| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
 Posted - 04/06/2015 : 08:24:26
|
| Leaving your feet to make a hit is the rulebook definition of charging. Shaw did that, and got a charging penalty. There was no injury on the play, and Jackman got up right away and skated away, so no basis for a major or match penalty. Why do you think it should be called more than it was? |
 |
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2015 : 16:48:44
|
Perhaps i over reacted but as far as I'm concerned, and I've stated this numerous times before, they need to start taking "resulting injury" out of the equation. Jackman was in a very vulnerable position just a few feet from the boards and could have been seriously injured.
Are you telling me that because he got up like a hockey player and didn't roll around for 10mins like a South American soccer player that it's any less of a hit? If he was concussed, would you feel it warranted more?
Imo this is exactly the kind of hit that is suspension worthy..... |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2015 : 13:54:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Perhaps i over reacted but as far as I'm concerned, and I've stated this numerous times before, they need to start taking "resulting injury" out of the equation. Jackman was in a very vulnerable position just a few feet from the boards and could have been seriously injured.
Are you telling me that because he got up like a hockey player and didn't roll around for 10mins like a South American soccer player that it's any less of a hit? If he was concussed, would you feel it warranted more?
Imo this is exactly the kind of hit that is suspension worthy.....
If Jackman was injured in any way with the hit, then yes, I think it should warrant more. For better or worse, it really is the only way that you can determine the true ramifications of an illegal hit.
"Could have been seriously injured" describes a lot of the hits that are dished out in today's NHL, and probably describes most of the illegal (penalized) hits. What makes Shaw's hit any worse than, say, a high stick that happens to catch a player in the side of the face, or a trip that steers a player head-first into the boards? Shaw could have seriously hurt Jackman, but did not. A high stick to the face of a player could take out an eye, or seriously gash someone, but in nearly all cases, does not. In these cases, the NHL rulebook is setup to give 2 minute minors for infractions, and escalate if the infraction leads to a serious injury.
You're verging onto a slippery slope here, whereby any penalty could be deemed as a play that "could have seriously injured" another player, and could potentially result in a suspension. I don't want to see an NHL where every penalty called is reviewable for suspension, just because of the what-could-have-happened factor.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2015 : 07:06:57
|
I agree that it was a charge, and from what I understand, it was judged accordingly.
Agree that injury shouldn't have anything to do with it . . . but disagree that Jackman was in a vulnerable position. If he was, he wouldn't have seen him; wouldn't have been able to avoid 80% of the contact like he did.
I think this was fair.
Don't Leaf me hanging, Buds! |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2015 : 13:00:42
|
nuxfan....The big difference, or at least one, is that these types of hits are one of the main types of hits that the league is trying to do away with! I get it, a high stick could cause serious injury, however, if it's simply and errant stick, tough break. But if it's an intentional high stick, that's a different story! Same goes for a trip. If a guy is tripped on a semi breakaway and slides into the post or end boards and breaks his leg, this will not be, nor should be, penalized the same way as a guy taking a 40' run at a guy and plowing him into the boards with a running leap from 3-4' away! You need to think about "intent". Never did I imply that I feel "any penalty could be deemed as a play that "could have seriously injured" another player, and could potentially result in a suspension". That's ridiculous, however, anything deemed excessive, imo, should be looked at closely.
If you want to look at the resulting injury being the determining factor, why then was Dustin Byfuglien suspended 4 games for his crosscheck to Miller's neck the other day? Aside from a bit of pain, Miller toughed it out and didn't miss any time. Does that make Byfuglien's disgusting cheap shot any less brutal? How about a sucker punch? Should that go unsuspendable if the target isn't seriously hurt?
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2015 : 13:24:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
nuxfan....The big difference, or at least one, is that these types of hits are one of the main types of hits that the league is trying to do away with! I get it, a high stick could cause serious injury, however, if it's simply and errant stick, tough break. But if it's an intentional high stick, that's a different story! Same goes for a trip. If a guy is tripped on a semi breakaway and slides into the post or end boards and breaks his leg, this will not be, nor should be, penalized the same way as a guy taking a 40' run at a guy and plowing him into the boards with a running leap from 3-4' away! You need to think about "intent". Never did I imply that I feel "any penalty could be deemed as a play that "could have seriously injured" another player, and could potentially result in a suspension". That's ridiculous, however, anything deemed excessive, imo, should be looked at closely.
If you want to look at the resulting injury being the determining factor, why then was Dustin Byfuglien suspended 4 games for his crosscheck to Miller's neck the other day? Aside from a bit of pain, Miller toughed it out and didn't miss any time. Does that make Byfuglien's disgusting cheap shot any less brutal? How about a sucker punch? Should that go unsuspendable if the target isn't seriously hurt?
I didn't say that resulting injury is THE determining factor, rather that it should be A determining factor. And, it is the only way to accurately determine the severity of a hit at the time of a hit, which is why referees are given the ability to increase minors to majors/misconducts/match penalties depending on resultant injury.
Intent is much more difficult to ascertain in most cases, especially at the time of the hit. Sure, the league probably tries to factor in intent for anything they review - so be ready for some wildly varying results.
Byfuglien was suspended because he made contact with Miller's neck (head), and the NHL is pretty much automatically suspending any hits to the head. Had Shaw made contact with anything above Jackman's shoulder during that check, I have no doubt he would have been given a major, and would have been suspended as well. In fact, I believe the rulebook for charging specifically mentions that a charge that results in contact with the head results in an automatic game misconduct.
In short, I don't have a problem with the call on Shaw for charging. I also don't have a problem with the league not considering a suspension for Shaw, as it seems pretty near impossible to conclusively decide there was intent to injure, and no injury occurred on the play. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2015 : 14:56:26
|
Fair enough. I agree with some points you make, however, I still feel this type of hit is ridiculously careless / reckless. I totally understand that the lack of injury makes it difficult to differentiate between this hit and others where there is injury (especially contact to the head), but at the end of the day, if the league wants to do away with the stupid hits, perhaps charging should be an automatic ejection. It's hard to argue that any hit where you are coming in with velocity and leave your feet to make the hit is anything but an attempt to injure!
I know it's difficult to tell what "could have" happened, but because Jackman was fortunate / smart enough to be able to duck, shouldn't make the reckless hit any less punishable. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Shaw levels Jackman 
