The Legend of Sam Bennett

[Lonestar]

Originally Posted by dino7c

It wasn't a terrible hit or anything but its not a legal hit

"skating a great distance for the purpose of delivering a check with excessive force. The onus is on the player delivering the check to avoid placing a vulnerable or defenseless opponent in danger of potential injury."

It can be argued that it was a charging penalty, but that is the most vague and up for subjective conversation rule I've ever seen.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Lonestar

It can be argued that it was a charging penalty, but that is the most vague and up for subjective conversation rule I've ever seen.

well its quoted from the rule book, he came across half the ice surface in a straight line to make the hit. Also, according to the rule book the other player "keeping his head up" is irrelevant.

[Lonestar]

Originally Posted by dino7c

well its quoted from the rule book, he came across half the ice surface in a straight line to make the hit.

I understand where it comes from, but the wording can be interpreted 1000 different ways by 1000 different people. That's all I meant, one of those "clear as mud" kind of rules.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by dino7c

well its quoted from the rule book, he came across half the ice surface in a straight line to make the hit. Also, according to the rule book the other player "keeping his head up" is irrelevant.

Well, this is the actual quote below. It’s not dissimilar, but I don’t see your quote. Being pedantic, but this is from the 21/22 rule book which is located here: https://cms.nhl.bamgrid.com/images/a...-file/file.pdf

Rule 42 - Charging
42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player
who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.

A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

42.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent.

Still, probably the most grey rule in the book.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Well, this is the actual quote below. It’s not dissimilar, but I don’t see your quote. Being pedantic, but this is from the 21/22 rule book which is located here: https://cms.nhl.bamgrid.com/images/a...-file/file.pdf



Still, probably the most grey rule in the book.

My quote is from the USA hockey website...but its pretty much exactly the same thing

its a charge the ref got the call right

"as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner"

this is even worse wording in this case, its not a "legal hit" contact isn't the only thing to consider. He comes across the entire ice surface to make a violent hit, by the book its not a legal hit IMO.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by AustinL_NHL

I can't say I agree, or at least am on the side of the 90% of players, with the "respect for other players" argument.

You're getting paid millions to play a child's game. Least you can do is be a professional for the entirety of the game, no matter what the score is. I'd rather have the 10% of NHL players who are going to play their hearts out until the final whistle over the other 90% who stop trying once they *think* a score is out of reach.

That's why I love Darryl Sutter's "no talking with the opposition" approach so much, because it's pure business. You can show respect to your friends/family on the opposition after the game, but for that 60+ minutes of hockey, they're your enemy and you're doing WHATEVER it takes to come out on top. No respect.

In the regular season, I can see a little bit of an argument for not going all out with your hits, but if your players become used to letting up on their hits, or just not hitting at all and trying to make a play with their stick, that's a recipe for disaster and bad habits.

Not to mention hitting hard takes on a whole new value in the Playoffs, when big hits can cause the opposition player some good bruising and/or their nagging injuries to flair up a bit, while at the same time making the entire opposition start looking over their shoulder more often, giving your team a nice advantage in a lengthy series.

I think where you and I might disagree is the correlation to "playing your heart out" till the end of the whistle. I agree, players should do that, and agree that's part of the culture a great coach like Sutter instills.

Where I disagree is correlation you made to Bennett's hit last night actually being "playing his heart out". In terms of effort, or physical exertion, it certainly was. In terms of best move for his team, giving his team the best chance to win it wasn't, which is what in my mind "playing until the last whistle" entails. Bennett, in my opinion, went in the with goal to hit to hurt, regardless of the outcome of the play, he's conceded the game. If he hadn't, he'd have put as much effort into that play, but he'd have gone into the contact more controlled, because he would care about what happened to the puck after the hit. Presumably he'd have wanted to take the puck away, gain control and head up ice to try and start the comeback. That's playing to the end of the game................not what he did IMO which was make the biggest impacting hit I can.

Now where I do agree with you is on the construct of playoffs. If you look at the long game of winning a 7 game series, wearing down your opponent physically (and mentally) for the next game becomes a factor. Is it maybe smarter to go for the legal, but devastating hit with 3mins left, down three goals then actually try to win the game at hand and score 3 goals. In terms of positive impact to your desired outcome, win the series, it probably does make sense to make the big hit. Is that what we want......up for debate I'd say.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by dino7c

My quote is from the USA hockey website...but its pretty much exactly the same thing

its a charge no matter how big a fan of Sam Bennett you are the ref got the call right

"as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner"

this is even worse wording in this case, its not a "legal hit" contact isn't the only thing to consider

Yes…. I said it was pretty much the same. I was just clarifying. You can’t claim to copy paste a quote out of the rule book that isn’t a copy paste out of the rule book. Are we going to argue over this?

And all I said was the rule was grey, fandom of Bennett doesn’t need to be mentioned.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Yes…. I said it was pretty much the same. I was just clarifying. You can’t claim to copy paste a quote out of the rule book that isn’t a copy paste out of the rule book. Are we going to argue over this?

And all I said was the rule was grey, fandom of Bennett doesn’t need to be mentioned.

I copied and pasted it out of the USA hockey rulebook, my mistake...slightly different wording with the same meaning.

fandom is certainly a factor, I think if Tom Wilson or Nurse made the exact hit we wouldn't have people saying its a legal hit on here


Again, 2 min penalty is probably enough but "clean hit, keep your head up kid" is not really accurate IMO

Its a penalty and ended any possible comeback attempt, seemed a little selfish...got your ass kicked by a bad team and lost your temper. Sam has been suspended multiple times in less than a year, needs to be smarter...That play with an injury is a suspension, not worth it in a regular season game that is probably out of reach anyway.

[TheIronMaiden]

Whether it was a charge or not the hit was justified. You can't dipsy doodle with the puck in the offensive zone when there is an empty net and you're up by three. You shoot right away or you rag the puck. Otherwise someone will try and hurt you.

[AustinL_NHL]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I think where you and I might disagree is the correlation to "playing your heart out" till the end of the whistle. I agree, players should do that, and agree that's part of the culture a great coach like Sutter instills.

Where I disagree is correlation you made to Bennett's hit last night actually being "playing his heart out". In terms of effort, or physical exertion, it certainly was. In terms of best move for his team, giving his team the best chance to win it wasn't, which is what in my mind "playing until the last whistle" entails. Bennett, in my opinion, went in the with goal to hit to hurt, regardless of the outcome of the play, he's conceded the game. If he hadn't, he'd have put as much effort into that play, but he'd have gone into the contact more controlled, because he would care about what happened to the puck after the hit. Presumably he'd have wanted to take the puck away, gain control and head up ice to try and start the comeback. That's playing to the end of the game................not what he did IMO which was make the biggest impacting hit I can.

Now where I do agree with you is on the construct of playoffs. If you look at the long game of winning a 7 game series, wearing down your opponent physically (and mentally) for the next game becomes a factor. Is it maybe smarter to go for the legal, but devastating hit with 3mins left, down three goals then actually try to win the game at hand and score 3 goals. In terms of positive impact to your desired outcome, win the series, it probably does make sense to make the big hit. Is that what we want......up for debate I'd say.

I think you and I are pretty much on the exact same wavelength, as it's the bolded in which I think we're caught up in disagreement.

In my opinion, the only reason a penalty was called on that play was because of the game situation, whereas at any other point of the game, that's not being called. The ref didn't have his hand up at all, and both commentators made a note of the same thing saying that it didn't look like a penalty was being called at first. It wasn't until a couple seconds of Sillinger laying on the ice that the whistle finally blew (there was about 2.5 seconds between the hit & the whistle).

What I see there is Bennett actually making the right play, as in the video, before the whistle is blown, the Panthers were about to have a 4-on-2 rush going the other way because of Bennett's play.

In a close game, I think the Panthers have a 4-on-2 break going the other way because of Bennett without a whistle or a penalty.

[BigErnSalute_16]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

https://twitter.com/sportsnet/status...534423040?s=21

That’s the big thing too…it’s not clean. This angle is a better view.

Bennett took a bad line to the hit and had to almost closeline Sillinger to catch him.

Shoulder to shoulder bro

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

That guy needs to keep his head up. The puck is on your stick during an NHL game. Someone is going to try and stop you.

Not always.

Not against the Oilers.

[BigErnSalute_16]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Concussions can happen without a blow to the head.
Thankfully I haven't heard anything about Sillinger suffering a concussion.
But the hit was designed to injure the player. You don't hit someone THAT hard if that's not what you are trying to do. I don't think that should be what checking is for.

Hit was designed to hurt, not injure. There's a difference. Every guy in the league wants their hits to hurt so other players remember it the next time. Very few guys go out of their way to try and injure someone, and I don't believe Sam Bennett is one of those players.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by BigErnSalute_16

Shoulder to shoulder bro

yeah the contact is fine...this angle doesn't show the charge across half the ice though

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by dino7c

It's an obvious charge

I love the conviction but no. It isn’t an obvious charge.

[SuperMatt18]

Clothesline was probably a bad term, but the contact from Bennett is awkward in that his body and head come across Sillinger's body and head in an awkward way. It's what causes Bennett to spin around too.

I think the best way to frame it was just reckless overall.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by dino7c

yeah the contact is fine...this angle doesn't show the charge across half the ice though

He traveled a ways you are right….but you are supposed to accelerate into the hit.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

He traveled a ways you are right….but you are supposed to accelerate into the hit.

You are not supposed to cross the entire ice surface to gain momentum for a hit. It's in the rule book and was called appropriately.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by dino7c

You are not supposed to cross the entire ice surface to gain momentum for a hit. It's in the rule book and was called appropriately.

Bennett and Sillinger both cross the blue line at the same time; both are a few feet 'east' of each faceoff dot, so they were about 44 feet apart. Which I suppose is a lot, but it's really just a back-check that turns into a punishing hit when Sillinger tries to force a play into the middle.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by dino7c

You are not supposed to cross the entire ice surface to gain momentum for a hit. It's in the rule book and was called appropriately.

This argument always makes me laugh.
Is he just supposed to regulate his speed as he crosses?
Players are taught to close the gap hard, it's just that Sillinger stopped and held the puck. That gives the green light to lay him out. If you watch the video, Bennett is gliding when he hits him. It's not a charge, it's a hard hit on a stationary player who's dangling the puck.