| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 12:42:47
Okay, i like most of what Shanny's done thus far, but did anyone see the hit Douglas Murray threw on Max Lapierre on the weekend? Now, try your best to refrain from the "Lapierre's an idiot, he deserved it", etc, and look at the hit itself.
Alain Vigneault made comments after the game and brought up the Rome on Horton, hit that was dicussed at length here, as a comparison. The link below includes a clip of each hit.
I agree that they're very similar. As i stated last June re the Horton hit, Rome doesn't target his head and the initial point of contact is the chest, however, the momentum sees Horton's head follow through and ends up with Rome contacting it. The real damage it seems was done when Horton's head is the first thing to hit the ice. Murray's hit def doesn't hit Lapierre's head, but it's just as late and perhaps later than the Rome hit.
If Rome's hit is worthy of 4 games in a SCF, is Murray's not worthy of anything? As far as i know, there was no suspension given.
Thoughts / comments?
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Was-Alain-Vigneault-right-to-play-the-Nathan-Hor?urn=nhl-wp13453 |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 10/04/2011 : 10:59:26
Leigh....that's exactly what i've been talking about and what my whole point has been, the inconsistency! It's nice to see someone agree more or less completely.
I hope i haven't come off as a jilted Canucks fan who thinks the Rome suspension cost us the cup, because that's not at all what i was implying! In fact, i don't even buy into the whole "Rome's hit woke up the Bruins" theory either. As much as their D was depleted, and the suspension didn't help, i think the Bruins would have won the cup with or without the suspension, especially with the sub par goaltending the Canucks got, in particular, on the road!
My whole point in this thread was to discuss the similarities and differences in the two hits and what you, Leigh, have just listed, is spot on and proves my point in the inconsistencies in the punishment between the two hits!
|
| leigh |
Posted - 10/01/2011 : 08:35:25
Hey Alex, my thought is that the hits are essentially identical. The lateness was the same. Position on the ice was the same. It was even the same play developing. But the contact points were slightly different. Unfortunately Rome's was higher (not quite the head) but I can't see this argument that some are throwing around that one was intended to hurt while te other was intended to injure. Its laughable, we have some smart cookies in this forum but we dont have mind readers. Most of us have played some hockey and we know that a d-man stepping up into a hit like that is intending to knock a player on his ass. The intend was likely the same.
There are 4 main differences:
1) one was preseason and one was Stanley Cup Finals
2) one hit was on a pest while the other was on a leading scorer
3) one was handed out by old guard, one by new guard
3) and finally....one resulted in injury. I agree with you Alex. I believe that because Horton was injured Rome got suspended. Therefore I have to conclude that Murray was not suspended because Lapierre was not hurt.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 09/29/2011 : 17:26:04
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
But Alex, if you are bringing the leagues rulings in to the discussion, you have just countered yourself out of said discussion as the league ruled Rome's hit suspendable and Murray's, not. 
EXACTLY MY POINT! I've been insisting all along that they haven't been consistent. Unless they didn't find Murray's hit to be late (which is next to impossible), they've not been consistent, unless they're willing to admit they're only going to suspend in such cases where there's serious injury. THAT, furthers my other point that i feel they're punishing too much on the result of the hit and not the hit itself.
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
I won't argue the league's ruling that had the hit not been late, it would not have been a penalty, your topic asked for thoughts and comments, my thought is as I laid it out, regardless of history or character, the hit Rome threw was dirty, while the hit Murray threw wasn't, that's the whole gist of my points, outcome notwithstanding, the type of hit thrown led Rome's to have much more potential for the outcome it did, as opposed to Murray's, and what I find assinine is that Vigneault has the gall to compare the two.
I can see your point here and while i still don't think it was Rome's intent, perhaps the Rome suspension is why Murray didn't clobber him worse? Dare i say the suspension worked in this case? Possibly, but i still don't like the way the league has gone about it's business and essentially suspended on the result rather than the action itself.
As for AV, i don't necessarily like everything he does, but he seems to have a similar opinion to mine in this regard. I guess my comments / opinion are assinine as well then? 
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
It isn't so much a question, for me, of what was legal or not, by the league's rulings, it's which hit was maliciously intended to do the most damage, intentional or not, and that's where Rome's hit is "head and shoulders"(pun intended), above Murray's.
That's what I refer to when I say 'clean hit' vs. 'intent to injure'.
That is fair to say, and that's your opinion. Unfortunately, in regards to the rules of the league, it's not the way it's supposed to be. If a guy hits another guy 100% cleanly, and decapitates him, you are entitled to feel that it was overly aggressive, unnecessary and malicious. BUT, if it's within the rules, why would there be a suspension? Again, this is to imply that if both these hits were not late, there'd have been no suspensions. I'm not for a second saying that these hits are necessary, as i think both Murray and Rome could easily have simply just stayed with their man rather than flattening them, but until the league decides to take this kind of hit out of the game, we're gonna see them. Unfortunately, in a game played at the speed of the NHL, with the size of the men playing and the split second decisions needed to be made, some of these hits will be 100% clean, some will be late, and yet others will be both late, and "miss by 4 inches".  |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 09/29/2011 : 16:30:52
But Alex, if you are bringing the leagues rulings in to the discussion, you have just countered yourself out of said discussion as the league ruled Rome's hit suspendable and Murray's, not.
I won't argue the league's ruling that had the hit not been late, it would not have been a penalty, your topic asked for thoughts and comments, my thought is as I laid it out, regardless of history or character, the hit Rome threw was dirty, while the hit Murray threw wasn't, that's the whole gist of my points, outcome notwithstanding, the type of hit thrown led Rome's to have much more potential for the outcome it did, as opposed to Murray's, and what I find assinine is that Vigneault has the gall to compare the two.
It isn't so much a question, for me, of what was legal or not, by the league's rulings, it's which hit was maliciously intended to do the most damage, intentional or not, and that's where Rome's hit is "head and shoulders"(pun intended), above Murray's.
That's what I refer to when I say 'clean hit' vs. 'intent to injure'. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 09/29/2011 : 15:50:36
FER, again, thanks for the reply and i understand your point of view, but don't necessarily agree with it. From everything i've heard about Aaron Rome, he is not the type of player to go out of his way to injure someone. Perhaps he had an error in judgement and due to the speed of the game, he simply made a mistake which unfortunately turned out very serious. Either way, i don't think his intent was to do as much damage as he did.
Here's the only issue i have and it's got everything to do with what you said below...........
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
When I refer to clean hit, this is what I refer to, the play could have indeed been called a penalty due to timing, but the the hit was clean. In both cases, if the timing is taken out of the equation and they were both thrown in acceptable time/strides, Rome's hit is still dirty and suspendable. IMHO.
Ignore the "what if's" if you must, but you can't ignore the fact that the league ruled on the Rome hit due to it's timing being late, AND the severity of Horton's injury. Let us all remember, the rule (rule 48?) was put in to punish "blind side hits", of which Rome's was NOT! It is still legal (unless it was changed in the off season), or at least was last June, to make contact with a players head (as long as it was a shoulder and not a fist, elbow, stick, etc) as part of a hit, as long as it's not a "blindside hit"! The league even said, had the hit not been late, it would have been deemed clean! How anyone can argue that is beyond my understanding! THAT, is how i come to the conclussion that they've been inconsistant and/or have ruled far too heavily on the outcomes rather than the hits themselves!!! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 09/29/2011 : 15:21:23
quote:
Well Nux, I completely disagree and I will use your words to support my opinion:
"a guy Murray's size could have done a whole lot worse with that hit,"
That being said, I would not expect a Canuck fan to agree when it is one of their players involved.
perhaps you are assuming that by "hurt" I mean "injure" - I do not. Murray was more than happy to lay down a very hard hit on a generally disliked player, he probably knew who it was, and probably didn't mind going the extra few feet to dish it out. Had it been Hank coming down the middle, I don't think that hit would have been dished out. Murray is capable of more, but hes also a smart player and certainly knows what might have happened had Lapierre been seriously injured on the play.
In short, a good hard hit on the edge of late, by a hard hitter. Which is fine, I have no problem with that - Lapierre dishes them out as well, and he takes them back. Its part of his game, and its the sort of attention he gets due to the way he plays. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 09/29/2011 : 15:08:09
Last time i checked, 'concede', basically means I defer to your opinion regarding the lateness of the hit, so let's not twist words and miss each other's opinions, of which I also respect yours.
I'll define a clean hit, versus an 'unclean' or 'intent to injure' hit, in my opinion only, by using the 2 hits in question.
Rome, drove in and upwards with his shoulder, making eventual contact with his shoulder, to Horton's head(regardless of ruling), knocking Horton senseless and causing him fall backwards, with his head being the first point of contact with the ice. That's malicious and dirty, complete disregard for the players well-being, with, again, my opinion only, intent to blatantly injure his opponent. Not sure how that can be conjectured any other way.
Murray put his shoulder square in to Lapierre's body, causing him to stop his forward momentum abruptly, and fall on his arse. No upward motion to push Lapierre off his feet backwards, no contact with the head, and with a fraction of the malice that the Rome hit was thrown with. My point being that Murray certainly could have easily done all that, as he had more than enough time to do so, and as I will reiterate, I concede the hit was late, even later than the Rome hit, of that I agree after watching both videos again.
What if's mean squat here, as Lapierre had no problem getting back up and going after Murray, long enough for a teammate to come in and get pummeled on for his behalf anyways.
My issue with the comparisons is that Vigneault is using the comparison to whine, and there is no comparison to the 2 hits regarding not outcome, but intent. I don't believe Murray intended to injure Lapierre and was throwing a bodycheck, regardless of timing, Rome was looking to hurt Horton, mission accomplished.
When I refer to clean hit, this is what I refer to, the play could have indeed been called a penalty due to timing, but the the hit was clean. In both cases, if the timing is taken out of the equation and they were both thrown in acceptable time/strides, Rome's hit is still dirty and suspendable. IMHO.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 09/29/2011 : 13:57:23
I respect everyone's opinion on this subject, even if i don't agree with all of them. I personally believe that pretty much every hit is meant to inflict some pain/hurt to one's opponent. ESPECIALLY one's where a guy is "finishing his check". It's an opportunity to take a guy out of the play, sure, but to do so, you take yourself out of the play as well! I'm not talking "injuring" a guy, but i do sense that a hit is meant to "hurt" the other guy. Hurt him enough to think twice about "next time", hurt him enough to affect his game generally, etc, not necessarily to put him in the hospital.
FER, you called it a "clean hit" that was "arguably" late? First of all, to say it was arguably late, but Rome's was late, would be ludicrous, so unless you think Rome's was also "arguably" late, you've lost me. Second, it can't be both (late and clean). A late hit, is a late hit and therefore against the rules, or not "clean"! It goes back to what Mike Murphy said about the Rome hit, it was late and it inflicted serious injury. He did acknowledge that the hit was hit after the body to body contact, but that it wasn't considered a headshot like the others (Perron, Savard, many Stevens hits, etc). FER, you also never really addressed my questions in my last post regarding the similarities in the two hits.
Beans, the 5 or 6 games that you thought was light was actually only 4, so i'm guessing you prob consider Rome actually very lucky to not have gotten more? I'm not gonna try to convince anyone that Rome's hit wasn't a headshot, even though the league ruled it wasn't, so we may be just wasting our time debating this. However, how you guys can call Murray's hit "finishing his check" and Rome's "hit to injure" is crazy! Murray could have easily broken Lapierre's ribs (much to your delight i'm sure). What if he suffered a punctured lung or the ill fated, ruptured spleen? Would this make a difference? I mean, the hit was late and had a serious injury occurred, would that have made a difference?
What i'm getting at, and i don't want a long drawn out debate really, is that i don't see consistency in the rulings of these two cases. Again, i reiterate, i see the resulting injury playing a larger factor into the rulings than the bad hits do and i feel that's wrong. Ex, remember the famous Hextall chop to Kent Nilsson? I'm sure you do. Let's say Dubnyk does that to Tanguay in their first meeting this year, breaking tanguay's leg. The same night, Halak duplicates the chop on an unsuspecting Red WIng, only luckily gets a little more pad and the guy suffers a bruise? My opinion is, they should get the same punishment. If you want to deter others, you punish the action, NOT the outcome!!!
I guess there's no point debating this really because you guys don't see the similarities in the Rome and Murray hits that i do. The biggest difference you see is 4 inches, the biggest difference i see is Lapierre stopped admiring his pass a split second before he was hit.
|
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 09/29/2011 : 12:37:29
I'll certainly concede that the hit may have been late, and should have perhaps gotten an interference call, but that's where the comparison in the hits stops.
Rome took the opportunity to 'hit to injure', on Horton, no question, in my opinion. Murray took the opportunity to throw a 'clean hit', on a player, albeit, arguably late.
I've said it before, show me how many clean hits cause injuries versus 'intent to injure' type runs, and I'll call them similar, until then I find it hard to compare the 2 plays and find similar outcomes.
Those who argue that hitting is indeed a vital part of the game, have to accept that there are differences between the 2 examples and that the Murray hit, is textbook, if that is the stance supporting bodychecking, again, arguably warranting an interference minor, but nothing at all like the Rome hit.
I stand by my original thought, that given that circumstance, had Murray wanted to 'hit to injure', instead of just throw a check, Lapierre would be wearing a bib, and writing with crayons right now...moreso, than he probably normally does, anyways. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 09/29/2011 : 12:26:51
Well Nux, I completely disagree and I will use your words to support my opinion:
"a guy Murray's size could have done a whole lot worse with that hit,"
That being said, I would not expect a Canuck fan to agree when it is one of their players involved. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 09/29/2011 : 07:10:45
quote:
Finally, you questioned FER if Murray's hit was a 'hit to hurt' and I would say it was not
oh, lets not kid ourselves - it was a hit to hurt for sure. Murray knew exactly who he had lined up, Lapierre is not well liked throughout the the league, and when other players have him lined up like that they're going to go out of their way to throw big hits.
The difference is that Murray clearly hit him in the chest, and although it was late it did no damage. I agree, a guy Murray's size could have done a whole lot worse with that hit, but he checked it enough to not do serious damage, and did not go for the head in any way. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 09/29/2011 : 06:16:29
Hey Alex, you want to know why I think the suspension was light was it was 5 games?? I can't remember if it was 5 games or 6 games, but to me that's light considering the action. Not the outcome, the action. Rome knowingly hit a player late. He hit him not for the purpose of remove the puck from the player, he hit to hurt. Regardless of him hitting to the head or not (which I still think he did, regardless of your frame to frame comments). That makes a 6 game suspension light to me. Regardless of the game's status of being a finals game, play off game, regular season game, or pre-season game. This comment of longest suspension in Finals history lends itself to the opinion that playoff games are more important than any other game. It true, they are. So one would think that players would be less likely to act like goons, right???
In my opinion, the suspension should serve 2 purposes. The first is to punish the infraction. The second is to deterthe future actions of others. For that, 6 games is nothing considering the action. Late hit and a hit to hurt. That's enough for me with or without the headshot added in and with or without the severity of Horton's injury.
Finally, you questioned FER if Murray's hit was a 'hit to hurt' and I would say it was not. I would say it is a better example or a closer example a finish of a check than the Rome hit was, however still late. A hit to hurt?? Nope, as Murray could have (and in my opinion should have) significantly injured the oft-deserving Lapierre. That to me was a hit to say, "Don't come down the middle with your head down and next time it will hurt."
Through all of this, do not forget that I still agree it was a late hit and I would be fine to see a light suspension like Rome received. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 22:43:21
quote:
Originally posted by Leafs81
Aaron Rome's hit was higher and a definite hit to the head. Rome hit him late and left his feet.
No question Rome deserved his suspension, because he caught the head first. Murray, a much bigger guy then Lapierre, caught him on the chest. So anyway I think Murray went down to finish his check and Rome went up to finish his check. That's the difference and sometimes 4 inches is a big difference.
Leafs81......It's really difficult to see on youtube or other vids unless you have the luxury of frame by frame advancement but Rome's hit was not as much a headshot as you and many others make it out to be. It was deemed late, and Murphy admitted that his harsh punishment did in fact take into account, the severity of the injury to Horton. Here in fact, is what he said.... "This has nothing to do with Rule 48 [the blindside rule hit]," Murphy said. "This is just an interference penalty, an interference hit. If it was immediate after he released the puck, it would be a legal hit. We have them all the time."
No mention of it being a headshot whatsoever, as i believe he saw what i did in slo-mo that the chest was the initial point of contact and that his feet only left the ice as a result of impact, not a jumping motion into the hit. Again, my opinion, not necessarily a fact. So, my whole point is, IF Lapierre had been seriously injured (to many people's delight of course), would there have been a suspension, and if so, is this the right way to go about suspending guys? I personally don't like punishing a guy for the result of a hit. If something is suspendable, it should be whether or not the victim is injured. They should simply look at it as a "what if" scenario or "what could have happened" because an equally dangerous hit can have a significantly different result depending on so many factors!!! In this case, it appears Lapierre sees the hit at the very last second and prob braces for it. Horton was still looking elsewhere and prob felt like he ran into a brick wall!
Beans.....it horrifies me that you consider the Rome suspenion "light"??? The longest suspension in finals history, and you call it "light"? What, in your opinion, was deserving???
FER....what i don't get is the fact that last June, you argued that the Rome hit was late, yet this one wasn't??? AND, the league (Murphy) clearly states that the "lateness" of the Rome hit was the #1 consideration in dishing out the suspension? Further, here's what you said about the Rome hit : "As Willus pointed out, the only purpose of that check, was to 'finish the check', and as others pointed out, 'hit to hurt'. There was no hockey play there, in my opinion, and Horton would have had no scoring opportunity as the flow went on, if for no other reason, than Rome already had position on him, entering the defensive zone. Rome had to turn in to Horton to make the hit, slightly albeit, but still, turn in to.
So, did Douglas Murray "have a hockey play" to make there? Did he do more than "finish his check" or "hit to hurt"??? Was Lapierre gonna have any more chance to score than Horton did? Did Murray not have to go out of his way to make the hit? Similarities are very eerie imo.
My whole point here isn't to re-open the debate about the Rome hit, moreso to ask everyone's opinion on whether or not there'd have been a suspension if Lapierre where hurt? Now, i know it's not still Murphy handing out the suspensions, but how it can be ruled that Rome's hit was suspendable because 1, it was late, and 2, it resulted in a serious injury, yet Murray's wasn't, says to me that there's inconsistency there with two hits, equally as late. Otherwise, the Rome suspension was 99% to do with the resulting injury!!! |
| n/a |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 18:37:37
It's not really that close, IMHO.
Good non-call.
I didn't think the Rome hit was worth a suspension either, and thought that the penalty was enough.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 16:43:53
I agree completely with your comment about Vigneault. He is the WORST media blurb in the entire NHL because it's always a "woe is Me and my team and we are so mistreated and we would win everything if the refs were fair." It's nauseating.
I think in this case one of two things should happen. One, a light suspension happens based on the NHL's previous stand on the Rome hit. Face it, Rome suspension was pretty light. Or two, and what will never happen, is the NHL comes out and states they made a mistake on the Rome hit.
I also agree with the comment that Murray could have done a lot more. I think the Rome hit was more to the head and the Murray hit was more to the chest. However, the rule is the puck is gone there should be no hit. Murray had an opportunity for two strides after the puck was gone to lay the hit. Those two stride could have also easily been to avoid Lapierre.
However, that creates an entirely new conversation as if I was an NHL player, I would take the suspension to catch Lapierre. I would have 'Romed' him and left him a pile of rubble on the ice. It would have felt good too!!
Finally, and mostly sadly, I too concur with your first statement as I have been in that boat before as well. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 16:31:00
quote:
Originally posted by Leafs81
[...... That's the difference and sometimes 4 inches is a big difference.
Strange, I didn't realize Mrs. Elvis was such a hockey fan as she's said the same thing to me numerous times....
Anyways....I think this is almost textbook, as to what a 'finish your check', should look like. The timing was close enough, IMO, that it made the point that skating through the middle is dangerous, and a price is paid if done so, during a play.
I think that if Murray truly wanted to 'Rome', Lapierre, at 6'3" and 240lbs., he could have indeed done so. Instead he did what is supposed to have been done, finish the check, as a check, not an intent to injure. Rome blasted Horton, when a similar play would have accomplished the same result, without the injury and subsequent suspension.
I for one, applaud Murray for playing physical, without the intent that a lot of today's players throw the body with. That's a Dion Phaneuf type hit, and it sends the proper message, legally, again in my opinion.
Vigneault is doing what he always seems to do in these situations, forgetting he's a pot when pointing at a kettle. |
| Leafs81 |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 15:15:15
Aaron Rome's hit was higher and a definite hit to the head. Rome hit him late and left his feet.
No question Rome deserved his suspension, because he caught the head first. Murray, a much bigger guy then Lapierre, caught him on the chest. So anyway I think Murray went down to finish his check and Rome went up to finish his check. That's the difference and sometimes 4 inches is a big difference. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 14:16:58
And that surprises you Alex?? The NHL (at least before Shanahan) has always suspended based on outcome. I look at both hits and I see just as other have, about 4" different. If anything. Rome has about 1/10th of a second more time to make his decision. Ultimately, both hits are so similar one can call them the same. If Rome gets a suspension, so should Murray. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 13:24:09
Agree with most of that, however, i do remember looking at the Rome hit with the use of the pvr and it's ability to see it frame by frame and the initial contact def was the chest.
Either way, it'd be interesting to see what would have happened if Lapierre ended up concussed, convulsing on the ice, etc. Clearly, the NHL suspended Rome on the outcome/result as much as it did the late hit! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 09/28/2011 : 12:52:19
it is very reminiscent of the Horton hit - I guess the big difference is, as the article said, about 4 inches, which is probably all the difference in the world.
If you look at the 2 hits again, you can see that Murray clearly hits Lapierre in the chest, and he bounces right back up. In the Rome hit, the initial contact is not in the middle of the chest - its debatable whether or it it was a head shot, but Murray's hit is clearly in the chest.
Late hit, yes. Multi-game suspension, probably not. Also in Murray's favour - it was not on prime time TV, in the US, during the biggest show in the NHL season. |
|
|
