SwampD Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Because it's a young man who doesn't know any better and who might not be able to play with his kids when he's our age. I not only agree with nfreeman's response to your posting, but I'm also going to be more blunt than he was. Your comment was just totally wrong. To say that it was filled with rank apathy is an understatement. No sane and rational hockey fan wants to see this happen to any player regardless of who he plays for. Alexei Cherepanov comes to mind. A Rangers prospect who dies in the middle of a hockey game while sitting on the bench. Same thing almost happened to Jiri Fischer a few years ago. No matter how much Todd Bertuzzi is still hated for that hit on Steve Moore a few years back, the man has expressed remorse over that incident. IIRC, his play has not been the same since then. My two cents for now... My apathy is a defense mechanism and a learned response. When I first saw the hit it made me sick. But the way the league responded to it came as no surprise. What they care about confounds me and I just don't have the energy to care about it if the people who it effects don't even care. IMO XC wrongly compared this to the Bertuzzi incident. One is a hockey play executed improperly while the other is just plain assault. I personally don't think he should even be playing in the NHL right now. But in a way he's right. With people saying that getting rid of the instigator rule would get rid of this kind of hit, and with the way people here are clamoring for the Sabres to dole out beatings so that other teams know they are tough and to protect Miller and to open up ice, maybe the Bertuzzi hit WAS just a hockey play executed poorly. I think at least that is how the people who call the shots see it. shrader is right. Someone is going to have to die before they care as much as I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 This is pretty incredible. From nhl.com. According to NHL Senior Vice President of Hockey Operations Mike Murphy, who was in charge of making the final ruling, there were a number of reasons that led to the decision not to suspend Richards: he did not target Booth's head; he did not leave his feet to deliver the blow; he did not hit an unsuspecting player; he is not a repeat offender; and he did not hit Booth late, as it was determined the blow was delivered less than a half-second after Booth passed the puck. How do they know what Richards was "targeting"? Didn't leave his feet? OK. Again, this is the rulebook as justification for mayhem. What's the difference if he left his skates? Your honor, my client didn't rape that woman -- he had one foot on the floor at all times! Booth was certainly unsuspecting. No repeat offender? Only because previous assaults by Richards went unpunished! And what's the difference if he had never been suspended? This is madness. If the hit wasn't late -- why the interference call? And why the intent to injure penalty? I can't believe I'm saying this about NHL officials, but this time they seemed to get it right. The league choked. Shocker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 This is pretty incredible. From nhl.com. According to NHL Senior Vice President of Hockey Operations Mike Murphy, who was in charge of making the final ruling, there were a number of reasons that led to the decision not to suspend Richards: he did not target Booth's head; he did not leave his feet to deliver the blow; he did not hit an unsuspecting player; he is not a repeat offender; and he did not hit Booth late, as it was determined the blow was delivered less than a half-second after Booth passed the puck. How do they know what Richards was "targeting"? I'm preaching to the choir here, but how about 'if the majority of or the initial contact between players is to one player's head, [insert punishment here]'. It seems pretty simple, does it not? It doesn't matter if the guy means to or not, just like with a high-stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 This is pretty incredible. From nhl.com. According to NHL Senior Vice President of Hockey Operations Mike Murphy, who was in charge of making the final ruling, there were a number of reasons that led to the decision not to suspend Richards: he did not target Booth's head; he did not leave his feet to deliver the blow; he did not hit an unsuspecting player; he is not a repeat offender; and he did not hit Booth late, as it was determined the blow was delivered less than a half-second after Booth passed the puck. How do they know what Richards was "targeting"? Didn't leave his feet? OK. Again, this is the rulebook as justification for mayhem. What's the difference if he left his skates? Your honor, my client didn't rape that woman -- he had one foot on the floor at all times! Booth was certainly unsuspecting. No repeat offender? Only because previous assaults by Richards went unpunished! And what's the difference if he had never been suspended? This is madness. If the hit wasn't late -- why the interference call? And why the intent to injure penalty? I can't believe I'm saying this about NHL officials, but this time they seemed to get it right. The league choked. Shocker. You want the real answer? How many people out there have heard of David Booth before? How many have heard of Richards? There's your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 You want the real answer? How many people out there have heard of David Booth before? How many have heard of Richards? There's your answer. You want an even better answer. How many hits on Youtube has this play received? A lot more than any of the goals in that game have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I'm preaching to the choir here, but how about 'if the majority of or the initial contact between players is to one player's head, [insert punishment here]'. It seems pretty simple, does it not? It doesn't matter if the guy means to or not, just like with a high-stick. Total agreement. If there is no discretion with a high stick, why should there be with a body check? This is a very good point, and it basically proves just how poorly assembled the NHL's rules are. I personally like the NCAA's rule: "Contact to the Head SECTION 8. A player shall not make contact with an opposing player’s head or neck area in any manner. PENALTY—Minor or major or disqualification at the discretion of the referee. Contact to the head shall be assessed in front of the infraction (i.e., contact to the head – elbow). Note: The rules committee instructs officials to use a zero tolerance policy in this area." The NCAA wants to protect its players, so why not the NHL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Total agreement. If there is no discretion with a high stick, why should there be with a body check? This is a very good point, and it basically proves just how poorly assembled the NHL's rules are. I personally like the NCAA's rule: "Contact to the Head SECTION 8. A player shall not make contact with an opposing player’s head or neck area in any manner. PENALTY—Minor or major or disqualification at the discretion of the referee. Contact to the head shall be assessed in front of the infraction (i.e., contact to the head – elbow). Note: The rules committee instructs officials to use a zero tolerance policy in this area." The NCAA wants to protect its players, so why not the NHL? They can't shake the idiotic idea that protecting players makes the league look soft. Yes, looking out for the long term health of your players makes you and your players soft. :rolleyes: They're so quick to say it's about tradition, but what part of all the body armor they wear now has anything to do with tradition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 They can't shake the idiotic idea that protecting players makes the league look soft. Yes, looking out for the long term health of your players makes you and your players soft. :rolleyes: They're so quick to say it's about tradition, but what part of all the body armor they wear now has anything to do with tradition? I want to know how the game would honestly change if there was a zero tolerance contact to the head policy? There are plenty of big hits in college hockey and they do it without taking a guy's head off. So where's the logic in continuing to be indecisive on the topic from the NHL's standpoint? People are still going to get destroyed. There should just be a price to pay if it happens in a manner that results in contact to the head, intentional or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I don't buy that for a second. These guys know what they're getting in to when they step on to NHL ice. This is the big show. Where everything is faster, harder, and less restricted than any other league they've played in during the previous years of their career. This kind of stuff doesn't happen nearly as often in Juniors and the AHL because players in those leagues know that their goal is to make it to the big dance. Once you're in the NHL, it's a different story. There's no higher to go. It's no longer about playing with guys who have the same goal in mind of proving they're worth it. Now they're with guys who have proven it, and are simply out to do whatever it takes to win a game. I think there's a huge difference between the NHL and other leagues with regard to respect for other players, in that the higher you go, the less there is. If you make that transition to the NHL, you should know what to expect. It's not like we haven't been seeing this stuff for years. And it's really too bad that players at the NHL level should have to be prepared to take career ending injuries in order to accomplish having a successful career in the first place. "Come and see the violence inherent in the system!" I agree that there is violence inherent in the system, but there are also rules in place so that the games don't become complete melees. If once you get to the NHL there are no limits, then why not allow crosschecks to the head? Why not skate blades to the neck? These are extreme examples, but my point is simply that it's OK for the game to have rules, and it's OK for those rules to be designed to protect the safety of the players. IMHO, head shots are just too dangerous. Richards' hit was pretty egregious, but there have been plenty of them all over the league this year and there will be plenty more. The game would be just fine without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I agree that there is violence inherent in the system, but there are also rules in place so that the games don't become complete melees. If once you get to the NHL there are no limits, then why not allow crosschecks to the head? Why not skate blades to the neck? These are extreme examples, but my point is simply that it's OK for the game to have rules, and it's OK for those rules to be designed to protect the safety of the players. IMHO, head shots are just too dangerous. Richards' hit was pretty egregious, but there have been plenty of them all over the league this year and there will be plenty more. The game would be just fine without them. Right, and the issue is simply that although there are rules to prevent against extremes, there need to be better rules to prevent against more common issues like contact to the head. Especially in a league where everyone is bigger, stronger, and wearing less head protection. You'll never convince players to wear cages or neck protectors, so the only solution is to enact more strict rules AND makes sure to enforce them consistently. I feel like we had a thread on this within the past few years where we all came to a unanimous conclusion that plain and simple, head shots need to go and the game would be no worse for the wear without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Total agreement. If there is no discretion with a high stick, why should there be with a body check? This is a very good point, and it basically proves just how poorly assembled the NHL's rules are. I personally like the NCAA's rule: "Contact to the Head SECTION 8. A player shall not make contact with an opposing player’s head or neck area in any manner. PENALTY—Minor or major or disqualification at the discretion of the referee. Contact to the head shall be assessed in front of the infraction (i.e., contact to the head – elbow). Note: The rules committee instructs officials to use a zero tolerance policy in this area." The NCAA wants to protect its players, so why not the NHL? You can't compare basketball with hockey. I don't like this hit, anyone in their right mind wouldn't. No one person should bring about the end of a players career. That said, Richards didn't even lift his shoulder let alone his body from the ice. Booth was knocked out before he even hit the ice with his head, which brought the real pain. This is exactly the same as the Drury hit in my mind. Only: Richards nails him even closer to the point of loss of possession. He didn't go charging after Booth. He didn't even take a stride for a good 15 feet before he hit him. He came in at a 45 degree angle to Booth. You can't have players, going for a good check, wondering, gosh, is he gonna give up the puck? should I let up? That said, I hope Booth's okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 You can't compare basketball with hockey. :blink: NCAA Hockey. Sorry, if you were kidding, but if so, you forgot the ;) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 :blink: NCAA Hockey. Sorry, if you were kidding, but if so, you forgot the ;) . I don't like that she's implying that I watch college basketball. :sick: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I don't like that she's implying that I watch college basketball. :sick: Everyone knows that RIT doesn't have college hockey. Anyway, as for the point that "Richard's didn't even lift his shoulder". How exactly does one do that? The shoulder is a fixed point and you can't raise it like you can an elbow. He did have an upward drive through the hit. He came in low and unloaded upward into Booth's head. When you hit in that manner, you're going to connect with the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Nope, thought you meant basketball. But for that matter, you can't compare college hockey rules with the NHL. Same for football, the whole I fell down, don't hit me and "I had one foot in after my catch, I'm good right?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Everyone knows that RIT doesn't have college hockey. Anyway, as for the point that "Richard's didn't even lift his shoulder". How exactly does one do that? The shoulder is a fixed point and you can't raise it like you can an elbow. He did have an upward drive through the hit. He came in low and unloaded upward into Booth's head. When you hit in that manner, you're going to connect with the head. Chz replies with shoulder shrug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Nope, thought you meant basketball. But for that matter, you can't compare college hockey rules with the NHL. Same for football, the whole I fell down, don't hit me and "I had one foot in after my catch, I'm good right?" Why can't you compare it? Hell, the NHL's so called biggest inovation in recent years, the shootout, came from amateur hockey. There really are no major differences between college and NHL hockey like the football ones you pointed out. They don't have shootouts (except for maybe the CCHA), they call contact to the head penalties, fights get you tossed, and there is no delay of game penalty for clearing the puck over the glass... that's about it. None of this has any impact on the play as it is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickshaw Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I want to know how the game would honestly change if there was a zero tolerance contact to the head policy? There are plenty of big hits in college hockey and they do it without taking a guy's head off. So where's the logic in continuing to be indecisive on the topic from the NHL's standpoint? People are still going to get destroyed. There should just be a price to pay if it happens in a manner that results in contact to the head, intentional or not. Exactly. Again, going back to Willie Mitchell's hit on Toews last week. Devastating hit, but no contact with the head. I am all for those types of hits, but hits to the head must go. The NHL is a very wishy-washy league, we all know that, but unfortunately for us hockey fans, this is the best hockey league in the world. Until they wisen up and get with reality, it's always going to be that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I want to know how the game would honestly change if there was a zero tolerance contact to the head policy? There are plenty of big hits in college hockey and they do it without taking a guy's head off. So where's the logic in continuing to be indecisive on the topic from the NHL's standpoint? People are still going to get destroyed. There should just be a price to pay if it happens in a manner that results in contact to the head, intentional or not. Hmm, I'm going to go out on a limb here, but doesn't fighting include throwing punches to the head? Go ahead.. saw off my branch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Hmm, I'm going to go out on a limb here, but doesn't fighting include throwing punches to the head? Go ahead.. saw off my branch... And there's a penalty for that. The contact to the head call in the NCAA is attached onto another existing penalty (roughing, high stick...) just like obstruction is in the NHL. So we're talking about a 2 minute penalty here unless it's something way over the top, which I've never actually seen. So fighting is actually a more severe penalty than your standard contact to the head call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Hmm, I'm going to go out on a limb here, but doesn't fighting include throwing punches to the head? Go ahead.. saw off my branch... You make a good point, but I think it's not really relevant to this particular discussion. Although if you wanted to do something to address this from the standpoint of the NHL, you could have a specification that contact to the head penalties don't apply to fighting majors. So you could assess contact to the head roughing, elbowing, cross checking, boarding, etc., but not add it on to fighting majors, where contact to the head has been pretty much agreed upon by the involved players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=503701 Scuderi fined for hit on Chimera the other day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDYViRuwFZA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 Yeah, just a bit too low on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 Yeah, just a bit too low on that one. But why does that cheap play get more attention from the league than someone else's head shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 Maybe Daly looks at them differently. He called the Richards hit. Colin Campbell couldn't call the Richards hit because his son is on the Panthers. He did call this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.