It's unfortunate that you're so blindly attached to your point to the extent that you're willing to ignore clear video evidence. Horton kept his eyes on Lucic after making the pass. He was not attempting to ensure that he was still onside; he was watching Lucic, and in any event, Lucic had already entered the zone and was ahead of him. Further--in case you somehow weren't aware of this--hockey players need to keep their heads up.
Everyone in the hockey analysis world disagrees with your claim that it was a violation of rule 48.
Given that you're now insulting those who disagree with you, I think you're looking more for agreement with your ranting and less for any sort of actual discussion.
Note the portion in bold. That's why this suspension occurred. If Horton had fallen differently and not been injured, there would have been no suspension. If Horton had been injured and it had been Bieksa laying the hit, there would have been perhaps a one-game suspension. But since it's a depth defenseman who injured a star player, it's a long suspension.
Well, whatever.
I already said earlier in this thread that I may have gone over the top suggesting it carry over AND I think they got it right with what they handed out...
I've been playing hockey for over 23 years, but the reason players need to keep their heads up, is to protect themselves - This does not exonerate someone who threw a dirty hit, because the receiving player didn't follow the golden rule.
Specifically to rule 48, fine, that very specific rule, with its wording, does not apply here. It doesn't mean that it wasn't still a play that needs to be removed and/or isn't directly connected to that exact type of play...
There's no way Horton wasn't getting hurt on that hit - moot point.
Regardless of which side you're on, the league got the discipline on this one right.
Agreed.
Had this been Konstantinov on Lemieux circa 1997 - we'd all be seriously pissed if Vladdy were suspended.
different league, different rules - learn to evolve and play within them, simple as that.
If you are well aware of what a charge is, then you know there is nothing in the rule or definition of a charge that says anything about 3 strides, I'm not sure where you are getting that. For fun, let's assume there was some rule about 3 strides, could you point out where in the video Rome took 3 strides to make the hit?
Maybe I'm thinking about a different hit.....the hit I saw has Rome skating backwards as Horton is carrying the puck through the middle of the ice in the neutral zone. Horton passes the puck and then Rome comes to a stop at the blue line to lay the hit on Horton. By my count, there were approximately ZERO strides.
Regarding checking to make sure he was onside....I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on that. He passed the puck ahead to a player receiving it just before the blue line. That player was a few strides ahead of him....there is no possible way he could have ever gone offside, so if he is checking to make sure he stays onside, he doesn't belong in the game of hockey, let alone playing at the NHL level.
Back to the actual suspension....4 games...wow, that surprised me. You have to believe that if it wasn't a star player from the Bruins that got hurt or if it was as star player from the Canucks making the hit, the suspension would have been less.
The more I watch the video, the more I can see your argument on the charge, there are 2 clear strides (backwards, or forwards, each distinct motion still counts) but the 3rd one is murky... I'll admit when I'm wrong and on this account, I may be - however, I disagree completely on the "watching the pass" BS, you can even see Horton check the line and the linesman as he enters... he was in a helpless position and that hit needs to be given up, no matter how you cut it.
Back to the suspension as well - they got it right, period. The one area the league needs to improve upon is consistency, because I agree that had it not been a star, it probably wouldn't have been so harsh, and that's wrong - The same rules, should apply to all players.
