Jump to content

NHL Playoffs - Comments?


Recommended Posts

I have no problems with the hit actually.  So that probably means a 10-game suspension by that measure.

 

Scheifele was coming back to defend an empty net and decided to take the body.  Timing of the hit was impeccable.  Elbows in, full body on body, and skates only left the ice after contact.  This isn't Wilson punching Bushnevich in the head while he was pinned to the ice.  That's not part of the game.  This, on the other hand, was Scheifele finishing his check on Evans who was about to score.  This was just a bigger guy at full speed delivering a clean hit to a smaller guy at full speed while the smaller guy was admiring his own wrap around. 

 

I agree with Maurice here that it was an unusual play.  It's sad to see Evans laying motionless on the ice but hate the game in this case.  Scheifele was just playing hockey.  I had more problems with Tkachuk's hit on Scheifele during the play-in because that was a bit of a late hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on the fence. I'm thinking a game or 2. The hit was clean, and he stopped striding hard so not necessarily charging. He did what players are trained to do in the playoffs ever since they were kids, to be intense and take no prisoners.

It's unfortunate and I'm honestly uncertain how to categorize this one. Very tough call for the NHL, they won't be satisfying half the people regardless of what they do.

Does Mtl have a fighter? Love it or hate it, that's part of the game also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See and I don't see how you can make the case that's a hockey play. The hockey play was to play the puck which Schiefelle could have done, but made no attempt at doing when he easily could have. He has eyes on Evans from the circle in and still exploded into the hit knowing the puck was going into the net.

 

It was a completely unnecessary hit where the only thing gained from it was to cause injury which is why IMO, they should throw the book at him. Nothing hockey about what he did.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, cross16 said:

See and I don't see how you can make the case that's a hockey play. The hockey play was to play the puck which Schiefelle could have done, but made no attempt at doing when he easily could have. He has eyes on Evans from the circle in and still exploded into the hit knowing the puck was going into the net.

 

It was a completely unnecessary hit where the only thing gained from it was to cause injury which is why IMO, they should throw the book at him. Nothing hockey about what he did.

I'm not really concerned about which way they go with it. All I'm saying is this is the type of being jacked up intensity that is taught and expected at an early age. If I were to lay blame, I'd blame the system more than the player. Exactly this can be expected when that amped up emotion smells defeat. It can go horribly wrong.

That's what I see. Scheifele isn't dirty, we all know that. It's the culmination of being amped up for 3 hours, like they've trained you to do, and having all of that emotion come out badly when you lose. It does happen, and it isn't pretty. The decision-making goes in the toilet. We love players that hate to lose, this can be the problem that goes with it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I'm not really concerned about which way they go with it. All I'm saying is this is the type of being jacked up intensity that is taught and expected at an early age. If I were to lay blame, I'd blame the system more than the player. Exactly this can be expected when that amped up emotion smells defeat. It can go horribly wrong.

That's what I see. Scheifele isn't dirty, we all know that. It's the culmination of being amped up for 3 hours, like they've trained you to do, and having all of that emotion come out badly when you lose. It does happen, and it isn't pretty. The decision-making goes in the toilet. We love players that hate to lose, this can be the problem that goes with it.

 

This is a fair point of few but to me also points out a systemic problem with hockey. None of this should be considered "ok" or "just part of the system" IMO. I think that is exactly the problem with player safety in the NHL and why it's so lacking. 

 

But I am biased I'm a strong advocate for enhanced player safety so I tend to tilt to the harsher punishment side because I think it's time to put a stop to this. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

This is a fair point of few but to me also points out a systemic problem with hockey. None of this should be considered "ok" or "just part of the system" IMO. I think that is exactly the problem with player safety in the NHL and why it's so lacking. 

 

But I am biased I'm a strong advocate for enhanced player safety.

I'm with you on that. I have a lot of ex-jr friends that will tell me, "this is exactly what they want you to be like in the playoffs, or your benched".

It's a many-pronged problem. This play really highlights it, as it's a player you really don't expect it from. I also believe he may have knocked the puck clear if he kept his head. The last couple of strides might have gotten him there if he had taken them. Or dive for it at least.

I'd hate to see him removed from the series, but he may well be. It'll be interesting to see what they decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I'm on the fence. I'm thinking a game or 2. The hit was clean, and he stopped striding hard so not necessarily charging. He did what players are trained to do in the playoffs ever since they were kids, to be intense and take no prisoners.

It's unfortunate and I'm honestly uncertain how to categorize this one. Very tough call for the NHL, they won't be satisfying half the people regardless of what they do.

Does Mtl have a fighter? Love it or hate it, that's part of the game also.

 

It sucks this game has become a joke.  2 games for a clean hit... There has been much much worse hits these playoffs that has gone unpunished.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

This is a fair point of few but to me also points out a systemic problem with hockey. None of this should be considered "ok" or "just part of the system" IMO. I think that is exactly the problem with player safety in the NHL and why it's so lacking. 

 

But I am biased I'm a strong advocate for enhanced player safety so I tend to tilt to the harsher punishment side because I think it's time to put a stop to this. 

 

Had he arrived about 1 second earlier, would he still have played it that way?

Hard to say.  On one hand, he was taking the body which is one way to play it.

He could have made a play on the stick, which may not have removed the threat.

 

I'm not in favor of taking a run at a player, but timing is everything.

He wasn't skating down the ice with intent to injure, he was going to try to defend the net.

A second longer to react, he maybe doesn't make a hit.

A second earlier, it's a player walking out to score and has a target on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

See and I don't see how you can make the case that's a hockey play. The hockey play was to play the puck which Schiefelle could have done, but made no attempt at doing when he easily could have. He has eyes on Evans from the circle in and still exploded into the hit knowing the puck was going into the net.

 

It was a completely unnecessary hit where the only thing gained from it was to cause injury which is why IMO, they should throw the book at him. Nothing hockey about what he did.

 

While we all agree Scheifele SHOULD play the puck, the rules clearly say you CAN play the body.  All that speed coming into the hit can be argued he was defending the net.  It's just an unfortunate outcome but the play itself is legal.

 

Comparing this to Bennett on Coleman.  Bennett began his strides from the middle of the ice and layed into Coleman who had his face to the boards the entire time.  That was a dirty hit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

See and I don't see how you can make the case that's a hockey play. The hockey play was to play the puck which Schiefelle could have done, but made no attempt at doing when he easily could have. He has eyes on Evans from the circle in and still exploded into the hit knowing the puck was going into the net.

 

It was a completely unnecessary hit where the only thing gained from it was to cause injury which is why IMO, they should throw the book at him. Nothing hockey about what he did.

 

I'm going to make a very rare move here and agree with cross lol.

 

Here's my reason.   I don't care about rules.  I never have.

 

Scheifelle made a play which had a very high percentage chance of injuring another player for little to no return.

Can't do that.

 

But I also do believe there are some valid counter-arguements, I just don't think they overcome the above point.

 

1.  Shieffelle May have been attempting to intimidate Evans to loop around further and make it a stick play.  Maybe.  I don't think Scheiffele is this kind of player normally.  That doesn't mean his behaviour shouldn't be corrected.

 

2.  It wasn't the hit that hurt Evans.   It was how he landed on his head.  He didn't protect is head on the way down.   He may have been dissoriented, or hurt his shoulder, I'm not sure.   To some degree, Scheifelle could not have fully anticipated that exact outcome.  Sort...of.

 

3.  No matter who's side you're on, one thing's clear:   If the NHL can keep Winnipeg off of the Stanley Cup winners list, they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

While we all agree Scheifele SHOULD play the puck, the rules clearly say you CAN play the body.  All that speed coming into the hit can be argued he was defending the net.  It's just an unfortunate outcome but the play itself is legal.

 

Comparing this to Bennett on Coleman.  Bennett began his strides from the middle of the ice and layed into Coleman who had his face to the boards the entire time.  That was a dirty hit.  

 

IMO both are and I do not agree that this is a legal play. It's contact with the head for 1 and charging for 2 so there are multiple grounds on which to suspend and consider this dirty and illegal. It's not a legal hit at all IMO. 

 

But I do acknowledge that my main beef here is not with Scheifelle it's with the game and the system. I don't consider Schiefelle a dirty player and think this is a situation where he was mad and make a split second decision our of anger that I think was a poor one.  The main direction of my criticism of this hit is completely unnecessary on a defenseless player and there should be no place in the game for this type of hit. It is difficult to suspend on those grounds but IMO that is the steps the NHL needs to take. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Had he arrived about 1 second earlier, would he still have played it that way?

Hard to say.  On one hand, he was taking the body which is one way to play it.

He could have made a play on the stick, which may not have removed the threat.

 

I'm not in favor of taking a run at a player, but timing is everything.

He wasn't skating down the ice with intent to injure, he was going to try to defend the net.

A second longer to react, he maybe doesn't make a hit.

A second earlier, it's a player walking out to score and has a target on him.

 

Even if all of this was true, I don't think it is but free to difference of opinion, what makes this hit brutal IMO is there was no need to Schiefele to explode into Evans with full force. He leans into him with full weight, targets the upper body, and does nothing to check his speed.  I could get behind the "take the body" argument but to me that's null and voided by the fact he doesn't take the body here he LAYS him out.

 

Split second decisions happen and I bet if you ask Schiefele today he's remorseful and recognizes it was the wrong decision, but it requires still action IMO to set a precedent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

IMO both are and I do not agree that this is a legal play. It's contact with the head for 1 and charging for 2 so there are multiple grounds on which to suspend and consider this dirty and illegal. It's not a legal hit at all IMO. 

 

But I do acknowledge that my main beef here is not with Scheifelle it's with the game and the system. I don't consider Schiefelle a dirty player and think this is a situation where he was mad and make a split second decision our of anger that I think was a poor one.  The main direction of my criticism of this hit is completely unnecessary on a defenseless player and there should be no place in the game for this type of hit. It is difficult to suspend on those grounds but IMO that is the steps the NHL needs to take. 

 

Head was not primary point of contact.  It was whole body on whole body.  Evans may have gotten knocked out from his head hitting the ice and not from the original hit.  It wasn't blindside angle either.  This was North/South collision.

 

Charge?  Scheifele's speed came from defending the net.

 

Lastly, Evans wasn't even finished the follow through on the wrap around so he was within fair game to be hit.  Not late at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Head was not primary point of contact.  It was whole body on whole body.  Evans may have gotten knocked out from his head hitting the ice and not from the original hit.  It wasn't blindside angle either.  This was North/South collision.

 

Charge?  Scheifele's speed came from defending the net.

 

Lastly, Evans wasn't even finished the follow through on the wrap around so he was within fair game to be hit.  Not late at all.

 

Sure appears to be in the replay. You can see his head snap back. I don't think this was Schiefele's intention but he it sure looks to me like he hits him in the head. 

 

Rule 42.1 for Charging

 

42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.
  Charging shall mean that the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check and opponent in any manner. A "charge" may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

 

Really don't understand how you can view that rule and not apply ti here. He skates into him, he jumps into him and it was a violent check. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

I'm going to make a very rare move here and agree with cross lol.

 

Here's my reason.   I don't care about rules.  I never have.

 

Scheifelle made a play which had a very high percentage chance of injuring another player for little to no return.

Can't do that.

 

We can debate the "spirit of the law" vs the "letter of the law" for sure.

 

We want to protect players but in contact sports, players do get injured unfortunately.  Technically speaking, half the hits out there are intended to "cause physical pain" to some degree so where's the line?  Some players can take big hits while others get injured with a slight nudge.

 

Are we basing suspensions on extent of injury rather than the act itself?  No harm no foul?  And if a guy gets injured on a legal hit, then suspensions will be handed out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Sure appears to be in the replay. You can see his head snap back. I don't think this was Schiefele's intention but he it sure looks to me like he hits him in the head. 

 

Rule 42.1 for Charging

 

42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.
  Charging shall mean that the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check and opponent in any manner. A "charge" may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

 

Really don't understand how you can view that rule and not apply ti here. He skates into him, he jumps into him and it was a violent check. 

 

Of course there was head contact but how can you argue it was the primary point of contact? You can clearly see Evans head snap back.  Scheifele led with his shoulder and pretty much makes simultaneous contact with Evan's whole body including the head.

 

Check the Kadri hit on Faulk.  That was partial blindside and shoulder to chin.

 

And of course Scheifele came from a far distance.  They were all chasing the puck down the ice.  So Scheifele closes the gap between the player and the post... I'm not sure you want him to banana peel away and give up the front of an empty net.  Evans could've missed or the puck could've hit the post.  The play could've been live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Head was not primary point of contact.  It was whole body on whole body.  Evans may have gotten knocked out from his head hitting the ice and not from the original hit.  It wasn't blindside angle either.  This was North/South collision.

 

Charge?  Scheifele's speed came from defending the net.

 

Lastly, Evans wasn't even finished the follow through on the wrap around so he was within fair game to be hit.  Not late at all.

 

Did you mean from the other net?

 

For me its just respect, whether it is legal or not.  Was Evans supposed to act differently?  People say keep your head up, but 99.9% of players do the exact same thing Evans did.  Because you can hit him, doesn't mean you have to.  I like hitting, and never want to see it taken out, but this does nothing for me but make my stomach turn.  Maybe I just view these guys as humans who provide entertainment, its just sad when I think I'm almost 40 and I can count too many guys in both hockey and football that have died younger than me from CTE or causes from it, or many others who are struggling with basic memory.  I like contact, I love football, boxing, MMA.  I see a lot of great tackles in football even though they've changed rules and still enjoy it when they basically limited kickoff returns and made onside kicks nearly impossible, my favorite fights I've ever seen in combat sports have all gone to decision, I still like a good knockout but don't need one for entertainment.  But god in hockey if you don't want a guy skating across the ice to lay out a guy when the probability of injury is extremely high, if we take that out were just p*ssifying the game.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Take the injury out of the discussion, is this 10 and a game?

It was a late hit on a vulnerable player.

Perhaps charging, if so interpreted.

I don't think his intent was to take revenge on a EN goal. 

The goal; was scored just before the hit.

 

Let's be honest, they are not consistent in the approach to suspensions.

Dumba laid out Backlund at the end of a game after the results had basically been decided.

No suspension.

 

Graves lays out a player and Reaves gets suspended.

Landeskog was cross checked in the face after a faceoff.

No call, no supplemental discipline.

 

If Evans gets the wind knocked out of him are we having this discussion?

The whiplash of the fall did more damage to the player.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, travel_dude said:

 

Take the injury out of the discussion, is this 10 and a game?

It was a late hit on a vulnerable player.

Perhaps charging, if so interpreted.

I don't think his intent was to take revenge on a EN goal. 

The goal; was scored just before the hit.

 

Let's be honest, they are not consistent in the approach to suspensions.

Dumba laid out Backlund at the end of a game after the results had basically been decided.

No suspension.

 

Graves lays out a player and Reaves gets suspended.

Landeskog was cross checked in the face after a faceoff.

No call, no supplemental discipline.

 

If Evans gets the wind knocked out of him are we having this discussion?

The whiplash of the fall did more damage to the player.

 

 

I would argue that you can't take the injury out of the discussion.   But, if you did, yeah I'd say that's about right.

 

For sure, they are not consistent, and the NHL is destined to screw this up.  This we know.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Of course there was head contact but how can you argue it was the primary point of contact? You can clearly see Evans head snap back.  Scheifele led with his shoulder and pretty much makes simultaneous contact with Evan's whole body including the head.

 

Check the Kadri hit on Faulk.  That was partial blindside and shoulder to chin.

 

And of course Scheifele came from a far distance.  They were all chasing the puck down the ice.  So Scheifele closes the gap between the player and the post... I'm not sure you want him to banana peel away and give up the front of an empty net.  Evans could've missed or the puck could've hit the post.  The play could've been live.

 

When you look at the reply, Schiefele's shoulder is at Evans head at contact. Does it ride up? Maybe but I think that is up for debate. To me the head area is the primary point of contact.  I'm not suggesting it's cut and dry but it's certainly enough to question this as a legal hit. I get the nouth-south debate and the blindside comparison that point is fair but my point is that is not how the rule is written. We may never land on an agreement of spirit of the law, but for me when I read the rule as it is written this hit falls in that rule as illegal. 

 

He could have played he puck though, he did not NEED to contact the body so why is his where he is coming from relevant under the rule?  Even if we want to agree to the fact that the distance travelled isn't relevant (which makes no sense to me) how do you get past the fact that he clearly leaves his feet? I'd even acknowledge that sometimes players are going to leave their feet upon the completion of a hit just due to physics but what Schiefele's. His back foot is almost above his head because he jumps into Evans to deliver the hit and almost didn't even land back on his feet. 

 

That's a textbook charge IMO.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

We can debate the "spirit of the law" vs the "letter of the law" for sure.

 

We want to protect players but in contact sports, players do get injured unfortunately.  Technically speaking, half the hits out there are intended to "cause physical pain" to some degree so where's the line?  Some players can take big hits while others get injured with a slight nudge.

 

Are we basing suspensions on extent of injury rather than the act itself?  No harm no foul?  And if a guy gets injured on a legal hit, then suspensions will be handed out?

 

IMHO we need to base it on both.    It's the head trauma stuff here.   Dude messes up his knee and lives out his life as a millionaire with a bumb knee, that's life imho.    Same thing happening to his head is not the same.

 

Simply put, the NHL AND the NFL need to be Massively proactive on concussions and quite frankly, this is the only way that contact sports will survive.   If they can't manage this, at some point there will be an intervention and a natural conclusion.

 

IMHO if you believe that physical contact belongs in sport, the Best way to preserve it, is to evolve it.    If we fail to show that it can evolve, at some point outside entities will be left with no choice.

 

 

(don't get me wrong, we all know the NHL will base their decision on which market is best suited to win the cup, and it isn't Winnipeg)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Take the injury out of the discussion, is this 10 and a game?

 

 

 

This is such a silly argument IMO.  There was a player victimized by an illegal hit that directly caused said injury. Why would you ever take that out of the discussion? The action is what put the player in the position to get injured. 

 

This is what I cannot stand about the NHL and how this is approached. The amount of focus the victims of this actions get is just ridiculous to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I would argue that you can't take the injury out of the discussion.   But, if you did, yeah I'd say that's about right.

 

For sure, they are not consistent, and the NHL is destined to screw this up.  This we know.  

 

There is a difference between freak accidents and intent to injure.

You could probably argue that the force of the hit contributed to the concussion.

That's a bit of a stretch.

The hit caused him to fall awkwardly.

 

Suspend or not, just try to be consistent and not knee jerk decisions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

This is such a silly argument IMO.  There was a player victimized by an illegal hit that directly caused said injury. Why would you ever take that out of the discussion? The action is what put the player in the position to get injured. 

 

This is what I cannot stand about the NHL and how this is approached. The amount of focus the victims of this actions get is just ridiculous to me. 

 

My point was without an injury is this considered a match penalty.

Maybe it is.

To protect players it should be.

 

I'm not putting any of this on the victim at all.

His head snapping back when it hit the ice is sickening to even watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...