how was that only 2 minutes?

[Eleven]

I really encourage anyone interested in the topic to read Bob "I'm NOT Doug" McKenzie's TSN piece, especially the second half of it: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=314522

 

He makes some great points. He does not work for the Elsinore Brewery, as far as I can tell.

[Stoner]

Charging

Roughing

Interference

possible and elbow

 

This hit violated so many rules. That's why I'm a bit surprised when I see PA's comment in the other thread about the NHL overreacting. I don't see it that way at all. What I really want to know though is how was that only 2 minutes?

 

Why not call all four? I don't think the elbow came up, but it might have been high sticking. Where's intent to injure?

 

I'm not opposed to the suspension. It's warranted, but a lot more than we would have seen earlier in the season. Hence the overreaction. Yeah, I'm dancing around that comment for sure.

 

It's just strange that someone can be suspended for something for which there is currently no penalty in the game (head shot). He didn't get eight games for charging.

 

I'm also a bit lost as to how the league can craft the head shot rule the way they did (blind side, back pressure, lateral, clearly leaving out head shots from the front), yet suspend someone for eight games for a hit from the front. Was the head really targeted and the principal point of contact?

[Eleven]

Why not call all four? I don't think the elbow came up, but it might have been high sticking. Where's intent to injure?

 

I'm not opposed to the suspension. It's warranted, but a lot more than we would have seen earlier in the season. Hence the overreaction. Yeah, I'm dancing around that comment for sure.

 

It's just strange that someone can be suspended for something for which there is currently no penalty in the game (head shot). He didn't get eight games for charging.

 

I'm also a bit lost as to how the league can craft the head shot rule the way they did (blind side, back pressure, lateral, clearly leaving out head shots from the front), yet suspend someone for eight games for a hit from the front. Was the head really targeted and the principal point of contact?

 

There's not a penalty for mentioning "sloppy seconds," either. Still was a suspension. Suspensions do not rely upon violations of the rulebook, especially as strictly interpreted.

[shrader]

Why not call all four? I don't think the elbow came up, but it might have been high sticking. Where's intent to injure?

 

I'm not opposed to the suspension. It's warranted, but a lot more than we would have seen earlier in the season. Hence the overreaction. Yeah, I'm dancing around that comment for sure.

 

It's just strange that someone can be suspended for something for which there is currently no penalty in the game (head shot). He didn't get eight games for charging.

 

I'm also a bit lost as to how the league can craft the head shot rule the way they did (blind side, back pressure, lateral, clearly leaving out head shots from the front), yet suspend someone for eight games for a hit from the front. Was the head really targeted and the principal point of contact?

 

I wish they'd call all 4. I still have no idea how he only got 2 minutes. And the intent to injure is exactly what he was suspended for. The 8 games is kind of strict, but it is his second suspension this year for what was essentially a flying clothesline at Shane Doan's head. A 2nd suspension for intent to injure and the 8 games doesn't look so bad anymore.

 

 

edit: Here's a link on the Doan hit. That one was probably worse.

[Stoner]

From nhl.com:

 

"Commissioner Gary Bettman addressed the suspension on his radio show. Speaking on The NHL Hour With Gary Bettman, the commissioner said the hit was "completely different" from the one delivered by Pittsburgh forward Matt Cooke earlier this month that left Boston forward Marc Savard with a concussion.

 

"In that [Wisniewski's] case, unlike some of these others, there was no puck possession, the hitting involved rising up to make contact with the head, and so the circumstances gave rise to being able to punish what we have previously defined -- long before this season -- as illegal acts on the ice," Bettman said.

 

"And that's why the eight-game suspension.""

 

 

[carpandean]

I called this is in the game day thread:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBnXrKoyTOo

[Taro T]

Look at his face. You can't fake that. He was out. The arm coming down was gravity. And that isn't the kind of hit they want to keep. They gave him 8 games for the hit.

 

Taro, I have to disagree with you on this one. He clearly left his feet on that hit. The strange thing is that the NHL will probably acknowledge the intent to injure there, yet they didn't with Matt Cooke.

As I stated, leaving the feet was one item I wasn't positive of, and I admitted he might have. His right foot definitely was off the ice; the left foot seemed to leave the ice as well, but it never really seemed to come back onto the ice so I gave him the benefit of the doubt that it hadn't left the ice. As far as leaving the ice was concerned, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and viewed it as a classic Peca hit. (Which when mistimed becomes a suspendable offense - see Michael Peca's shoulder and Mattias Ohlund's head.)

 

I'm surprised that the league gave out 8 games for the hit (but am not disappointed that they did). It appears that the league is finally "getting it" regarding these sort of hits. But like I said earlier, I would like to know what was the trigger point that made this an issue. The league has let crap like this go on forever, I'm glad it's finally getting addressed; but after so many head shots were ignored or given lip service, my question is WHY is it finally (belatedly) an issue?

[Taro T]

I called this is in the game day thread:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBnXrKoyTOo

No disrespect intended, but Nostradamus did you also predict the sun would rise in the east? That one only had roughly a 2% greater chance of occuring.

[shrader]

I called this is in the game day thread:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBnXrKoyTOo

 

I love how Cooke started mouthing off the second both players were separated by the linesmen. Classic ###### hockey player move. Now if only he'd take lessons from his teammate Chrissy Kunitz and start pulling hair.

 

I'm glad it's finally getting addressed; but after so many head shots were ignored or given lip service, my question is WHY is it finally (belatedly) an issue?

 

The hit itself broke 3 or 4 rules. That makes it much easier to justify using that great system known as NHL logic. The previous suspension earlier this year for a similar hit helps as well.

[Stoner]

How many games should the refs be suspended for calling only two minutes on The Wiz? I'm serious.