• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
cusimano_brothers

Rule 48: not working as planned.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Tweaking the rule book will not help? huh? You don't think that slowing down the game will reduce concussions?

As far as Lindros and Lafontaine, I never said that slowing down the game would eliminate ALL concussions. I don't think anybody believes that.

If such a helmet exists, why aren't the players wearing them? My guess is that they either don't exist or the players don't like them. If it was as simple as wearing a different helmet, they would already be doing that.

Middle school science tells us the E=mv^2. The energy from a collision is a function of velocity squared. Changing the velocity of an impact has a large effect on the energy expended.

I gotta ask.

How do you suggest they slow the pace down, especially in a league where concerns are altering the game rules for a more exciting, higher scoring game.

Shallower nets, hybrid icing, limiting where goalies can handle pucks, taking out the two line pass.

An argument could be made for a more european style of hockey taking over so its more so about finesse, but this is still north america.

And aggression attracts more people to the sport.

Im not trying to call you out, im genuinely intrigued to hear how you think the game could be slowed down.

Edited by jimmyemeryhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. When guys get hit clean, whether it's Crosby or anyone else, then there's no suspension on the play. Which is the point I was trying to make. Lots of people around LGW seem to believe that there's some sort of bias in favor of marquee players, and there isn't. Everybody is just as susceptible to suspension as everyone else, as the 2013 suspensions to Duncan Keith, Corey Perry, Joffrey Lupul, Taylor Hall, and Alex Edler seem to indicate.

I'm tired of this old "well if it happened to 'so and so' then there would/wouldn't be a suspension" bulls***. It's simply not true. Star players get suspended all the time, ask Ovechkin. Furthermore, just because you hit a star player hard doesn't mean you'll be suspended, ask Steckel and Hedman.

It's just a line of b.s. that dummies keep repeating to make themselves feel relevant.

I will just point this out, Weber did not get suspended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. When guys get hit clean, whether it's Crosby or anyone else, then there's no suspension on the play. Which is the point I was trying to make. Lots of people around LGW seem to believe that there's some sort of bias in favor of marquee players, and there isn't. Everybody is just as susceptible to suspension as everyone else, as the 2013 suspensions to Duncan Keith, Corey Perry, Joffrey Lupul, Taylor Hall, and Alex Edler seem to indicate.

I'm tired of this old "well if it happened to 'so and so' then there would/wouldn't be a suspension" bulls***. It's simply not true. Star players get suspended all the time, ask Ovechkin. Furthermore, just because you hit a star player hard doesn't mean you'll be suspended, ask Steckel and Hedman.

It's just a line of b.s. that dummies keep repeating to make themselves feel relevant.

I will just point this out, Weber did not get suspended.

And does anyone remember Pronger physics? Or how a suspension is longer if a top player is hurt or a star creams a 3rd line guy? You can't say Crosby got hurt and no suspension to wipe out years of double standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well Pronger always played on the line and was a dirty player but today has guys like Torres or Cooke who are not only dirty they are out oof control and extremely dangerous. Watch out for Cooke getting suspended more often now since he is no longer playing for the NHL's darling club. The NHL can have all the rules in the world as long as they aren't punishing the intention nothing will change.

All we can hope for is some sort of concussion reducing equipment in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And does anyone remember Pronger physics? Or how a suspension is longer if a top player is hurt or a star creams a 3rd line guy? You can't say Crosby got hurt and no suspension to wipe out years of double standards.

Show me one shred of evidence to back up your conspiracy theory and I'll begin to give it come consideration.

I will just point this out, Weber did not get suspended.

Yep and it was a bad call. However, it's not an indication that "star players" get special treatment considering Shea Weber isn't as big of a star as the guy he was hitting. If this "stars get the calls" argument were true, then Weber WOULD have got the suspension considering the guy he hit is about 40 times more respected and accomplished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RedWingsDad   
Guest RedWingsDad

Show me one shred of evidence to back up your conspiracy theory and I'll begin to give it come consideration.

Yep and it was a bad call. However, it's not an indication that "star players" get special treatment considering Shea Weber isn't as big of a star as the guy he was hitting. If this "stars get the calls" argument were true, then Weber WOULD have got the suspension considering the guy he hit is about 40 times more respected and accomplished.

I think that's debatable. Based on past accomplishments Z is defiantly the bigger star but at the time of the incident they are both up there neck and neck in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's debatable. Based on past accomplishments Z is defiantly the bigger star but at the time of the incident they are both up there neck and neck in my eyes.

Well you may be right, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's pretty hard to claim a "star bias" when both the players are stars. If he were suspended, half the people would be complaining that he got suspended ONLY because he hit a star, and if he didn't get the suspension the other half would complaining that he got special treatment because he IS a star.

This is a loaded argument without a single shred of evidence to validate it. Which makes it about as meaningful as every other conspiracy theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I waa starting to give Torres a little credit last year.

He looked like he was cleaning up his game until the hit on Stoll, which honestly I honestly don't believe he intended to be so high.

Stoll was reaching for a bouncing puck, but either way, with his rap sheet how could you not suspend him, he's been a dirty player for so long theres no way to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Cookes infraction list is pretty ridiculous too, it'll be interesting to see what happens next time he's suspended, if memory serves me right he sat out 17 playoff games.

And Weber always struck me as dirtier than anyone ever accredited to him.

Last years playoff when he bounced hanks head off the glass hard enough to break his helmet, and no suspension?

If it were against any other team he would've gotten at least a game, not a conspiracy theory but shanahan can't show any favor to his former team and Imo that was him overcompensating to show that.

Don't get me wrong charas not gonna be a picnic to deal with, but I haven't seen him go out of his way just to try to hurt someone.

Edited by jimmyemeryhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I waa starting to give Torres a little credit last year.

He looked like he was cleaning up his game until the hit on Stoll, which honestly I honestly don't believe he intended to be so high.

Stoll was reaching for a bouncing puck, but either way, with his rap sheet how could you not suspend him, he's been a dirty player for so long theres no way to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Cookes infraction list is pretty ridiculous too, it'll be interesting to see what happens next time he's suspended, if memory serves me right he sat out 17 playoff games.

And Weber always struck me as dirtier than anyone ever accredited to him.

Last years playoff when he bounced hanks head off the glass hard enough to break his helmet, and no suspension?

If it were against any other team he would've gotten at least a game, not a conspiracy theory but shanahan can't show any favor to his former team and Imo that was him overcompensating to show that.

Don't get me wrong charas not gonna be a picnic to deal with, but I haven't seen him go out of his way just to try to hurt someone.

Whether you admit to it or not, promoting a conspiracy theory is EXACTLY what you're doing. It doesn't change the fact just because you say "not a conspiracy theory". If there is no evidence to back up your claims then they don't mean anything, they're conjectures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you may be right, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's pretty hard to claim a "star bias" when both the players are stars. If he were suspended, half the people would be complaining that he got suspended ONLY because he hit a star, and if he didn't get the suspension the other half would complaining that he got special treatment because he IS a star.

This is a loaded argument without a single shred of evidence to validate it. Which makes it about as meaningful as every other conspiracy theory.

Bettman saying he needs the stars playing doesn't sound familiar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bettman saying he needs the stars playing doesn't sound familiar?

Yep, it does. And the NHL has definitely not suspended any star players recently. Except Kris Letang, Alex Ovechkin, Mike Green, Shane Doan, Jeff Skinner, Duncan Keith (twice), James Neal, Nicklas Backstrom, Claude Girouix, Dustin Brown, Alex Edler, Taylor Hall, Joffrey Lupul, and Corey Perry.

All of these guys were suspended in the last two seasons. It is an absolute joke to think that the NHL won't suspend stars, or that they're otherwise immune from punishment. If you do the crime, you do the time more often then not. Do they miss one occasionally? Sure. But there is no "star bias".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading four pages of discussion, I can say that I agree with some points here. They should be penalizing the hits, not the result of the hits. They should be reviewing these hits after every game, and make the penalties stiffer. At the same time though, I go back to my refereeing experience and say that its not that easy. As fans of the games, we love the big bone crushing hits. We love to see Kronwalled players fall on their asses after being hit. With the speed of the game as it is now, we aren't going to see a reduction in the amount of concussions unless we change the game.

Case in point, as a USA Hockey ref that has refereed up to AAA hockey, there is a hit to the head rule there as well. In the course of a game, without review there seem to be 2-3 contact to the head penalties called per game. That is just what the referee sees. Now imagine how many there could be with video. Point is that there are many hits that go to the head in every game in the NHL as well. Some go called, and others don't. If they are going to start calling every game more strict, then the game is going to change.

Players will be more hesitant before hitting. Checking is going to be a lot more cautious. We won't see as many checks because of the fear of being suspended. I have zero problem with going that route. You see that in youth hockey when players are starting to hit. None of them are charging all over the ice hitting everything because there is a certain sense of being careful that they still have.

I think better helmets would help matters out a lot. Mandatory visors and mouthguards are also huge too. The owners want to protect their million dollar investment? What about investing in better equipment that all players have to wear? No more wearing pads they have had for 20 years.

Just my .02 cents.....


Yep, it does. And the NHL has definitely not suspended any star players recently. Except Kris Letang, Alex Ovechkin, Mike Green, Shane Doan, Jeff Skinner, Duncan Keith (twice), James Neal, Nicklas Backstrom, Claude Girouix, Dustin Brown, Alex Edler, Taylor Hall, Joffrey Lupul, and Corey Perry.

All of these guys were suspended in the last two seasons. It is an absolute joke to think that the NHL won't suspend stars, or that they're otherwise immune from punishment. If you do the crime, you do the time more often then not. Do they miss one occasionally? Sure. But there is no "star bias".

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?id=50596

Agreed. Just last season alone they hit a good number of "star players" with suspensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, it does. And the NHL has definitely not suspended any star players recently. Except Kris Letang, Alex Ovechkin, Mike Green, Shane Doan, Jeff Skinner, Duncan Keith (twice), James Neal, Nicklas Backstrom, Claude Girouix, Dustin Brown, Alex Edler, Taylor Hall, Joffrey Lupul, and Corey Perry.

All of these guys were suspended in the last two seasons. It is an absolute joke to think that the NHL won't suspend stars, or that they're otherwise immune from punishment. If you do the crime, you do the time more often then not. Do they miss one occasionally? Sure. But there is no "star bias".

But but but....In the illustrious words of Mermaid Man "Buttman is eviiiiiilllllllllll."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long are they suspended compared to a 4th line winger doing the same thing?

I don't know, was the fourth liner a repeat offender? Was someone injured on the play? Raffi Tores was suspended way longer than any of those stars, and he definitely should have been. But that doesn't indicate a "star bias". There are a lot of variables that determine the length of the suspension, but one thing that you absolutely, positively, cannot say is that stars don't get disciplined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From CBC:

The updated 2013-14 NHL rulebook is not yet available, but when it does go online, you will see some changes.

We were expecting most of them: limits on goalie pad sizes; mandatory visors for players with less than 25 games played; and the elimination of the "attainable pass" language from icing.

But there is one unexpected modification.

Rule 48.1 (Illegal Check to the Head) used to read as follows: "A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted." Personally, I found the "targeting" issue difficult to determine at times. NHL speed didn't always make it easy, especially if there weren't enough camera angles with a proper view.

The competition committee suggested finding different wording. The league and NHL Players' Association both agreed, spending the summer finding something acceptable to everyone.

This is not considered an official rule change, which involves a lengthier process. Instead, the language was altered for greater clarity. Now Rule 48.1 declares an illegal check to the head as "a hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable."

...

The link describes the three possible scenarios involved in this "tweaking".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From CBC:

The link describes the three possible scenarios involved in this "tweaking".

I took them all summer to come up with that new wording... I can see that their jobs are very hard to do... I'll help bettman out, in case he wants to change it again.

Rule 48.1 declares an illegal check to the head as "a hit to the head, by another player, either accidentally or on purpose." Ok my summer is clear now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this