Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Marsh
Well, not sure this is what was said. At least I would suggest it's more nuanced than that.
The "check-pin-push to the ice" play is a hockey play. We see it almost every single game, often multiple times per game. It's how NHL defensemen are taught to play the body in the corner. Rarely does it ever result in an injury. In 99% of instances, that exact play is what's expected, it doesn't cross a line, and it doesn't portray as "violent".
The only reason the play in question ended up being a "body slam to the ice" was because Pettersson has the frame of a young boy.
I admit this argument is based on the premise that the play was a routine play, and that the violent outcome was the result of size disparity. That's how this played out, IMO. If you think that sequence is not routine, then I understand where the disconnect may be.
But I struggle with the "...but was it necessary?" argument. Such a slippery slope. I agree that the push down wasn't necessary, but it's a routine play in that situation. It only ended up being a violent throw down because it was man vs. boy. The referee watched the entire sequence and elected not to even call a penalty. For that reason I really don't like the two game suspension.
My point about Bennett's legal hit is that there is a very good chance that same hit if thrown on Pettersson would have left Pettersson "in a crumpled heap on the ice".
I still maintain that this was more about size mismatch than it was about an overly dirty play. If our goal is to prevent the Pettersson's of the world from ending up in a heap on the ice, then there will be a lot of other important aspects of the current game that will need to change. I'm not sure I love that.
Anyway, I'm inclined to agree with others who have cited the play against Dube as being more dangerous and more blatantly away from the play. And yet nothing on that one. Once again, a decision from the NHL that's based more on who the injured player is and less about the actual transgression.
|
This is an excellent response, thanks.
I agree with a lot of what you say here, and in terms of precedent and routine you are absolutely right. This is one of a number of textbook body checks generally in line with how we have learned to play the game since forever. You are also absolutely right about the issue here being tied to the huge size disparity.
So, my whole take in this is not so much to argue against these present realities, but rather to challenge them. I am guessing that you do not entirely agree with me, but I think with the continued insertion of smaller players to the NHL at a younger age than was previously commonplace there should also be a re-evaluation of how things have always been done, in the interest of maintaining safety for all players within the reasonable limits permitted by the encouragement of physicality. Perhaps this is a standard play, but should our view of it become amended in the light of the growing size disparity among players in the NHL? Is it even possible to alter pour thinking and practice of checking to reduce the onset—or at minimum the optics—of injuries like this one?
I think we can do better than we have, and while I also agree with you that this is a small issue relative to others in regards to player safety, it is still one that I think is worth visiting.