[News] Caps Tom Wilson back at it

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

But, it's not a hockey play at all. This is not some unfortunate part of hockey being a contact sport, which I feel we can all accept to some extent, this is intentional physical punishment on an unsuspecting player away from the hockey play. While he didn't target the head, he had an opportunity to punish a smaller player that was playing well against his team that night, and he took the opportunity to try and hurt him while he was looking the other way.

It might be just me, but that kind of stuff has NEVER been ok in hockey, and those are the guys that you'd be happy to have an enforcer around for. Take him out to the woodshed for making cowardly, cheap, and dirty plays targeting skilled players. Oh for a Brian McGrattan in the league.

The guy is a bigger version of Marchand. A rat through and through. If the league doesn't want fighting around, they need to punish these types of plays and players severely and often. There's just no place in the game for stuff like this.

Again, it's simply NOT a hockey play.

Tripping, slashing, fighting....all of them are not "hockey plays" which is why they are penalized.

Hitting a guy on the shoulder and knocking him down away from the puck is called interference, regardless of who delivers the hit. Happens all the time.

You say the guy is a bigger version of Marchand...I say he is a bigger version of Matthew Tkachuk. I would also say i would welcome all of them on my team.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Tripping, slashing, fighting....all of them are not "hockey plays" which is why they are penalized.

Hitting a guy on the shoulder and knocking him down away from the puck is called interference, regardless of who delivers the hit. Happens all the time.

You say the guy is a bigger version of Marchand...I say he is a bigger version of Matthew Tkachuk. I would also say i would welcome all of them on my team.

Tkachuk only engages the opposition as part of a hockey play. The few times that he hasn't done that (sticking the player going off the ice) he was suspended for it. Good, I say. He learned from it and he stopped doing that stuff. He's a far more effective player because of it.

This is not traditional interference. Interference occurs because players are either trying to obstruct the opposition from getting the puck and making a play. There was not intent by Wilson to do that here, he was merely trying to punish the opponent physically with a cheap shot on the unsuspecting player. I cannot stress that last point enough. It's a CHEAP SHOT dirty play. NOT a hockey play, and not a normal minor penalty. There was intent to do something other than "interfere" with the player, and I'm glad the officials on the ice saw it that way to give him a match penalty. When normal penalty plays become extremely dangerous, there is always room for the officials to take it up a notch in the penalty assessment. I.e. a 4 minute high-sticking minor vs. a 2 minute one.

I'm very disappointed that the league didn't even feel the need to discuss this with Wilson, who is fresh off a lengthy suspension for dirty plays. The inconsistency in the league is absolutely maddening. At least have a hearing. If you choose not to suspend in the course of that, then fine, but at least let the player know this could be considered in the same category as earlier offenses that led to suspensions.

[Matty81]

Looked dirty to me... blindside, away from the puck. Didn't look like a head the hit from what I could see or look as bad as his other stuff though. Still hitting a guy needlessly who is not involved in the play from behind who doesn't see it coming and he's a repeat offender - not a great look. Wouldn't be surprised if he gets another couple games.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Sure a lot of talk about intent considering you can’t possibly know his intention.

Bottom line is this wasn’t a suspendable offence no matter who did it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I will be surprised if the match penalty isnt rescinded.

I wouldn't count on that. I don't think there will be any supplemental discipline, but the league will likely have the same concern I have and leave the match penalty on his record. If he wants to keep coming at guys blindside, he's going to keep getting ejected from games.

[FusionX]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Sure a lot of talk about intent considering you can’t possibly know his intention.

Bottom line is this wasn’t a suspendable offence no matter who did it.

I would argue we know exactly what his intention was based on his previous transgressions.

[N-E-B]

I’m in the “people are only angry because this is Tom Wilson” camp. The NHL made the right call. That was incidental contact. The match penalty was a bad call. It’s amazing what people will pretend to see just because they don’t like the player involved.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I’m in the “people are only angry because this is Tom Wilson” camp. The NHL made the right call. That was incidental contact. The match penalty was a bad call. It’s amazing what people will pretend to see just because they don’t like the player involved.

That comment is completely unfair. If I didn't know that was Wilson, I'd be calling it a dirty play too. I have the ability to be objective and view the play for what it is. I also have the ability to put that play in context. We shouldn't divorce the facts of the situation from the reality that Wilson deserves a little more careful look at his plays these days. He's a dangerous player with a pretty long history of dirty and dangerous plays. It would be silly to not have that information as part of the discussion.

[soulchoice]

The NHL made the right call on this. I thought due to Wilsons history, they may have overreacted and given him a game. However, its good to see them make the proper decision on the incidental contact.

[sempuki]

Regardless of what you think he should have been penalized, the fact is he made a deliberate choice to blindside a vulnerable player, causing his head to whip around, and has a documented track record of predatory hits.

People who think the victim "sold it" -- how exactly does one spin himself in the air when you never saw the hit coming?? Amazing how people see what they want to see...

[H2SO4(aq)]

I woulda hit the dude too. Whatever, doesn’t look like he got his head so who cares. If it wasn’t Wilson, nobody would talk about it.

[sempuki]

For a while now the NHL has used the concept of lanes: a defensemen has the right to stay in his lane and defend as the forward tries to pass him. What was Wilson's lane there? It wasn't to the puck. It wasn't to obstruct a path to the net. It was to destroy the player.

Wilson rightly let up when he realized the player no longer has the puck, but the player has the right to his own lane as well (in this case he was basically standing still), and if Wilson collides with him in his lane it's interference, hitting from behind, and with intent to make the target suffer physically (as opposed to separating the player from the puck, which is what hitting is supposed to be about).

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by sempuki

For a while now the NHL has used the concept of lanes: a defensemen has the right to stay in his lane and defend as the forward tries to pass him. What was Wilson's lane there? It wasn't to the puck. It wasn't to obstruct a path to the net. It was to destroy the player.

Wilson rightly let up when he realized the player no longer has the puck, but the player has the right to his own lane as well (in this case he was basically standing still), and if Wilson collides with him in his lane it's interference, hitting from behind, and with intent to make the target suffer physically (as opposed to separating the player from the puck, which is what hitting is supposed to be about).

Yeah, this is what I was talking about. He wasn't going (late) to where the puck was, nor was he heading to where it was going. He didn't look like he was trying to hit hard, though. I think he was "accidentally on purpose " trying to bump the guy in a dick move. Which, at the end of the day, isn't a suspension I guess.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by sempuki

For a while now the NHL has used the concept of lanes: a defensemen has the right to stay in his lane and defend as the forward tries to pass him. What was Wilson's lane there? It wasn't to the puck. It wasn't to obstruct a path to the net. It was to destroy the player.

Wilson rightly let up when he realized the player no longer has the puck, but the player has the right to his own lane as well (in this case he was basically standing still), and if Wilson collides with him in his lane it's interference, hitting from behind, and with intent to make the target suffer physically (as opposed to separating the player from the puck, which is what hitting is supposed to be about).

Lol no its not.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Lol no its not.

Actually, yes, it is the primary purpose.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by timbit

Actually, yes, it is the primary purpose.

A stick check is more effective. You hit someone for more reasons.

And factually speaking, most hits occur after the puck has already been distributed from the person getting hit. Which again proves my point. But carry on with your “actually, yes” factually incorrect depiction.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

A stick check is more effective. You hit someone for more reasons.

And factually speaking, most hits occur after the puck has already been distributed from the person getting hit. Which again proves my point. But carry on with your “actually, yes” factually incorrect depiction.

"Factually speaking"? Link please.

[sempuki]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

A stick check is more effective. You hit someone for more reasons.

And factually speaking, most hits occur after the puck has already been distributed from the person getting hit. Which again proves my point. But carry on with your “actually, yes” factually incorrect depiction.

Hitting a player without the puck is interference. You're allowed to finish your check because of physics, and it's called **finishing** the check. The purpose is to check the player with the puck. You can't just skate out and run into anyone you want. Can you please cite your "facts"?

People just make up random stuff...

[Yamer]

Threads like these are a wonderful study in human subjectivity.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by sempuki

Hitting a player without the puck is interference. You're allowed to finish your check because of physics, and it's called **finishing** the check. The purpose is to check the player with the puck. You can't just skate out and run into anyone you want. Can you please cite your "facts"?

People just make up random stuff...

Thanks for proving my point nimrod LOL

the majority of checks occur when the player getting hit doesn’t, at the time of the check, have possession of the puck.

Lolol plz nap it out bud