[News] Caps Tom Wilson back at it

[DJones]

I'm still going back and forth on whether or not this should have been a penalty.

[Fire]

It's an obvious interference penalty at the very least. Not sure how someone can argue it's not a penalty.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Fire

It's an obvious interference penalty at the very least. Not sure how someone can argue it's not a penalty.

Happens all the time and there's no penalties. Just usually not a 60 pound weight difference.

[Hackey]

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).

Wilson literally hit him less than a second after the puck left his stick. That's not interference. He didn't hit from behind. That player was coming toward Wilson at first then turned. You say he let up so not sure how you can assume his purpose was to "destroy the player" and "make the target suffer physically" Part of hitting is to make people suffer physically. If the player would have continued in his "lane" he probably would have got rocked a lot harder. Instead he turned and Wilson let up and actually moved out of the way. From the time he starts to turn to the time he is hit is under 2 seconds. That play is barely a penalty.

[sempuki]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Wilson literally hit him less than a second after the puck left his stick. That's not interference. He didn't hit from behind. That player was coming toward Wilson at first then turned. You say he let up so not sure how you can assume his purpose was to "destroy the player" and "make the target suffer physically" Part of hitting is to make people suffer physically. If the player would have continued in his "lane" he probably would have got rocked a lot harder. Instead he turned and Wilson let up and actually moved out of the way. From the time he starts to turn to the time he is hit is under 2 seconds. That play is barely a penalty.

I'm not going to attempt to do subsecond analysis over the internet, but your estimates of how much time Wilson had is suspect.

Bottom line is there was no hockey play there except to destroy someone he would have recognized as turning. If he wanted to play the puck he would have gone to the side Seney was facing instead of the side that would have interfered with his own teammates existing check on Seney. If you think hitting someone from behind, numbers visible as day, late to boot, is a valid hockey play, that's on you.

Body checks are punishing, but there's nothing in the rule book to suggest that it intended, rather than a side effect of physics. The fact fans like it is secondary when discussing what is legal or not, which is the whole point of this discussion.

[sempuki]

To posters who claim "facts" you can't cite, you're only declaring your opinions irrelevant and putting yourself on ignore.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by sempuki

To posters who claim "facts" you can't cite, you're only declaring your opinions irrelevant and putting yourself on ignore.

Good. I don’t want you reading my fact based posts anyways.

You’re not worthy of objective thought. The world needs ditch diggers too.

[Irvir]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Good. I don’t want you reading my fact based posts anyways.

You’re not worthy of objective thought. The world needs ditch diggers too.

Hockey Canada's guide to teaching checking skills seems to disagree with what you've asserted as fact.

Body checking is the final step in the 4 step checking progression. A body check can be defined as body contact primarily caused by the movement of the checker. The checker uses their body for the purpose of stopping the attacking progress of the puck carrier and/or to separate the carrier from the puck.


https://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/ho...ching/checking

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by Irvir

Hockey Canada's guide to teaching checking skills seems to disagree with what you've asserted as fact.

Body checking is the final step in the 4 step checking progression. A body check can be defined as body contact primarily caused by the movement of the checker. The checker uses their body for the purpose of stopping the attacking progress of the puck carrier and/or to separate the carrier from the puck.


https://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/ho...ching/checking

Cool. But in practice/reality, checking predominantly occurs when the person getting hit doesn’t have the puck. Thereby rendering your, and the other nimrods argument, completely invalid. Take a lap you lose again.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Cool. But in practice/reality, checking predominantly occurs when the person getting hit doesn’t have the puck. Thereby rendering your, and the other nimrods argument, completely invalid. Take a lap you lose again.

Can you stop calling him an nimrod and debate him like an adult? What makes you think that type of thing is OK on this site?

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Can you stop calling him an nimrod and debate him like an adult? What makes you think that type of thing is OK on this site?

Lol I knew I’d eventually hook you too. Hahahah

[4X4]

What is this, an Archie comic? Who says nimrod, anyway?

[Irvir]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Cool. But in practice/reality, checking predominantly occurs when the person getting hit doesn’t have the puck. Thereby rendering your, and the other nimrods argument, completely invalid. Take a lap you lose again.

Except that what you took issue with was what hitting is supposed to be about. If you go back to your first post and look at the part you bolded it's pretty clear.

[sempuki]

Quoting bad comments effectively repeats them, bypassing ignore filters.

[Iggy Snipe]

I thought it should have been a 2 minute interferance penalty. Wilson did not try and hurt the player.

I am not a fan of Wilson, and i know his past, but I did not think he should have been given a major penalty on that play.

Thats the thing with having a reputation, even when you do something borderline or perhaps even legal, it is seen through a different lens and you will look more guilty then someone doing the same thing with a clean record.

[FlatLandFlamesFan]

Great article by retired Paul Stewart
not sure if Fata

https://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=96326

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Can you stop calling him an nimrod and debate him like an adult? What makes you think that type of thing is OK on this site?

Depends. Is Irvir a good hunter? Calling him a 'nimrod' might actually be fair.

[Johnny Makarov]

Payback's a bitch. Reaves wilsoned him.