Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

[SteveO]

Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

Nothing will happen (as in retaliation) because tDon will have the players' heads in the right spots, correct?

Hockey players don't forget unnecessary and malicious hits. It will be in the back of their minds, and if there is any retaliation I suspect it will be legal and powerful.

[burd]

Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

I've been following college hockey for 25 years, I can't recall an available player not playing because he did something wrong against team X and the coach didn't want to rankle team X's feathers at the next meeting. Any recollections of this happening?

I don't think Paukovitch ever sat after breaking Bina's neck.

[Almington]

Lucia: The hit that we saw on Novak is a hit that needs to be taken out of the game.

Lucia: The idea of hitting is to separate a player from a puck, it’s not to destroy somebody.

Lucia: If you’re a parent sitting in the stands, who wants to see their son get hit like that? That’s not what you play the game for.

I don't believe that Witichow's intent was to hurt Novak, but it was simply to deliver a spectacular hit as a way to energize both the fans and his teammates. I suspect that he had a hockey reason behind making the hit. I doubt he even considered the possible negative outcomes at all of doing so. That's what needs to change to eliminate that type of hit, to make the hockey penalty stiff enough that you don't have to consider the non-hockey negative outcomes at all to realize that type of hit just isn't worth trying.

Checking from behind should carry an even stiffer hockey related penalty because the probability of major injury is significantly higher. The issue comes when the officials refuse to make the call out of fear of being wrong.

[mnstate0fhockey]

I don't believe that Witichow's intent was to hurt Novak, but it was simply to deliver a spectacular hit as a way to energize both the fans and his teammates. I suspect that he had a hockey reason behind making the hit. I doubt he even considered the possible negative outcomes at all of doing so. That's what needs to change to eliminate that type of hit, to make the hockey penalty stiff enough that you don't have to consider the non-hockey negative outcomes at all to realize that type of hit just isn't worth trying.

Checking from behind should carry an even stiffer hockey related penalty because the probability of major injury is significantly higher. The issue comes when the officials refuse to make the call out of fear of being wrong.

Good post.

[omahasioux1]

Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

#Gophers Tommy Novak skated on his own a little bit today and is back to his baseline for the concussion protocol testing.

Novak's next step is to practice without contact, will evaluate Fri whether he's ready to play, it's up to the training staff not coaches.

Lucia indicated that the trainer thinks when knocked out it's a quicker recovery, 'brain reboots,' rather than if conscious after impact.

Lucia is showing his players the video of the boarding, check from behind, and open ice hit to remind players to be accountable.

Lucia said It's up to the players to be respectful of the game and be respectful of your opponent.

Lucia: The hit that we saw on Novak is a hit that needs to be taken out of the game.

Lucia: The idea of hitting is to separate a player from a puck, it’s not to destroy somebody.

Lucia: If you’re a parent sitting in the stands, who wants to see their son get hit like that? That’s not what you play the game for.

Anybody have a link to watch the hit?

[mnstate0fhockey]

Anybody have a link to watch the hit?

You can see both hits HERE

[D2D]

Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

Just throw this out there: using Wittchow as an example, what do folks think about the idea of the Big Ten assessing his additional two game suspension for when Wisconsin next plays the Gophers, rather than the next two games Wisconsin plays on the calendar? In such a scenario if the offending player is a senior and there are no games left vs. Minnesota, his suspension would be assessed for the first round of the playoffs (when it really counts for something). As it is now, Wittchow sits for relatively meaningless two game non-conference series against Alaska, then one vs. Michigan where they have little chance anyway. Meanwhile a player like Novak sits out for who knows how long.

[The Rube]

Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

Just throw this out there: using Wittchow as an example, what do folks think about the idea of the Big Ten assessing his additional two game suspension for when Wisconsin next plays the Gophers, rather than the next two games Wisconsin plays on the calendar? In such a scenario if the offending player is a senior and there are no games left vs. Minnesota, his suspension would be assessed for the first round of the playoffs (when it really counts for something). As it is now, Wittchow sits for relatively meaningless two game non-conference series against Alaska, then one vs. Michigan. Meanwhile a player like Novak sits out for who knows how long.

Bad precedent. What if, by chance, they were playing MI or PSU next weekend? Or if the old WCHA was still intact, they were playing UND? Better to have a general "next (x) games" rule in place.

[D2D]

Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

Bad precedent. What if, by chance, they were playing MI or PSU next weekend? Or if the old WCHA was still intact, they were playing UND? Better to have a general "next (x) games" rule in place.

As it stands now the timing of the offending players team's schedule is everything, and there's no way to determine how severe the penalty of a suspension of "x" number of games is in advance. But in most cases (including this one) I think the B1G's suspension would send a clearer message to the Badgers (and other teams) if Wittchow had to sit out the next Badger/Gopher series at Mariucci. His automatic one game suspension (based on the referee's game misconduct call) would still apply to when Wisconsin plays their next game, according to their calendar.

Again, just a thought...

[The Rube]

Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

As it stands now the timing of the offending players team's schedule is everything, and there's no way to determine how severe the penalty of a suspension of "x" number of games is in advance. But in most cases (including this one) I think the B1G's suspension would send a clearer message to the Badgers (and other teams) if Wittchow had to sit out the next Badger/Gopher series at Mariucci. His automatic one game suspension (based on the referee's game misconduct call) would still apply to when Wisconsin plays their next game, according to their calendar.

Again, just a thought...

Ok, so let's say he did this against a team like Army or AIC...and the next two weekends they were playing MN and MI...who cares if he misses games against Army/AIC? This is what I'm getting at.

[D2D]

Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

Ok, so let's say he did this against a team like Army or AIC...and the next two weekends they were playing MN and MI...who cares if he misses games against Army/AIC? This is what I'm getting at.

Gotcha, and as I said "the timing of the offending players team's schedule is everything". Just looking for ways to making the suspensions really count for something. In this instance, given Wisconsin's position in the regular season standings, the suspensions really won't amount to much.

[The Rube]

Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

Gotcha, and as I said "the timing of the offending players team's schedule is everything". Just looking for ways to making the suspensions really count for something.

And if you went with first round of playoffs....what if they were playing OSU? Or in the NCAA's, someone like Bentley?

[D2D]

Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

And if you went with first round of playoffs....what if they were playing OSU?

They would be almost guaranteed to lose anyway, with or without Wittchow's services!

Or in the NCAA's, someone like Bentley?

That would for sure guarantee a loss, LOL.

[Almington]

Just throw this out there: using Wittchow as an example, what do folks think about the idea of the Big Ten assessing his additional two game suspension for when Wisconsin next plays the Gophers, rather than the next two games Wisconsin plays on the calendar? In such a scenario if the offending player is a senior and there are no games left vs. Minnesota, his suspension would be assessed for the first round of the playoffs (when it really counts for something). As it is now, Wittchow sits for relatively meaningless two game non-conference series against Alaska, then one vs. Michigan where they have little chance anyway. Meanwhile a player like Novak sits out for who knows how long.

I think MN should be given the option if they are playing again this season, otherwise the penalty is applied during the next conference game. Infractions resulting from offences occurring during non-conference game would be served during next game(s).

[Stauber1]

Re: Minnesota @ Wisconsin: 1/22 & 1/23

Just throw this out there: using Wittchow as an example, what do folks think about the idea of the Big Ten assessing his additional two game suspension for when Wisconsin next plays the Gophers, rather than the next two games Wisconsin plays on the calendar? In such a scenario if the offending player is a senior and there are no games left vs. Minnesota, his suspension would be assessed for the first round of the playoffs (when it really counts for something). As it is now, Wittchow sits for relatively meaningless two game non-conference series against Alaska, then one vs. Michigan where they have little chance anyway. Meanwhile a player like Novak sits out for who knows how long.

Too many screwy scenarios, and too much subjectivity in determining which games are more important.

Just make the standard supplemental discipline 2-3 games rather than 1, and for exceptionally egregious hits or repeat offenders 4-5, and we would see incidences drop significantly.

Yeah, it could be a brutal bit of medicine to take, but if people are serious about this it is the most effective (and I think worthwhile) course of action.

And for the sake of mitigating claim of bias in this particular instance, I said at the time and still say Seeler should have gotten more than 1 game for his hit in the St. Cloud series.

EDIT: I'll also note that I don't think suspensions should be seen as paying retribution to the team who suffers the hit; I think it should be thought of and implemented simply as deterrent.