Matheson does his best "WWE" slam on Pettersson - Update: 2 game suspension

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

I don’t see it so much as an extremely violent play. But more a play that traditionally would warrant retribution then or later. If we want less fights, then I think you have to suspend him. Otherwise players will take matters into their own hands.

And yes...the suspension does need to consider who was hurt. Because the canucks are going to feel wronged.

You think a two game suspension takes away the threat of retribution?

[saXon]

Originally Posted by AC

Suspended 2 games.

https://twitter.com/NHLPlayerSafety/...572401154?s=19

Good, now we can all stop talking about it and move on.

[Magnum PEI]

They just suspended a guy for a shove. KHL will be a tougher league than the NHL in five years if it keeps going this way. NHL players are from wealthy suburbs and US colleges now, wont be long before it's basketball on ice.

[Point Blank]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

The guy slams him into the ice.

That's not a hockey play and does not happen often. Such a weird train of thought to think this is normal. The video explains exactly why it's not.

Exactly. And those that think “Pettersson should just get bigger” is blaming the victim of a play that clearly shows an unnecessary act on an already neutralized player. Shouldn’t the onus be on Matheson to not make poor decisions like that?

[Brick]

What a joke.

That hit was not suspension worthy.

Boy being checked by a man. He shouldn't be playing if he's not physically ready for the NHL.

[Burner_29]

Originally Posted by Reign of Fire

Suspended for a bodycheck smh...Canucks need to bubble wrap their kid.

I second the motion

[Jacks]

Pretty sure Chara could choke slam half the league if he wanted to. Maybe all those guys should just get bigger.


That said, 2 games is more than I was expecting.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

The guy slams him into the ice.

That's not a hockey play and does not happen often. Such a weird train of thought to think this is normal. The video explains exactly why it's not.

That's all Reggie did as a Flame and we loved it...how many times did he do that to Hemsky?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGBam_rB1Wg

[Brad Marsh]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Which is precisely why I have suggested a couple times now that the correct response is to strike a fine balance between safety and the promotion of skill in the game, and physicality and intensity that makes the game so good.

So, clearly "physicality" according to some people's definition includes body slams that make NO contribution to the quality of the play. I don't think I am okay with that. I believe that physicality is necessary, and it manifests in hits along the boards like Bennett's from Saturday night, and like Matheson's on Pettersson without the takedown. I don't see why that is such an affront to some who pontificate on behalf of "physicality."

Perhaps someone can explain to me what is good about the end of Matheson's hit? What are you missing from the game without seeing a kid like Pettersson crumpled in a heap on the ice?

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.

[coaster]

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.

The "check pin push" might be a hockey play. The check pin body slam is not.
This type of play does not happen almost every game and it certainly is not common to see multiple events like this in the same game.

[Textcritic]

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.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iGBam_rB1Wg

[Brad Marsh]

Originally Posted by coaster

The "check pin push" might be a hockey play. The check pin body slam is not.
This type of play does not happen almost every game and it certainly is not common to see multiple events like this in the same game.

We agree! I'm trying to say that the difference between the regular "push" and the "body slam" wasn't because of how the defenseman played it, it's because of the size disparity.

Is there an onus on the defenseman in this situation to hold back or to ease him down? He likely applied the same force on Pettersson as he would have on any other player in that situation. Most players have the strength to take the push and it's a nothing, routine play. To a 150 lb Pettersson though, it becomes a violent body slam worthy of suspension. If Pettersson is 175 lbs he doesn't get thrown like that.

The throw was late and I wouldn't have had any problem with roughing minor penalty. But if the issue is the injury, and if our goal is to ensure these feather-weights don't get injured, then there is a lot about the physical game we all know and love that will need to change. Legal or otherwise. I think this is the bigger picture question.

[Erick Estrada]

I'm fine with a suspension because the slam was unnecessary but if the NHL is going to start disciplining players for "non-hockey" plays I wan't to know why Gubrandson didn't get a game or two for his cheap shot on Dube. He was defenceless and didn't have the puck. That's not a hockey play either but as was said a few posts up the NHL justice system continues to be tiered depending on the status of the players involved.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

Is there a professional non contact league anywhere? That may be more up some people’s alley by the sounds of things. There is a reason that most NHL players are big strong athletes. It makes your chances of winning greater. Roughing and inimidation ( bullying) has been going on since... forever in the league. Some people make it and some people don’t. Small guys gotta watch it.
I feel for the young Nuck. The nhl needs to protect its assets. But that was just roughing

[Mattman]

I think it's fair.

You can pin a player to the board in a physically over powering manner.

You can use your body to physically knock him off balance and move him from your space.

You can not use force in an unnecessary manner to throw a player down to the ice, after he no longer has the puck for that matter. That's roughing.

Also this isn't an Ales Hemsky vs Robyn Regher deal.
The league has changed and Pettersson is looking like he may be a (potential) superstar and Calder favourite right now. Good for the league for standing up for young skilled players getting deliberately injured by nobodies.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

Is there a professional non contact league anywhere?...

It would be great if we could all refrain from arguing these ridiculous straw men. Hoping for a reduction in certain types of play is not a tacit endorsement of "non-contact." By the same token I can also understand that the tacit acceptance of hits and types of play that have always been acceptable is not a willful desire to impede player safety. There is actually a tonne of middle ground in this discussion, and I think we would all do well to move in that direction without parroting the extreme positions as sledgehammers against one another.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

Agreed. There are some serious variables and grey area here. It’s on the checker to play safely. Is this situation part of the “players code”? Do they look out for each other as much as they should? It’s an aggressive emotional game and guys play their hardest.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

I think the only way to avoid this type of situation may be to remove contact. Guys are going to get roughed up. It even happens in international hockey

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

I think the only way to avoid this type of situation may be to remove contact. Guys are going to get roughed up. It even happens in international hockey

The day the NHL removes contact is the day myself and I would guess at least 75% of the NHL fanbase would walk away from watching their brand of hockey.