Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... General Hockey Chat
 John Scott hit on Loui Eriksson

 NOTICE!! This forum allows Anonymous Posting.
 Registered members please login above or input your User Name/Password before submitting!
Screensize:
Authority:  UserName:  Password:  (Member Only !)
  * Anonymous Posting please leave it blank. your temporary AnonyID is
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

  Check here to include your profile signature. (Member Only !)
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
sahis34 Posted - 10/23/2013 : 20:02:58
For how many games will John Scott get suspended for his hit on Loui Eriksson?
15   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
leigh Posted - 11/03/2013 : 08:09:59
So this conversation never really got closed. Scott ended up with a 7 game suspension. Far too high for my liking but that's the way it usually ends up these days.
leigh Posted - 10/28/2013 : 16:02:38
I liked this quote by Former NHL referee Kerry Fraser...

"Call me a dreamer but in a "perfect NHL" I would like nothing better than to see all contact to the head eliminated. The harsh reality is that given the speed of this contact sport, attack angles and body position can often be altered just prior to an intended legal hit. As a result, there are times when I am afraid to admit contact to the head will continue to occur. Under the current playing rules, contact to the head in almost all cases should be worthy of at least a minor penalty; but not always a suspension."

sahis34 Posted - 10/25/2013 : 20:50:38
The language of the no head hitting rule strongly emphases a ban on blindside hits and hits to unsuspecting players, this hit was certainly that. I say 15 games, it just looks too much like cooke on savard hit, which was the main reason they put the ban on head hitting in the first place.
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/25/2013 : 09:17:34
Although I am of the like that I think Scott should be gone from the game because his is a 1 dimensional goon, had this been any smaller player, the contact to the head might not have happened and this might not have been a suspendable play. His size goes against him in this play. I also don't know if I agree that he intended to destroy Eriksson, as it was point out he coasted into the hit not strided towards him with hands or elbows high. He leaned in with a shoulder check which is legal but again at his size the shoulder comes into contact with the head. Had he come in at full speed, if that's possible for Scott, he would have caused much more damage to Erikkson. I think this is the result of him slowing up on the hit, poor timing and Eriksson not recognizing the danger. I also don't agree this was a blindsided hit as Scott was clearly visable yet somehow Eriksson missed him. I have watched the video backwards and forwards at slow mo and normal speed. I just don't get with all the time in between how Eriksson cannot see him coming and protect himself.
slozo Posted - 10/25/2013 : 05:56:25
quote:
Originally posted by leigh

Alex, that picture is deceptive, the angle is bad and the photo is 'late'. The hit had already occured when it was taken so the picture was shot on the follow through - as with every hit a player's elbow comes up on the follow through. Mind you it wasn't pressed against his side, but it was not up and did not make contact with anything but Eriksson's chest. You need to see it from the front (facing Scott) like in the video. It's a shoulder contact that pops his helmet up and the elbow came up afterward. To answer your question, I think he was aiming for his chest by his body language, it's just crap timing. Hits to the head happen in hockey and contrary to what a lot of vocal people on this site think, they are not all planned. I belive that in today's game the vast majority of head hits are incidental contact. I'm not naive, some are intentional, but most are not. This game was still well in reach for Buffalo and I also don't believe that Scott would put his team at risk like that. I'm just not buying that it was intentional (this last point is incredbily subjective I know )

The real problem is that Eriksson was in a compromising position and the hit should have been thrown appropriately, ie: not trying to destory him. If you want to say there was no respect from Scott to Eriksson then I'd agree. One last comment. Watching this again and again at high speed I no longer think it was a late hit.



I agree with you on this take.

As an aside,
If hockey GMs and coaches actually did their job properly, John Scott wouldn't be in the league (he's a joke, let's face it - a man mountain who can't skate in the NHL basically). And his place would be taken by a player with ten times the skill, and maybe he's a gritty player, maybe not . . . but if ANY minor league player worth calling up was in the same position as John Scott - this is a proper hit probably, because the skating/timing is there.

John Scott's skating and timing are so bad in general, that it makes this intentional/not intentional decision extremely difficult.


"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Lunchbox Posted - 10/25/2013 : 01:54:52
I'm going to agree with Leigh on this one...and honestly, I think people's perception of Scott is coming into play a bit here.

When I watch the lead up to the hit, I think it may be a bit of a blindside (not entirely), but not a charge. Eriksson moves from the offside face-off dot when he crosses the blueline to the edge of the centre ice logo where he is hit. That's almost ten feet of lateral movement, and the player Eriksson is passing it to is almost directly behind Scott. I know responsibility is more on the hitter, but Eriksson had a pretty good angle to see Scott coming, and looks like he gets caught up worrying about head-faking the defenceman prior to the pass.

Also, Scott clearly stops striding and coasts into the hit for at least ten feet, (the replay at 2:15 of the above video shows Scott coasting from the centre ice dot to the edge of the team logo) and the point of contact is definitely with Scott's shoulder. It does look to me on the slo-mo replay that Scott is dipping his shoulder and tucking in the elbow just before the hit, as well. Definitely (to me) not targeted.

Now, yeah, having said all that, Scott should be suspended a few games for sure just for the fact that he hits Eriksson in the head, because that's how it should be...but throw the book at Scott? I don't think its warranted.
Alex116 Posted - 10/24/2013 : 17:26:25
Leigh...fair enough, i see what you mean by "when" the pic was taken! His arm certianly isn't by his side though which won't help his case. Also, i too agree that i don't think most headshots are intentional (though Duncan Keith's on Daniel surely was ) and i've alluded to this before that eventually guys will simply have to accept the fact that they are going to have to ease up on ANY hit that has a decent chance at going wrong. Such is the case with this one. Scott surely knows he is 6'8" and that he's going to need to be getting real low vs many guys if he wants to avoid the head.

As for the game being within reach, i'm not so sure. Yes, technically speaking, a 2 goal differential with 15mins left in a game is not much at all, however, look at this Buffalo team and how they've performed this season. I think there's a reason this guy was on the ice, and while i don't think anyone told him to go club someone in the head, i do think, whether it verbally ordered or not, Scott knew why he got the tap on the back to get on the ice. His job is to do something, be it a fight, a hit, etc, to fire up his team. Unfortunately for him, and moreso for Eriksson is suppose, he executed his duty very poorly.
leigh Posted - 10/24/2013 : 16:30:12
Alex, that picture is deceptive, the angle is bad and the photo is 'late'. The hit had already occured when it was taken so the picture was shot on the follow through - as with every hit a player's elbow comes up on the follow through. Mind you it wasn't pressed against his side, but it was not up and did not make contact with anything but Eriksson's chest. You need to see it from the front (facing Scott) like in the video. It's a shoulder contact that pops his helmet up and the elbow came up afterward. To answer your question, I think he was aiming for his chest by his body language, it's just crap timing. Hits to the head happen in hockey and contrary to what a lot of vocal people on this site think, they are not all planned. I belive that in today's game the vast majority of head hits are incidental contact. I'm not naive, some are intentional, but most are not. This game was still well in reach for Buffalo and I also don't believe that Scott would put his team at risk like that. I'm just not buying that it was intentional (this last point is incredbily subjective I know )

The real problem is that Eriksson was in a compromising position and the hit should have been thrown appropriately, ie: not trying to destory him. If you want to say there was no respect from Scott to Eriksson then I'd agree. One last comment. Watching this again and again at high speed I no longer think it was a late hit.
Alex116 Posted - 10/24/2013 : 15:08:49
Leigh....Have a look again at the link and the first pic as you scroll down. Maybe, just maybe, it's not entirely the elbow? But IMO, it was ZERO shoulder. Look at the pic and where Scott's shoulder is. Bottom line is, when a player gets their "chicken wing" out in a hit like this, it's deemed an elbow. Had he kept his arm in by his side, it may not have been as bad, but either way, total headshot as the head was the initial point of contact!

As far as what Scott was targetting, what makes you think it wasn't the head? I get that he's a Shrek-like 6'8" and all and that these big guys are at somewhat of a disadvantage when hitting a smaller guy in this regard, but what from this replay makes you think he didn't target the head? Or are you just assuming that it was a hit gone bad?

As far as Scott not being a repeat offender, it's not that shocking. I mean, his career total time on ice is prob only about 15 mins? The suspension imo, should be 10+ but considering his teammate, Patrick Kaleta, who's a multiple time repeat offender IIRC, only got 10, he'll prob only get 6 or 7?
You also have to compare it to Duncan Keith's elbow on Daniel Sedin. THAT one, is as "predatory" as they come and he didn't get anything close to what we'd consider a big suspension!
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/24/2013 : 14:53:42
When your the size of John Scott 6-8 and 259, does it matter if you get your hands or elbow up? My answer to that is much like Chara, in which any good hit will end up on the upper body or head of your opponent. Does this guy belong in the NHL? I remember the Ottawa/Rangers series where the Rangers dressed Scott when it was apparent there was going to be retaliation for a hit on Alfredsson and targeting on Karlsson. Difference between him and Chara is this guy has 1 goal 4 assist and 305 pim in 180 NHL games. He is a clear cut 1 dimensional player, of the like, I would be ok not seeing lace it up for another NHL game. Am I wrong? I am not even referring to this hit, which from the replays looks like a dangerous open ice shoulder check, which at his size would be impossible not to make contact with the head. I can't tell by the replays if the elbow gets up, but again, at his size does it matter.
leigh Posted - 10/24/2013 : 14:04:11
There was no elbow. The elbow was down near his side and never made contact; it was all shoulder. I don't think he was targeting his head either. But no doubt the head was the first point of contact and it was a micro-second late.

He should get 3 games, but will probably get 5 because he is a big guy and Eriksson is a budding star.
sahis34 Posted - 10/23/2013 : 22:34:41
Apparently he's not a repeat offender. I know I was surprised too. Still he's still the type of player that the NHL could throw the book at, and that was a textbook blindsider, it cold be a hefty suspension.
Alex116 Posted - 10/23/2013 : 21:54:40
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan

I don't think it matters if he's a repeat offender. The hit was blatant, he led with the elbow and even elevated the elbow to make contact with Eriksson's head. Very dangerous play by a very big guy. Players are getting 5 games now for less than that - 10 games minimum IMO.



I agree. That link I provided wasn't the greatest really. After seeing it on the tv highlights, man, it was blatant! I'd have no prob with 15 or more!
nuxfan Posted - 10/23/2013 : 21:07:06
I don't think it matters if he's a repeat offender. The hit was blatant, he led with the elbow and even elevated the elbow to make contact with Eriksson's head. Very dangerous play by a very big guy. Players are getting 5 games now for less than that - 10 games minimum IMO.
Alex116 Posted - 10/23/2013 : 20:31:01
Here's a link for anyone who's not seen it........

http://o.canada.com/sports/sabres-goon-john-scott-clips-bruins-winger-loui-eriksson-in-the-head/

Scott's a goon, I just don't recall his history as to whether or not he's a repeat offender? Regardless, this hit is really bad and will have to fetch 10+ depending on Eriksson's injury state I guess???

Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page