Ovechkin's Hit Vs. Lapierre's Hit: You Make The Call
by Mike Chen on Mar 14, 2010 10:50 PM CDT
98 comments
By now, you've probably seen or at least heard about Alex Ovechkin's hit on Brian Campbell. Now word has come out that Brian Campbell suffered a broken rib, broken collarbone and a 2nd degree concussion on the play. Campbell was in a prone position when Ovechkin hit him (and if you watch the replay, the hit is much more than "just a push" like Ovechkin said to the press today); now the question is whether or not it's a suspendable offense.
Not too long ago, Maxim Lapierre got suspended for hitting Scott Nichol after Nichol was in a prone position. How does Ovechkin's hit compare? Let's look at the video evidence:
First, here's the Lapierre hit:
Now here's Ovechkin's hit. For better or worse, try to ignore who it actually is and look at an objective comparison to the Lapierre hit.
For my money, there's a greater break between when Nichol let go of the puck and Lapierre hit him versus when Campbell let go of the puck and Ovechkin hit him. Still, it's a dangerous play and a prime example of stuff that comes down to the lack-of-respect factor that so many recently retired players remark on these days.You could cite Cooke's history as a contributing factor, but Ovechkin's no angel either.
If all things were equal (and I think we've proven that they're not), I'd say Ovechkin deserves two games for this. I'm betting he won't get any. What would your call be?
0 recs |
98 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
I thought
the Ovechkin hit was clearly just as bad, if not worse. And he’s clearly got a history of punishable hits. But who knows if that will be taken into consideration.
Wait, the Ovechkin hit was “clearly as bad, if not worse”? That is just absurd. I thought the Lapierre hit was absolutely appalling right away, and while the Ovechkin shove is reckless, it is not on that level. I don’t even particularly like Ovechkin, and I love Brian Campbell (though not necessarily with that cap hit). The Lapierre incident has more speed and Nichol is moving forward with only one foot firmly on the ice while being in an extremely vulnerable position. Campbell was leaning back so the forward momentum was lesser in comparison. I was actually a little bit surprised to see him flip over like that from that position. Did his right skate get stuck on the ice?
No doubt it was a reckless shove by Ovechkin and worthy of a suspension, but the Lapierre shove was horrific and made all the more worse by the fact that he had already slashed Nichol when Nichol released the shot, so he knew what he was doing. It was like there was no end board there and the sheet of ice would just continue right through the end of the rink as a wide expanse. Not that I think Lapierre meant for Nichol to go headlong to the boards, but just seeing that play made me sick.
An opportunity to take a stand
I think the NHL has been given a glorious chance here to prove it takes discipline and the safety of it players seriously. Lapierre’s suspension was completely off base with the going rate for hits from behind this season, which generally warranted two game suspensions, or three games in the case of Tuomo Ruutu on Darcy Tucker. Still, you could applaud the fact that the league wanted to seriously punish a very dangerous play, which Lapierre’s hit clearly was. I didn’t think it was fair that Lapierre was being made an example of, but if the end result was stiffer discipline for reckless play, then so be it.
Then the Cooke incident, and the league does nothing. Any credibility gained by the Lapierre suspension was instantly lost. Now Colin Campbell and the league have an opportunity to get some of it back again. I agree that Ovechkin’s hit is probably a little less dangerous than Lapierre’s, but that’s really splitting hairs. A precedent has been set for this type of play and it should be adhered to, Ovechkin should get the same four games Lapierre did. If precedent is a good enough excuse to explain not suspending Cooke, it should apply here just as rigidly.
Precedence you say?
What did Craig Adams get? I’ll give you a hint.. the same as Cooke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60WLV9-voOQ
tell me what the difference is here.
by fricknoutstandin on Mar 15, 2010 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, the puck was still there when Lapierre hit Nichol (Nichol was trying to make a play on the puck when he was hit), but that doesn’t change the basic fact that it was a hit from behind in a dangerous spot (close to the boards).
I guess since Ovie got a game misconduct he’s already been punished for one game, so a 3 game suspension would equal the Lapierre penalty in that respect. Not that I expect this to be looked at logically, just saying.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
I say that both hits warrant a suspension. The Ovechkin hit seemed to be a split second earlier than the Lapierre hit, but looked like it had more intent on injuring Campbell than the Lapierre hit on Nichol. Either way Ovechkin should get suspended for this, irregardless of his checkered past. If I had my vote though I would say that Ovechkin gets 4 games, but since I’m not Colin Campbell and don’t get to play “Wheel of Justice” I would venture a guess of a 2 game suspension.
More intent??
Ovechkin looked genuinely concerned for Campbells well being. It wasn’t a smart hockey play, but it didn’t look like he had initial intentions to harm.
Lapierre was seen grinning afterwards, and the hit came after what very well could have been a goal (and dead play).
Where is your basis for this assessment you provide… or did you pull it out of your assessment without the “essment”.
by fricknoutstandin on Mar 15, 2010 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
should be 4 games
Will be: Are you joking? It’s Ovechkin. He has immunity.
by garth the hoser on Mar 15, 2010 1:35 AM CDT reply actions
I thought Ovechkin's hit was clean.
JK For a hit like that I think he should get 3-5 games. I’m guessing he gets two.
Or he might get what Randy Hahn suggested during the Sharks broadcast earlier tonight (I’m paraphrasing a bit), “Ovechkin’s suspension will depend on whether or not Washington is on NBC next week.”
"I think people were ready to watch some hockey. We took up enough of everyone’s time."
-Jody Shelley after 87 seconds of hockey fighting against Cam Janssen
normally i would say AO gets one game
but because they’re feeling the heat after the cooke thing, I think he gets 2 or 3. I think they will use the reasoning that he served part of it by getting the game misconduct.
Wait till this year.
I have a question though
I don’t really understand why these plays aren’t treated as intent to injure. Aside from the fact that the league doesn’t want to. But if you’re checking a guy face first into the boards at full or close to full speed, you’d have to be impaired not to think the guy’s going to get hurt.
And intent to injure is one situation where I think it’s justified to base the suspension on the degree of injury. Because you meant to hurt him. Otherwise, why do it? I know, I know: the game is fast, split second decisions etc..
Wait till this year.
Well, every hit is to an extent intent to injure, is it not? And Campbell just had played the puck. It’s one thing if he hunts down Campbell and would be guilty of interference as well as boarding, or if he gave a Cormier-esque elbow, but I think it’s too close to penalize him for intent to injure.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans no more intelligent than myself
by red army line on Mar 15, 2010 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions
No, every check is not an intent to injure.
A check (body check or stick check) is an attempt to “check,” as in neutralize, an opponent, in the context of the current play (not in the context of his career or life). “Finishing your check” did not originally mean “destroy” your opponent; it meant (and still means) completing the check so that your opponent does not, for example, bounce off you and continue to be a part of the play. It has absolutely nothing to do with trying to hurt people; otherwise, there would be no youth hockey or amateur hockey; you know, those places where we still teach (and require) players to respect each other.
Wait till this year.
Agree. Kids learn that the proper way to check takes an opponent off the puck, knocks the wind out of them, but doesn’t hurt them. USA Hockey has some official verbiage on that somewhere but I’m too lazy to dig it up right now.
No offense, but I’ve had the wind knocked out of me, and it hurts like hell. It goes away, but if one of the goals of checking someone is to do that, then there is an intent to injure. We are then talking about degrees of injury.
by J. Michael Neal on Mar 15, 2010 11:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes, and a loss hurts my feelings
but we’re talking about actual injuries. Knocking the wind out of someone is not an injury.
Wait till this year.
Ovechkin will be out Tuesday, and maybe Thursday. Anyone who thinks the NHL is going to suspend Ovechkin for 4 games with the Penguins a few games away on the schedule is out of their mind. Colin Campbell, at the end of the day, works for the owners, and the owners want ratings.
Not to mention, it was a weak 5 to begin with. Lapierre lays a crushing crosscheck in the back, Ovechkin pushes a guy on his hip. That Campbell got hurt worse than Nichol is pure chance, Campbell knew a bump was coming. Sucks for the Hawks that he’s hurt, but that’s bad luck, not dirty hockey. The officials didn’t think the same play was penalty worth when it happened TO Ovechkin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkQKBGAQExQ
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Mar 15, 2010 2:29 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
it's not "dirty" in the sense that I don't think AO tried to hurt him
but it is reckless, because AO knew (or should have known) that an injury to the head (which is an order of magnitude more extreme than other injuries) was likely to result from shoving him headfirst into the boards at top speed.
Wait till this year.
Interestingly, reports of a head injury seem to have fizzled out. The head injury you claim is a “likely” result never happened, he broke a rib falling on his stick, and broke his collar bone. Without a head injury, there is no possible game misconduct for boarding.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26329
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Mar 15, 2010 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions
first of all,
hitting from behind is an automatic game misconduct and 5 minute major. So focusing on boarding only ignores the obvious fact that the hit could have been covered by either.
A head injury is, in fact, a likely result of shoving someone from behind head-first into the boards at top speed. Whether it happened or not in this case is beside the point. It’s not reckless because it did happen (retroactive labeling of recklessness), it’s reckless because it’s f****ing obvious to any sane person that doing that is going to result in injury more often than not.
But I see you’re a caps fan. So that explains the desire to downplay what happened.
The fact is, AO is reckless. He says as much. Everyone can see it. And it’s dangerous.
Wait till this year.
hitting from behind is an automatic game misconduct and 5 minute major.
What are you talking about? If it’s a rule, it’s certainly not enforced all that much.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans no more intelligent than myself
by red army line on Mar 16, 2010 9:24 AM CDT up reply actions
Rule 44 - Checking from Behind
44.1 Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed.
44.2 Minor Penalty – There is no provision for a minor penalty for checking from behind.
44.3 Major Penalty – Any player or goalkeeper who cross-checks, pushes or charges from behind an opponent who is unable to protect or defend himself, shall be assessed a major penalty. This penalty applies anywhere on the playing surface (see 44.5).
44.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player or goalkeeper attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by checking from behind.
44.5 Game Misconduct – A game misconduct penalty must be assessed anytime a major penalty is applied for checking from behind.
44.6 Fines and Suspensions – Any player or goalkeeper who incurs a total of two (2) game misconducts under Rule 42 and/or Rule 44, in either the Regular season or Play-offs, shall be suspended automatically for the next game of his team. For each subsequent game misconduct penalty the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.
If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion.
Wait till this year.
Ok, thanks
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans no more intelligent than myself
by red army line on Mar 16, 2010 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes, I am a Caps fan, second to being a hockey fan. This play happens often, very often, probably a dozen times in a game. The difference here is that Ovechkin has 40 lbs on Campbell, and Campbell catches an edge (and thus, is unable to brace for the blow against the boards).
If you’re going to argue that more often than not, a player who is pushed from mostly from behind by a bigger, stronger player at a high rate of speed who catches an edge before impacting the boards will more likely than not result in an injury, that’s fine, but your wrong. You’ve also changed your argument from “an injury to the head” to “result in an injury” which is also quite different. This play happens in just about every game, and generally, the player doesn’t go crashing into the boards, and no injury results. As evidenced by the video I posted previously, even when they take a spill into the boards, its not unusual for no penalty to be called. If there was a better than even chance (which would be required for "more likely than not to apply) that Ovechkin gets hurt on that play, how does the referee manage to keep his hand at his side?
The fact of the matter, and the point I addressed, is that the referees on the ice in Chicago got the call wrong. Without a head or facial injury, a 5 minute Major and Game Misconduct is not an option for Boarding (the penalty which was called in the game, and which frankly, was the correct call). A checking from behind call would have been inappropriate here, since contact wasn’t made only on Campbell’s back. By that standard, 2/3s of the checks made in the NHL would be deemed “from behind” since some amount of contact is made on “the back part of the body” in a better than half of all checks in the NHL.
All that being said, looking at the play purely its own merit, without regard to previous suspensions (and non-suspensions) doled out by the NHL I felt 2 games was appropriate, and I would have been comfortable with 3 (though, through the error of the officials, he’ll essentially serve 3 after missing 2 1/2 periods of the game in Chicago). The offending player failed to exercise enough care (in my opinion, given his sheer size and strength) to prevent his action from putting another player in a position that could potentially be dangerous. That the play also posed no opportunity for the offending player to get to the puck would also weigh into my decision. Finishing the check, to me, is not an adequate reason to make that play. That should merit a two or three game suspension.
That the NHL, and its officials, don’t even approach the consistent application of this rule (or any other rule), and that the officials made the incorrect call on the ice, leads to my dissatisfaction.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Mar 16, 2010 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions
After watching the tape a few times
Its less than a second after Campbell lets go of the puck that ovie hits him, and it would be reasonable to believe that AO thought he still had the puck. Campbell wasn’t prone he was standing upright skating towards the back of the net when ovie pushed him and was sort of leaning into the push with his feet forward. Ovie didn’t use his stick he just used both hands to shove campbell. I would need to see how the boarding rule is sapposed to be called before I could really judge but if you were standing up straight about 10 feet from the boards and someone hits you and you end up banging your head against the boards if thats boarding then yeah AO isguilty, if not then its a legal hit.
He raged at the world, at his family, at his life. But mostly he just raged.
Checking from behind into the boards. It’s an automatic major, minimum.
by J. Michael Neal on Mar 15, 2010 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions
it's boarding if, as the rule says
“The onus is on the player (or goalkeeper) applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact.”
as far as your last sentence: no. There is also a rule called “checking from behind.”
“44.3 Major Penalty – Any player or goalkeeper who cross-checks, pushes or charges from behind an opponent who is unable to protect or defend himself, shall be assessed a major penalty. This penalty applies anywhere on the playing surface (see 44.5).”
Also, “charging” (which can apply to anything, since it’s one of the worst-written rules in the book; just to be clear, this rule needs to be rewritten, but as written it applies):
43.1 Charging – A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.
Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A "charge" may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.
Wait till this year.
You just don't do that
I don’t think Ovechkin gave him a crazy hard hit (though it was more than a shove) and it was only a little late, but theres just something you don’t do in hockey and that is hit someone from behind a few feet from the boards. If Campbell had gone into the boards slightly differently, he might have had much worse injuries. We’ve seen hockey players get paralyzed in situations like that, a few feet from the boards, head goes in bad. It was painful to watch and think about the consequences. As someone who played, I would have never touched him in that situation. I would suspend him at least 3 games.
Exactly. It doesn’t matter if he had the puck or not. That’s why kids have stop signs on their jerseys.
If Savard didn’t have the puck (as recently as he did) Cooke would be suspended right now and he probably would have had a major interference penalty on the play (at the least)
yes but cooke should have been suspended anyway
because he went out of his way to make contact with savard’s head, which is intent to injure period end of story.
Wait till this year.
Indeed.
When you shove a guy from behind, at that distance from the boards, while you’re both heading toward the boards at speed, you should know damn well this is the risk.
Pretty stunned by people defending Ovechkin with beside-the-point noise like: “Oh, Campbell lost an edge, oh he had just played the puck, oh Ovi’s just so much stronger,” etc. Sorry, whether any of those factors were in play, that is exactly why you don’t shove a guy from behind at this dangerous distance from the boards. If something goes wrong, you didn’t just “finish your (illegal) check” — you put a guy’s head/spine (or in this case, clavicle and ribs) at risk. It’s just a cardinal no-no, and I’d think someone with Ovechkin’s on-ice intelligence should know better.
Lighthouse Hockey: What's wrong with lotteries? I've been in lots of lotteries.
Just that this play happens dozens of times a game. You see it all the time, the defenseman being chased by a forechecker, passing the puck off and the forechecker finishing the check or giving the defenseman a shove. The angles and such worked it out to be dangerous, but Ovechkin does it all the time without any more danger than in a normal hit. It just worked out badly this time, I think.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans no more intelligent than myself
by red army line on Mar 15, 2010 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
I don’t see people being checked from behind into the boards like that a dozen times a game. It’s much more dangerous that way. Not only is Campbell’s momentum taking him into the boards, getting your head snapped back has much more serious injury ramifications than if you fall backwards into the boards.
That said, I do think that boarding, and checking from behind, should be called more often. Maybe I’m just grumpy on the subject after watching North Dakota take out two of our defensemen on cheap hits last night.
by J. Michael Neal on Mar 15, 2010 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Not into the boards, but from behind, I see it all the time (maybe the Caps are a dirty team? I don’t buy it). Not big hits, just shoves (here though a strong shove at high speed —> Campbell flying). Normally the guy will brace himself against the boards or just double over and absorb the hit with his torso while continuing to skate towards the opposite corner. If Ovechkin gets him a little later, it’s interference, but the same result as all those common plays.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans no more intelligent than myself
by red army line on Mar 15, 2010 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Not into the boards, but from behind
Uhm, that’s a pretty big difference. Checking from behind elsewhere can be a minor penalty, but isn’t called much. Checking from behind into the boards, or into the net, is a major. That’s because it’s a hell of a lot more dangerous.
by J. Michael Neal on Mar 15, 2010 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Not into the boards, but from behind, I see it all the time
From that distance you see it all the time? If you did, you’d see many more injuries.
The distance is the key here — and in fact it’s the whole reason this play developed: There is a perimeter of boards in hockey, and they shape plays like this; a slow-moving puck with a defenseman having to head toward his boards to retrieve it, at this distance from the boards, with a forechecker bearing down on him. A defenseman can hang on to the puck and get clobbered, or he can dish the puck away up the boards and reasonably expect that the forechecker won’t shove him from behind at the most vulnerable point on the ice. (In fact, that’s really the only reason a D-man gives up possession here; there is an implicit agreement that if he gets to the puck and releases it, the forward does not have to make the choice between “finishing” a dangerous check and worrying about the defender’s safety.)
“The angles,” “a rut,” “just shoves” — all of that is precisely why you do not and cannot haul off and shove a guy from behind at this distance from the boards: Because the consequences, should any of those “it just worked out that way” conditions exist, send a guy and his soon-to-be-horizontal spine/neck hurtling into the boards off balance, instead of upright against the boards as happens when a guy is within arms length of the boards and is bumped.
Lighthouse Hockey: What's wrong with lotteries? I've been in lots of lotteries.
No, but as long as Hakstol is the coach, that’s what you’re going to get. Fortunately, Nick Leddy only has a thigh contusion.
by J. Michael Neal on Mar 15, 2010 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions
UND is dirty
I’ve seen a lot of their crap over the years as a DU fan. Glad the Pios swept their arses this season.
Jibbles is an older man so you can trust what he says.
by Bob in Boulder on Mar 15, 2010 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions
It’s funny. I really don’t like George Gwozdecky (goes back to when he was at Miami), but I will definitely admit that he has DU playing clean. Boring, but clean.
by J. Michael Neal on Mar 15, 2010 11:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Indeed...this is the only valid point I've seen
I’m a fan of OV. But you state the absolute truth. Hockey players know that hitting a guy ON the boards from behind (happens all the time) isn’t nearly as dangerous as a few feet from hit. This is where I wish OV would learn to make better decisions.
The talk about intent to injure, and malicious… it’s just stupid. The fact is OV didn’t appear to think it would cause the injury it did. I really don’t think someone like him wants to get kicked out of games and suspended. However, it just simply wasn’t a smart play. I think he saw all shoulder and gave a hockey push like you see all over the ice. Just not when the boards are 5 feet away.
Comparing that to Laperierre who clearly hits from the numbers…. and after what looked initially like a goal.. just doesn’t make much sense to me.. but haters will be haters.
by fricknoutstandin on Mar 15, 2010 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Lapierre definitely has more time to react, plus Nichol’s back is more square to him. But both are reckless, dangerous plays. I think Lapierre’s hit was dirtier and AO was playing on instinct. But there’s a big difference between starting your check about a foot or so from the boards where the glass can absorb the impact and that five-six foot range where a falling player can seriously get hurt. It’s hockey instinct and self-control.
AO is an incredible player who had a lapse of judgment. No one’s debating that point.
The question is this: should reckless plays that come with a history of creating severe injuries be punished? That’s why I said in the original post to take away who it is and try to consider it objectively. If it was, say, Travis Moen, would anyone be defending it?
You can’t penalize for injuries though, otherwise you’d have a tactic where you put some guy with Lobstein disease out there and have him skate in front of the other team’s star. If Campbell had gone into the boards slightly differently he could have been injured worse, or he could have been perfectly fine and the refs wouldn’t have given Ovechkin a game misconduct, maybe not even a major penalty.
by snowburnt on Mar 15, 2010 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
He in fact almost goes in side-first, which would, I think, be no injury. Instead he goes in at a slight angle.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans no more intelligent than myself
by red army line on Mar 15, 2010 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Per the rules, it shouldn’t have even been a game misconduct, because Campbell’s injury was/is to his ribs and collarbone, not his face/head, which is what triggers the extra penalty.
Game-Over Green? Canada-Over Carlson!
by Scott in Shaw on Mar 15, 2010 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions
That wasn’t the call on the ice. The misconduct wasn’t even the original call on the ice.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans no more intelligent than myself
by red army line on Mar 16, 2010 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions
Hey, I wasn't the official on the ice.
I’m just looking at the hit and applying the actual rules as actually written.
Wait till this year.
I don’t buy though that they looked at it and decided it was checking-from-behind and applied the rules as such without explicitly changing the scoresheet. Maybe I misread what you said, but that seemed like what you meant.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans no more intelligent than myself
by red army line on Mar 16, 2010 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions
you certainly can penalize for injuries that result from an intent to injure
but in this case, which i think is recklessness, the standard needs to be that the penalty is proportional to the obvious dangerous nature of that specific play in general. For example, checking someone in the head, or boarding, or checking from behind.
Wait till this year.
You mean like Handzus on Hemsky this year?
Only YOU can prevent idiots from commenting!
by Knee high to a duck on Mar 16, 2010 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions
Certainly if Handzus were to check someone recklessly while the player was in a vulnerable position, he should be penalized accordingly
But look at the check. It’s a fairly mild cross-check that injured a player who was already injured. Even Hemsky said as much. I believe they called it a cross-checking penalty, right? Sounds about right to me.
But to answer your implied question, yes of course it applies to Kings players, too.
Wait till this year.
You’re joking, right? He drives a defenseless player head first into the boards and puts him out for the season. Campbell didn’t even go headfirst and was further out from the boards. From your characterization, how is that any better than what Ovechkin did?
Only YOU can prevent idiots from commenting!
by Knee high to a duck on Mar 16, 2010 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Look at the replay.
He didn’t “drive” anyone anywhere. Hemsky himself said he was playing injured. It’s a shoulder injury not a head injury. And Handzus got a penalty for cross-checking, which is what he did. It wasn’t intent. It didn’t look reckless to me, but if you want to play it safe, call it reckless and give him a double-minor. But really I don’t think you’re being objective here.
I’m open to the possibility that I am the one who is not seeing this clearly. Anyone else? Check out the link two comments above this one. Is that the same as the Ovechkin hit?
Wait till this year.
Even if Hemsky is playing injured, is he not in a vulnerable position near the boards? Did Handzus cross check him? Did further injury result? Season-ending injury?
You’re a Kings fan per your profile, I don’t think you’re objective about this either. I’m just pointing out that Handzus met all of your criteria for why Ovechkin deserved his punishment, but escaped without anything further.
Only YOU can prevent idiots from commenting!
by Knee high to a duck on Mar 16, 2010 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Aside from the difference in the speed of the players involved in the two hits, and the force of impact in the boards, and the distance between the player and the boards, and the fact that one player was already hurt and the other wasn't
I agree with you. Basically, if you turn up all the knobs on the Handzus hit, you might arrive at something like the AO hit. But that doesn’t strike me as especially meaningful. Handzus needs to be careful, too. Everyone does. Maybe Handzus didn’t get more of a penalty because everyone knows he’s a stand-up guy and respectful basically to everyone. c.f. Ovechkin.
Wait till this year.
I think Mike has it exactly right.
The two hits are close as far as the type of hit/shove, the location on the ice, and the impact into the boards. But Lapierre’s comes later. And in fact, in some sense it’s even later than it looks since Nichols was on a breakaway and was clearly not going to keep control of the puck past the net, while there was at least a chance Campbell might keep possession.
I’d say two games is about right. Maybe three if you cound Ovechkin as a repeat offender.
But let’s be clear, it is boarding. This argument that it was far enough away from the boards that it somehow shouldn’t count is just ridiculous. At the speed they’re going, if shoving someone from behind as they pass the goalline isn’t boarding then there’s no reason to even have that in the rule book.
Down Goes Brown - Unapologetically nostalgic for the past. Brutally realistic about the present. Grudgingly optimistic about the future.
by Down Goes Brown on Mar 15, 2010 8:27 AM CDT reply actions
But if you look at the replay of the Lapierre hit
I don’t think Lapierre’s hit was late at all. Dirty? No doubt about it. But not late. After the puck deflected off the post, you can see Nichol was trying to bat the puck out of the air the instant before Lapierre shoves him. Thus, it’s arguable that Lapierre shoved Nichol, albeit illegally, to stop Nichol from getting a stick on the puck.
by EamusCatuli23 on Mar 15, 2010 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions
The problem is, whatever the league does, it’s still a joke.
Certainly, it was a boarding major. Anybody who thinks something else is just deluding themselves. The misconduct sucked all the air out of a hyped up game for me, but that’s Ovechkin’s fault for laying the crappy hit, not the ref’s fault.
As for a suspension, whatever comes out, the league will be wrong. If they suspend him for 4 as a “repeat offender” then they’re idiots for not suspending Cooke. If they suspend him for 2, then they’re idiots for not considering his history and just how dangerous the play was. If they don’t suspend him at all, they’re coddling a star and allow dangerous behavior to continue.
But in the same game, we saw lots of shenanigans. Burish drops the gloves and throws a punch. No fighting major, no instigator, no roughing. Just the initial slash. On the game winner, Bolland checks Backstrom late and from behind. I’m sure there were one or two more in the other direction, but I only caught snippets of the game after the Ovechkin hit.
Heck, even Lapierre’s hit went without a penalty during the game.
The on-ice and off-ice discipline is a joke right now, and it all comes back to Campbell and Bettman. Until they fix it, we’re stuck in wheel of justice land.
When the game misconduct came down during the game yesterday, I texted a friend: “Ovechkin just got tossed from a game for an obvious cheap shot. We must not be in the playoffs yet.”
Many of the debates we have about player safety in the NHL come down to not hitting players in defenseless positions. (For the record, I thought Cooke should have been suspended for the hit on Savard.) A guy racing towards the end boards at top speed is completely defenseless from behind; wiping a guy out from behind who’s going too fast to stop himself is just dangerous as hell. And that’s clearly what Ovechkin was trying to do. Really sorry to hear that Campbell’s injuries were so severe.
I would like to see Ovechkin suspended 3-4 games for the hit. But talk of suspending him presumes that the NHL actually gives a crap about player safety and cares about deterring hits like this in the future. Which is giving the league far too much credit.
P is for Latrobe.
If Cooke’s latest cheap shot doesn’t warrant any suspension, then nothing does. Just make it a free for all until someone gets killed (hopefully that will be Cooke). Then wake up and smell the coffee.
Jibbles is an older man so you can trust what he says.
by Bob in Boulder on Mar 15, 2010 11:05 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
hits..
how about this one — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkQKBGAQExQ&feature=player_embedded — no call on the ice, no suspension and certainly more dangerous than this hit.
or how about this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95gD79dWjA&feature=player_embedded — look at the hit Orpik puts on Stamkos. it is a little further out than Ovechkin’s, but still pretty similar. Stamkos goes off into the boards and no call is made because SS pops right back up, he easily could have been hurt and I’d bet a call would have been made in reaction to the result of the play, not for the play itself. the same reason why Ovechkin got a 5 and a GM, not a 2 or even a 4.
follow-up
my point is that if the HIT is a suspendable offense, it should be a suspendable offense. If you want to use the injury as reason to determine the length, ok fine, but the actual offense is what you are getting suspended for – not the injury.
Haters will hater; and we ovi fans will continue to defend.
To me the bigger issue is the whole idea that you can and should make hockey, a contact spoort safe.
First we Americans ruined one of our own sports – American Football, trying to make it “PC” on the field, an epic fail since the players still at times literally rape and pillage off the field.
Now we try and ruin Hockey because guys are bigger, faster, stronger today and the equipement is better. So we try and take out much of the contact. In the end we won’t like the result and what needs to be done is the equipment needs to be looked at.
I’m a Caps fan so to me Ovie should have gottent a 2 minute minor at most and stayed in the game, surprise. Others will of course diasagree, but here’s my bottom line -
Overreact to these sorts of things and you will change the basic fabric of the game. If that’s what you want then lobby away. Me, I like the game with a physical edge.
by markbona-capsfan99 on Mar 15, 2010 12:21 PM CDT reply actions
We’ve been trying to eliminate hits like Ovie’s for my entire lifetime. Minor hockey programs have put stop signs on player’s backs to prevent serious injury (we’re talking potential brocken backs and necks). This isn’t a new hit that is being eliminated by bleeding hearts. This is something the toughest defenders of the sport have recognized as cheap for decades now.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
Just now they’re being made more possible as the speed (I think—I’ve only followed hockey since 2003) increases and player strength increases.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans no more intelligent than myself
by red army line on Mar 15, 2010 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions
absolutely
about the last half century, this has been an issue. saying that eliminating life-threatening, reckless or “intent to injure” checks would change the fabric of the game is manifestly absurd. I’ve been playing hockey for forty years and I can tell you for a fact that many NHL players, some of whom were my teammates growing up, would never even have been allowed to play hockey in the first place, and never would have had long NHL careers, if that was in any way part of “the fabric of the game.” Because their parents wouldn’t have let them play.
Wait till this year.
Haters Will Hater
That was the name of my band in college.
by garth the hoser on Mar 15, 2010 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Lets face it, if Brian Campbell hit Ovechkin exactly like this, you’d be calling for a 30 game suspension. Especially if Ovechkin was knocked out for the season like Campbell apparently is.
While there is always a level of risk in a contact sport, there is no justification for shoving a guy, square between the numbers, into the boards. That is an utter lack of respect for an opponent, and in Ovechkin’s case, a very common problem. He obviously did not learn his lesson from his first suspension, and if the league had any balls, he would get a much longer one this time.
As it is, he’ll be getting at least one game for his third game misconduct of the season.
Actually, no automatic suspension
44 games since his last boarding major. The kneeing incident is counted separately.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans no more intelligent than myself
by red army line on Mar 15, 2010 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, I guess he’s got good timing when it comes to his cheap shot artistry. That 41 game cut off point is pretty damn ridiculous.
First we Americans ruined one of our own sports – American Football, trying to make it "PC" on the field, an epic fail since the players still at times literally rape and pillage off the field.
Personally, I won’t be satisfied until I can watch guys with swords, and the crowd gets to decide whether the loser lives or dies.
by J. Michael Neal on Mar 15, 2010 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Here’s another thing that I see: Campbell and Ovechkin are both quite clearly turning, Lapierre is not turning (so his force goes straight towards the boards) while Nichol is.
Of course I’m a Caps fan, so I’ll be on the “defending” side of the line. But definitely not worth 4 games that Lapierre got. I don’t think it’s worth any. Unfortunate circumstances, whereas if you deliver that hit to Nichol ten times out of ten the player is going to be shaken up quite badly.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans no more intelligent than myself
Not to mention that Campbell looked at ovechkin and knew he was there whereas in the Lapierre hit, first he slashed nichol in the back (which would have been Nichol’s only warning a player was there). Further, Ovechkin pushed while lapierre cross checked. Also ovechkin was only “behind” campbell for a split second and there was never a time that lapierre was to the side or in front of Nichol.
Other than that they are the exact same…
"Have you ever played?" "Yes, I was a goalie"
Did anyone else notice that Ovechkin taps Campbell’s left leg with his stick before the hit, to let him know he was coming?
by alright alright alright on Mar 15, 2010 1:55 PM CDT reply actions
I hope Ovie doesn't get any...
But that’s because I love the guy to death. In all seriousness, though, it wasn’t dirty so much as dangerous. It looks as though Campbell knows Ovie’s coming, but he didn’t really prepare for the hit like he should have.
Of course, you have to figure the Matt Cooke non-call into it. By what the league deems “appropriate punishment”, the game misconduct is already enough for Ovie.
Ovie’s a monster and it’s possible that he’d already come barreling in for the hit while Campbell still had the puck. He’s so, so strong and I don’t know that he realizes his own strength.
Whatever happens, I just hope the league makes the right call and I want Ovechkin to realize his mistake and tone down the recklessness just a tad.
Here's to all us girls who love hockey...and the men who play it.
by Brad_Richards_Rocks on Mar 15, 2010 2:08 PM CDT reply actions
No Comaprison -
Leperierre: Was a cross check full on the middle of Nichol’s back and was pushing him directly in to the boards.
Ovechkin: Was a hard shove – no stick involved and was a glancing push/hit to Campbell’s side/shoulder.
Even if you feel the timing was the same and I’d call Leperierre’s later – Leperierr’s was clearly illegal. if Campbell didn’t go down like a sack of potatos I’m not even sure Ovechkin would have been called and everyone would be saying it was just aggressive forechecking.
by markbona-capsfan99 on Mar 15, 2010 2:33 PM CDT reply actions
I don't know about that...
"I think people were ready to watch some hockey. We took up enough of everyone’s time."
-Jody Shelley after 87 seconds of hockey fighting against Cam Janssen
Look at the 41-42 sec mark of the video in the story closely. The way Ovechkin’s hands come off of Campbell suggest shoulder. I don’t disagree it was back in part, but I think a big part of it was shoulder too.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans no more intelligent than myself
by red army line on Mar 15, 2010 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Campbell also seems to hardly twist in the air, yet hits the board mainly with his right shoulder/side. That hints at shoulder contact with Ovechkin too.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans no more intelligent than myself
by red army line on Mar 15, 2010 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions
I’m all for suspending Ovie for a reckless hit, but if you’re going to do that, they you better damn well kick Matt Cooke out of the league for a career filled with head-hunting bush-league shots.
The Avalanche, clearly, are down with No PP.
If only the league had some rules and guidelines governing this whole thing for consistency. Oh wait…
Consistency is something only seen in Colin’s bowel movements…
The Avalanche, clearly, are down with No PP.
by Mike @ MHH on Mar 15, 2010 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
checking from behind + boarding
no matter what happens to campbell as a result.
Wait till this year.
I think you nailed it, Mike
Should be two games, and he’ll get none.
Shameless plug
Tune into Rink Side Radio tonight at 9 PM EST. Joe and Travis will get the Caps perspective on all this when Steve from Japers’ Rink stops by.
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
On Facebook? Use Connect to join SB Nation. Share insights with fans and friends.- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on From The Rink
Related FanShots on From The Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Exclusive: Kovalchuk on the end of NHL contract controversy
- NHL 2010-11 Season Preview: Wrestling with Calgary Flames
- Video: Goal with soccer-style header looks cool, probably illegal
- Leonsis calls out Toronto columnist for Ovechkin contract slam
- NHL 2010-11 Season Preview: Wrestling with Buffalo Sabres
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
