OHL Hit

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

TSN / OTR : Michael goes "Up Front" with OHL Commissioner David Branch, from yesterday's show.

Following that is an interview with Bobby Clarke on the same topic.

[OsGOD 3]

OHL rulebook:

Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.

There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.

Any unnecessary contact with the player playing the puck on an obvious “icing or “off-side†play which results in that player being knocked into the boards is “boarding†and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be considered “chargingâ€.

42.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, to a player or goalkeeper guilty of boarding an opponent.

42.3 Major plus Game Misconduct Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty plus a game misconduct, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the boards; to a player or goalkeeper guilty of boarding an opponent (see 42.5).

42.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player or goalkeeper attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by boarding.

Rule 43 - Charging

43.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty (plus a game misconduct) shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge†may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

A minor or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.

This is a dirty hit: boarding or charging, take your pick. Though Fanelli turned at the last moment, perhaps he wouldn't have done so if the goaltender hadn't been obscuring his view. The charging hitter would reasonably have known that, as he bore directly down on Fanelli, his position and speed would have been blocked from view. This places Fanelli in a vulnerable position. Fanelli looked over his shoulder but this happened well before the goalie blocked his view, so it was rather limited information. The hitter took advantage of the situation.

In any case, it is still a charge. One of the reasons that charging is illegal is because when you have built up excess momentum as a result of the distance travelled, you can't let up if the play takes a dangerous turn. Obviously, the ref can call only one initial penalty and he chose charging as he saw Fanelli go into the boards face first. The amount of discretion allotted for the call is a perfect for this situation. Many good checks cause someone to be "violently thrown into the boards" but this isn't a good hit.

I don't have a problem with the suspension. Perhaps the suspension just accelerated the 20 year-old hitter's transition to rec. hockey by one year. When a penalty causes a serious injury, the penalty gets serious consequences, just ask Todd Bertuzzi. These are very different situations but share the same reaction from the leagues given the injuries involved.

66.6 Stupidity - spinning away from a freight train barring down on you. I.e. reversing the play while aware of a player coming to hit you. aka expecting to be able to play the puck at your leisure behind the net without being touched by an opposing player (especially in the OntarioHittingLeague

Edited November 5, 2009 by OsGOD

[Z Winged Dangler 2,082]

That wasn't a dirty hit. You DON'T turn your back on another player bearing down on you at the last second.

No way you can react when you are inches away from the guy.

exactly. this is as far as i need to read just to make sure i'm not the only person that thinks the kid that got hit could have taken the hit like a man instead of getting wallpapered due to turning his back on the forcheck. there's an unfortunate lesson he'll never forget. hope he gets better, but the suspension for the season is a bushleague call by the commissioner. liambis should be in the WHL where you can hit the guys on the other team.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

Kitchener, ON: November 5, 2009 - 3:10pm

Kitchener Rangers defenseman, Ben Fanelli has been moved from I.C.U. to a private room in Hamilton General Hospital. His medical status remains unchanged. Medical testing continues and a no visitor policy is in effect.

The Fanelli family and the Rangers Organization again thank the many people who have expressed their concerns and wishes for Ben's recovery. If you wish to send cards or messages, those may be dropped off to the Kitchener Rangers office or emailed to info@kitchenerrnagers.com.

Further updates will be made by the Kitchener Rangers when they become available.

Steve Bienkowski

Chief Operating Officer

Kitchener Rangers Hockey Club

Scary stuff, hopefully no permanent damage. This stuff is just awful to read.

[Guest Four]

Man I would love to have gone into the NHL, as I'm sure many on LGW would. The fact is that I was not good enough for it. If you think that's a sore spot for me, you are wrong. It would have been fun, but I would not have done many other things that I've done in my life. I went into the Army, where I met my wife then had two beautiful daughters. When I saw that I had no chance, it didn't change my life. It let me get on with the life I had started. I served my country and then built a family. So, when you do the tongue sticking out thing with the emoticon, you are just showing the maturity of a seventeen year old. Maybe a seventeen year old troll, maybe not. I couldn't care less about trolls on the forums. When you grow up, you will probably learn to be able to say that you were wrong. Throughout this whole thread, you posted opinions as fact coupled with inaccurate video stills. A man would have said "Hey, you are right, I see it now". A little boy stomps his feet and says "No, no, no! I'm right! You have to see it my way", even when the proof is staring him in the face.

And nobody should be made an example of. Enforce the rules or don't.

Or it means I'm kidding. You army people are too serious.

Y so srs Hack & Whack?

And I posted my proof, I'm sure it would be pretty hard to lift his elbow in a split second, right after the hit. He was already bracing with his elbow high, that still is less than a second after the impact. But continue please, since you still want to, for some reason, continue to argue. I'll just continue to reply and let you be the "bigger man", since you talk down to me already and I know you'd like to prove you're age.

[BuckeyeWingsfan80 209]

Or it means I'm kidding. You army people are too serious.

Y so srs Hack & Whack?

And I posted my proof, I'm sure it would be pretty hard to lift his elbow in a split second, right after the hit. He was already bracing with his elbow high, that still is less than a second after the impact. But continue please, since you still want to, for some reason, continue to argue. I'll just continue to reply and let you be the "bigger man", since you talk down to me already and I know you'd like to prove you're age.

[Guest Four]

your*

[jollymania 162]

Is he stable now

Edited November 6, 2009 by jollymania

[Guest Four]

Is he stable now

Serious but stable.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Four

[Hack & Whack Rule! 160]

Or it means I'm kidding. You army people are too serious.

Y so srs Hack & Whack?

And I posted my proof, I'm sure it would be pretty hard to lift his elbow in a split second, right after the hit. He was already bracing with his elbow high, that still is less than a second after the impact. But continue please, since you still want to, for some reason, continue to argue. I'll just continue to reply and let you be the "bigger man", since you talk down to me already and I know you'd like to prove you're age.

What can I say? I'm a serious guy. For some reason everybody laughs at me all the time, but when I tried a stint as a comedian, I couldn't buy a f***in' chuckle!

Check the video again. His elbows are down. I may be wrong, but I think you are the only one who has said his elbows were up. The only people calling it dirty are saying it was boarding, charging, hitting from behind, not giving a reach-a-round, etc.

I don't need to prove I am age, I just am.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Hack & Whack Rule!

[dicksmack 33]

Do you even know what those rules mean? Because you completely butchered them.

That was not a boarding call. If you consider that a boarding call then you would have to believe that Abdelkader's hit in the Flames game was a boarding (I mean he did hit him into the boards and everything). Second, the player was inches from making contact before he turned, so how exactly was he supposed to let up? I don't care if he didn't see him or not, it is not the hitter's responsibility to read another player's mind and make sure he knows he is coming. That isn't a penalty.

Your charging interpretation also applies to just about any big hit that is made in the OHL and NHL, so I'm not even going to bother discussing that rule in detail. You've already shown you don't understand it whatsoever.

I would also like to know why the hitter should let up just because the guy he is hititng may or may not know he is coming. If his back isn't turned and he has the puck, he is fair game. Once he was making the hit, his back was still not turned, and only at the last second (before he could stop from making contact) he turned his back. That isn't the hitter's fault.

And finally, you say this hit is dirty. Why exactly? Elbows up? Aim for the head? Jump? Do any of those apply to the hit? No, they don't, which is why I wonder why you believe this hit to be dirty.

A yearly suspension is a joke, and it's a shame that a player got that suspension from making a hit.

Yes, it was. The ref called a major penalty for boarding. The rules are quoted directly from the OHL rule book. You show your complete lack of comprehension of my post as well these rules. The rules say nothing about elbows up or turning one's back or a hit to the head. The rules are subjective. I thought it was more a charge than boarding because he spun at the last second. The problem with charging is YOU CAN'T LET UP when you're covering that much distance and going that fast; it creates an unsafe situation when the goalie obscured the kid's view. Get the point??? Understand??? Dirty hit.

[Guest Four]

What can I say? I'm a serious guy. For some reason everybody laughs at me all the time, but when I tried a stint as a comedian, I couldn't buy a f***in' chuckle!

Check the video again. His elbows are down. I may be wrong, but I think you are the only one who has said his elbows were up. The only people calling it dirty are saying it was boarding, charging, hitting from behind, not giving a reach-a-round, etc.

It's just the way he falls, it looks like the elbow comes in and squishes his head. The second still I showed sort of shows it, but it was in the follow through so not really intentional. I still think if it was dirty because of the bolded however, and it shows a lack of respect to the other players when it's not even the NHL and the players aren't as strong physically and they have less experience. He wouldn't have hit him so hard and came around like he did if he didn't intend on hurting him in some way. He just was hurt a lot more than he hoped.

[Hack & Whack Rule! 160]

It's just the way he falls, it looks like the elbow comes in and squishes his head. The second still I showed sort of shows it, but it was in the follow through so not really intentional. I still think if it was dirty because of the bolded however, and it shows a lack of respect to the other players when it's not even the NHL and the players aren't as strong physically and they have less experience. He wouldn't have hit him so hard and came around like he did if he didn't intend on hurting him in some way. He just was hurt a lot more than he hoped.

The kid put himself in the position of getting running over by a freight train. If you ask me, if the kid hadn't been injured, he should be getting a penalty for some stupid s***. Because that's what it was...stupid s***. If he wouldn't have turned his back trying to reverse the play, it would not have been so bad....probably...maybe. He saw Liambas coming twice. See that? He looked up twice and saw the hurt coming. This kind of crap can't be called on the hitter, or this is the bulls*** we are going to start seeing all the time. Dude wants to draw a penalty, so he turns his back on a hit that's coming. I know, it's a bit of a stretch, since most don't want to take themselves out of a play (or get hurt) in the hopes of drawing a penalty. But it could happen. You still can't say he tried to hurt him. You have no proof, only opinion. Okay, I guess you can say, but that doesn't make you right. I see no intent or even a penalty in this hit. The only reason there's so much focus on it is because of the injury.

[Doc Holiday 0]

Yes, it was. The ref called a major penalty for boarding.

AFTER the injury. No hands were up when the hit was made.

The rules are quoted directly from the OHL rule book. You show your complete lack of comprehension of my post as well these rules.

And yet I am the one who understands the rules are not quoted word for word every time. A violent check is not always a charge and a hit that has a player make contact with the boards is no always a board. He was right next to the boards so he could not have been thrown into them in the manner in which the rules are laid out.

The rules say nothing about elbows up or turning one's back or a hit to the head. The rules are subjective.

Yet you quoted them word for word.

I thought it was more a charge than boarding because he spun at the last second. The problem with charging is YOU CAN'T LET UP when you're covering that much distance and going that fast; it creates an unsafe situation when the goalie obscured the kid's view. Get the point??? Understand??? Dirty hit.

Who cares if the goalie obscured his view? Nothing in the rules implies that you have to let up on a hit when the player doesn't see you coming. Get the point? Understand? Clean hit.

It's just the way he falls, it looks like the elbow comes in and squishes his head. The second still I showed sort of shows it, but it was in the follow through so not really intentional. I still think if it was dirty because of the bolded however, and it shows a lack of respect to the other players when it's not even the NHL and the players aren't as strong physically and they have less experience. He wouldn't have hit him so hard and came around like he did if he didn't intend on hurting him in some way. He just was hurt a lot more than he hoped.

Do you read ******* minds now? How are you supposed to know the intent?

Edited November 6, 2009 by Doc Holiday

[rick zombo 3,739]

If any of you guys actaully care about anything other than arguing with each other than you will read this EXCELLENT article courtesy of Bob MacKenzie

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie/?id=297242

[Guest Four]

Do you read ******* minds now? How are you supposed to know the intent?

And you people say I need to respect other peoples opinions? Good game there Holiday . I won't even respond, and I'll let you keep looking like the clown arguing from now on. I've made my points with Hack & Whack, and I have no idea why you came out of left field to start more arguments. Good on you, sir.

[Guest Four]

If any of you guys actaully care about anything other than arguing with each other than you will read this EXCELLENT article courtesy of Bob MacKenzie

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie/?id=297242

Lengthy, but a great article.

[zettie85 106]

If any of you guys actaully care about anything other than arguing with each other than you will read this EXCELLENT article courtesy of Bob MacKenzie

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie/?id=297242

All I ask is, what is wrong with putting a little clutching and grabbing back in the game to slow it down instead of revamping hitting and adding more penalties to the game. They say taking clutching and grabbing out of the game allows skilled players more room to maneuver. What it has really done is made speed a huge factor in the way people select their teams, it also is a huge factor in most injuries whether it's from hits or from just plain sliding into the boards.

You used to have to use a play making skill while being defended, not just speed. The flow of the game is really interrupted now that there is a penalty for every little minor touch on the glove, yet funny enough so many hits from behind go uncalled as well as cross checks in front of the net.

[kook_10 1,705]

All I ask is, what is wrong with putting a little clutching and grabbing back in the game to slow it down instead of revamping hitting and adding more penalties to the game. They say taking clutching and grabbing out of the game allows skilled players more room to maneuver. What it has really done is made speed a huge factor in the way people select their teams, it also is a huge factor in most injuries whether it's from hits or from just plain sliding into the boards.

I agree. Its often those same "skilled players" who end up getting plowed when that extra room that is created is used to line them up. If there wasn't the extra space out there then there wouldn't be quite so many borderline charges. For instance, Matthias Ohlund wouldn't just watch Chris Neil just fly right through the defensive zone and plow Viktor Hedman. It was a clean hit no doubt, but many like this end up scrambling a guys brains because they're not allowed to slow down the forecheck anymore.

[Doc Holiday 0]

And you people say I need to respect other peoples opinions? Good game there Holiday . I won't even respond, and I'll let you keep looking like the clown arguing from now on. I've made my points with Hack & Whack, and I have no idea why you came out of left field to start more arguments. Good on you, sir.

Well thank you for showing you have no idea how to know if he had intent on that.

And this is a public discussion forum. If you make a point that I think is crap I'm going to say something about it. Tough cookies, Jr.

[Buppy 1,720]

All I ask is, what is wrong with putting a little clutching and grabbing back in the game to slow it down instead of revamping hitting and adding more penalties to the game. They say taking clutching and grabbing out of the game allows skilled players more room to maneuver. What it has really done is made speed a huge factor in the way people select their teams, it also is a huge factor in most injuries whether it's from hits or from just plain sliding into the boards.

You used to have to use a play making skill while being defended, not just speed. The flow of the game is really interrupted now that there is a penalty for every little minor touch on the glove, yet funny enough so many hits from behind go uncalled as well as cross checks in front of the net.

I think a better solution is to demand that players show some respect and regard for the safety of other players.

It would certainly take some time for players to adapt to a headshot rule, or stricter charging calls, etc. But the same can be said of any rule change, including 'putting a little clutching and grabbing back'.

I can understand the intimidation factor of the big hits. But I think that should be less important than player safety. It says right in the rule book that players should not take advantage of other players in vulnerable positions, right next to where it says players shouldn't put themselves in vulnerable positions. Most of you ignore the former and say 'keep your head up' after every hit. That would be fine, but too many players are also ignoring that first part. Neither cancels out the other. The onus is on both players.

The injured kid made a dumbass move turning his back, but the guy that hit him was just as dumb for commiting himself to such a brutal hit and not giving himself a chance to let up. What if the kid had stumbled and fallen away from the boards? The guy trips over him, goes face first into the boards, maybe breaks his neck. And you'd all be talking about how tragic it was, but the guy should have been in better control of his momentum.

It's a big ice surface, and there's more than two people on it. It's impossible to avoid leaving yourself vulnerable. If you always blame the vulnerable player, it amounts to little more than 'well you shouldn't have worn that dress'. Both parties have to be held accountable. Do something stupid, you probably get hurt, or at least look stupid when you get taken out of the play...that's your punishment. Take advantage of someone else's stupidity and hurt them...you still should be punished. Players need to be taught that it isn't OK to try to blow someone up just because you can.

[Doc Holiday 0]

I think a better solution is to demand that players show some respect and regard for the safety of other players.

It would certainly take some time for players to adapt to a headshot rule, or stricter charging calls, etc. But the same can be said of any rule change, including 'putting a little clutching and grabbing back'.

I can understand the intimidation factor of the big hits. But I think that should be less important than player safety. It says right in the rule book that players should not take advantage of other players in vulnerable positions, right next to where it says players shouldn't put themselves in vulnerable positions. Most of you ignore the former and say 'keep your head up' after every hit. That would be fine, but too many players are also ignoring that first part. Neither cancels out the other. The onus is on both players.

The onus is on the player (who knew the guy was coming) for turning his back when the player is right on top of him.

The injured kid made a dumbass move turning his back, but the guy that hit him was just as dumb for commiting himself to such a brutal hit and not giving himself a chance to let up. What if the kid had stumbled and fallen away from the boards? The guy trips over him, goes face first into the boards, maybe breaks his neck. And you'd all be talking about how tragic it was, but the guy should have been in better control of his momentum.

No, it would have been just a tragic outcome. When you are inches from a guy and he suddenly turns, I don't care what speed you are going at, you are going to hit him.

It's a big ice surface, and there's more than two people on it. It's impossible to avoid leaving yourself vulnerable.

And in this case it was possible to keep from being in a vulnerable position. The fact that players are in a vulnerable position sometiems does not make up for this kid's poor play at the last second. He put HIMSELF in that position when the other player was less than a foot away.

If you always blame the vulnerable player, it amounts to little more than 'well you shouldn't have worn that dress'. Both parties have to be held accountable.

Once again, no one is saying that the vulnerable player is always at fault. You are painting as broad a brush as the argument you are trying to refute. Once again, the vulnerable player is as accountable here as Bertuzzi was when he went after Moore. It was because of both of them the two situations happened, not because one guy was "trying to hurt a wee little 16 year old" or because "that guy 'cheapshotted' my guy a few games back!"

Do something stupid, you probably get hurt, or at least look stupid when you get taken out of the play...that's your punishment. Take advantage of someone else's stupidity and hurt them...you still should be punished. Players need to be taught that it isn't OK to try to blow someone up just because you can.

He wasn't taking advantage of his stupidity because he committed to the hit before the guy turned away.

This "lack of respect" thing is getting old. Hockey has hitting. Just because the guy hits harder than you want him to doesn't mean he is doing something wrong. He is playing the game of god damn hockey, and I will cheer the sport as long as there are people who step on the ice and crush players who have the puck, because that is one thing that makes this sport amazing to watch. You don't like it? Fine. Just don't act like they are terrible players because they do something you wish they didn't.

Perhaps Scott Stevens should have let up on Lindros, Kozlov, Kariya, among others. Maybe Campbell and Stuart should have let up on Umberger. I mean they don't HAVE to hit that hard, do they?

[dicksmack 33]

If any of you guys actaully care about anything other than arguing with each other than you will read this EXCELLENT article courtesy of Bob MacKenzie

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie/?id=297242

Nice take on the article, Zombo.

Very good piece. I especially like the attention drawn to the lead the OHL has taken in player safety and McKenzie's

underlining the fact that these players are in fact young amateurs that won't end up as pros.

[Doggy 130]

If any of you guys actaully care about anything other than arguing with each other than you will read this EXCELLENT article courtesy of Bob MacKenzie

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie/?id=297242

This is what I've been trying to say:

Branch oversees a junior hockey league. It's not the NHL. It's not professional hockey although the players there are desperately trying to get to pro hockey. The vast majority of the players who play in the OHL will not make their living at the game. The NHL is a different kettle of fish entirely yet there's little desire to admit that. Most fans simply think of it all as hockey and subject it to the same sensibilities. Well, they shouldn't.

Kids playing junior hockey deserve a somewhat safer environment than that. And I think Branch, better than anyone, understands that.

[Buppy 1,720]

The onus is on the player (who knew the guy was coming) for turning his back when the player is right on top of him.

...

And in this case it was possible to keep from being in a vulnerable position. The fact that players are in a vulnerable position sometiems does not make up for this kid's poor play at the last second. He put HIMSELF in that position when the other player was less than a foot away.

...

He wasn't taking advantage of his stupidity because he committed to the hit before the guy turned away.

This "lack of respect" thing is getting old. Hockey has hitting. Just because the guy hits harder than you want him to doesn't mean he is doing something wrong. He is playing the game of god damn hockey, and I will cheer the sport as long as there are people who step on the ice and crush players who have the puck, because that is one thing that makes this sport amazing to watch. You don't like it? Fine. Just don't act like they are terrible players because they do something you wish they didn't.

Perhaps Scott Stevens should have let up on Lindros, Kozlov, Kariya, among others. Maybe Campbell and Stuart should have let up on Umberger. I mean they don't HAVE to hit that hard, do they?

I still contend that both players share responsibility. You have to protect yourself to what degree you can, and also avoid putting other players at risk. You're acting like only one player can be at fault. Like saying Liambas was wrong completely excuses Fanelli. Both players made mistakes. Fanelli by turning, Liambas by committing to such a hard and high hit. (And for the record, I don't think this hit was all that egregious. Comparable to the Richards hit I think, though deserving of a harsher penalty because of the league. I don't think he deserved a full season suspension.) (And also for the record, I think Fanelli and the league both share some blame for not having the helmet properly strapped on.)

I would also argue that the kid had to be vulnerable in order to retrieve the puck. He just made it worse by turning. He also began his turn when Liambas was at the goal line. That should have been enough time for Liambas to let up a little at least, or try to avoid full contact. But he either didn't, or couldn't. Either way, he shares some blame for failing to be responsible.

And it isn't about what I like. It's about a 16 year old child that nearly DIED over the GAME of god damn hockey. You can have hitting without players committing to high hits from 50' away. Without guys saying, 'that guy doesn't see me so I'm going to smoke him'. You can have hitting while still trying to minimize injury. That means making sure the equipment is properly protecting the player, players are protecting themselves, and players avoid needlessly putting others at risk.

Again, I understand the intimidation of the big, brutal hits. You can also intimidate someone by saying 'if you score a goal I'm going to beat you with a 2x4', but that will get you a racketeering charge instead of a spot on a highlight reel. I also understand the excitement. But if you need so badly to slake your bloodthirst; turn on a movie. Hockey is just a game.