Kronwall hit on Havlat

[jeffc]

Can you not hit anyone these days without getting a penalty? Interference? Give me a break, Havlat was playing the puck, gets hit, knocked cold and Kronwall gets a game misconduct. Ridiculous.

[jonf]

worst period of reffing in playoff history. 5 and a game for interference? When it's not even interference? then you don't call a borderline trip on the Zetterberg breakaway, and back the otherway, you call that hold on Erikson, and follow it up with a no call on a high stick to Stuart? unbelievable.

[faldo]

That's why i don't watch the NHL anymore.

Give me the Mem. Cup any day. That's Hockey and it's on 27 right now!!

[Weazl]

Was a clean hit with no penalty call originally, WTF????

[Foddz]

They could have at least called a penalty that made sense or was halfway plausible given the situation - elbowing, charging, roughing...

It becomes clear from the way this game is being called that the refs have an agenda to see Chicago win

[3Jack]

That's why i don't watch the NHL anymore.

Give me the Mem. Cup any day. That's Hockey and it's on 27 right now!!

So you're ok with David Branch and his crackdown on headshots in the CHL?

That aside, I was wondering last night why the Memorial Cup isn't a bigger deal than it currently is... You'd think that the tournament that decides Major Junior hockey's biggest prize would be akin to what March Madness or the BCS is in the US, but it just isn't.

We're weird.

[mpare]

I just looked at the hit ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KJm-qcnnC0 ), and its not apparent to me why this was a penalty, much less a major no-no. And some of you think that the rules of golf are complex.

[Indio]

worst period of reffing in playoff history. 5 and a game for interference? When it's not even interference? then you don't call a borderline trip on the Zetterberg breakaway, and back the otherway, you call that hold on Erikson, and follow it up with a no call on a high stick to Stuart? unbelievable.

Jon, look at the replay that Mike posted, Havalat never touched the puck and he was hit, a hard but clean hit IMHO so technically it was interference..... but definitely not a major penalty.

[jonf]

That's not interference, even though the rules may say otherwise. They say he is not in possession because he hasn't touched it, but the way he stepped over the puck to receive it was a 'hockey move' (to steal a football term). He turns to see where the puck is, and skates over top of it to get it up to his stick. While he doesn't make contact, the move he makes is as good as playing the puck. The interference rule is intended to stop people from preventing others from getting to the puck. Well, havlat got to the puck and made a play on it.

There are two ways to make a play at that puck for Kronwall: one is to poke at the stick in his feet and risk a tripping penalty, the other is a gorgeous clean hit. He chose the latter and got a penalty, only because the ref felt bad that Havlat was unconscious. No arm went up at any point, even 10 seconds after the hit. Once he realized havlat was injured, boom, Kronwall is suddenly out of the game. Horrible call in every way.

[Indio]

That's not interference, even though the rules may say otherwise.

I think if I were a lawyer, it is at this point that I would say 'I rest my case your honor' What I was saying is that technically it was a penalty.... and I believe that is what you just said. I don,t have a big problem with him calling a minor on the play.... but not a major and a game.

the other is a gorgeous clean hit. Horrible call in every way.

Can't argue with that, I didn't see that as a major at all....

[Chambokl]

Jonf... I totally agree with you. Just an awful call.

Just thought we should mention the 2 clowns that were suppose to be doing the game: Dave Jackson and Dan O'Halloran. Hope they are done for the play-off...

[jonf]

Ya, I guess what I'm trying to say is that this is one of those occasions where actually following the letter of the law betrays the original intent of it, which is to ensure a player without the puck has a chance of retrieving it. In this case, he had retrieved it without yet touching it. The fact that it was in his feet rather than on his stick should be an insignificant detail. He made a hockey move to receive the puck, which in my books, means he has possession.

[jeffc]

Jon, look at the replay that Mike posted, Havalat never touched the puck and he was hit, a hard but clean hit IMHO so technically it was interference..... but definitely not a major penalty.

he was playing the puck, it was between his feet. did he have his stick on it no. It was not interference. Hrudey, Milbury and Scott Oake all said it was a brutal call.

[Hacker]

Like it or not it was interference, he did NOT touch the puck......same rigid interpretation as a lot of the golf scenarios that we discuss here.

As for the Major Junior argument, if that happened in the Mem Cup it would be 5 minutes, a game a probably a suspension because it was certainly a head shot to boot. It was a shoulder to the head, not an elbow but it he did contact the head first

Not saying I agree with it, but it is what it is

[jeffc]

Like it or not it was interference, he did NOT touch the puck......same rigid interpretation as a lot of the golf scenarios that we discuss here.

As for the Major Junior argument, if that happened in the Mem Cup it would be 5 minutes, a game a probably a suspension because it was certainly a head shot to boot. It was a shoulder to the head, not an elbow but it he did contact the head first

Not saying I agree with it, but it is what it is

golf is not hockey. He was playing the puck, not skating nowhere near it. what was Kronwall to do, stand at the blueline as havlat gets the puck and skates around him? he made a good play, anticipated the timing and made a good hit.

Let's say for argument sake Havlat did kick the puck forward with his skate slightly? Still interference? Still a bad hit?

Heck the refs didn't even raise an arm at the time and made the call after the fact and all the announcers agreed it was a bad call.

[Indio]

he was playing the puck, it was between his feet. did he have his stick on it no. It was not interference. Hrudey, Milbury and Scott Oake all said it was a brutal call.

I agree that it was a brutal call... no doubt in my mind but I am under the impression that the player has to 'touch' the puck for it not to be called interference... close is only good in horse shoes, hand grenade throwing and sex, not hockey

[jonf]

Like it or not it was interference, he did NOT touch the puck......same rigid interpretation as a lot of the golf scenarios that we discuss here.

As for the Major Junior argument, if that happened in the Mem Cup it would be 5 minutes, a game a probably a suspension because it was certainly a head shot to boot. It was a shoulder to the head, not an elbow but it he did contact the head first

Not saying I agree with it, but it is what it is

It was not the mem cup. There is no rule against headshots in the NHL. This was a terrible call.

And hockey, unlike golf, has much more room for interpretation around the rules. I think anyone who sees that play recognizes that in a situation like that, the technicalities of the rule do not accurately reflect the reality on the ice. In such situations in the NHL, the refs have the discretion to proceed as they see fit. The ref's decision to deem that interference was misguided, and 100% related to the player's injury, NOT the play on the ice, which drew NO reaction from any of the officials. Reaction only came when they realized Havlat was injured, at which point they struggled to find any logical reason to call a penalty. They knew they could not call charging or boarding as it was a perfectly clean hit. So, they went with interference. And 5 and a game for interference does not make sense. It doesn't even exist. If anything, you should give him 2 for interference and a game misconduct for intent to injure. While that call would be wrong, it would at least be an honest reflection of the ruling that was made. 5 and a game for interference defies all logic. pathetic.

[Hacker]

Sorry guys you can't have it both ways.......the rules say it was interference so it was interference just because the refs call some and don't call others doesn't change the fact that it was a penalty according to the rules. The fact that in golf the rules are enforced 99.99% of the time as opposed to hockey which is a freaking joke when it comes to enforcing their rules is a moot point.

And for the record, Brett Hull's Stanley Cup Winning Goal was NO GOAL!!!

[Hacker]

Start watching the clip at about 1:48 or so, try pausing it just before contact. Kronwall actually leaves his feet a split second before he makes contact - perfect timing on his part. The call could have easily been charging instead of interference.

But again, this hit could happen 10 times and you'd probably get 7 different interpretations from the zebras - that is what is frustrating as hell about hockey these days, there is no consistency in officiating........well, except for anytime a player gets his stick horizontal, that is a penalty regardless of whether he actually impedes the opposing player or not

[jonf]

Sorry guys you can't have it both ways.......the rules say it was interference so it was interference just because the refs call some and don't call others doesn't change the fact that it was a penalty according to the rules. The fact that in golf the rules are enforced 99.99% of the time as opposed to hockey which is a freaking joke when it comes to enforcing their rules is a moot point.

And for the record, Brett Hull's Stanley Cup Winning Goal was NO GOAL!!!

Tne nature of hockey, however, is that all officiating calls (with the exception of a very few) are discretionary. Certain things are always the case, but where most penalties are concerned there is a huge element of judgement/discretion on the part of the refs. Any good ref would have watched that play and recognized that as Havlat came back towards the puck, and then turned, taking it into his skates, he was in essence taking control of the puck. At 1:52 in that video, he kicks his left skate forward 3 inches to allow the puck to pass between his skates and to his stick. At that moment, he has essentially made a possession move. While the letter of the rules say he was not in possession, discretion and experience should tell any ref that Havlat was in control, and not being interfered with.

To me what is much more important in this case is that the ONLY reason a call was made was that there was an injury on the play. The refs panicked and made a terrible call, because a player got injured. And, again, why 5 for interference? You can't get five minutes for getting in the way. You can maybe get five minutes for the method with which you get in the way, but then the call should be 2 for interference and 5 for charging, or whatever. 5 for interference is purely illogical.

Kronwall's feet don't leave the ice until he has made contact with Havlat. His momentum carries him up and through Havlat, but there is no jump. Clean hit.

[justsomeguy]

The nature of hockey, however, is that all officiating calls (with the exception of a very few) are discretionary.

They certainly are. Very few calls are made without an argument from somebody. But ultimately the referees are employed by the league and make calls according to the league's guidelines. The players, coaches, media, fans and even the officials themselves may not agree with all of those guidelines, but that's the way it is.

To me what is much more important in this case is that the ONLY reason a call was made was that there was an injury on the play. The refs panicked and made a terrible call, because a player got injured. And, again, why 5 for interference? You can't get five minutes for getting in the way. You can maybe get five minutes for the method with which you get in the way, but then the call should be 2 for interference and 5 for charging, or whatever. 5 for interference is purely illogical.

Almost every penalty in the book has the option for 5 minutes and a game if a player is injured. Just because you haven't seen it called before doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Kronwall's feet don't leave the ice until he has made contact with Havlat. His momentum carries him up and through Havlat, but there is no jump. Clean hit.

IMHO any deliberate blow to the head is NOT a clean hit. That has already been recognized in junior hockey, and the NHL is slowly starting to realize it as well. I definately would have called a penalty on that play - probably a major for roughing.

[jeffc]

so the announcers are all wrong? I'd like to think they know a bit more about hockey than we do. To quote Bob McKenzie in his column: "I haven't found anybody who doesn't have a vested interest (ie. the Blackhawks or the referee who made the call) that really believes that was a five-minute major for interference, not according to the NHL rules".

[LBH]

Kronwall clearly jumped to hit Havlat IMO - this was indeed a 5 min major and a game but not for interference??? Are you kidding me? 5-min and a game for charging or attempt to injure but not for interference.

[jonf]

IMHO any deliberate blow to the head is NOT a clean hit. That has already been recognized in junior hockey, and the NHL is slowly starting to realize it as well. I definately would have called a penalty on that play - probably a major for roughing.

Well, as it stands, there is no rule against hits to the head in the NHL, so it is irrelevant that such a rule exists in the CHL and the IIHF. By NHL standards, that was a gorgeous, clean hit. Whether a hit to the head rule should exist is another matter altogether.

[jonf]

Kronwall clearly jumped to hit Havlat IMO - this was indeed a 5 min major and a game but not for interference??? Are you kidding me? 5-min and a game for charging or attempt to injure but not for interference.

I really have to disagree on this. There's no jump. His feet leave the ice slightly after contact, but that is after contact. This happens almost every time a player commits a hard hit. Plus, I can't tell you the number of times players leap into their checks against the boards, and its rarely called. Some form of consistency other than "oh crap, he's hurt, better make a call" is sorely needed in officiating. How is a player supposed to know what to do on the ice? As Kronwall said, if he's presented with the exact same situation again, he'll do the exact same thing.

I also think that if this is any player but Kronwall, this probably isn't called. Kronwall is known for these hits at the blueline, and often he does leave his feet. On this occasion, however, he doesn't. But due to his reputation, the assumption is he must have jumped.

[justsomeguy]

Well, as it stands, there is no rule against hits to the head in the NHL, so it is irrelevant that such a rule exists in the CHL and the IIHF. By NHL standards, that was a gorgeous, clean hit. Whether a hit to the head rule should exist is another matter altogether.

You are correct that there is no specific penalty against hits to the head in the NHL - but the guidelines for roughing are certainly broad enough to justify calling a roughing penalty when it happens.

Personally I don't agree with the way interference is now called in the NHL, but I've seen this call made on this kind of play many times before. The fact that this particular hit was borderline roughing, borderline charging, borderline elbowing and even borderline interference hardly fits the description of a "gorgeous, clean hit".

I think there are actually very few people that have a problem with the fact that a penalty was assessed on the play - the debate seems to be whether it should have been a major and a game or just a minor, and whether interference was the correct call.

[Hacker]

so the announcers are all wrong? I'd like to think they know a bit more about hockey than we do. To quote Bob McKenzie in his column: "I haven't found anybody who doesn't have a vested interest (ie. the Blackhawks or the referee who made the call) that really believes that was a five-minute major for interference, not according to the NHL rules".

The announcers opinion are no more credible than any expressed here IMO. They review everything in super slow mo etc. etc. etc. Milbury especially doesn't get a say, I mean this is the same guy who went into the stands and attacked a player with shoe for God's Sake

These are professional refs who made the call so they obviously thought it warranted what they gave it. Was I the only one that heard during the intermission before the OT started that when asked the NHL supported the 5 minute penalty and game ejection saying that it was clearly Intent to Injure. This was actually the first that I heard of the incident as I was putting in "Quality Time" with Mrs. Hacker last night

[jonf]

When was the last time the NHL has been anything but supportive of a ref's call, no matter how terrible? They fine coaches for criticizing referees in public, for god's sake. They have a vested interest in supporting every single call a ref makes.

As experts, the commentators are in a much better position than most of us to make a judgement. They are also in a much better position to do so than the NHL, who will go to extremes to come up with a rationalization for a bad penalty, rather than admit that, potentially, one of their officials made an error.

I should also note that it was you who pointed out that his feet left the ice a fraction if you slowed down the tape and paused it at the perfect moment. So, you're reviewing it in super slo mo in order to determine that it was a charge.

[jeffc]

The announcers opinion are no more credible than any expressed here IMO. They review everything in super slow mo etc. etc. etc. Milbury especially doesn't get a say, I mean this is the same guy who went into the stands and attacked a player with shoe for God's Sake

These are professional refs who made the call so they obviously thought it warranted what they gave it. Was I the only one that heard during the intermission before the OT started that when asked the NHL supported the 5 minute penalty and game ejection saying that it was clearly Intent to Injure. This was actually the first that I heard of the incident as I was putting in "Quality Time" with Mrs. Hacker last night

The NHL will always support the refs. I would expect them to back them up on this. With respect to the refs, ya, they gotta know what they are doing. Not one of them put their arm up when the play happened. Only after Havlat was lying on the ground did they deem it a penalty. So much for you theory about the slow mo. The refs never caught it at normal speed either.

[Chambokl]

Hacker said : "Was I the only one that heard during the intermission before the OT started that when asked the NHL supported the 5 minute penalty and game ejection saying that it was clearly Intent to Injure."

Hacker, I heard that too...but wonder who from the NHL said that. The NHL came out today and said there would be no suspension. I will try to verify to see if these 2 refs do another game in the post season... maybe they are the one that will be suspended.