PDA

View Full Version : Does a hit like Malone's on Martin warrant a penalty?



Howitz-ah
11-03-2010, 10:51 PM
The question is not whether or not you think the hit was dirty. I feel that dirty implies a malicious attempt to injure. One would hope that Malone had no attempt to injure Martin, and we all know of Martin's forgiveness.

But is it in line with the NCAA's definition of charging? Roughing? Plain old avoidable contact to the neck or head?

Simply put...if you were wearing the orange stripes on your arms, would your hand go up for this hit. Here it is again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBp10hz6rzw

johnnypohlfan
11-04-2010, 08:09 AM
If you are taking the NCAA rulebook's definition of charging into any consideration at all, Yes is the only answer.
But it wasn't dirty.

FlagDUDE08
11-04-2010, 11:56 AM
It's a close call in my opinion. I don't think there's enough follow through to say it was violent, so I voted no. I can't judge distance from the video because I don't know where the player started his stride. I have been comparing this hit to Campbell's hit on Umberger in the NHL playoffs a few years ago.

Once big reason I think Mr. Martin had such a serious injury was the fact that he had his head down and wasn't ready to absorb the hit. I absolutely hate to see this happen to any player, and hope that coaches at ALL levels take actions during practices and games to ensure their players are skating with their heads up and are aware of what's happening on the ice. It happens too much in college, in the pros, everywhere.

Howitz-ah
11-04-2010, 08:37 PM
Once big reason I think Mr. Martin had such a serious injury was the fact that he had his head down and wasn't ready to absorb the hit.

Yes, that's quite obvious. But there is also a part of the rulebook which states that the committee reminds coaches and players that it is the responsibility of the player making the hit to avoid contact to the head and neck.

While Martin's body posture and head position was surely unfortunate...something that can't be blamed on Malone...when you watch the hit in slow motion, the hit is on the high shoulders and up, and he not only did nothing to pull back, but his arms raise to finish the check hard. There needs to be a little bit of accountability there.

Yes, players need to work hard at keeping their heads up, but for one reason or another, their heads will drop from time to time. I don't really buy into the approach that if you drop your head for a split second....a broken neck is all on you. Plenty of crushing shoulder to torso hits from a player not paying attention can be lesson enough to keep your head up. But don't initiate contact with someones neck or head, and if, God forbid, you're in a traintrack position where it's fairly unavoidable (which I consider this hit to be)...at least don't follow through! Malone followed through which is the only thing that really bothered me. Like I said, I know he didn't have intent to injure....but I refuse to call it a freak accident when he followed through on high contact like that.

I just haven't seen too many blind shoulder to torso checks that have resulted in broken necks. And if initiating contact to someones neck or head is a penalty regardless of intent or severity....I'm still trying to understand any argument that this play is not a penalty.

GoBucky36
11-09-2010, 09:23 PM
It was worthy of a penalty, even though it wasnt a dirty hit. Its just an unfortunate incident that no one wants to see happen.

Pucknut
11-12-2010, 09:16 AM
THE RULE IS VERY CLEAR....IT'S A PENALTY. PERIOD.

Contact to the Head – Additional Guidance
The committee reminds coaches and players that the responsibility remains with the player making the hit to avoid contact with the head and neck area of an opposing player. Any contact which directly targets the player’s head and neck area must be penalized with major penalty and a game misconduct or disqualification. A player delivering a check to an unsuspecting and vulnerable player puts themselves in jeopardy of being penalized under this rule.
Officials are to pay particular attention to these examples when applying this rule. These are intended as guidance and are included, but not limited to, the following:
 A player that has just released a shot or pass;
 A player that delivers a late hit;
 A player that extends and directs the arm, elbow, forearm or shoulder to contact the head and neck area of the opponent;
 A player that extends their body and targets the opponent’s head or neck area.
 A player that leaves their skates or launches in order to deliver a blow to the head or neck area of the opposing player.
 A player that uses the stick in any way to target the head or neck area (e.g., cross checking, butt-ending, etc.).
As additional guidance, when the initial force of the contact is a shoulder to the body of the opponent and then slides up to the head or neck area, this is not classified as contact to the head. This type of action may still be penalized, at the referee’s discretion, as another penalty (e.g., charging, roughing, elbowing, etc.).

Howitz-ah
11-12-2010, 11:21 AM
THE RULE IS VERY CLEAR....IT'S A PENALTY. PERIOD.

Contact to the Head – Additional Guidance
The committee reminds coaches and players that the responsibility remains with the player making the hit to avoid contact with the head and neck area of an opposing player. Any contact which directly targets the player’s head and neck area must be penalized with major penalty and a game misconduct or disqualification. A player delivering a check to an unsuspecting and vulnerable player puts themselves in jeopardy of being penalized under this rule.
Officials are to pay particular attention to these examples when applying this rule. These are intended as guidance and are included, but not limited to, the following:
 A player that has just released a shot or pass;
 A player that delivers a late hit;
 A player that extends and directs the arm, elbow, forearm or shoulder to contact the head and neck area of the opponent;
 A player that extends their body and targets the opponent’s head or neck area.
 A player that leaves their skates or launches in order to deliver a blow to the head or neck area of the opposing player.
 A player that uses the stick in any way to target the head or neck area (e.g., cross checking, butt-ending, etc.).
As additional guidance, when the initial force of the contact is a shoulder to the body of the opponent and then slides up to the head or neck area, this is not classified as contact to the head. This type of action may still be penalized, at the referee’s discretion, as another penalty (e.g., charging, roughing, elbowing, etc.).


Agreed. Would any of the 10 users who voted no care to retort??

GoBucky36
11-13-2010, 04:24 PM
Agreed. Would any of the 10 users who voted no care to retort??

Likely they are Sue fans.

SoCalSiouxFan
11-14-2010, 02:09 AM
THE RULE IS VERY CLEAR....IT'S A PENALTY. PERIOD.

Contact to the Head – Additional Guidance
The committee reminds coaches and players that the responsibility remains with the player making the hit to avoid contact with the head and neck area of an opposing player. Any contact which directly targets the player’s head and neck area must be penalized with major penalty and a game misconduct or disqualification. A player delivering a check to an unsuspecting and vulnerable player puts themselves in jeopardy of being penalized under this rule.
Officials are to pay particular attention to these examples when applying this rule. These are intended as guidance and are included, but not limited to, the following:
 A player that has just released a shot or pass;
 A player that delivers a late hit;
 A player that extends and directs the arm, elbow, forearm or shoulder to contact the head and neck area of the opponent;
 A player that extends their body and targets the opponent’s head or neck area.
 A player that leaves their skates or launches in order to deliver a blow to the head or neck area of the opposing player.
 A player that uses the stick in any way to target the head or neck area (e.g., cross checking, butt-ending, etc.).
As additional guidance, when the initial force of the contact is a shoulder to the body of the opponent and then slides up to the head or neck area, this is not classified as contact to the head. This type of action may still be penalized, at the referee’s discretion, as another penalty (e.g., charging, roughing, elbowing, etc.).

No penalty.

Clearly Malone targeted the body but player had his head down. Here Martin was an unsuspecting and vunerable player but under the rules a penalty is not mandatory in such a situation but the "in jeapordy of being penalized portion" of the rule then applies. The officials were correct in not giving a penalty initially because 1) Martin was still in possession of the puck a split second before contact and hit did not appear to be late, 2) a clean hit was delivered where Malone did not appear to extend his elbows to contact the head and he did not leave his feet, and 3) there was no stick contact to the head.

Seems like the rule is written so that when ever an unsuspecting and vunerable player is checked the officials can follow the guidance for issuing a misconduct or disqualification or can issue misconducts and disqualifications even with out cause because of the officials decision is "not limited" to the guidance provided and penalties can be issued at their discretion.

In this case the officials gave no initial indication of a penalty. Seems like the officials then used their discretion to issue a misconduct only after realizing a player was seriously injured. Seems like the politically correct thing to do but not necessarily the correct call when considering the rules.

SoCalSiouxFan
11-14-2010, 02:32 AM
...when you watch the hit in slow motion, the hit is on the high shoulders and up, and he not only did nothing to pull back, but his arms raise to finish the check hard. There needs to be a little bit of accountability there.

....I'm still trying to understand any argument that this play is not a penalty.

At slow motion it may have looked like Malone had all the time in the world to avoid the check, but at full speed Malone may have had only enough time to brace himself for contact. I didn't see any excessive elbowing or arm raising.

Fighting Sioux 23
11-14-2010, 09:48 AM
No penalty.

Clearly Malone targeted the body but player had his head down. Here Martin was an unsuspecting and vunerable player but under the rules a penalty is not mandatory in such a situation but the "in jeapordy of being penalized portion" of the rule then applies. The officials were correct in not giving a penalty initially because 1) Martin was still in possession of the puck a split second before contact and hit did not appear to be late, 2) a clean hit was delivered where Malone did not appear to extend his elbows to contact the head and he did not leave his feet, and 3) there was no stick contact to the head.

Seems like the rule is written so that when ever an unsuspecting and vunerable player is checked the officials can follow the guidance for issuing a misconduct or disqualification or can issue misconducts and disqualifications even with out cause because of the officials decision is "not limited" to the guidance provided and penalties can be issued at their discretion.

In this case the officials gave no initial indication of a penalty. Seems like the officials then used their discretion to issue a misconduct only after realizing a player was seriously injured. Seems like the politically correct thing to do but not necessarily the correct call when considering the rules.

That's an interesting point. I voted that it WAS a penalty, and I still think it was, but not a dirty play. Saying that the official on ice, who watched the play, did not call it a penalty on the ice. It wasn't until the player was down on the ice for a few minutes after the whistle blew that a penalty was called.

Cross-Czech
11-14-2010, 10:31 AM
I thought the same thing when I originally watched the play, but the refs have come out and said that neither official actually saw the play. However, a linesman did see the play, conferred with the officials once the whistle blew, and the penalty was then called. FWIW, I think one of the YouTube videos I watched clearly showed that the official closest to the play had his back to the play and could not see it. Apparently, this is standard operating procedure for calling a penalty that the linesman sees, but the officials do not. It's been a while since I've read the articles, but I believe the officiating team made it clear that the penalty was called for an action that the linesman saw, not a "make-up" call after seeing Jesse lying on the ice.

jdr1
11-14-2010, 08:13 PM
I havent seen the hit yet, but my Question is if both refs never seen the hit, what were they looking at- at the time of the hit because the puck was there and the play was there. i can see one of them missing it but not both.

Howitz-ah
11-14-2010, 09:28 PM
Likely they are Sue fans.

Pretty much

SoCalSiouxFan
11-15-2010, 11:30 AM
Yes. It did appear that Martin's hit on Malone should have been penalized for a possible Head-Butting infraction because Martin lowered his head just before contact.:rolleyes:


Head-Butting
SECTION 20. A player shall not head-butt an opponent with the face mask
or helmet.