| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 00:33:45
What'd you all think? One of those borderline hits i suppose but ironically against Gregory Campbell!
Pretty good read here, with vid clip...
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Gregory-Campbell-draws-penalty-Bolts-angry-afte;_ylt=AtFtSXFXGp6ODRu_DeYKxegJfwM6?urn=nhl-301433 |
| 19 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| n/a |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 10:10:41
I agree with Fat Elvis on this one . . . I mean, at first, it really looks like a clean hit, but with the dangerous throw towards the boards, even not taking into account the puck not being there yet . . . it should probably be a penalty, discretionary as it may be.
Happy New Year's everyone! 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 02:05:28
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Ii never fails to amaze me, how a strong opinion takes precedent over provided video evidence.
In the clip that Alex provided, watch at the :36 second mark, clearly, Campbell has yet to touch the puck, when he is checked, that''s interference, Stamkos, got away with that one, nevertheless, the check is almost shoulder to shoulder, clean, except, that within the parameters of the definition that Beans provided, Campbell was in a vulnerable position, Stamkos used a check in that position, that did indeed violently throw Campbell in to the boards. The example of the rule also states there is a large amount of judgement involved by the refs for this call, boarding, which I agree, it totally was. 2 Minute minor, exactly the right call. I will also concede, that if the ref had made the decision to the play continue, with no penalty, that I would have agreed with that call too, as it is discretionary.
The score of the game should not, and didn't in this case, have any bearing on a call that has to be made, for the safety of the players, and the integrity of the game.
Yes, Campbell has to aware of where he is an who is around him, but no, he should not have to expect to taken down with a check that is against the rules, obviously, the ref said so when he made the call.
And to said awareness, at the :43 second mark of the same clip, check where Stamkos comes from, just prior to making the check. He is BEHIND Campbell, and has to move to his right to line up shoulder to shoulder, unless Campbell has rear-view peepers, it would be pretty tough to see that coming.
I am just pointing back to the video provided, let the video make the argument, not one's opinion, strong as it may be.
PS. for Alex.
Thanks for the Toews clip, similar, yet completely different.
Toews gets caught looking to avoid the check coming from number 17, Sobotka?, and gets rocked from D'agostini, I agree similar result, different setup, and a nod to the rule stated for boarding about the refs discretion having the end say. Had that been called a boarding call, I also would have agreed, As mentioned, these discretionary calls are confusing, but they are what they are.
Thanks for the clips!
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 12/31/2010 : 10:57:55
FER......well said, and that's the part i don't like is the fact there's too much ref's discretion involved. However, the more i think about it, i suppose we have to realize that's the same in almost every call, no? If i guy gets hooked, and just for Beans, pulls a "Burrows" and flops, was it a hook, or a dive???
So i guess like all "judged" sports or events, there's going to be human decisions made that will result in human error from time to time. I'm not at all implying that there was error on this call and i'm prob like FER in that if there was no call i'd be okay too.
*NOTE - the Burrows reference was my holiday gift to Beans. I had to give him something after his kind thoughts on Kesler the other day. It's the least i could do. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 12/31/2010 : 08:39:27
Pasty, the bottom line is this:
1) It's ref's discretion.
2) It is an equal responsibilty between player getting hit and player doing the hitting. In this case, I don't see anything other than what Campbell did to play the puck. It's not like he was not in a vulnerable position, say Stamkos coming, and moved into a vulerable position. It happens all the time in hockey where a player is in a vulnerable position to make a hockey play. In those cases, the player delivering the hit (in this case Stamkos) has to let up or feel the consequences.
As FER stated, the video evidence is right there for all to see. Thanks for pointing out the exact times involved. This is right up there with the famous Thornton hit to Perron's neck. It's right there on video!! |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 12/31/2010 : 07:45:54
Ii never fails to amaze me, how a strong opinion takes precedent over provided video evidence.
In the clip that Alex provided, watch at the :36 second mark, clearly, Campbell has yet to touch the puck, when he is checked, that''s interference, Stamkos, got away with that one, nevertheless, the check is almost shoulder to shoulder, clean, except, that within the parameters of the definition that Beans provided, Campbell was in a vulnerable position, Stamkos used a check in that position, that did indeed violently throw Campbell in to the boards. The example of the rule also states there is a large amount of judgement involved by the refs for this call, boarding, which I agree, it totally was. 2 Minute minor, exactly the right call. I will also concede, that if the ref had made the decision to the play continue, with no penalty, that I would have agreed with that call too, as it is discretionary.
The score of the game should not, and didn't in this case, have any bearing on a call that has to be made, for the safety of the players, and the integrity of the game.
Yes, Campbell has to aware of where he is an who is around him, but no, he should not have to expect to taken down with a check that is against the rules, obviously, the ref said so when he made the call.
And to said awareness, at the :43 second mark of the same clip, check where Stamkos comes from, just prior to making the check. He is BEHIND Campbell, and has to move to his right to line up shoulder to shoulder, unless Campbell has rear-view peepers, it would be pretty tough to see that coming.
I am just pointing back to the video provided, let the video make the argument, not one's opinion, strong as it may be.
PS. for Alex.
Thanks for the Toews clip, similar, yet completely different.
Toews gets caught looking to avoid the check coming from number 17, Sobotka?, and gets rocked from D'agostini, I agree similar result, different setup, and a nod to the rule stated for boarding about the refs discretion having the end say. Had that been called a boarding call, I also would have agreed, As mentioned, these discretionary calls are confusing, but they are what they are.
Thanks for the clips! |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 12/31/2010 : 00:07:56
quote:
Originally posted by polishexpress
Apologies if I missed this in the posts above, but isn't it very, very clear in the video that Gregory Campbell goes into the boards with a considerable amount of force, due to impact from Steven Stamkos?
Beans already quoted the definition of the rule, and clearly, this part applies:
quote:
A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards.
Included in the rule was the point that the player must ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position, and that the opponent should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a vulnerable position.
Campbell puts himself in a vulnerable position, but what was he supposed to do, skate in backwards?(There was little time to turn around quickly, he was bracing for a check and/or about to turn when he was hit)
So, if you were on the ice, you would see:
- Gregory Cambell in a vulnerable position (arguable how vulnerable, and how much his fault)
- Steven Stamkos checks Gregory Campbell
- Gregory Campbell falls with considerable force into the boards
Having to make a decision in a split second, if you are a good ref, you would call a boarding penalty, because it fits the rule perfectly. What we should be arguing about is whether or not 2 minutes was adequate or not.
Because the evidence clearly dictates that it was boarding. No favoritism, no intent to injure, no headhunting, just a regular hockey play that was in that difficult area. It was not right against the boards and not far enough away to be open ice, prime real estate for unintentional boarding.
Not in my opinion, what was Campbelle suppose to do? turn closer to the boards and try and push the puck around the net to another bruins player, he decided to skate 3 feet from the boards Stamkos didn't make him and he is standing in a place where every coach in the NHL will tell you to finish your check Stamkos probably came down the wing chaseing Campbelle saying to himself "if i see this guy turn in front of me make him pay" which is exactly what he is suppose to be doing ... Campbelle put himself in a vunerable posistion in a place and situation he is almost certain to be getting hit,,, i don't walk down the freeway and then complain about getting hit by a car!
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| polishexpress |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 23:33:13
Apologies if I missed this in the posts above, but isn't it very, very clear in the video that Gregory Campbell goes into the boards with a considerable amount of force, due to impact from Steven Stamkos?
Beans already quoted the definition of the rule, and clearly, this part applies:
quote:
A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards.
Included in the rule was the point that the player must ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position, and that the opponent should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a vulnerable position.
Campbell puts himself in a vulnerable position, but what was he supposed to do, skate in backwards?(There was little time to turn around quickly, he was bracing for a check and/or about to turn when he was hit)
So, if you were on the ice, you would see:
- Gregory Cambell in a vulnerable position (arguable how vulnerable, and how much his fault)
- Steven Stamkos checks Gregory Campbell
- Gregory Campbell falls with considerable force into the boards
Having to make a decision in a split second, if you are a good ref, you would call a boarding penalty, because it fits the rule perfectly. What we should be arguing about is whether or not 2 minutes was adequate or not.
Because the evidence clearly dictates that it was boarding. No favoritism, no intent to injure, no headhunting, just a regular hockey play that was in that difficult area. It was not right against the boards and not far enough away to be open ice, prime real estate for unintentional boarding. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 23:07:35
this hit is more north-north. Both players are travelling in the same direction, at the very last second Campbell turns inwards (or east if you like) to play the puck behind the net, and gets hit very squarely in a shoulder-to-shoulder hit as Stamkos continues going north.
|
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 21:16:46
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Pasty, just one quick question. Please explain how this is a north/south hit??
Which player is going north and which player is going the complete opposite direction???
The way I see the video, Campbell and Stamkos are both facing the same direction(in this case towards the back of the net) and Campbell is closer to the boards than Stamkos is. When Stamkos contacts Campbell, the front of Stamkos's shoulder makes contact with the back of Campbell's shoulder.
As Nuxfan stated, it's the refs interpretation on if a player puts himself in a vulnerable position intentionally or if the player is in a vulnerable position for the sake of the play. It's a 50-50 call and in this situations I agree with the ref.
However, it is completely absurd to say this is a north/south hit or that Stakmos is not in Campbell's blindside. I have stated my rationale.
You may be right on the North south thing if your Definition of North south is the one of the NHL (i could be wrong on how i view the term north south) How i see it is Stamkos does not come across infront of a player moving North or south from the East or West, (i'm having trouble putting this into words) And he hits Campbelle south towards the boards coming down from the North (or vise versa) so again it could be that i have the wrong interpretation of North South i have never seem it as two players going opposite direction but that definition does make sense so i will not argue you on that.
But i'm still waiting for a argument that makes this checking from behind,, you said it was Laughable to say there is no way this is checking from behind well.... Quit laughing and show me how on in anyway this could be argued as checking from behind?
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 21:06:08
Pasty, just one quick question. Please explain how this is a north/south hit??
Which player is going north and which player is going the complete opposite direction???
The way I see the video, Campbell and Stamkos are both facing the same direction(in this case towards the back of the net) and Campbell is closer to the boards than Stamkos is. When Stamkos contacts Campbell, the front of Stamkos's shoulder makes contact with the back of Campbell's shoulder.
As Nuxfan stated, it's the refs interpretation on if a player puts himself in a vulnerable position intentionally or if the player is in a vulnerable position for the sake of the play. It's a 50-50 call and in this situations I agree with the ref.
However, it is completely absurd to say this is a north/south hit or that Stakmos is not in Campbell's blindside. I have stated my rationale. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 18:35:35
Alex, good comparison - they do look pretty similar, except in the Toews hit Toews was rubbed out sideways against the boards, while Campbell was hit and propelled forwards, head first, into the boards.
The Stamkos hit is a marginal boarding call IMO, the ref will err on the side of conservative in today's NHL. The hit was shoulder-to-shoulder, no headshot or leaving the feet. Had they made contact 2 feet closer to the boards it would have just been a good bodycheck, but Stamkos hit him in that dangerous grey area, and refs are calling that now. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 17:55:27
How about the D'Agostini hit on Toews? Seems like a very similar hit and yet not much came of it, other than the unfortunate shoulder injury to Toews that's put him out of the Chi line up for a couple weeks (allegedly?).
I think the whole point of the article i linked on the Stamkos hit was more to do with it being Gregory Campbell being hit! After all the conspiracy talk with Colin Campbell, which really died quite quickly all things considered, i believe that was more the reason that hit was commented on like it was!
Here's the hit on Toews......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD1qmx6OfNE |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 17:29:28
oh no its not laughable to say there is no way you can call this a hit from behind, go ahead make an argument everyone who reads it will be the ones laughing
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 17:26:32
"However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position."
Come on Beans their is no way this is Boarding,, The Bruins Player is going into a dangerous zone with his head between his legs! This is a perfect hit!, The puck is along the boards Campbell walks into this and its entirly his fault, this is an excellent hockey play i'm with Guy Boucher when he said something along the lines i want my players makeing this hit everytime! I agree 100% with dangerous head shots and late hit being removed from the game, but this is hockey this is a contact game and that my friend was text book i honestly can't fathom anyone who could argue different when i wrote my first post i thought his was going to be a boring thread where everyone agrees. Guess i was wrong,
In short my argument as to why this isn't boarding is : This is a 3 -3 hockey game, Campbelle is going into the corner hard in the offensive zone knowing there are defenders around. (meaning its not like Stamkos snuck up on him you have to know someone is chaseing you into the corner) Now Campbelle turns paralell to the boards while picking up to the puck, what does he expect that back checker to do? i mean really? he put himself in that position, if campbelle gets a little closer to the boards knowing he is gonna get hit we are not having this disscusion. No penalty deffinetly not,
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| Guest5361 |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 17:15:27
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
With all due respect, the arguement of 'this is not a hit from behind and no one can make an arguement" is simply laughable. I think people completely miss the point of what north/south means. Firstly, the north/south argument only is applicable in head shots and hits from behind. Secondly, read it again. North-South. That means one player is travelling one direction and the other player is travelling the opposite direction. How this hit is described as north/south is completely beyond me.
There is also no way this hit would not be considered 'blindside'. Campbell was facing the puck. Both players are travelling the same direction and Campbell is ahead of Stamkos 'facing the puck'. That means blindside.
Finally, this was absolutely a boarding call. Nothing predatory. Nothing in the head. No further action required. 2 minutes. Done. However, the onus is on the player delivering the hit, not the player getting hit. Both have a responsibility but if the player getting hit is in a vulnerable position, the hitter must let up.
You don't have to agree with the penalty, but by definition it was dead on. I couldn't care less if it was Gary Bettman getting hit, the call was dead on.
41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.
YAWN i want the last 30 second of my life back,,, |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 16:38:45
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.[/i]
These (above) are the parts of the rule that seem to confuse EVERYONE! Both players have to take some responsibility, and then leave it up to the ref to decide who's at fault?
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this particular hit, but i have to say, the writing of the rule itself is what i feel tends to lead us to believe that "they're taking hitting out of the game".
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 07:26:18
With all due respect, the arguement of 'this is not a hit from behind and no one can make an arguement" is simply laughable. I think people completely miss the point of what north/south means. Firstly, the north/south argument only is applicable in head shots and hits from behind. Secondly, read it again. North-South. That means one player is travelling one direction and the other player is travelling the opposite direction. How this hit is described as north/south is completely beyond me.
There is also no way this hit would not be considered 'blindside'. Campbell was facing the puck. Both players are travelling the same direction and Campbell is ahead of Stamkos 'facing the puck'. That means blindside.
Finally, this was absolutely a boarding call. Nothing predatory. Nothing in the head. No further action required. 2 minutes. Done. However, the onus is on the player delivering the hit, not the player getting hit. Both have a responsibility but if the player getting hit is in a vulnerable position, the hitter must let up.
You don't have to agree with the penalty, but by definition it was dead on. I couldn't care less if it was Gary Bettman getting hit, the call was dead on.
41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.
|
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 06:58:59
Interesting, if it was Stamkos on the receiving end, methinks the discussion would be totally different.
Dirty hit? Not necessarily.
Legal hit? Apparently not.
Dangerous hit? Most definitely.
North - South?, not if it's shoulder to shoulder, and it wasn't shoulder to shoulder until Campbell started to turn, preparing to play the puck, which he had yet to touch when he got hit,. Prior to that, Stamkos was looking at Campbell's number on the back of his jersey. I'll give him credit for waiting until Campbell turned, before he checked him.
Campbell was in a vulnerable position, a couple feet away from the boards, where being knocked off his feet could have resulted in any number of bad situations as he was going to be propelled face first in to the boards, regardless. That's the dangerous hit part.
Another example of a hit that didn't need to happen, many other options available to defend with in that situation, but the culture of take the body hard, regardless of safety, took over. I have argued numerous to the validity of the big hit when available, but I have never argued for the big, dangerous, hit, and this is in that ballpark.
Pretty safe and smart boarding minor call. If it makes the players think even for that extra split second, it could save a serious injury,
Good Call in my opinion. |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 12/30/2010 : 01:36:26
Everytime i see a hit like this i ask myself a few questions:
A. Was it from behind?
No just because Campbelle doesn't see it coming does not make it from behind noone can create an argument here so don't even try!
B. Was the puck in there?
This one is always tough because often the player has just released the puck or is about to recieve it, the puck seems to be there maybe not right on his stick at the moment but the play was in that corner.
C. Was is a Hockey play?
Absolutly this hit was not some yahoo going out of his way to hit someone weather it was clean or not it was a good hard nosed play that could get ugly at times
D. was their a elbow or stick involved
Not a chance
The way i look at it the only way you can tell me this is not a clean hit is because Campbell is completly unsuspecting, but everytime i look at it it is shoulder to shoulder north to south and one player just surprised the other. Like i said the only way i can see this as a bad hit is if you tell me he blindsided him, but what is Stamkos suppose to do send him a text, "hey bud you're going into the corner with your head down, the puck is there so i'm gonna hit you mostly to impress that blonde with the great .... in the front row no hard feelings" This hole blindside debate has kinda created another grey area, I mean it is hockey if you are carrying the puck or going into the corner you gotta kinda be expecting a hit no?
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
