Kovalchuk Hit

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Not every hit from behind is a devastating, "Oh my God how could he have such little disregard for the sanctity of human life" kind of hit. In this case it happens that Rozsival was a "safe" distance from the boards so that he wasn't going to break his neck. It was worth the 5, game misconduct, and the suspension, but no more. There was no wanton disregard for player's safety here any moreso than say, a nice 2-hander to the legs or something.

I move to have your comments stricken from the thread on the grounds of shear stupidity.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I win!!

nice call eva

[toby91_ca 620]

If Randy Jones can get a 5 game suspension I think it was, how can this only be a 1 gamer?

Yeah, I guess I have to agree with your thoughts.

If I look back on the Jones hit, I don't see that as dirty as the Kovalchuk hit. Clearly, the difference is the fact that Bergeron was hurt, which shouldn't make a difference.

[seeinred 1,488]

I move to have your comments stricken from the thread on the grounds of shear stupidity.

Right, because comparing hockey to the American judicial system makes perfect sense.

Why don't you all call for suspensions every time someone hooks or holds or hi-sticks, because after all, it's illegal.

I do agree with you about Jones though, except I thought he should have had a 1 game suspension is all.

Edited January 24, 2008 by SeeinRed

[Naslund19 0]

It is being investigated for possible suspension.

Kovalchuk's comments:

Is it just me, or is everyone else shaking their heads at the comments? When I watched the replay, it looked like Rozsival was facing the boards for quite a long while and Kovalchuk simply hit him from behind, jumped a bit no less. This isn't one of those turning at the last minute as Kovalchuk suggests.

Agreed 100%

Dirty hit forsure. IMO, it should be at least a 3-5 game suspension.

[Turkey 0]

THN - Hits From Behind

Great article on this topic on THN.com today.

[dallas27 7]

Is it just me, or is everyone else shaking their heads at the comments?

Unfortunately that is the go-to comment for every player that checks someone from behind....oh, they turned at the last minute. You know you did something wrong, man up and admit it.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Right, because comparing hockey to the American judicial system makes perfect sense.

Why don't you all call for suspensions every time someone hooks or holds or hi-sticks, because after all, it's illegal.

I do agree with you about Jones though, except I thought he should have had a 1 game suspension is all.

Where did we find you? Ugghh, you're lowering the average IQ of the board.

Funny, I didn't think I was comparing the NHL to the judicial system of our great nation.

Rather, I thought I was making a commentary on what type of disciplinarian Colin Campbell is.

Read........then comprehend..........then reply.

ps: i'll save you the effort of a response: yes, i'm an asshat. see, now you don't have to go out of your way to call me one.

Edited January 24, 2008 by GordieSid&Ted

[wingslogo19 281]

Right, because comparing hockey to the American judicial system makes perfect sense.

Why don't you all call for suspensions every time someone hooks or holds or hi-sticks, because after all, it's illegal.

I do agree with you about Jones though, except I thought he should have had a 1 game suspension is all.

Wow good call

[seeinred 1,488]

Where did we find you? Ugghh, you're lowering the average IQ of the board.

Funny, I didn't think I was comparing the NHL to the judicial system of our great nation.

Rather, I thought I was making a commentary on what type of disciplinarian Colin Campbell is.

Read........then comprehend..........then reply.

ps: i'll save you the effort of a response: yes, i'm an asshat. see, now you don't have to go out of your way to call me one.

You really are just an ornery old troll, but a very good one at that. I could explain to you how you were, in fact, comparing the NHLs system of discipline to that of our country, but if you can't understand your own words, there's no way you'll be able to understand them when I say them back to you. What's really funny is that we really don't disagree on a whole lot here. We both think it was a dirty hit and needed a suspension, and that Kovalchuk should be suspended despite his superstar status. Really what it boils down to I guess is his intent and how many games he should have gotten that we disagree about.

P.S. I don't think you're an asshat, I think under your rough exterior there's a big huggable teddy bear. If it takes me forever, I will find that teddy bear

Wow good call

Exactly. It's wacko to do that. So why then should a hit that possibly could result in injury but didn't be penalized any more severely? Sure we're taught that hits from behind are evil and to avoid them at all costs from a young age, because of the damage they CAN inflict, but rarely do.

Edited January 24, 2008 by SeeinRed

[Turkey 0]

Exactly. It's wacko to do that. So why then should a hit that possibly could result in injury but didn't be penalized any more severely? Sure we're taught that hits from behind are evil and to avoid them at all costs from a young age, because of the damage they CAN inflict, but rarely do.

Actually, that's kind of an apples and oranges comparison. Calling every single possible hooking violation and calling every possible hit to the head/hit from behind are totally different. The difference lies in the fact that one of them can end a career and the other won't.

Do I think the NHL should call every single possible stick violation? Probably not. Do I think illegal, dangerous hits should always be called regardless of injury? Absolutely. They aren't even remotely the same thing.

[seeinred 1,488]

Actually, that's kind of an apples and oranges comparison. Calling every single possible hooking violation and calling every possible hit to the head/hit from behind are totally different. The difference lies in the fact that one of them can end a career and the other won't.

Do I think the NHL should call every single possible stick violation? Probably not. Do I think illegal, dangerous hits should always be called regardless of injury? Absolutely. They aren't even remotely the same thing.

I agree that they should always be called too. I just don't always think they deserve massive suspensions.

[Turkey 0]

I didn't mean to be misleading. I do believe they deserve suspensions. Relatively short for a first time offense, 3 games or so (scaling according to severity of the infraction). After one suspension for this, the punishment should escalate radically. A severe hit, what the league would give you 20 or so games for now, should have you out for the season.

[seeinred 1,488]

I didn't mean to be misleading. I do believe they deserve suspensions. Relatively short for a first time offense, 3 games or so (scaling according to severity of the infraction). After one suspension for this, the punishment should escalate radically. A severe hit, what the league would give you 20 or so games for now, should have you out for the season.

I have no problem with a graduated suspension type of thing like that. Kovalchuk is a first offense, so I think one is fine for him. Had this been someone recognized as dirty, I'd think 20+ would be completely appropriate. What's weird is that you have nothing to compare these suspensions to in other sports. I've wondered if it's because of the weapon they play with or because there's a very hard and unforgiving barrier that they play within.