Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Rule 48: not working as planned.


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#61 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,569 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 29 July 2013 - 12:09 PM

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.


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#62 jimmyemeryhunter

jimmyemeryhunter

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 898 posts

Posted 29 July 2013 - 12:30 PM

That's why I said, imo in my opinion.
I wasn't claiming it to be fact, just that I, as well as many other NHL fans thought it should have been called.
That was the only reasoning I could find that made sense.

#63 Euro_Twins

Euro_Twins

    Healthy Scratch

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,096 posts
  • Location:Windsor, Ontario

Posted 29 July 2013 - 12:34 PM

 
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?

#64 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,569 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 29 July 2013 - 09:25 PM

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". 


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#65 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,739 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 29 July 2013 - 09:52 PM

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/nh...ature/?id=50596

 

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


Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#66 hillbillywingsfan

hillbillywingsfan

    Awww poor butch

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,529 posts

Posted 30 July 2013 - 11:23 AM

 

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."


msg-10491-1258682020.jpg


I LIVE IN TEXAS SO I DON'T DESERVE HOCKEY

#67 DickieDunn

DickieDunn

    http://redwingsandotherthings.wordpress.com/

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,374 posts
  • Location:Belding

Posted 30 July 2013 - 01:28 PM

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

Oh this young man has had a very trying rookie season, with the litigation, the notoriety, his subsequent deportation to Canada and that country's refusal to accept him, well, I guess that's more than most 21-year-olds can handle... Ogie Ogilthorpe!


#68 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,569 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 30 July 2013 - 01:39 PM

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. 


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#69 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,605 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 09 September 2013 - 07:16 PM

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".


"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#70 Euro_Twins

Euro_Twins

    Healthy Scratch

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,096 posts
  • Location:Windsor, Ontario

Posted 09 September 2013 - 07:26 PM

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.



#71 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,605 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 10 September 2013 - 01:50 PM

Let's not overlook the "wild-card factor": the on-ice officials whose job it is to make these calls.


"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users