Chara hit

[Wilster]

No argument here. You would find an argument from others though. I'm only replying to the comment that the league would have suspended Chara had it been Crosby or Ovechkin. It was pure speculation and is an easy cop out argument I hear every time a "questionable" play occurs.

What i was trying to say is that the league , with its double standards (Mr. Bettman), would have suspended Chara if he had done it to one of their poster boys.
IMO it was a deliberate attempt to hit the player , but not to injure to the extent that happened.
I think the Crosby hit/head shot against the Capitals , was a clumsy collision more than anything else .
I'm not arguing , just posting my opinion.

[Big Johnny69]

I think Habs' fans should be banned from replying any further in this thread. Only unbiased opinions allowed from here on in. I have seen the hit many times. I don't think Chara deliberately attempted to run Pac into the glass. I believe he knew he was going to be beat to the puck so he figured he could rub him out and maybe get away without a penalty. The area where the hit occurred, just happened to bring a bad result to an otherwise normal hockey play.

And I have to agree with jonf on this one. This wasn't a headshot. Chara did not hit Pac in the head. His head hit the glass support.

[knickers]

What i was trying to say is that the league , with its double standards (Mr. Bettman), would have suspended Chara if he had done it to one of their poster boys.
IMO it was a deliberate attempt to hit the player , but not to injure to the extent that happened.
I think the Crosby hit/head shot against the Capitals , was a clumsy collision more than anything else .
I'm not arguing , just posting my opinion.

Bettman has nothing to do with handing out suspensions and the fact that you say "would have suspended" makes this and argumentative statment and not an opinion. Considering there is absolutly no way of telling if Chara would have been suspended if it was Crosby or Ovechkin it is also speculation.
The sentence underneathe the bold is an opinion and happens to be the one that I share with you. I also hold the opinion that it being a deliberate hit doesn't mean he should have been suspended. Last I checked you are still alowed to hit in the game of hockey.

[knickers]

I think Habs' fans should be banned from replying any further in this thread. Only unbiased opinions allowed from here on in.

Cheers to that.

[Colby]

OK, I saw a hit a couple of days ago (I forget who was involved), a clean hip check that the player who was hit went flying over the top of the other player and landed on his shoulders. What would have been the call if the player had landed on his head and suffered a concussion or broken neck. Should the player then be suspended for a head shot because that is where the damage was?

[Shivas Irons]

OK, I saw a hit a couple of days ago (I forget who was involved), a clean hip check that the player who was hit went flying over the top of the other player and landed on his shoulders. What would have been the call if the player had landed on his head and suffered a concussion or broken neck. Should the player then be suspended for a head shot because that is where the damage was?

No.

Why? Because -

a clean hip check

For me it comes down to intent. Regardless of what Chara says, I believe he intended to drive Pac into the stanchion. This is vastly different than the situation you describe.

[jeffc]

No.

Why? Because -

For me it comes down to intent. Regardless of what Chara says, I believe he intended to drive Pac into the stanchion. This is vastly different than the situation you describe.

and that is where the problem lies. You think he intended to do it but have no way of knowing or proving it. Let's say for arguements sake he didn't intend to drive Pac into the stanchion - just take him out on the boards like a normal everyday check (yes it was interference but let's put that aside for now). By your arguement, the hit is fine.

[Shivas Irons]

You think he intended to do it but have no way of knowing or proving it.

I agree, I can only look at the video evidence, and to me, it looks intentional.

There is no way in the world that Chara is going to admit he meant to direct Pac into the stanchion, so to ask him if it was done on purpose is just plain silly. To think Chara is of such fine character he wouldn't possibly lie is naive.

IMO the NHL gaffed badly on this one.

[Colby]

No.

Why? Because -

For me it comes down to intent. Regardless of what Chara says, I believe he intended to drive Pac into the stanchion. This is vastly different than the situation you describe.

My point was more towards those that were saying that this was a head shot, and calling for a supsension based on the outcome of the hit, which was damage to the head. Chara never once touches Pac's head, as there is no contact in my hypothetical case. There's a push on the shoulder to rub him out on the boards, which if the puck was there would have been a clean play, and Pac's head came into contact with the stanchion which was unfortunate. Should this be called a head shot if the player doing the hitting never touches the head?

[Shivas Irons]

My point was more towards those that were saying that this was a head shot

I wouldn't consider it a head shot as such.
I do think we have head-shot-mania happening right now, much of it seemingly perpetrated by folks who to have had very little involvement, or interest in hockey until this incident.

Should this be called a head shot if the player doing the hitting never touches the head?

No, however I maintain it was an intent to injure, and a suspension was warranted.

[Colby]

I wouldn't consider it a head shot as such.
I do think we have head-shot-mania happening right now, much of it seemingly perpetrated by folks who to have had very little involvement, or interest in hockey until this incident.



No, however I maintain it was an intent to injure, and a suspension was warranted.

The majority of hits, in some way or another include an attempt to injure. If I am going into the corner with someone, I want to hit him hard enough to remember the next time. If I don't hit hard enough to injure, then the other player won't remember it. It's one of the reason's Karlsson is a bit timid going into the corner, he's worried he's going to get pounded by someone coming in on him, he doesn't want to get hurt, so that tactic works. I remember a game a long time ago when the Sens playe dthe Canucks. Jovanovski hit Hossa so hard the first time they met in the corner, Hossa never went in with any sort of confidence after that. A legal hit, it just hurt. Padding and body armour can only do so much. If I am 230 pounds coming in at high speed on skates covered in body armour and I hit you, it's going to hurt a lot.

There's a fine line between intent to injure and trying to shake someone up so they think twice the next time. At the speed and size of the players, it's usually tough to determine the true intent of the situation, especially when other factors (the stanchion) is involved.

[spackler]

Intent is only one factor. If intent could be proven, Chara should be thrown out of the league and sent to jail. Setting aside that, the fact is he committed an illegal play, which resulted in a major injury. He deserves to be suspended for that alone. If he doesn't make the illegal play, Pac doesn't get hurt and Chara should be held accountable for that.

[GoingLow]

Chara chased Max around and did everything he could, slashed his ankle to try and get Patch to go...who would go Chara?? not many...Patch used his mouth and Chara took his number for sure, as all players do, they get you one way or another......did he intend to run Patch into the divider ....NO QUESTION...anyone that thinks otherwise is delusional.....

[Shivas Irons]

The majority of hits, in some way or another include an attempt to injure.

I prefer a term I heard a player use the other night - "put the hurt on"
I don't think players want to dish out a potentially career ending injury, but you are absolutely right about the intimidation factor. (Karlsson looks like a frightened weasel out there) Anybody who has played contact hockey, or any other contact sport knows when you hit someone, you want it to hurt.

There's a fine line between intent to injure and trying to shake someone up so they think twice the next time.

It is a fine line which Chara crossed, and should have resulted in a suspension.

[Big Johnny69]

Chara chased Max around and did everything he could, slashed his ankle to try and get Patch to go...who would go Chara?? not many...Patch used his mouth and Chara took his number for sure, as all players do, they get you one way or another......did he intend to run Patch into the divider ....NO QUESTION...anyone that thinks otherwise is delusional.....

I'd like to see you prove it. Until someone can prove Chara's intent, to me, it's just a hockey play gone horribley bad.

[Big Johnny69]

Intent is only one factor. If intent could be proven, Chara should be thrown out of the league and sent to jail. Setting aside that, the fact is he committed an illegal play, which resulted in a major injury. He deserves to be suspended for that alone. If he doesn't make the illegal play, Pac doesn't get hurt and Chara should be held accountable for that.

By your theory then, if a player follows through with a slap shot (or on the backswing) and hits another player in the face and cuts them severly (accidently a la Bryan Berard) they should be suspended??? And don't go and say it's a totally different situation. By your definition above, the stick to the face is also an illegal play, so it's not apples to oranges.

Chara was penalized for his "illegal play" by being assessed 5 mins (the first time I've ever seen a major interference penalty called) and tossed from the game.

[Shivas Irons]

Every time Chara lies he gets just a little bit taller...

[jeffc]

I agree, I can only look at the video evidence, and to me, it looks intentional.

There is no way in the world that Chara is going to admit he meant to direct Pac into the stanchion, so to ask him if it was done on purpose is just plain silly. To think Chara is of such fine character he wouldn't possibly lie is naive.

IMO the NHL gaffed badly on this one.

To me it looks like a garden variety rub out along the boards - until he hits the stanchion. But I'm not a Habs fan.

I actually think the NHL got it right. And I don't often think they do.

[spackler]

By your theory then, if a player follows through with a slap shot (or on the backswing) and hits another player in the face and cuts them severly (accidently a la Bryan Berard) they should be suspended??? And don't go and say it's a totally different situation. By your definition above, the stick to the face is also an illegal play, so it's not apples to oranges.

Sure Hossa should've been suspended, you're supposed to keep your stick below your shoulders aren't you? Hossa was careless with his stick, Berard was standing straight up. That sort of punishment would certainly send a message that you have to keep your stick under control.

[jonf]

Sure Hossa should've been suspended, you're supposed to keep your stick below your shoulders aren't you? Hossa was careless with his stick, Berard was standing straight up. That sort of punishment would certainly send a message that you have to keep your stick under control.

I was sure you were going to go somewhere else with your response. The difference between Hossa and Chara is that Hossa's play was legal. There is no penalty for a high stick if its a follow through on a shot. The injury to Pacioretty was the result of an illlegal play.

The problem with punishing based on the injury is that in a sport like hockey (or any sport for that matter) injuries happen that are not solely the result of an illegal play. Punishments based purely on the injury are unwieldy and impractical in the long term. You'll end up with people getting large suspensions for pretty innocuous plays. What if there's a too many men on the ice penalty and the 6th man makes a legal hit that results in an injury...is that a suspension. What if a player gets tripped, and when he's going down, his head knocks on another players knee? suspension?

If you don't want people to get hit into the stanchion, you need to either remove it, or make a rule outlawing hits into the stanchion (just as hits from behind are outlawed because they are dangerous).

Furthermore, interference is essentially the equivalent of a holding penalty in football. If there was something inherently violent in Chara's action, he would have been assessed a boarding penalty, and there would be a better argument for supplementary discipline. The fact is, what he actually did was pretty harmless. The result was bad, but the actual hit was nothing.

[spackler]

I was sure you were going to go somewhere else with your response. The difference between Hossa and Chara is that Hossa's play was legal. There is no penalty for a high stick if its a follow through on a shot. The injury to Pacioretty was the result of an illlegal play.

The problem with punishing based on the injury is that in a sport like hockey (or any sport for that matter) injuries happen that are not solely the result of an illegal play. Punishments based purely on the injury are unwieldy and impractical in the long term. You'll end up with people getting large suspensions for pretty innocuous plays. What if there's a too many men on the ice penalty and the 6th man makes a legal hit that results in an injury...is that a suspension. What if a player gets tripped, and when he's going down, his head knocks on another players knee? suspension?

If you don't want people to get hit into the stanchion, you need to either remove it, or make a rule outlawing hits into the stanchion (just as hits from behind are outlawed because they are dangerous).

Furthermore, interference is essentially the equivalent of a holding penalty in football. If there was something inherently violent in Chara's action, he would have been assessed a boarding penalty, and there would be a better argument for supplementary discipline. The fact is, what he actually did was pretty harmless. The result was bad, but the actual hit was nothing.

I thought it was an illegal play based on the fact that his stick was above his shoulders, regardless of whether he was following through on a shot or not. If it's not illegal, then fine, no suspension. I am not for suspending people for random injuries that happen in the normal course of play, but the Chara hit was not that.

[jeffc]

I am not for suspending people for random injuries that happen in the normal course of play, but the Chara hit was not that.

interesting since that's exactly what I thought it was.

[jonf]

I could be wrong, but I am fairly sure that a follow through on a shot doesn't qualify as a high stick.

[Shivas Irons]

Heatley joined in the foray throwing a nasty elbow to the head of Steve Ott. I believe he was given a 2 minute penalty

[Colby]

I thought it was an illegal play based on the fact that his stick was above his shoulders, regardless of whether he was following through on a shot or not. If it's not illegal, then fine, no suspension. I am not for suspending people for random injuries that happen in the normal course of play, but the Chara hit was not that.

If having your stick above your shoulders was a penalty, then a penalty would be called instead of just a play stopage when a puck is hit by a high-stick. It's not a penalty to have your stick above your shoulders, it's hitting a person on the head with it. Rule 60 - http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26352

60.1 High-sticking - A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players and goalkeepers must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.
60.2 Minor Penalty - Any contact made by a stick on an opponent above the shoulders is prohibited and a minor penalty shall be imposed.

[GoingLow]

By your theory then, if a player follows through with a slap shot (or on the backswing) and hits another player in the face and cuts them severly (accidently a la Bryan Berard) they should be suspended??? And don't go and say it's a totally different situation. By your definition above, the stick to the face is also an illegal play, so it's not apples to oranges.

Chara was penalized for his "illegal play" by being assessed 5 mins (the first time I've ever seen a major interference penalty called) and tossed from the game.

That analagy is delusional

[Big Johnny69]

That analagy is delusional

I'd be willing to bet you are a Habs fan. And it's not delusional, it's the exact same thing. Both are penalties, and both were called accordingly.

[Kiwi]

Just a couple of quick thoughts...IMO Intent cannot be part of the equation. How can you prove what was in a person's mind? Criminal Courts struggle with this daily. Can't tell me the hockey people are any smarter. Seems to me they have dealt with similar issues in the past with a blanket policy regarding sticks and cuts. There was a rash of incidents over a season or two (as with the concussion situation) and they instituted a rule that made it a penalty regardless of the "intent". Basically they said you are responsible for your stick. So, tell me why they cannot construct something like this for head shots? The NFL seem to have at least attempted some concrete solution. Finally, Bettman's (read the GMs and Owners) five point plan is a stall and a joke. Unfortunately the NHLPA is limp and will not or cannot defend it's constituents. And the fans keep filling the seats...

[spackler]

I'd be willing to bet you are a Habs fan. And it's not delusional, it's the exact same thing. Both are penalties, and both were called accordingly.

60.1 High-sticking - A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players and goalkeepers must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.
60.2 Minor Penalty - Any contact made by a stick on an opponent above the shoulders is prohibited and a minor penalty shall be imposed.

Johnston!

[nokids]

I think everything that could be said has been said, more than once, so what's the verdict?