Re: Hal Gill hit on Jon Sim
posted at 3/11/2011 12:29 PM EST
In Response to Re: Hal Gill hit on Jon Sim
[QUOTE]Body check at low speed on a player with the puck versus head push at high speed on a player without the puck. You are grasping at straws my friend. But DENIAL seems to be very much in fashiong today so you are not alone. Nice try though.
Posted by Lafleur1979[/QUOTE]
Most of what I read on this issue makes me sick. Can we just get past the hysteria and be logical for a moment? I've read hundreds of comments, from both camps and only a handful make any attempt at reasonable dialogue. At least 95% are the ramblings of illogical, blind, homers.
This isn't about national pride, or culture. It's not a world changing event. It's a hockey play, and their is ample video to provide the foundation for a sensible opinion. Unfortunately, every critic of the game, is using this instance to champion their version of what's wrong with the game.
You can't do that ! You have to look at this one singular issue, and deal with it.
The minister of sport(or whatever he is), is yelling for suspensions every time a player is injured...regardless of how it happenned. That's not at issue here..it's irresponsible grandstanding, and I'm sure the Players Association would be the first to disagree with that option. Now we've got the justice system in there tooling around. Think the NHL can't run their business? I can't see involving a group of people whose livlihood is the perpetuation of endless debate...many having no idea whatsoever anything about the game of hockey, doing much better.
We also have Pacioretty..."seriously" concussed...feeling good enough to get on the horn to release his story 24 hours later. Don't think I've ever saw that before.
All titalating stories. Unfortunately, they bring nothing to the actual issue in question, they merely ramp up the hysteria.
Guess I'm of the minority here, but I've got no time for conspiracy theorists, and drama queens.
I've watched the play several times. I understand people can see things differently, and people have different opinions...but honestly...in this case, it looks pretty straight forward to me.
What seems to dictate the view here seems to hinge on 2 factors. 1. It's looked at objectively, with no pre determined opinion. Or 2. It's looked at from the prospective of an unobjective hockey fan. Someone who blindly backs his team on everything, see's the competition as evil, and is only looking for something that will validate his pre-existing lunacy.
My opinion...is that it was a very benign play. Same as the Hunwick hit on Savard that put him out for the rest of the year. I saw a defenseman "rub' out a player(not paste him) on a potential breakaway play. I've seen the same play countless times before, and in many cases, no penalty is called.(see Gill-Sim on the habs website) I find it absolutely incredulous that some conclude that a defenseman..in another teams rink...in a split second play...when faced with a potential breakaway....processes the required strategy to react....plus, without ever looking toward the boards, or appearing to focus on who the player was...instinctively knowing exactly where the stanchion was located(when he plays less than 4% of his games in said rink)...then proceeded to willfully drive the opponents head into the target. Hollywood would be hard pressed to trump that.
You may argue "intent" has no bearing, but in judgement calls regarding sport, intent is important in certain situations. If it never is...your lawyer friends are gonna have a field day moving forward.
In the last year or so, head injuries are 'front and center", but this instance has no paralell to what the league is attempting to clamp down on. Dirty hits, cheap shots, targetting the head. There will always be the potential for head injuries, and it's not sensible to assume that every case involves suspensions.
In order to call for a suspension in this case, one must sell the above..believe that the player knowingly, willfully, calculatingly drove an unsuspecting opponents head into the stanchion. If anyone looks at the video..in it's totality...at speed...in sequence...objectively...the argument flies out the window.
You may still argue that "intent" is irrelevant. Two things. 1. In this case, the injury isn't caused by game forces(it was the stanchion). It wasn't an overly aggressive take out..it was very moderate.(and yes, the Hal Gill video on the Canadians website is a somewhat reasonable comparison) 100 times out of 100, that play is a non issue anywhere else in the rink. So then what. Create a rule regarding play near stanchions. Is that a good idea? Of course not.
#2. If you remove intent, every injury gets a suspension. You can modify that by saying any injury resulting from a called penalty will be suspendable, but you're still opening another pandora's box. The ref's will balk. They sure wouldn't want that responsibility of ultimately controlling suspensions.(did you notice when Gill hit Sim, the puck was long gone, however no interference penalty was called, so if Sim was injured, there would be no suspension because no penalty was called) Is the length of the suspension based on the severity of the injury? Does anyone really want to see the perpretrator of a tripping call get suspended because the victim fell awkwardly and suffered a high ankle sprain and is out for 3 months. How do you think the Quebec justice system would deal with that? Maybe Air Canada would have some words of wisdom.
I know it's incredibly boring...but the obvious issue here is the turnbuckle. That's where the logical focus should be aimed...and it will be. The hockey industry(Players, Managers, League, Owners) will not attempt to childishly villify Chara. They'll do something about those archaic stanchions.
And that's the way it should be.