45 replies to this topic

[Wing Across The Pond]

Bad suspension. I know who it is, and I know his history, but this is a case example of nitpicking hits. Not a blindside hit, not a head shot, not any of the other bulls*** NFL rules. f*** off with the ticky tack s***.

Hits to the head a bulls*** rule?

[jollymania]

Hits to the head a bulls*** rule?

hits to the head in the nfl and nhl are 2 totally different things

[edicius]

Personally I don't even know that it warranted the interference penalty. It was maybe a little late? But seems like within reason and the kind of hit that happens a lot in any given game.

Yeah, my first thought was that it was a little late, but that's even hard to judge due to slow-motion replays skewing our perception. It's a borderline penalty and a ridiculous suspension. What Campbell is basically saying is that that hit was just as bad as Kunitz on Gagne. - which is obscene.

[stormboy]

Yeah, my first thought was that it was a little late, but that's even hard to judge due to slow-motion replays skewing our perception. It's a borderline penalty and a ridiculous suspension. What Campbell is basically saying is that that hit was just as bad as Kunitz on Gagne. - which is obscene.

agreed, and i even like kunitz, 'cause he went to college in my hometown. but the dude smoked another player with his elbow, and even if he says it wasn't deliberate, it was a really, really bad mistake. way worse than Ruutu's hit, IMO.

[Shoreline]

Hits to the head a bulls*** rule?

Yep, just like in the NFL, it's an unnecessary rule, and just like the NFL, it's just the beginning of a slew of other rules that will also fail to accomplish their goals because this is a naive way of idealizing and romanticizing a sport that is largely violent in nature, and throwing these stupid rules at it isn't going to make it less so -- it's only going to debilitate the physicality of the sport to a point of boredom and utter pointlessness. I may have people who disagree with me, but I don't care. When people undertake boxing or rugby or UFC fighting you don't see people stressing they wear helmets and making new rules about not hitting to the temple and all that s***. One has to accept at some level there is going to be injuries when this much physicality is concerned. Or.. f*** up the sport with this nonsense.

This hit is not a penalty nor is it late. It's just not "ideal" in today's NHL, and the lesson is.. uh, who the f*** knows.

Edited by Shoreline, 22 April 2011 - 09:17 AM.

[Konnan511]

Yep, just like in the NFL, it's an unnecessary rule, and just like the NFL, it's just the beginning of a slew of other rules that will also fail to accomplish their goals because this is a naive way of idealizing and romanticizing a sport that is largely violent in nature, and throwing these stupid rules at it isn't going to make it less so -- it's only going to debilitate the physicality of the sport to a point of boredom and utter pointlessness. I may have people who disagree with me, but I don't care.

Well I respect your opinion but I like these headshot rules (I wish they were more strict so they could actually curb the hits). You're seeing retired football players dying earlier because their brains are goo. We were naive about concussions because of the research out there, now we know, unfortunately what even one headshot and concussion can do to you, let alone multiple.

I think if there was only black and white rules with harsh punishments, there would be a lot less griping. The matt Cooke suspension was a great start to ramping up the punishments, but the Kunitz leniency on a similar hit to Cookes was a major step back.

Edit: didn't have your edit up. It was late, albeit only by 60% of what is deemed in the zone of finishing your check. .5 and lower is deemed ok.

Edited by Konnan511, 22 April 2011 - 09:22 AM.

[Shoreline]

Well I respect your opinion but I like these headshot rules (I wish they were more strict so they could actually curb the hits). You're seeing retired football players dying earlier because their brains are goo. We were naive about concussions because of the research out there, now we know, unfortunately what even one headshot and concussion can do to you, let alone multiple.

I think if there was only black and white rules with harsh punishments, there would be a lot less griping. The matt Cooke suspension was a great start to ramping up the punishments, but the Kunitz leniency on a similar hit to Cookes was a major step back.

I bet you're seeing boxers die earlier too -- they get direct shots to the face and that's one of the best ways to box because it neutralizes an opponent more quickly. I won't even argue the scientific basis for what concussions do, that's moot. Let's get back to what the intentions of these rules are and what the results will be.

If you notice the NFL made new rules last season that said a person can't leave their feet when making a tackle on a player nor can they use their helmet in tackling. It's quite humorous really, but more notably, rules about dancing in the endzone after a touchdown also followed acceptance of a large number of other rules. The NHL unfortunately is gaining acceptance for head shot rules which is now penalizing clean hits, hits that were praised for the last number of decades, hits that happen in a physical sport of hockey. There are already rules that covered headshots depending on the intention and the scenario -- intent to injure, charging, boarding, slashing, elbowing, and so on. We already know the NHL likes to increasingly call more of a "type" of penalty, and sometimes (hooking, holding, interference, diving) even forego calling others. But again I will call out the NHL and suggest this is the beginning of a slew of new rules following suit of the NFL that will not accomplish it's intentions of keeping a sport physical and not bogged down. This ideal is going to add more unnecessary stoppages to play, and is going to send mixed messages about hockey, doing virtually jack s*** in making it less violent and potentially dangerous. It's kind of hard to limit inherent risks in hockey without degrading the sport, and surely this is one attempt out of many to try this out of futility and naivety, my guess is, because of outside pressure from those who know even less about the sport.

[Konnan511]

I bet you're seeing boxers die earlier too -- they get direct shots to the face and that's one of the best ways to box because it neutralizes an opponent more quickly. I won't even argue the scientific basis for what concussions do, that's moot. Let's get back to what the intentions of these rules are and what the results will be.

If you notice the NFL made new rules last season that said a person can't leave their feet when making a tackle on a player nor can they use their helmet in tackling. It's quite humorous really, but more notably, rules about dancing in the endzone after a touchdown also followed acceptance of a large number of other rules. The NHL unfortunately is gaining acceptance for head shot rules which is now penalizing clean hits, hits that were praised for the last number of decades, hits that happen in a physical sport of hockey. There are already rules that covered headshots depending on the intention and the scenario -- intent to injure, charging, boarding, slashing, elbowing, and so on. We already know the NHL likes to increasingly call more of a "type" of penalty, and sometimes (hooking, holding, interference, diving) even forego calling others. But again I will call out the NHL and suggest this is the beginning of a slew of new rules following suit of the NFL that will not accomplish it's intentions of keeping a sport physical and not bogged down. This ideal is going to add more unnecessary stoppages to play, and is going to send mixed messages about hockey, doing virtually jack s*** in making it less violent and potentially dangerous. It's kind of hard to limit inherent risks in hockey without degrading the sport, and surely this is one attempt out of many to try this out of futility and naivety, my guess is, because of outside pressure from those who know even less about the sport.

I agree with a lot of what you said, hockey needs it's physicality, but I guess we just differ on headshots.

Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the Joe Thornton headshot during this season and the Matt Cooke on Savard a while back?

Helm in the past 3 games has taken out 3 players without hitting the players head, if a 5'10" 180 soaking wet player can delivery crushing blows without going after the head, other players can too ala Kronwall's hits as well.

[hillbillywingsfan]

I agree with a lot of what you said, hockey needs it's physicality, but I guess we just differ on headshots.

Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the Joe Thornton headshot during this season and the Matt Cooke on Savard a while back?

Helm in the past 3 games has taken out 3 players without hitting the players head, if a 5'10" 180 soaking wet player can delivery crushing blows without going after the head, other players can too ala Kronwall's hits as well.

I think you answered your own question with Helm. It's 5'10" player hitting 6'3"+ players...he would have to leave his feet to go after the head really. hahaha=)

Whats going to suck is if the league does try and back off on the suspensions you will get the people that were screaming about the suspensions now screaming why players are not getting them since so in so got one last season....so what does the league do now?

[Third Man In]

harold, I'm pretty sure he got penalized for the late, blindside hit to the head on Ruutu, not the clean hit on Ruutu

I call BS on this idea that we have to allow hits like this as "part of the game." What if instead of saying Erat got a concussion on that play, we said he got a "life-altering head injury"? Because that's what a concussion is. Players shouldn't be subject to hits that predictably cause concussions, even if they don't look particularly dirty to us because a player doesn't throw an elbow or leave his feet. There are plenty of hits that don't cause concussions that we can keep in the game.

[NewBelgium1554]

As much as I dislike Ruutu I really can't see how that's even a penalty. Looks like a good hit to me. Frankly I don't know how Erat went down like that, either he got especially unlucky with the way that landed or he was busting out some ballerina moves to draw the penalty.

As for the suspension... Ruutu is a well-known pest / dirty player while Kunitz isn't exactly high on the Pens goon list, so that probably plays a part. It is silly though, the Kunitz elbow was a cowardly attempt to injure and if Gagne had pulled a Shakespeare performance on it it would've been more than one game. I despise this soccer mentality of embellishing everything in order to get an edge that's creeping in lately.

I kinda think this here should've made it a more severe punishment since this would tell me it was more of an intent to injure then Ruutu just hitting someone doing his normal thing...

[HankthaTank]

I kinda think this here should've made it a more severe punishment since this would tell me it was more of an intent to injure then Ruutu just hitting someone doing his normal thing...

Everything in this post is the entire problem with the NHL nowadays as it is. No special treatment or anything to anyone. BE CONSISTENT FFS!!!

[Shoreline]

I agree with a lot of what you said, hockey needs it's physicality, but I guess we just differ on headshots.

Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the Joe Thornton headshot during this season and the Matt Cooke on Savard a while back?

If I remember the Thornton issue, his hit was clean, did not lead with the elbow, and just because a player is looking down, does not mean they get a free pass on getting blasted on the ice. Matt Cooke, on the other hand.. take your pick -- elbowing (led with the elbow, hit with the elbow), intent to injure. These were not tough choices to me.

Helm in the past 3 games has taken out 3 players without hitting the players head, if a 5'10" 180 soaking wet player can delivery crushing blows without going after the head, other players can too ala Kronwall's hits as well.

Abdelkader has also landed some clean hits, yet wasn't suspended for the blatant elbow to the "head" of Seabrook only a couple weeks ago. You were hard pressed to even call for a suspension on this hit.

Bert was thrown a 5 minute major for a "head" shot on Ryan Johnson in similar fashion to similar team, no suspension. You agreed with no suspension for clearly hitting the head, strangely.

I think you're too focused about the fad "head" part and not the actual infraction itself where it stands in hockey and the intent of the hit, which is what was largely called previous to this crap.

Suddenly it's blindside hits, now it's targeting the head where it's the principle point of contact, now it's hitting a person where their head will be injured at all. Utterly confusing and largely pointless -- won't achieve the intent of these rules. I don't like the direction this league is headed on this issue because it's muddled in the same stupidity the NFL went to, and this is a span of roughly two decades, so easy to see whether or not these not-so-new rules have prevented injuries. It's a knee-jerk reaction to people going over concussions, and want to make the NHL some fantasyland hockey league where players somehow get hit a lot and never to the head, or never from behind, or never from their blind side, and so on. Not going to happen unless they degrade physicality from the game.

Edited by Shoreline, 22 April 2011 - 10:18 AM.

[NewBelgium1554]

Everything in this post is the entire problem with the NHL nowadays as it is. No special treatment or anything to anyone. BE CONSISTENT FFS!!!

Agreed.

[Konnan511]

If I remember the Thornton issue, his hit was clean, did not lead with the elbow, and just because a player is looking down, does not mean they get a free pass on getting blasted on the ice. Matt Cooke, on the other hand.. take your pick -- elbowing (led with the elbow, hit with the elbow), intent to injure. These were not tough choices to me.


Abdelkader has also landed some clean hits, yet wasn't suspended for the blatant elbow to the "head" of Seabrook only a couple weeks ago. You were hard pressed to even call for a suspension on this hit.

Bert was thrown a 5 minute major for a "head" shot on Ryan Johnson in similar fashion to similar team, no suspension. You agreed with no suspension for clearly hitting the head, strangely.

I think you're too focused about the fad "head" part and not the actual infraction itself where it stands in hockey and the intent of the hit, which is what was largely called previous to this crap.

Suddenly it's blindside hits, now it's targeting the head where it's the principle point of contact, now it's hitting a person where their head will be injured at all. Utterly confusing and largely pointless -- won't achieve the intent of these rules. I don't like the direction this league is headed on this issue because it's muddled in the same stupidity the NFL went to, and this is a span of roughly two decades, so easy to see whether or not these not-so-new rules have prevented injuries. It's a knee-jerk reaction to people going over concussions, and want to make the NHL some fantasyland hockey league where players somehow get hit a lot and never to the head, or never from behind, or never from their blind side, and so on. Not going to happen unless they degrade physicality from the game.

I wouldn't have been shocked if Abby or Bert were suspended for those hits, but I wouldn't cry foul if they were. I thought the Raffi Torres hit wasn't that bad behind the net, neither the Downie one (except he left his feet, charging would have been fine)

Cooke never elbowed Savard.... And Thornton's hit was textbook blindside.

like I said in the beginning, i can see why Ruutu was suspended, but I wouldn't have been upset if he wasn't. Kunitz I think we all agree with that he should have had the same penalty as Cooke's elbow late in the season.

Edited by Konnan511, 22 April 2011 - 10:53 AM.

[wings1110]

Yep, just like in the NFL, it's an unnecessary rule, and just like the NFL, it's just the beginning of a slew of other rules that will also fail to accomplish their goals because this is a naive way of idealizing and romanticizing a sport that is largely violent in nature, and throwing these stupid rules at it isn't going to make it less so -- it's only going to debilitate the physicality of the sport to a point of boredom and utter pointlessness. I may have people who disagree with me, but I don't care. When people undertake boxing or rugby or UFC fighting you don't see people stressing they wear helmets and making new rules about not hitting to the temple and all that s***. One has to accept at some level there is going to be injuries when this much physicality is concerned. Or.. f*** up the sport with this nonsense.

This hit is not a penalty nor is it late. It's just not "ideal" in today's NHL, and the lesson is.. uh, who the f*** knows.

yourf****** wise and you make many agreeable points, if u dont want to get hurt, well then dont play hockey.

[Grypho]

While I don't personally like Ruutu, I don't even see a penalty, let alone a suspension. Not even borderline, despite the fact that I can see clearly where this hit could have seriously rattled Erat's cage.

That hit was NOT blindside. It was normal hit on a player who should know better than to keep his head down (or maybe not, now that the rule is being enforced to such a ridiculous level). Erat is bent forward, his face and head way down below the level of most players' shoulders to begin with. How is it possible to make a clean hit on him? Does this mean that all a player has to do to shield himself from a legal hit, or to draw a penalty or cause a suspension as a result, is to lead with his stupid mug, down and forward at all times? Because that's the unintended consequence that Campbell may be CAUSING as a result of this decision.

It's an age-old rule in hockey - keep your head up, idiot.

[Third Man In]

Should a player have his head down while skating through the neutral zone or receiving a suicide pass? No. Should a player be potentially subject to headaches, dizziness, fatigue, anxiety, memory and attention problems, sleep problems, and irritability for the rest of his life because he does? No way.

I don't think you can ever completely take concussions out of the game, but can the league significantly reduce them by identify and eliminating the types of hits, like this one, that cause the bulk of them? Absolutely. If that offends you because it "degrades physicality from the game," there's always UCF.

[Dimaline312000]

I didn't see this hit as meritting a suspension but what do I know.

[syntax]

It was a little late, maybe, but hardly "well after the pass." Guys over on hfboards (and Bob McKenzie) have timed it out saying it was about .8 seconds after he makes the pass. The NHL standard is apparently half a second.

He got two for interference, that was enough. I think Ruutu is a gutless puke, but I don't see any evidence in that replay how that's targeting the head.

As for your sarcastic comment about the objectivity of the title, this is an internet fan forum, not a newspaper. We're all stating our opinions here. I stated mine in the title.

Definitely 2 for interference, as I though it was late too. Look like Erat just took a hit badly.

Opinions are not allowed around here unless you have the same opinion as the 'big posters'. Otherwise you'll get slammed, because they're close-minded and self-centered.