Jagr probably OK

[Veela]

My dad told me that Hadamczik sounds like a Pejorative Slur in his interviews. Not the things he's saying, but really the way he speaks. Is that true?

He is no Pejorative Slur at all. He had surgery to repair his vocal chords. It was unsucessful. Since then he speak like this. Tell your dad.

 

[Chimpradamus]

You know, "thrown" doesn't necessarily mean that Ruutu has to grab Jagr, heave him up in the air and throw him over his shoulders.

I start to think you're not a licensed ref as you're saying. I ask again, exactly where in the book that you claim to have read does it say anything of the importance of distance for a boarding call? You CAN be thrown into the boards even if you stand right next to them.

Watch the effing replay. BOTH Jagrs skates LEAVES THE ICE. How is that NOT thrown?

 

[JVR]

After reading all the comments in the other thred I was expecting some kind of realy brutal hit by Ruutu.

Now that I've seen it I'm quite surprised by the reaction.

Yes, Ruutu obviously didn't need to hit him that hard but there's no way it was charging, maybe boarding but I don't really see too much wrong with that hit.

 

[doom2]

You know, "thrown" doesn't necessarily mean that Ruutu has to grab Jagr, heave him up in the air and throw him over his shoulders.

I start to think you're not a licensed ref as you're saying.

Yes. Throw does not necessarily mean that. But it does mean that Jagr needs to be not in contact with the boards when checked, otherwise he cannot be "thrown" into the boards. If only you had the printed version of the rulebook, if you would look up boarding, you would see an illustration of what boarding is. Maybe that would help you realize what boarding actually is, since you obviously do not understand what you read.

You CAN be thrown into the boards even if you stand right next to them.

I see. So, take a wall. Take a ball. Take the ball in your hand. Place your hand (the one you're holding the ball with) on the wall. Now throw the ball at the wall.

You can't throw the ball at the wall, unless the ball is at a distance from the wall. I'm really getting tired of explaining all of this to you. Your usename sure describes you pretty accurately.

 

[Shack]

Okay, we could stop this crap talk and talk about the beauty of hockey. We have 6 great games today and well definetly see some great goals, big saves and big hits.

What's done is done, we can't change it. We all know that we're gonna see more hit's like this in future, it happens all the time.
Hockey is a fast sport and sometimes **** happens. It's just the way it is.

 

[Panopticon]

http://tuomas.kapsi.fi/Kuva1.jpg

If you honestly think it's not okay to check from there... Too bad Jagr didn't see it coming and went down at the wrong moment, after Ruutu didn't have time to react, which resulted in the injury. Anyhoo, a clean check that took a turn for the worse soon after that moment.

This says what I've been saying all along. Why people have such a hard time accepting this is beyond me...

 

[Veela]

Hockey is a game of actions and reactions. Ruutu's hit was borderline illegal, Jagr was vulnerable but he didn't have his back turned or anything. He put himself into the position and Ruutu nailed him, but he would have nailed him regardless of what position he was in.....thats just how he plays. If you've ever looked at Ruutu's face you'll notice he takes a LOT of punishment for playing on/over the edge. So if you want to call Ruutu a "Coward" thats all fine and dandy but its not easy being one of the most hated and targetted players in the game. You might get some good licks in but you take a lot too. I'm glad he's on my team, and I'm quite sure his current detractors wouldn't be complaining so much if he were on their team.

When Lady Byng trophy winner high-sticks a player he goes to penalty box no matter who he is. He is responsible for his equipment and his actions.

Ruutu is responsible for his actions. No matter if he tried to injure a player or not. End of story. The way he acted after the incident showed again his character. He knew Kubina or Cajanek or Malik cant fight him so he laughed at them. That´s act of coward.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Yes. Throw does not necessarily mean that. But it does mean that Jagr needs to be not in contact with the boards when checked, otherwise he cannot be "thrown" into the boards. If only you had the printed version of the rulebook, if you would look up boarding, you would see an illustration of what boarding is. Maybe that would help you realize what boarding actually is, since you obviously do not understand what you read.

I say again: both Jagrs skates leaves the ice on the impact. How is that not "thrown"? He leaves the ground. Look up "throw" in an english dictionary.

 

[Veela]

Jagr was at morning skate and seems to be really fine.
However his status for Italy game is not clear yet.

 

[doom2]

I say again: both Jagrs skates leaves the ice on the impact. How is that not "thrown"? He leaves the ground. Look up "throw" in an english dictionary.

Phew... Yeah, after Jagr gets hit, he loses his balance, first his right leg leaves the ice, then then the left, as he walls down to the ice. Well after the hit has been delivered. Still not boarding.
If Ruutu would have hit Jagr, Jagr's skates left the ice, and after that Jagr hit the boards after being thrown into the boards, that would have been boarding.
I really don't understand how this can be so difficult for you to comprehend. Because Jagr falls after being checked and the blades of his skates are not in contact with the ice afterwards, it does not mean it's boarding. Hell, players being checked tumble over all the time, their skates leave the ice, so they were boarded? How logical!

 

[edd1e]

Jagr was at morning skate and seems to be really fine.
However his status for Italy game is not clear yet.

Nice to hear that, and im sure Ruutu is happy too, that nothing bad happend to Jagr.

 

[Pepper]

It was a perfectly clean hit, anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know the rules.

The penalty was only because the victim was Jagr and he was bleeding, to call that boarding is just total BS.

Jagr had his head down and Ruutu nailed him. No charging, no elbowing, no boarding. Clean hit, we see those all the time in the NHL.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Phew... Yeah, after Jagr gets hit, he loses his balance, first his right leg leaves the ice, then then the left, as he walls down to the ice. Well after the hit has been delivered. Still not boarding.
If Ruutu would have hit Jagr, Jagr's skates left the ice, and after that Jagr hit the boards after being thrown into the boards, that would have been boarding.
I really don't understand how this can be so difficult for you to comprehend. Because Jagr falls after being checked and the blades of his skates are not in contact with the ice afterwards, it does not mean it's boarding. Hell, players being checked tumble over all the time, their skates leave the ice, so they were boarded? How logical!

And I cannot understand how a person who claims to be a licensed ref can claim it was no boarding. This is a perfect example why they can't have a Finnish ref in an international game involving Finland. I guess you wouldn't find any criminal acts when watching Texas Chainsaw Massacre, as long as it is a Finn holding the chainsaw.

You claim you have better knowledge on boarding than the ref who participated in the game because of some picture that isn't printed in the online version of the IIHF rulebook.

The Swedish translation educating Swedish refs about boarding is "violent tackle against the boards." This is the equivalent of "charging", which is a violent tackle taking place anywhere on the ice.

 

[JussiM]

Seriously, is it really that you have to be Finnish or a Canucks fan if you disagree? Or if that's not the case, then you're at least a Jagr hater?

No comments?

 

[Chimpradamus]

It was a perfectly clean hit, anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know the rules.

The penalty was only because the victim was Jagr and he was bleeding, to call that boarding is just total BS.

Jagr had his head down and Ruutu nailed him. No charging, no elbowing, no boarding. Clean hit, we see those all the time in the NHL.

Yeah, we have seen alot of cheapshots in NHL.

 

[The New Originals]

The hit's purpose was to take Jagr out of the game. Therefore, Ruutu sucks.

 

[Steve L*]

It was legal but dirty. I dont hate Ruutu for the hit but for laughing at it afterwards.

Id have done a Fedoruk and taken out Selanne and ask him how he feels about that afterwards.

 

[jepjepjoo]

Also, Ruutu took 9(!) steps with his skate before hitting. That's 3 more than the rules say is admitted.

uh more like 2

 

[Chimpradamus]

A player who bodychecks, elbows, charges or trips an opponent in such a manner that it causes the opponent to be thrown violently into the boards

Was Jagr violently THROWN in to the boards? No. Jagr could not have been thrown into the boards, as he was already in contact with the boards when Ruutu hit him.

Oh please. It was still a distance to the boards, even if it was a small on. He wasn't smothered up against the boards until Ruutu came in and made it so.

According to refs asked, the distance DOES NOT MATTER. If you read the book of rules, NOWHERE does it say anything about that the distance to the boards matter for the penalty to be taken, as long as you are smashed against the boards. You can still get a call for boarding even if the players stands next to the boards, as a boarding is the equivalent of Charging. Charging is a violent tackle taking place anywhere on the ice, a Boarding a violent tackle specifically against the boards. Take your pick, Ruutu was against the rules.

If that check wasn't violent, no check is.

 

[Chimpradamus]

uh more like 2

So all that extra speed was just teleported into his skates? You've just discovered a black hole in physics. You think you can make that check with just two kicks with the skates?

Also, the number of kicks isn't decisive. It is the violence of the tackle that matters.

 

[doom2]

You claim you have better knowledge on boarding than the ref who participated in the game because of some picture that isn't printed in the online version of the IIHF rulebook.

The Swedish translation educating Swedish refs about boarding is "violent tackle against the boards." This is the equivalent of "charging", which is a violent tackle taking place anywhere on the ice.

I'm not gonna even touch the part about me not finding anything wrong with anything a finn does.

I do not claim to have have better knowledge of the boarding rule than the ref who participated in the match. I claim (and have proved) having better knowledge of the boarding rule than YOU. The fact that you make a claim like that, proves that you obviously have very much difficulties understanding what is written. I do not know whether this is a result of your poor English skills, or whether you're just dumb as a rock.
I claim I have equal knowledge of the boarding rule as the ref who was at the match. But you know, I can watch the video clip over and over in slow motion, and make my judgement based on that. The ref who was calling the game does not have this luxury. Being a ref, I understand other refs too, and I understand why Ruutu was called for boarding. The ref did NOT see the situation as well as we did, and thus had to make his call based on what he saw there and then. He had a talk with the line refs too, and I can bet you, he was talking to them about what did they see. The call was boarding, and I don't have a problem with that. Ruutu checked Jagr in a way that at a first glance seems very violent and illegal, and Jagr was injured. Hell, when I saw the check live for the first time, it seemed like checking to the head to me. In the replays I saw that this was not the case. If I was there on the ice, I would have given Ruutu the same amount of penalty minutes (if not more), probably for checking to the head.

It is not my fault if the swedish translation of the IIHF rulebook is flawed.

However, after reviewing the video several times, my point still stands: It was not boarding. It was a clean check where the receiving player was not ready to take the hit, and as a result of that (and poor protective gear) was injured. I do not question the refs skills, he did what he needed to do based on what he saw (or didn't). It was not a mistake from the ref, or poor refereeing.

Done and done. This is my last post to this thread, and I have made myself very clear on this matter. If you cannot comprehend what I just wrote, that is beyond me.

According to refs asked, the distance DOES NOT MATTER. If you read the book of rules, NOWHERE does it say anything about that the distance to the boards matter for the penalty to be taken, as long as you are smashed against the boards. You can still get a call for boarding even if the players stands next to the boards, as a boarding is the equivalent of Charging. Charging is a violent tackle taking place anywhere on the ice, a Boarding a violent tackle specifically against the boards. Take your pick, Ruutu was against the rules.

I gotta answer this one too:
No, the boarding rule does not define a distance that a player must be thrown from for it to be boarding. Read between the lines. A player cannot be thrown against the boards if he is in contact with them already.
Yes, charging is an excessively violent check. If something, the check we're talking about could have been called charging. The amount of strides is not fixed, one player might be able to pick up more speed with less strides than the other. It's the force of the blow, and the swiftness of acceleration that matters, not the amount strides. If a player gets injured in an excessively violent check in the boards, it's charging, not boarding.
The Ruutu check was neither. It was a clean check that had unintentional and unfortunate results.

Funny how you take every other refs opinions into account, except mine. Refs have different opinions and interpretations of events in hockey rinks too. Just because I disagree with your referee friends (whom I'm not sure even exist) I'm automatically an inferior referee.

That's it for me (for real this time). Thank you and have a nice day.

 

[jepjepjoo]

Watch the effing replay. BOTH Jagrs skates LEAVES THE ICE. How is that NOT thrown?

FFS if both of Ruutu's skates woulda left the ice it would have been charging tho

please try and learn the rules

 

[Chimpradamus]

And I cannot in my wildest imagination believe that you're a real ref. Who in the effing hell has educated you? Can you give me an adress or email? If you are right, the people who educates hockey refs at the Swedish IceHockey Association are wrong and my friend has been doing something wrong for over 10 years of active refereeing. All other refs have also been wrong for that matter.

But I'm sorry, of course you are right and all other refs are wrong.

Your imagination of what boarding is doesn't make you right.

 

[jepjepjoo]

The Swedish translation educating Swedish refs about boarding is "violent tackle against the boards." This is the equivalent of "charging", which is a violent tackle taking place anywhere on the ice.

uh?
charging = 3 or more steps before contact, skates leaving the ice before impact.

boarding = hitting someone who is from a fair distance from the boards and is thrown on to the boards

 

[Chimpradamus]

uh?
charging = 3 or more steps before contact, skates leaving the ice before impact.

boarding = hitting someone who is from a fair distance from the boards and is thrown on to the boards

Read the rules. The skates of the hitter doesn't need to leave the ice. They can, but they don't have to.

As for boarding, if you can find the chapter in the rules that says what you just said, I would be delighted.