Lol? The most liked post is that Raffl was playing hard defense, took a light swipe across Malkin's head, so it's his fault and the refs fault for this incident?
Malkin violently swings his stick at head-height. If Malkin fully connects, that's in the same realm as McSorley. Malkin is a goon. He should be punished more severely, and is lucky his stick swing didn't connect.
This isn't even close to being comparable to the McSorley incident. I could get into why it isn't, but if you're someone who doesn't already get why it isn't than you're probably not going to be convinced if I do get into it... which means I get to point out you're wrong and save myself a bunch of time and drama. Win-win!
Lol? The most liked post is that Raffl was playing hard defense, took a light swipe across Malkin's head, so it's his fault and the refs fault for this incident?
Malkin violently swings his stick at head-height. If Malkin fully connects, that's in the same realm as McSorley. Malkin is a goon. He should be punished more severely, and is lucky his stick swing didn't connect.
Since when is punching someone in the back of the head classified as defense? I suppose Todd Bertuzzi was just defending against Steve Moore?
Check your bias before bothering with another post.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
60.4 Match Penalty - When, in the opinion of the Referee, a player or goalkeeper attempts to or deliberately injures an opponent while carrying or holding any part of his stick above the shoulders of the opponent, the Referee shall assess a match penalty to the offending player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
lol, no. That is a deliberate attempt to injure match penalty all day, every day.
I guess that when I look at this, my take is that he definitely swings his stick at Raffl intentionally, but I don't see that kind of a swing as "intent to injure" any more than Raffl's punch to the head.
Now if this were a two-handed chop to the head (hit or miss), then I could see the argument for 'intent to injure', but I don't see it here. But careless, sure thing.
Heck, I think most of the slashes to Johnny's hands are more of an intent to injure than this one is.
Last edited by Lord Carnage; 02-12-2019 at 12:18 PM.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Carnage
I guess that when I look at this, my take is that he definitely swings his stick at Raffl intentionally, but I don't see that kind of a swing as "intent to injure" any more than Raffl's punch to the head.
Now if this were a two-handed chop to the head (hit or miss), then I could see the argument for 'intent to injure', but I don't see it here. But careless, sure thing.
Heck, I think most of the slashes to Johnny's hands are more of an intent to injure than this one is.
Tell ya what...i will let you give me a quick jab to the back of my head and then i get a full one handed swing with my stick to the side of yours.
Lets see who is injured and who isnt. You can be assured that my swing is most certainly an intent to do something....you can decide what.
Then let's decide if both actions are somehow equal.
(This is merely hypothetical and not intended as a real challenge to anybody but just a way to look at what happened)
Tell ya what...i will let you give me a quick jab to the back of my head and then i get a full one handed swing with my stick to the side of yours.
Lets see who is injured and who isnt. You can be assured that my swing is most certainly an intent to do something....you can decide what.
Then let's decide if both actions are somehow equal.
(This is merely hypothetical and not intended as a real challenge to anybody but just a way to look at what happened)
With the padding players wear, a 1-handed swing of a stick is no more likely to cause injury than a punch.
I believe the slash qualifies as careless because it ended up a head height, and you are responsible for your stick at all times, but that's as far as I'm willing to take it.
The punch definitely landed where Raffl was aiming - the head - which most people agree is the one area that should be left alone.
Again, no deliberate intent to injure by Malkin in my opinion...
Actually, yes, I believe the intent was to inflict pain (in response to the cross check and the punch), but to me that isn't the same thing as intent to injure.
Like the goalie to the player standing right in front of him and getting in his way constantly... a chop to the back of the legs to say, "get out of the crease area", but that isn't deemed intent to injure...
Last edited by Lord Carnage; 02-12-2019 at 01:05 PM.
Crosschecks / slashes / even jabs to the head are acceptable parts of playing rough.
Swinging your stick at head-height is never acceptable. It's stupid, dangerous and potentially career threatening.
How everyone here is focusing on the first is completely absurd.
The Athletic has a good collection of times Malkin has been a buffoon. How he's never been suspended before is amazing.
I'm also surprised at some of the reaction here. A crosscheck and a punch to the head is worth an attempted full-speed 180 degree slash to the face? Seriously? It was barely a punch anyways. Somewhere between a punch and a shove. Happens every single shift. Extremely reckless by Malkin and he deserves to be punished.
Here's a similar play that connected. They show Gagner's broken mug in the video. Kassian got five games and the rest of the preseason.
Malkin's swing is as clear an attempt to injure as I've ever seen. Luckily he didn't connect or it would have been ugly.
The Following User Says Thank You to sun For This Useful Post:
Which is dumb. They should punish the action, not the result.
I disagree. The punishment should always take into account the result; otherwise you are just encouraging players, having realized they are committing a spendable action, to make the consequences felt as much as possible, thereby having the opposite effect of what we want from a player safety perspective
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sworkhard
I disagree. The punishment should always take into account the result; otherwise you are just encouraging players, having realized they are committing a spendable action, to make the consequences felt as much as possible, thereby having the opposite effect of what we want from a player safety perspective
Or, you know, even attempting something has them thinking they shouldn't do it in the first place?
