Blackhawks' Brian Campbell: "Gutless"

[njf520 0]

So you're saying that players can act like they're going to play the puck, guard it between their feet, and as long as they don't touch it they are immune to any contact?

If that's the case then I need to find another sport.

*i'm* not saying this, the rules say this. i agree with you, it sounds nuts. but the rules clearly state that you can only be legally checked if you have possession of the puck and you can only have possession of the puck if you touch the puck.

but, to answer your question, yes, in theory, you could dodge the puck and take the hit to try and draw a penalty.

brian engblom said on versus that he didn't touch the puck but he had possession of it. well, according to the rules, that's impossible.

still an amazing hit, though.

[RedWingsFan4Life 0]

It was just a chart breaking down how much money you have to give the refs in a briefcase before the game to get calls. I guess you can get anyone you want ejected for a bargain price of 7500 dollars + the 15% Bettman fee.

[PenaltyShot 96 521]

I just hope this doesn't make Kronwall gunshy about laying out opposing players now. Worst case scenario, he starts getting special consideration like Homer does with goalie interference...

[Crodley1 0]

to play devil's advocate, the NHL rules on interference say that the player must touch the puck, not that he just has to be really close to it.

havlat didn't touch the puck in any of the replays i have seen.

Well, to play devil's, devil's advocate (or is that angels' advocate?) Saying it's the rule and having the refs call it that way are SO far apart. For example: When the puck is against the boards and there are 4 players around it but only ONE person has "possession" of the puck, does that mean, strictly by the rules, each crosscheck or push against a player not touching the puck along the boards is interference? There would be a ton of power plays if that were the case.

It's like in the NBA. We all know the players illegally travel for 4 or 5 steps and it's never called. Interference isn't called when there's a check with the puck that close, at least it's extremely rare.

Next time you pull up to a stop sign at an intersection, try stopping behind the white line (the legal way to do it) and looking to see if it's clear before you pull out. It can sometimes be impossible to do safely (at least where I live with the hilly terrain). I honestly think these nitpicks are put there on purpose to pull over people you want to pull over without having a "real" reason.

Perhaps that's why the rules are stated in such a way that they are almost never called, but nobody can "really" fault a ref by "going by the book" when they screw a call up.

Dunno /shrug

[njf520 0]

Well, to play devil's, devil's advocate (or is that angels' advocate?) Saying it's the rule and having the refs call it that way are SO far apart. For example: When the puck is against the boards and there are 4 players around it but only ONE person has "possession" of the puck, does that mean, strictly by the rules, each crosscheck or push against a player not touching the puck along the boards is interference? There would be a ton of power plays if that were the case.

It's like in the NBA. We all know the players illegally travel for 4 or 5 steps and it's never called. Interference isn't called when there's a check with the puck that close, at least it's extremely rare.

Next time you pull up to a stop sign at an intersection, try stopping behind the white line (the legal way to do it) and looking to see if it's clear before you pull out. It can sometimes be impossible to do safely (at least where I live with the hilly terrain). I honestly think these nitpicks are put there on purpose to pull over people you want to pull over without having a "real" reason.

Perhaps that's why the rules are stated in such a way that they are almost never called, but nobody can "really" fault a ref by "going by the book" when they screw a call up.

Dunno /shrug

i very much agree with you. i had just heard so many people say that havlat had possession of the puck or "was playing the puck" and that because of that it was by rule a legal hit. and i was just pointing out that that isn't true.

now, let's be realistic, there is NO way the ref called the penalty because he thought havlat hadn't touched it. you could only tell he hadn't after watching 5 slow-mo replays.

[Crodley1 0]

now, let's be realistic, there is NO way the ref called the penalty because he thought havlat hadn't touched it. you could only tell he hadn't after watching 5 slow-mo replays.

Good point. I think you nailed it.

[titanium2 867]

http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2009/05/ev...wall_nikla.html

"It's a head shot ... Or it's just an illegal hit all around. Hit with your shoulder, that's how you're supposed to hit, and finish guys. We've talked about it as a league and as players. I'm on the competition committee so we've talked about it. We did a league-wide vote, the players want it stopped; they want the fines and suspensions to be there. I don't know what the percentage was, at least 70 percent of players that wanted it addressed with a stiffer penalty. But it keeps happening."

What the hell hit was he watching? Kronwall did hit with his shoulder.

Oh and also...

"He's got the rep for it ... I know as players, we want to see head shots taken away from the game. We've talked about it. It needs to be addressed. I have no problem if he comes in and uses his shoulder and hits; there's nothing wrong with that. But he didn't do that. He came into a guy that did not have the puck, was exposed, jumped, forearms, exploded through his head. That isn't part of the game. Nobody wants that to be part of the game. And he keeps doing it. Somehow, some way, it's got to stop."

That's not how I saw it. Is he right?

[titanium2 867]

It's all politics. It's all lobbying for the better half of the whistle.

[Ms_Hockey 0]

What did you expect him to say? "I think it was a perfectly legal hit and my teammate shouldn't have had his head down"?

Come on, guys. This shouldn't be surprising.

[thedisappearer 291]

f*** 'em. Game Four. Bring it. You wanna retaliate? Fine. Do it. We got better. Keep your head up, play hockey, and shut your ******* mouth. We're the Detroit Red Wings, and we're not scared of you.

[thedisappearer 291]

What did you expect him to say? "I think it was a perfectly legal hit and my teammate shouldn't have had his head down"?

Come on, guys. This shouldn't be surprising.

I said that in the first response. No dice.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Next time you pull up to a stop sign at an intersection, try stopping behind the white line (the legal way to do it) and looking to see if it's clear before you pull out. It can sometimes be impossible to do safely (at least where I live with the hilly terrain). I honestly think these nitpicks are put there on purpose to pull over people you want to pull over without having a "real" reason

So true. And it's even worse when some jerk parks his big ass truck too close to the intersection on the side you're turning into!

[The_Cub 0]

He should be quiet and thank God he hasn't been obliterated pulling that spin-a-rama move.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

It's all politics. It's all lobbying for the better half of the whistle.

And isn't that the worst part? It just sickens me that you can lobby refs for calls when they're supposed to be fairly interpreting a set of written rules! I'm looking at you Micheal Therrien.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

He should be quiet and thank God he hasn't been obliterated pulling that spin-a-rama move.

It's not fair because I keep asking God to make Kronwall obliterate Campbell in the middle of one of his spin-a-rama moves.

[Ms_Hockey 0]

I said that in the first response. No dice.

Damn you for having a brain!

[Wings_Rule_1010 4]

LOL @ Campbell. Hypocritical much? But in all honestly, I can maybe see the interference call since Havlet techinically didn't "touch" the puck, but calling that hit gutless is laughable. Looking at the still, Kronwall didn't go head hunting or leave his feet. It is obvious, which is why I am coming to the conclusion that campbell is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

And I am getting sick of the retaliations after a clean hit. Clean hits are being called gutless and being responded to on the ice with retaliation. It is ridiculous.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

It's actually interesting how many people believe Kronwall leaves his feet when he checks players. I definitely understand why they do- he's not on his feet when the two players appear to be colliding. The thing that Babs pointed out is that he explodes through the guy while he's checking him but the initial contact occurs while Kronwall's skates are on the ice. Slowing the footage down clearly shows that to be correct.

So how come none of the commentators out there point that out? Do they just not notice, or do they not believe their eyes would deceive them on the live play?

[NHLrules? 32]

It's actually interesting how many people believe Kronwall leaves his feet when he checks players. I definitely understand why they do- he's not on his feet when the two players appear to be colliding. The thing that Babs pointed out is that he explodes through the guy while he's checking him but the initial contact occurs while Kronwall's skates are on the ice. Slowing the footage down clearly shows that to be correct.

So how come none of the commentators out there point that out? Do they just not notice, or do they not believe their eyes would deceive them on the live play?

Becasue he is not from N. America and his name is not Scott Stevens?

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Becasue he is not from N. America and his name is not Scott Stevens?

Haha. Good point! Scot Stevens was pretty sweet at making people die inside.

[stormboy 47]

just got to this thread...thought i'd play a little catch-up.

What did you think he'd say? "Good clean hit, solid play. Hell, I watched the replay, Marty got smoked."

basically, yes. you might say, "they delivered a big hit--time for us to play really physical as well." but i think that when something unfortunate happens, you don't have to blame the other team. a few years ago, j-willy got smoked by i believe raffi torres who was then with the oilers. that was the times that willy ended up laying unconscious in the corner with a blood trail on the ice leading to where he lay. it was a clean it; williams had his head down and payed for it. obviously torres didn't want to injure willy, just deliver a really solid body check. these things happen, and i don't think anyone in the red wings organization was calling torres "gutless" or making s*** up about the play. they were like, "too bad; clean hit; keep your head up."

It was LEGAL.

you, sir, win 1000 internets.

this is well done but the 1.5 inches thing does not make it legal.

+

Well, to play devil's, devil's advocate (or is that angels' advocate?) Saying it's the rule and having the refs call it that way are SO far apart. For example: When the puck is against the boards and there are 4 players around it but only ONE person has "possession" of the puck, does that mean, strictly by the rules, each crosscheck or push against a player not touching the puck along the boards is interference? There would be a ton of power plays if that were the case.

[*snip*]

Perhaps that's why the rules are stated in such a way that they are almost never called, but nobody can "really" fault a ref by "going by the book" when they screw a call up.

crodley, great response IMO. njf, i think i understand your point and you are correct that by the letter of the law, it was technically interference. (which, in that case, should have been 2min kronner 2min buff for roughing and no misconduct.) but i think the second bolded part of cordley's response makes a lot of sense. since they can say "technically" he hadn't touched the puck, it was interference...as if the refs in real time could tell that the puck was 1.5 inches away from his skates. so many times you see similar plays where the puck is right around somebody and contact is made with no attendant penalty call. is havlat isn't hurt on the play, no chance a 2min minor is called. if the puck was 1.5 inches away from a wing skate or stick and a hawk makes a hit and is called for it, the hawks would be incensed, and rightly so, IMO.

[tangentially, thanks for expressing differing views without the normally resulting flamewar]

What did you expect him to say? "I think it was a perfectly legal hit and my teammate shouldn't have had his head down"?

Come on, guys. This shouldn't be surprising.

it's not surprising, but that doesn't mean that it is inappropriate and wrong-headed.

unrelatedly, what is the actual reason for assessing a major penalty for interference. as i understand it, interference is hitting someone when they don't have the puck. you can get interference for basically setting a pick, so there's no question about how hard the contact is to determine interference. logically, it seems like an extension of the normal interference penalty would be playing someone's body when they're really far away from the puck, not playing their body with more force.

2min boarding: hitting someone's numbers, sending them crashing into the board.

5min boarding: hitting someone's numbers really forcefully and dangerously, sending them crashing in to the boards.

2min interference: hitting someone when the don't have the puck.

5min interference: hitting someone when they really don't have the puck.

obviously i'm misunderstanding something.

[Glubki 17]

Unbiased opinion of the hit from Kronner's playoff peers...

Burnside Article

Edited May 24, 2009 by Glubki

[Stiffy 0]

What did you expect him to say? "I think it was a perfectly legal hit and my teammate shouldn't have had his head down"?

Come on, guys. This shouldn't be surprising.

Yea, you are right, but Babcock would never be this whiney and maybe that is making some of us feel a little defensive about this.

My favorite quote was this:

"This is a great, great hit for me," Mike Milbury said. "... They ought to put O'Halloran and Jackson on a bus tomorrow morning, get 'em out of the playoffs."

That would be referees Dan O'Halloran and Dave Jackson. But Milbury was just getting warmed up.

"This is not a penalty," Milbury said. "Shoulder -- bang! -- check with a guy's head down. This is a thing of beauty. If you don't like it, change the channel."

Let the Hawks concentrate on this instead of winning and we'll see how far that gets them.

[stormboy 47]

Unbiased opinion of the hit from Kronner's playoff peers...

Burnside Article

if hal gill is defending the red wings, it's hard to argue with that. i think he'd take any chance he could get to denigrate the wings, and could not do so here.

[Mors 201]

Campbell is a ***** and a bold-faced liar. His quote when comparing his hit to Umberger to Kronwall's hit:

"I think it's totally two different hits," said Campbell. "One where a shoulder is down, hitting him with your shoulder like how you're supposed to check; and another one where a guy explodes, jumps, [the other] guy doesn't have the puck, and uses his fists and forearms to finish the deal off. To me, it's two totally different things. And he's a guy that does it all the time and should be punished for it."

I hope Kronwall knocks his ass out too.