There's so many instances of inconsistency with DoPS that it's frustrating as a fan. Even when it doesn't involve our team, one thinks wtf is going on?
Gio trips a guy. That's it. It was a trip. He gets two minutes, and that should be the end of the discussion. Now he's having a hearing.
Kunitz elbows Hamonic in the head. Yes, he got a deserving penalty, but the league doesn't even schedule a hearing for one of the clearest instances of a hit to the head.
How does the DoPS begin to even explain themselves.
PS: My personal opinion on the Dumba hit was that it was legal. Kinda classless to pop a guy like that who was reaching for the puck with 2 mins left, but it was legal. There should be a level of respect there. I loved the Flames' response to the hit.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
"It was an in the moment hit, I agree. Dumba was committed. Backlund took the hit to make the play. What I didn't like is Dumba elevated and feet left the ice. Dumba could have spun off that hit, instead of trolly tracking Backlund. "
Dumba has his arm tucked where it should be, and attempts to plant his body mass square into Backlund’s chest, which he would have done had Backlund not had his head down.
In the split second of real time, I’m not sure what Dumba is supposed to do. Dumba did everything that a player is supposed to do to make a clean hit.
Agreed.
But then say player A could not avoid the head being principle point of impact because player B put himself in that position. I'm hate it but am good with that as response.
I'm not good with saying the head was not principle point of impact. Obviously it was.
The Following User Says Thank You to EldrickOnIce For This Useful Post:
Agreed. But then say player A could not avoid the head being principle point of impact because player B put himself in that position. I'm hate it but am good with that as response.
I'm not good with saying the head was not principle point of impact. Obviously it was.
Correct, but what they CAN do, and are now obligated to do, is gear it down and not destroy the other player if they are in fact vulnerable.
Dumba had more than enough time to do so.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Agreed.
But then say player A could not avoid the head being principle point of impact because player B put himself in that position. I'm hate it but am good with that as response.
I'm not good with saying the head was not principle point of impact. Obviously it was.
This is the kind of thinking that would blame a player for getting hit in the face with a high stick because that player was not wearing a full face guard. If the only way you can hit a player is by making principal contact with the head, then it is your responsibility to avoid hitting that player. Just as it is your responsibility to not hit a player from behind if the impact will carry them into the boards. The responsibility is always on the player making the hit. If you choose to make a hit, you ensure that it is safe. Remember, the player being hit is not making that choice, and may not even be aware that the hit is coming.
Last edited by Macindoc; 12-07-2018 at 02:08 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Macindoc For This Useful Post:
Sometimes it is split-second, yes, and there is not much you can do about those. It is a contact game.
However, he was vulnerable throughout Dumba's approach. Everyone (except Backlund) saw it coming.
It was very much like the Abdelkater hit actually - lots of buildup time, initial contact to the head, aggressive, feet on the ice at moment of contact, but pushing upward in an aggressive manner.
Either the league wants to reduce head injuries or they don't. Make a decision and go with it. But if they do, that one should be suspendable.
Open ice hits almost always involve an unsuspecting player. It's also next to impossible to avoid head contact when a player puts himself in a position like Backlund did.
Right now, the league says these hits are OK as long as you don't leave your feet and keep your elbow tucked in.
If they are serious about eliminating these kinds of hits, I would argue you need to outlaw open ice hits. Everything else is window dressing and doesn't reflect the speed with which things happen on the ice.
I think this league is at a point where the officiating is so poor in quality that they hesitate to suspend players when there was no penalty on the play to avoid further embarrassment.
This looks like almost the same hit. Abdelkadr travels a little farther, and Backlund put himself in a vulnerable postition, but other than that it's the same. This was in 2013. I dont get the rules anymore. Matheson got two games for shoving a guy to the ice, but Dumba gets nothing? We're back to the Coley Campbell wheel of justice.
This is the kind of thinking that would blame a player for getting hit in the face with a high stick because that player was not wearing a full face guard. If the only way you can hit a player is by making principal contact with the head, then it is your responsibility to avoid hitting that player. Just as it is your responsibility to not hit a player from behind if the impact will carry them into the boards. The responsibility is always on the player making the hit.
I don't disagree. I hate head shots with great passion. On any player from any team. But if the NHL will not remove them from the game, I hate but therefore have no choice to accept that as explanation. Because they refuse to remove head shots.
I'm just saying DOPS says no supplemental discipline because, in part, principle point of contact wasn't the head. Which is entirely completely 100% not true.
Principle point of contact was the head. DOPS is good with that, in some instances. But they can't say that, so they fabricate. This is unacceptable.
The Following User Says Thank You to EldrickOnIce For This Useful Post:
Open ice hits almost always involve an unsuspecting player. It's also next to impossible to avoid head contact when a player puts himself in a position like Backlund did.
Right now, the league says these hits are OK as long as you don't leave your feet and keep your elbow tucked in.
If they are serious about eliminating these kinds of hits, I would argue you need to outlaw open ice hits. Everything else is window dressing and doesn't reflect the speed with which things happen on the ice.
Actually, no they don't. Not if the head is the principal point of contact.
Well. sometimes.
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Actually, no they don't. Not if the head is the principal point of contact.
Well. sometimes.
They aren't giving penalties for people being tall. If someone's at a different level as the guy hitting them they aren't saying the head is the principal contact.
Make's sense, game would be neutered if they called that.
They aren't giving penalties for people being tall. If someone's at a different level as the guy hitting them they aren't saying the head is the principal contact.
So, what, according to the NHL short people have no heads?
Bunk.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
They aren't giving penalties for people being tall. If someone's at a different level as the guy hitting them they aren't saying the head is the principal contact.
Make's sense, game would be neutered if they called that.
I get what you're trying to say, but that isn't what is being discussed here.
Dumba saw Backlund crossing the ice with his head down. And he took advantage. Which, in and of itself, isn't a penalty, nor against the rules.
But once he made principal contact with the head, in an aggressive and avoidable manner, he crossed the line.
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted.
In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered:
(i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of
approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward.
(ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a
posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable.
(iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly
contributed to the head contact.
So frustrating. I thought hits to the head were illegal now but I guess that only applies to certain players. Add in the facts Backlund is a really important player who will be missed in the next two games, the previous history of the Wild injuring Gaudreau, and Gio getting a hearing for a 2 minute trip and I am starting to get angry.
Really happy with the reaction to the hit from Peters and Lomberg though. A well earned fine and suspension.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted.
In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered:
(i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of
approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward.
(ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a
posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable.
(iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly
contributed to the head contact.
Thanks for posting.
I think the crux of what people are arguing, excepting folks who just prefer a move back to more of this kind of hitting, is whether or not it was avoidable for Dumba. No debate that Backlund made himself vulnerable which is considered under #2 but could Dumba have avoided it? No way you ever know for certain but for me, he could have easily just played the puck and avoided the hit, if the two players are reversed, Backlund tries to win the puck without decapitating the guy.
I think the crux of what people are arguing, excepting folks who just prefer a move back to more of this kind of hitting, is whether or not it was avoidable for Dumba. No debate that Backlund made himself vulnerable which is considered under #2 but could Dumba have avoided it? No way you ever know for certain but for me, he could have easily just played the puck and avoided the hit, if the two players are reversed, Backlund tries to win the puck without decapitating the guy.
Last year people were saying the same nonsense about Giordano hitting Aho. Like he should have somehow avoided contact?
I think both were clean hits. Dumba's pisses me off because it should never have happened but the hit itself was fine.
I think the crux of what people are arguing, excepting folks who just prefer a move back to more of this kind of hitting, is whether or not it was avoidable for Dumba. No debate that Backlund made himself vulnerable which is considered under #2 but could Dumba have avoided it? No way you ever know for certain but for me, he could have easily just played the puck and avoided the hit, if the two players are reversed, Backlund tries to win the puck without decapitating the guy.
Could he have avoided it? I guess. But he stepped up, exactly as he should have. 2-0 empty net, extra guy, puck squirts to the middle, you’re stepping up and stopping that player 100% of the time.
1 minute left so he “didn’t need to” is a weird thought, but if that’s your opinion let’s just say he did it as retribution to watching their captain get “kneed” and removed from the game. So he lays a hard, perfectly clean and legal, body check on a player to send a message back. Is it okay then? Isn’t that what we are all patting Lomberg on the back for?
I think the crux of what people are arguing, excepting folks who just prefer a move back to more of this kind of hitting, is whether or not it was avoidable for Dumba. No debate that Backlund made himself vulnerable which is considered under #2 but could Dumba have avoided it? No way you ever know for certain but for me, he could have easily just played the puck and avoided the hit, if the two players are reversed, Backlund tries to win the puck without decapitating the guy.
This is a contact sport and once you start saying a player cannot hit another player if they have a choice to play the puck instead, it starts to get a bit ridiculous.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
