Watching it again, still can't see nothing more than a roughing call.
Every roughing call basically can be defined as a some sort of intent to injure and or feeling pissed because someone made you look foolish, for those people going to that extreme on this.
As mentioned, if he lands on his ass or back and doesn't hit his head, which are just as likely scenarios for this hit, which is very common, or if that's Garnet Hathaway taking the hit, it's barely mentioned in a game thread.
It's a hit, a rougher follow through on a slighted framed guy, who unfortunately hits his head, but not intent to injure by Matheson.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to browna For This Useful Post:
You know, just like a hitter has to be responsible for hitting the opponents head, even if the other player is short, I think a player has to take into account the size of the other player on a play like this.
The reality is you can probably get away with more on a guy like Chara than on a guy the size of Gaudreau. If a player gives a cross check to the back of Johnny that sends him flying into the boards, it is still a penalty, even if that same check in Chara wouldn’t have sent him flying.
So I don’t buy that Petterssons size makes it his fault.
The slam down wasn’t horrific or anything, but it was illegal and completely unnecessary, and I’d think a fine or maybe 1 game would be appropriate. The reality is if you do something illegal that results in an injury to a star player, it’s probably going to be looked at very closely.
I felt the same with Johnny getting his hand broken on a ‘routine’ slash....it was illegal, unnecessary, and it injured a star player. It deserved scrutiny.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ryan Coke For This Useful Post:
Of course there was malicious intent. He didn't throw him to the ice by accident. There was no reason for the toss unless he meant to make him pay (ie. hurt him). You control trying to hurt the player, you don't necessarily control the 'hurt' that is inflicted.
The hit and pin, putting him off balance and letting him fall on his ass is a legal hockey play. Everything after is not. 2 minute penalty minimum, but I would say fine at maximum.
The excessive attempts to injure on routine plays, such as slamming, hitting high or targeting the head, jumping, elbowing, etc. need to stop. And no, this will not soften the game in any way. That is simply impossible given the entire structure and nature of the game. Collisions are going to happen at that speed, in that little space, with rigid physical boundaries surrounding the players. You can't make hitting illegal because there would be no standard way to police that at this level of hockey.
So kindly stop with those kinds of slippery slope arguments. They are weightless. We can still eliminate the stupid without sacrificing your mild bloodlusts.
Wow, pump the brakes, you can feel the righteous anger coming through the monitor.
This hit is polarizing, some people think it was more or less fine and others a heinous act. Maybe the debate would be better off without pointless insults.
Watching it again, still can't see nothing more than a roughing call.
Every roughing call basically can be defined as a some sort of intent to injure and or feeling pissed because someone made you look foolish, for those people going to that extreme on this.
As mentioned, if he lands on his ass or back and doesn't hit his head, which are just as likely scenarios for this hit, which is very common, or if that's Garnet Hathaway taking the hit, it's barely mentioned in a game thread.
It's a hit, a rougher follow through on a slighted framed guy, who unfortunately hits his head, but not intent to injure by Matheson.
Agree - its a roughing call. Doesn't mean that the Canucks should be happy with a 2 min. powerplay in exchange for their star player being roughed-up. The players on the ice need to address Matheson themselves.
Solid hit. The NHL disciplinary department shouldn't be involved in this at all. His team mates however should be up in arms over this. Also to those on here complaining about how we would act of that was Johnny. Well, we would act the same way to this as we would if someone treated Johnny the same way Regher treated Hemsky. Or if someone tried to turn Johnny "hockey" into Dorothey Hamill. This is still a contact sport, deal with that.
I would like to see something clarified for those that find this to be polarizing. I really don't think the gap is very large here.
Thinking this play is worthy of a minor or double minor is not the same as thinking it's fine. Nothing that is against the rules is fine. It's against the rules and there are rules for how it can be punished. A 4 min for roughing is a pretty strong infraction that would likely deter Matheson from doing this again as it directly punishes his team in game.
The refs need to do their job and call penalties when they are there before they stretch into injuries on stars (ala Gaudreau and Crosby). People think rules changed when those players got hurt and that's wrong, they just decided to start calling plays by the book. They could have been handing out suspensions for hits to the head for decades without any need for changes to the rule book at the time. Just like they could have simply called slashing penalties instead of letting players get away with cheap shots to the point that it ended up breaking hands. And then there's the big talk of the "crack down" and "that's how they're calling it now". No. Those are the rules and for some reason they are just deciding to use them now.
Give players roughing penalties for doing roughing things and roughing will go away cuz no one likes to kill penalties.
__________________
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
Wow, pump the brakes, you can feel the righteous anger coming through the monitor.
This hit is polarizing, some people think it was more or less fine and others a heinous act. Maybe the debate would be better off without pointless insults.
You can have a different opinion/perspective without arguing that this is just one more step in completely eliminating physicality from the NHL. It's a lame and baseless argument. The debate would be better off without them.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
As one poster said this totally reminds me of Regher crushing Hemsky. Petterson better start hitting the gym cause more of that will be coming down the line.
You can have a different opinion/perspective without arguing that this is just one more step in completely eliminating physicality from the NHL. It's a lame and baseless argument. The debate would be better off without them.
Totally agree. I think that hockey right now is the best blend of speed/skill and ruggedness than ever before. I don't miss the mindless violence that often occurred in the past. Having said that, I thought the hit was at most a roughing penalty, and that's even debatable.
I respect differing opinions on this, but I'm quite shocked at some of the posters here that find this hit so egregious.
“Generally speaking, a slew-foot is when a player comes up behind or alongside an opponent and uses their foot to knock the legs out from under their opponent”
Matheson does not use his legs at all. He rubs Petterson out and Petterson falls sideways. The rubout is dangerous because Petterson is not very strong on his skates and has his feet fly out from under him which puts him in the vulnerable position.
That’s why I said effectively. The reason a slew foot is dangerous is because it puts a player off balance so the aggressor can send them to the ice. Similarly, Matheson sends Pettersson to the ice once he is off balance and unable to protect himself.
“Generally speaking, a slew-foot is when a player comes up behind or alongside an opponent and uses their foot to knock the legs out from under their opponent”
Matheson does not use his legs at all. He rubs Petterson out and Petterson falls sideways. The rubout is dangerous because Petterson is not very strong on his skates and has his feet fly out from under him which puts him in the vulnerable position.
It isn't a slewfoot but Matheson had his stick between Pettersson's legs, had just hit him to make him off balance, and then as Pettersson is already falling uses his free arm to push him down to the ice resulting in Pettersson's head making contact with the ice hard enough to likely result in a concussion.
The three quarters of that is a hockey play and unlikely to result in any injury, but the last portion with the forceful push down to the ice resulted in an injury. That is where it is textbook roughing that resulted in an injury. I know that the injury to a player isn't supposed to factor into the need for supplemental discipline in theory, but much like a slash that causes an injury it is a factor in practice.
I think he will likely get a fine or a game based on the totality of the event and he NHL will warn both teams before the next game in January not to do anything stupid.
I am surprised this is even news, that was a standard rub out on the boards. A welcome to the NHL type of thing, if anything a primer on how to defend against a player like that.
I hope the Flames defensman went to school on that hit and there should not have been any call on the play.
I am surprised this is even news, that was a standard rub out on the boards. A welcome to the NHL type of thing, if anything a primer on how to defend against a player like that.
I hope the Flames defensman went to school on that hit and there should not have been any call on the play.
I keep seeing people calling this a standard hockey play, yet I haven’t seen anything like this in a long time.
Can those of you who believe this is normal in the NHL (it’s not) please link to videos of similar plays? I will change my mind if presented with evidence that it occurs frequently.
The Following User Says Thank You to N-E-B For This Useful Post:
Find me an example of an enforcer going and fighting a non enforcer over something like this. It didn't happen. All they ever did was fight the other team's goon off a faceoff and get their heads caved in in their own zone.
You're totally missing the point. The enforcer doesn't even have to fight. Him being dressed is enough of a deterrent to not take liberties with your star players. If you think otherwise you should watch the documentary ice guardians it makes a great case why enforcers are still needed in today's games.
