NHL Playoffs - Comments?

[cross16]

2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

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.

 

That was not directed at you, you are not the only person to ask this it's just an angle that I really dislike.

 

For me, this is 5 and a game no matter what happened to Evans. I didn't even see Evans motionless before I yelled at the TV. 

 

 

[The_People1]

41 minutes ago, sak22 said:

 

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.  

 

The hit was 110% disrespect but it was legal.

 

You can see Scheifele slow down in the replay before the hit.  He couldn't believe Evans was reckless enough to try a wrap around with two Jets there.  So when Evans made his move, that was when Scheifele closed the gap.

 

You don't get the lane to the front of the net for free guys.  

[The_People1]

41 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

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.

 

In defense of Scheifele, Evans wasn't stationery.  He was moving.  At regular speed, I'm not sure where else Scheifele could've played the body on Evans after he's already committed to the hit.  Scheifele's skate leaves the ice after contact which is okay.  The intent at least, was to hit body on body.

 

You can't argue distance here because nobody had possession of the puck until Evans tried the wrap around.  Of course every player is going to skate full speed to chase the puck.

 

I'm sorry but the hit was legal.

 

Agreed he didn't NEED to play the body.  Just saying, the rules states he is ALLOWED to. Maybe the rules should change on this but that's not a discussion unique to this incident.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

(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)

 

But this is a superstar hitting a fringe NHLer though if we are going down the conspiracy route.

[cross16]

34 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

In defense of Scheifele, Evans wasn't stationery.  He was moving.  At regular speed, I'm not sure where else Scheifele could've played the body on Evans after he's already committed to the hit.  Scheifele's skate leaves the ice after contact which is okay.  The intent at least, was to hit body on body.

 

You can't argue distance here because nobody had possession of the puck until Evans tried the wrap around.  Of course every player is going to skate full speed to chase the puck.

 

I'm sorry but the hit was legal.

 

Agreed he didn't NEED to play the body.  Just saying, the rules states he is ALLOWED to. Maybe the rules should change on this but that's not a discussion unique to this incident.

 

Then was was he penalized (and not just giving a penalty but thrown out)? Why is he having a hearing? I know the likely response is going to be that we was hurt so they have to do something, but players get hurt all the time in the game and the league does nothing. Clearly they see this as an illegal hit under their rules (as do I)

 

But your last point is fair and I acknowledge we are having 2 debates here. 

1 - Was this hit illegal under the current rules?

2 - How bad was this hit and do you feel hits like this should be part of the game?

 

I acknowledge those are not really the same questions and answers can be different for both. 

[sak22]

Just now, The_People1 said:

 

But this is a superstar hitting a fringe NHLer though if we are going down the conspiracy route.

When it was a well hated player (Matt Cooke) hitting All-Star (Marc Savard) on what was a hit the league said broke no rules.  I recall very few people making a case that the hit was "okay" or just part of the game, because it was Cooke people were outraged and it got to the point that changes were made.  This seems to split people, but I guarantee if the roles were reversed the outraged crowd would be much higher.

 

 

[The_People1]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Then was was he penalized (and not just giving a penalty but thrown out)? Why is he having a hearing? I know the likely response is going to be that we was hurt so they have to do something, but players get hurt all the time in the game and the league does nothing. Clearly they see this as an illegal hit. 

 

But your last point is fair and I acknowledge we are having 2 debates here. 

1 - Was this hit illegal under the current rules?

2 - How bad was this hit and do you feel hits like this should be part of the game?

 

I acknowledge those are not really the same questions and answers can be different for both. 

 

Yes like I said, I have no problems with the hit but he'll probably get suspended so it's just my personal opinion. He got penalized and kicked out of the game but in my opinion, the referees made a mistake under pressure.

[robrob74]

3 hours 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.

 

 

to me it looks like a player rushing back on D and then realized last second he had a hit. He even put his skate out ahead of himself side ways to slow himself up to start his stop and then at that moment realized he had an open hit. He was flying, but that was the hustle to get back. 
 

although I don’t know the full story, just the replay and to me, he is following through with a hit once he realized it was there. 

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, sak22 said:

When it was a well hated player (Matt Cooke) hitting All-Star (Marc Savard) on what was a hit the league said broke no rules.  I recall very few people making a case that the hit was "okay" or just part of the game, because it was Cooke people were outraged and it got to the point that changes were made.  This seems to split people, but I guarantee if the roles were reversed the outraged crowd would be much higher.

 

 

 

I just don’t think the situations are the same. I think Scheifele slowed up on his back check slightly and then realized he had a hit. Cooke on the other hand would skate cross-ice to do those hits. Scheifele looks like he’s skating hard back to make a play then realized the hit was there. 
 

bad hit for sure! I feel the NHL could protect their own players by calling something like that. What they get wrong too often are that one penalty or suspension is worth more than another depending on the player and whether they inflict injury. 

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

But this is a superstar hitting a fringe NHLer though if we are going down the conspiracy route.

 

Well, hmm.

 

Is it a conspiracy theory to assume that Bettman is evil?   I always felt like this was just a well founded fact   😉

 

We know the decision won't have anything to do with safety or rules.

 

So does he protect the superstar or does he protect the larger market?

 

To me it's likely just a math equation and I think he will see more profit in slowing Winnipeg down than he can earn with Scheiffel jerseys.   In the regular season I believe he'd do the exact opposite, for the reasons you stated.

[conundrumed]

My biggest concern is how much the court of public opinion plays into NHL decision-making.

No one will be happy. But I hope this doesn't appear as a pressured-to-suspend him. That looks like a thing to me if he gets 5. My guess is 1 or 2 and a lot of people will have their panties in a bunch.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

My biggest concern is how much the court of public opinion plays into NHL decision-making.

No one will be happy. But I hope this doesn't appear as a pressured-to-suspend him. That looks like a thing to me if he gets 5. My guess is 1 or 2 and a lot of people will have their panties in a bunch.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl-winnipeg-jets-mark-scheifele-suspension-1.6051555

[The_People1]

56 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl-winnipeg-jets-mark-scheifele-suspension-1.6051555

 

What a sad day for the NHL.

 

 

[conundrumed]

4 seems a little harsh for a 1st timer.

As long as everyone's appeased and quits whining, sure.

Get on with it.

[jjgallow]

 

27 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

What a sad day for the NHL.

 

jmho he went for the larger market team.  Just enough games to take care of that, along with a couple quick calls to the refs for good measure.

 

maybe it's a conspiracy theory.

 

But I sure find it easy to call this stuff.   I just think the lowest possible thing Bettman could do, and pretty consistent success with that.   He's had a busy week, giving Seattle that lotto win after their $1.1 billion arena reno project (just announced prior to draft), now this.  Poor guy needs a rest.

 

(p.s...for the record.  I would have thrown the book at him too.  But for player safety reasons.  We all know from their track record that's not what this was)

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

4 seems a little harsh for a 1st timer.

As long as everyone's appeased and quits whining, sure.

Get on with it.

 

Compared to what Wilson gets for most of his literal attempts to injure, this was harsh.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

jmho he went for the larger market team.  Just enough games to take care of that, along with a couple quick calls to the refs for good measure.

 

maybe it's a conspiracy theory.

 

But I sure find it easy to call this stuff.   I just think the lowest possible thing Bettman could do, and pretty consistent success with that.   He's had a busy week, giving Seattle that lotto win after their $1.1 billion arena reno project (just announced prior to draft), now this.  Poor guy needs a rest.

 

(p.s...for the record.  I would have thrown the book at him too.  But for player safety reasons.  We all know from their track record that's not what this was)

 

I agree the league and it's players should sit down to discuss this play so it doesn't happen again. To me, this compares to NFL punt returns.  Something has to be done to protect a returner from getting smoked while looking up at the ball.  Fair catch.  Or like the CFL, give 5 yards.  I don't know what the hockey equivalent is but maybe automatic 2-game suspension for any hit to the head whether intentional or accidental and regardless of injury.  Like start there and see what happens.

 

 

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

What a sad day for the NHL.

 

 

so does that mean the hit was worth 8 games in the regular season? I thought that the rule of thumb has been playoffs suspensions are worth half the time? Or it depends on which stars are committing the offence and their impact on the team? 

[robrob74]

2 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I agree the league and it's players should sit down to discuss this play so it doesn't happen again. To me, this compares to NFL punt returns.  Something has to be done to protect a returner from getting smoked while looking up at the ball.  Fair catch.  Or like the CFL, give 5 yards.  I don't know what the hockey equivalent is but maybe automatic 2-game suspension for any hit to the head whether intentional or accidental and regardless of injury.  Like start there and see what happens.

 

 

yup. They need standard rules, but for whatever reasons they’re dead set against going that route. There’s just no consistency and players will do it because they think maybe they’ll get a benefit of the doubt or a favoured result, especially due to markets. 

[The_People1]

34 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

yup. They need standard rules, but for whatever reasons they’re dead set against going that route. There’s just no consistency and players will do it because they think maybe they’ll get a benefit of the doubt or a favoured result, especially due to markets. 

 

It's worse what they are doing now.  Basically creating new rules halfway into the playoffs.  This should have been no suspension and then the league and player safety committee think of a way to prevent this in the future.

 

Main complain on Twitter is "Scheifele never even tried to play the puck".  Well, the rule doesn't say you have to play the puck.  You can play the puck OR the body.  Maybe now you have to play the puck while making a hit.

[rocketdoctor]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

It's worse what they are doing now.  Basically creating new rules halfway into the playoffs.  This should have been no suspension and then the league and player safety committee think of a way to prevent this in the future.

 

Main complain on Twitter is "Scheifele never even tried to play the puck".  Well, the rule doesn't say you have to play the puck.  You can play the puck OR the body.  Maybe now you have to play the puck while making a hit.

 

 

 

Puck was already in the net.  There is no need for the hit whatsoever.

It was intent to injure. 

 

League got it partly right with 4 games but should have been the series.  Now if it goes to 6 we get mayham in a game.  Which is probably what they want anyways for the marketing and TV purposes.

 

 

[cross16]

Very surprised the DOPS didn’t screw this up. I would have gone longer but recognize that 4 games is also not insignificant. 
As I’ve said all along I don’t view this as a legal hit but I still think more protection should be put in for the players. The nhl should look at something along the lines of and the defenseless receiver penalty in football on the scenarios. I think the old “just keep your head up” is bs and needs to go away. 

[The_People1]

8 hours ago, rocketdoctor said:

 

 

 

Puck was already in the net.  There is no need for the hit whatsoever.

It was intent to injure. 

 

League got it partly right with 4 games but should have been the series.  Now if it goes to 6 we get mayham in a game.  Which is probably what they want anyways for the marketing and TV purposes.

 

Agreed there was no need.

 

Again, just saying that despite no need, a hit is permitted there.  The rules allow a hit in that situation.  Well within the steam boats.

[jjgallow]

13 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I agree the league and it's players should sit down to discuss this play so it doesn't happen again. To me, this compares to NFL punt returns.  Something has to be done to protect a returner from getting smoked while looking up at the ball.  Fair catch.  Or like the CFL, give 5 yards.  I don't know what the hockey equivalent is but maybe automatic 2-game suspension for any hit to the head whether intentional or accidental and regardless of injury.  Like start there and see what happens.

 

That makes complete sense and I totally support that.   

[travel_dude]

Jets suck.

Can;t even beat MTL in one game.

MTL > TOR > WPG > EDM

How sad is that.