PDA

View Full Version : Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

kdilks
11-02-2009, 07:45 PM
For what it's worth, Carman was called for a penalty in the second period Friday that was almost identical to the play in question, with the difference being that Carman hit the guy in the body and not the head.

Carman very clearly had his arms up and hit the guy in the face. It was a textbook elbowing penalty.

HarleyMC
11-02-2009, 09:20 PM
speaking of rookie faux pas.:p

I'm an urban (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fopaux) academic was, you're just a dusty academic rube.:p ;)

ScoobyDoo
11-02-2009, 09:26 PM
Carman very clearly had his arms up and hit the guy in the face. It was a textbook elbowing penalty.

And the Seawolf clearly went head hunting.

kdilks
11-02-2009, 10:00 PM
And the Seawolf clearly went head hunting.

The Seawolf went to lay a big hit, Leddy is the one that put/kept his head down in a vulnerable position. If the rules were strictly enforced as written, anybody could draw a penalty by suddenly putting their head down as they're about to get hit. That's why there's generally a discrepancy in enforcement between hits like Carman's, where the offender goes for the head instead of the body, and hits like the one on Leddy, where the person getting hit puts their head in the way of their body.

HarleyMC
11-02-2009, 10:16 PM
The problem with this is:

A) He didn't charge..
B) He didn't leave his feet to make contact
C) He didn't lead with his elbow or forarm

So how can you classify "intent to injur" when there are no precursers to point to a malicous hit.

Also, everyone is talking about the hit being late as he'd already shot the puck...and? Because the player shot the puck, a late hit it does not make.

Let's see what the official ruling is as a result of the video review. My guess based upon Lucia's comments is it will not be ruled as an "intent to injure". However, IMO a suspension is highly probable, even if at the very least in an effort to remove any positive reinforcement associated with aggressive and dangerous blows to the head of that nature.

It wasn't that long ago that Tom Pohl lay motionless on the ice after taking an elbow to the head and subsequently hitting his head on the boards. His college hockey career ended that night with a skull fracture. Let's not forget these are college athletes not professionals. They have bright future ahead of them. Dangerous hits to the head in college hockey, as Don Lucia firmly stated, should always be enforced as a "zero tolerance" policy.

Koho
11-02-2009, 10:24 PM
The Seawolf went to lay a big hit, Leddy is the one that put/kept his head down in a vulnerable position. If the rules were strictly enforced as written, anybody could draw a penalty by suddenly putting their head down as they're about to get hit. That's why there's generally a discrepancy in enforcement between hits like Carman's, where the offender goes for the head instead of the body, and hits like the one on Leddy, where the person getting hit puts their head in the way of their body.

So Leddy put his head in the way of the hit and was therefore responsible? It is the fault of the guy who got hit? So a guy facing the boards, bent over, who gets knocked head first into the boards should get a stupidity penalty? After all, the guy had to hit him somewhere, as long as he didn't leave his feet, charge or lead with an elbow, of course. (Assuming, of course, his neck isn't broken and career is over. Although in that case, I suppose a team member could serve it.)

In other words, you don't "lay a big hit" if the player is so vulnerable that injury is real possibility.

HarleyMC
11-02-2009, 10:47 PM
The Seawolf went to lay a big hit, Leddy is the one that put/kept his head down in a vulnerable position. If the rules were strictly enforced as written, anybody could draw a penalty by suddenly putting their head down as they're about to get hit. That's why there's generally a discrepancy in enforcement between hits like Carman's, where the offender goes for the head instead of the body, and hits like the one on Leddy, where the person getting hit puts their head in the way of their body.

If you recall Wiley's (MSU) hit on Tom Pohl, Tommy was not upright at the point of impact either. It still resulted in a game suspension because of the injury incurred.

Franklen
11-02-2009, 11:10 PM
FWIW - Other than contact to the head, there is little similarity between the two hits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ7iR7hWqQY

I don't like hits to the head either, but the Pohl injury isn't a very good comparison.

kdilks
11-02-2009, 11:17 PM
So Leddy put his head in the way of the hit and was therefore responsible? It is the fault of the guy who got hit? So a guy facing the boards, bent over, who gets knocked head first into the boards should get a stupidity penalty? After all, the guy had to hit him somewhere, as long as he didn't leave his feet, charge or lead with an elbow, of course. (Assuming, of course, his neck isn't broken and career is over. Although in that case, I suppose a team member could serve it.)

In other words, you don't "lay a big hit" if the player is so vulnerable that injury is real possibility.

Injury is a real possibility on any hit.

If somebody has their back to the boards like that, they're like that when you're lining them up, and it's not a situation that can change that suddenly. So in that case, it's ok to put the responsibility on the player making the hit.

It only takes a fraction of a second to move your head up or down. What if Leddy had his head up the whole time, and only dropped it right after the shot when the UAA player was about to make contact? I don't think you can make the hitter responsible for something the person receiving the hit can change in a split second, which is why the responsibility ultimately lies on all players to always keep their heads up.

HarleyMC
11-02-2009, 11:18 PM
In response to another poster's remarks on Leddy placing his head in the way of the hit and on the basis of following criterion: 1) Tommy Pohl was not upright at the time of the hit, 2) it was a blow to the head, 3) it resulted in an injury and, 4) it resulted in a game suspension, it's an accurate comparision.

61ache
11-03-2009, 12:34 AM
In response to another poster's remarks on Leddy placing his head in the way of the hit and on the basis of following criterion: 1) Tommy Pohl was not upright at the time of the hit, 2) it was a blow to the head, 3) it resulted in an injury and, 4) it resulted in a game suspension, it's an accurate comparision.


Those two hits aren't even the same animal, much less a good comparison.

Tom Pohl was along the boards, hit borderline from behind, an elbow, the player was suspended because he received a major, game misconduct and a DQ, not because the league reviewed the play.

The other was an open ice hit, leading with his shoulder, was viewed by not one but two refs and no penalty was called. They're about as different as different gets.

The Rube
11-03-2009, 01:15 AM
Those two hits aren't even the same animal, much less a good comparison.

Tom Pohl was along the boards, hit borderline from behind, an elbow, the player was suspended because he received a major, game misconduct and a DQ, not because the league reviewed the play.

The other was an open ice hit, leading with his shoulder, was viewed by not one but two refs and no penalty was called. They're about as different as different gets.

I have to agree here. I've read the articles, heard the comments, watched the video, and have seen the still picture.

Leddy's hit was a result of someone trying to level the guy flat-out, but not malicious in intent, if that makes sense. He wasn't out to hurt Leddy, but he wanted Leddy to pay for the head-down mistake.

That being said, according to the rule, he should be penalized. And I will say that intent (or lack thereof) should be taken into consideration. It wasn't a Brashear/Bertuzzi/etc incident. It was a very hard hit, that unfortunately resulted in an injury.

Some may ask, well if Leddy didn't get hurt would you say the same thing? I would say yes, if only by going on the rule of contact to the head. The head/brain is just something you don't wanna mess with. Way too dangerous.

HarleyMC
11-03-2009, 03:49 AM
Those two hits aren't even the same animal, much less a good comparison.

Tom Pohl was along the boards, hit borderline from behind, an elbow, the player was suspended because he received a major, game misconduct and a DQ, not because the league reviewed the play.

The other was an open ice hit, leading with his shoulder, was viewed by not one but two refs and no penalty was called. They're about as different as different gets.

I find it interesting that you conveniently downgraded the hit to "borderline". The initial hit was clearly an intentional check (elbow) to the head, confirmed through league sources. The point is it resulted in an injury and that's why the additional penalties were assessed.

Both the Leddy and Pohl hits have the following "GENERAL" similarities (again):

1) blow to the head
2) head down at the time of the hit (see the reference below)
3) resulted in serious injury
4) game suspension (pending review in Leddy's case)

That's it. Go back and look at the context of my initial response to another poster. You are on a bunny trail my friend. The response was never intended to be a formal equivalence, only a general example of Tommy Pohl's body position (head down) at the point of impact which still resulted in an injury and suspension.


Wiley (http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/16802206.html), a sophomore forward who played for Bloomington Kennedy, received a major penalty and a game disqualification. McLeod said Wiley certainly was trying to check Pohl. But Pohl's head seemed to be down a little bit, McLeod said, and it did not appear to be a malicious hit.

Generally speaking (for emphasis :D ), the comparison above is accurate.


I have to agree here.

Did you even follow the points of discussion or were you sleeping in class again?:p

kdilks
11-03-2009, 04:22 AM
The hit on Pohl is more of an issue of checking from behind than it is contact to the head. It's not like the initial contact to the head knocked him out, I'm pretty sure it was the face-plant into the boards without a helmet. Same hit happens in open ice, there's no injury, and the most that comes of it is possibly a 2 minute minor for elbowing. You could have very well had the same result if he was hit in the side and turned into the boards, instead of hit in the head and turned into the boards. You might say that contact to the head is relevant if that's what made the helmet come off, but it seems pretty clear to me his helmet wasn't strapped on properly, so even the jarring impact of getting hit could have caused it to slide up.

HarleyMC
11-03-2009, 05:36 AM
The hit on Pohl is more of an issue of checking from behind than it is contact to the head. It's not like the initial contact to the head knocked him out, I'm pretty sure it was the face-plant into the boards without a helmet. Same hit happens in open ice, there's no injury, and the most that comes of it is possibly a 2 minute minor for elbowing. You could have very well had the same result if he was hit in the side and turned into the boards, instead of hit in the head and turned into the boards. You might say that contact to the head is relevant if that's what made the helmet come off, but it seems pretty clear to me his helmet wasn't strapped on properly, so even the jarring impact of getting hit could have caused it to slide up.

No it wasn't a check from behind but it was in the back of the head. There were plenty of eye witnesses as the incident occurred in front of the Gophers' bench. In fact Pohl was heading to the bench at the time. After the hit, he lost his helmet (unsnapped) and his unprotected face hit the dasher and then the ice. There's no evidence confirming his helmet was not snapped on properly. That's an argument from silence.

kdilks
11-03-2009, 06:12 AM
No it wasn't a check from behind but it was in the back of the head. There were plenty of eye witnesses as the incident occurred in front of the Gophers' bench. In fact Pohl was heading to the bench at the time. After the hit, he lost his helmet (unsnapped) and his unprotected face hit the dasher and then the ice. There's no evidence confirming his helmet was not snapped on properly. That's an argument from silence.

Somebody already posted a video. You realize the back of somebody's head is behind them, right? And in any case, the point is this hit was a problem because his head went into the boards, not because initial contact was made with the head, which makes it a checking-from-behind type issue.

The fact that his helmet came off is evidence that it probably was not snapped on properly. Even if the chinstrap comes undone, the side straps should be tight enough to keep the helmet from being completely removed from the head like it was in the video.

HarleyMC
11-03-2009, 07:16 AM
Somebody already posted a video. You realize the back of somebody's head is behind them, right? And in any case, the point is this hit was a problem because his head went into the boards, not because initial contact was made with the head, which makes it a checking-from-behind type issue.

The fact that his helmet came off is evidence that it probably was not snapped on properly. Even if the chinstrap comes undone, the side straps should be tight enough to keep the helmet from being completely removed from the head like it was in the video.

I think you're splitting hairs now. The severity of the penalty was for elbowing to the head. Furthermore, the league review summarized it as an elbow to the head which resulted in Tommy incurring the injury. If you want to argue what part of the head, it's not relevant to the discussion of whether it is or is not a blow to the head. That's the point of similarity in Leddy's case. As Lucia stated, all blows to the head are treated with "zero tolerance" in college hockey for reasons already discussed.

No, the fact that the helmet came off does not necessarily indicate it was not properly attached. That is your opinion. Can you provide substantive evidence indicating that was indeed the case? It's very possible it came off as a result of the hit. It can and does happen.

******** width="425" height="344">******* name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kv0EpEiyqUs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param>******* name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>******* name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param>******* src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kv0EpEiyqUs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Slap Shot
11-03-2009, 08:04 AM
There's no way to aver Leddy wouldn't have been hit in the head even if his head was up so that point is moot. More importantly what part of, "hit to the head" isn't understood? I don't care if it was malicious in intent (I'd wager it wasn't if I had to) it should have been a penalty. Suspension? Probably not, but it should have been a penalty.

61ache
11-03-2009, 09:23 AM
There's no way to aver Leddy wouldn't have been hit in the head even if his head was up so that point is moot. More importantly what part of, "hit to the head" isn't understood? I don't care if it was malicious in intent (I'd wager it wasn't if I had to) it should have been a penalty. Suspension? Probably not, but it should have been a penalty.

So any time any player hits another player in the head they should be suspended right? If that were the case there would have been 2 people dressed for game 2 last weekend and Brian Schack would have been banned for life after the Boe incident last year. Common sense here people.

ScoobyDoo
11-03-2009, 09:24 AM
So any time any player hits another player in the head they should be suspended right? If that were the case there would have been 2 people dressed for game 2 last weekend and Brian Schack would have been banned for life after the Boe incident last year. Common sense here people.
Let's just take the rule out of the books and have open season. See, I can play your game.