No suspension for Hossa

[Guest Lidstromboli]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=527001

[I Red Wings I 40]

Meh, it's not like he'll be scoring any goals anyway

[sixer 37]

BS! No different then Ovechkin's where he got 2 games.

[FIBS 35]

BS! No different then Ovechkin's where he got 2 games.

No different? Look again.

[Guest ToMaToToWnWinGsFaN_24]

i think maybe because ovie was a repeat offender that he got suspened. where as hossa was not. its pretty much the same hit though. shouldve gotten at least 2 games i thought.

[mjlegend 155]

The NHL office clearly recognizes that it was a former Penguin doing the hitting.

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

I agree, he should have been suspended. No different than Ovie's hit.

[Carman 387]

Was not as fast or violent as Ovechkin's, thus I agree with no suspension. He was punished enough with a 5 minute major with only a couple minutes left and his team down a goal.

[Lonewuhf 47]

The excuse that the injury wasn't as serious is appalling. Just because it wasn't doesn't mean it couldn't have been. Aren't they trying to stop the injuries before they happen instead of dealing with the consequences and the player after a serious injury happens? Does a player have to die before the NHL will start taking these hits more seriously? Yeah, Ovi was a repeat offender, he got 2 games. All it takes is 1 hit to end someones career, which could be by someone who isn't a repeat offender. Give Hossa at least one, or at the very least kick him from the current game. What good are rules if they can continually make exceptions to them?

[FIBS 35]

Where are the similarities? The fact that they both happened near the end boards? Edited April 25, 2010 by FIBS

[Carman 387]

Where are the similarities? The fact that they both happened near the end boards?

I'm guessing the "similarities" are the result of most people liking Ovechkin, and disliking Hossa. Not the actual hits.

Edit: I have a bad habit of using actually instead of actual. That's like the 3rd time today only haha.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Carman

[Hossa4Life 4]

Meh, it's not like he'll be scoring any goals anyway

Yea only the game winner. What a pro. Lol

[FIBS 35]

I'm guessing the "similarities" are the result of most people liking Ovechkin, and disliking Hossa. Not the actually hits.

Yeah I 'spose. Ovi's hit was malicious as he FINISHED the hit, THROWING Campbell into the boards, AFTER the puck was sent around the boards. Hossa was applying minimal pressure while Hamhuis was stopping, causing him to awkwardly slam into the boards.

[Travis 576]

Was not as fast or violent as Ovechkin's, thus I agree with no suspension. He was punished enough with a 5 minute major with only a couple minutes left and his team down a goal.

This. It was basically a shove with an unfortunate result.

Like I said in the other thread, the playoffs are a different beast. 2 games in the playoffs are way bigger than 2 in the regular season.

[Lonewuhf 47]

This. It was basically a shove with an unfortunate result.

Like I said in the other thread, the playoffs are a different beast. 2 games in the playoffs are way bigger than 2 in the regular season.

The potential career ending injury is the same no matter if we're in the playoffs or regular season...

[Carman 387]

The potential career ending injury is the same no matter if we're in the playoffs or regular season...

It is, but Hossa's hit was not as bad as Ovechkin's and that's all that matters.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

The potential career ending injury is the same no matter if we're in the playoffs or regular season...

OMG. Quit being such a whiny, homer. That's all this is about. Hossa barely touched the friggin' guy.

And what's with people comparing this to Ovie's hit? There's no comparison at all. AO propelled a guy into the boards. Hossa barely touched the Predator defender.

Good, non-suspension.

[Lonewuhf 47]

It is, but Hossa's hit was not as bad as Ovechkin's and that's all that matters.

I agree it wasn't as bad, but he still should have at least been kicked from the game.

[Hossa4Life 4]

The difference that i see is that Hossa just put his hands up on him, like most players when they are going to that part of the ice. It is a very common play. They were both just moving so fast that it was a fluke accident.

Ovi's hit it looked like he was actually going for the hit because he lowered his shoulder into his back and with his past being known as a wreckless hitter he got suspended.

[Carman 387]

I agree it wasn't as bad, but he still should have at least been kicked from the game.

Fair enough, he got a 5 minute boarding call with a couple minutes left in the game and his team down a goal. Every hit is different, and I think this hit has already been properly punished.

[toby91_ca 620]

I agree it wasn't as bad, but he still should have at least been kicked from the game.

What's the difference between being kicked out of the game and a 5 minute penalty with less than 2 minutes to go in the game?

To those complaining Ovechkin got 2 games and Hossa nothing, what are you thinking? There is absolutely no similarities to the incidents other than a player ending up going awkwardly into the end boards.

Let's assume the hits were identical though, there would still be plenty of reason for no suspension, as follows:

1 - Ovechkin's was in the regular season, you can argue that shouldn't matter, but it has historically had a huge difference, see Pronger incidents for recent examples;

2 - Ovechkin was a repeat offender, Hossa not, again, historically a big difference; and

3 - Extent of injury...again, you can argue whether it should matter or not, but the NHL has had a history of punishing more if there is more serious injury.

But of course, none of that matters because there was no similarity in the hits. I'm not even sure if Hossa really did much, he barely touched him, looks like he put his hand on him, but he didn't even push.

[Frozen-Man 144]

Duplicate

Edited April 26, 2010 by Frozen-Man

[Frozen-Man 144]

Meh, it's not like he'll be scoring any goals anyway

Except the game winner giving the Hawks a 3-2 game advantage.

What's the difference between being kicked out of the game and a 5 minute penalty with less than 2 minutes to go in the game?

See my comment above for the difference.

To those complaining Ovechkin got 2 games and Hossa nothing, what are you thinking? There is absolutely no similarities to the incidents other than a player ending up going awkwardly into the end boards.

Let's assume the hits were identical though, there would still be plenty of reason for no suspension, as follows:

1 - Ovechkin's was in the regular season, you can argue that shouldn't matter, but it has historically had a huge difference, see Pronger incidents for recent examples;

2 - Ovechkin was a repeat offender, Hossa not, again, historically a big difference; and

3 - Extent of injury...again, you can argue whether it should matter or not, but the NHL has had a history of punishing more if there is more serious injury.

But of course, none of that matters because there was no similarity in the hits. I'm not even sure if Hossa really did much, he barely touched him, looks like he put his hand on him, but he didn't even push.

I agree the two hits were not similar one was a hard check into the boards and the other was a push. I also agree with all three of the rationales that you provided for the no suspension and that is why I am annoyed at the NHL. Neither 1 nor 3 are supposed to matter at all. The reason for the rules and the suspension is to protect players from highly risky actions that can potentially cause very serious injuries. In using rationale #1 is the NHL saying that it is okay with highly risky actions that can potentially cause very serious injuries if they occur during the playoffs? If not then they should hold players to the same standard in the regular season and the playoffs. Regarding rationale #3 the potential for the injury is what is important not the result. Often players are injured in completely legal plays and there is obviously no suspension given because there was no infraction of the rules. Conversely players get suspended when there is not a serious injury because the actions are infraction of the rules designed to protect players. I do however, understand increasing the penalty for repeat offenders but even then I don't think the suspension should be because of the repeat offense the suspension should occur either way but should merely be increased for the repeat offender.

[mjlegend 155]

I saw it on TV when it happened and online here a few times today. Hossa takes a shove at a very vulnerable player from behind because Hossa got outraced to the puck. It wasn't from the side and he wasn't trying to take the puck off of him. Hits like that make me sick when I see them live.

It's going to take a player taking Brad Hornung-like crash into the end boards after a shove for the NHL to get serious on checks from behind. On a close play with two players skating for the puck a careless shove from Hossa could have left Hamhuis a quadraplegic. It was inches away from happening as it was. Wonder how that would have played out if Hossa comes back on and scored the winning goal.

Anyway, I guess we can all rest easy because Hamhuis wasn't hurt and he wasn't our guy. But what if he was, and what if he was? I'm positive an inch or two is all it would have taken to send him off on a stretcher.

[toby91_ca 620]

Except the game winner giving the Hawks a 3-2 game advantage.

See my comment above for the difference.

I agree the two hits were not similar one was a hard check into the boards and the other was a push. I also agree with all three of the rationales that you provided for the no suspension and that is why I am annoyed at the NHL. Neither 1 nor 3 are supposed to matter at all. The reason for the rules and the suspension is to protect players from highly risky actions that can potentially cause very serious injuries. In using rationale #1 is the NHL saying that it is okay with highly risky actions that can potentially cause very serious injuries if they occur during the playoffs? If not then they should hold players to the same standard in the regular season and the playoffs. Regarding rationale #3 the potential for the injury is what is important not the result. Often players are injured in completely legal plays and there is obviously no suspension given because there was no infraction of the rules. Conversely players get suspended when there is not a serious injury because the actions are infraction of the rules designed to protect players. I do however, understand increasing the penalty for repeat offenders but even then I don't think the suspension should be because of the repeat offense the suspension should occur either way but should merely be increased for the repeat offender.

I think there has to be a difference between playoffs and regular season. A 2 game suspension in the playoffs is significantly different than a 2 game suspension in the regular season. In the regular season, you are guaranteed 82 games, in the playoffs, you could be out in 4 games, maybe 7 games, maybe 10, 14.....total maximum is 28.