Wilson charging on Wennberg (no supplementary discipline)

[TomasHertlsRooster]

I think the league is really bad at being subjective when players like this start building a history early in their career.

Tom Wilson is an extremely dangerous who has been responsible for the injuries of countless players in his very young career. If a guy like Wennberg makes this hit on Tom Wilson, maybe it's borderline (although I still think he was clearly targeting the head of a defenseless player and I would personally suspend any player for this hit), but given who made this hit, don't you have to give this hit at least one game just based on precedence?

 

[mouser]

I think it's always been very clear that they mean it in the sense of "pick clean", "got nothing but". The word is used all the time in that sense.



30 Thoughts: NHL clarifies illegal check to head rule | Hockey | CBC Sports

"First, whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent's body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward."

I can't imagine writing that up and choosing to use the word "picked" instead of "intentionally targeted" or "intentionally chosen" if you mean "intentionally targeted"

The prior version of the rule used to read "A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted."

The NHL later decided the word "targeted" was too tough to evaluate, changing the rule in 2013-14 to read "A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable."

I think it's reasonable to infer the NHL was trying to remove the requirement of intent from the rule by deleting "targeted", as well as shifting more obligation onto the hitting player by adding the language "and such contact was avoidable". Whether intentional or accidental, players are still responsible for hits to the head under the rule.

 

[Moses Doughty]

I have to agree with all the words you are saying here. His head is out the whole time. You do have to protect yourself. You can't lean into someone hitting you.

I just think the Doughty hit is the definition of: cutting across the body, the head being the main point of contact, and the player NOT altering his body suddenly and drastically to put himself in danger. It doesn't seem like we're going to agree on that.

Yeah. If your head is down, out in front of your body, and gets forcefully contacted as a full shoulder to chest hit is being made, that is fine. That is what I would say happened on this hit (admitting that there are a million different tiny changes from hit to hit that make each individual hit hard to judge)

I think the main thing we're disagreeing on is Carrier's (n0t) altering of his body. I'd say he was because he got hit right after he makes hit cut to the inside, thus bringing his head to the side right before he is hit.

And I'd say for Wilson the he jumped while being hit, got the head first and with his should so he's targeting the head as the principal point, but only gets the body after because their bodies were lined up in a way where he could not possibly have missed Wennberg's body on the hit

 

[Il Stugotz]

Clearly you didn't watch the Doughty DPoS video, because they say that Doughty wasn't aiming for or "picking" the head.

The video said that Doughty made the head the main point of contact on a hit where head contact was avoidable (0:45-0:53). That’s literally the definition of picking the head.

 

[izlez]

• 2.
  choose (someone or something) from a number of alternatives, typically after careful thought

So the rule states:

"Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward."


To use your definition we're looking at:
"The head was not chosen after careful thought as a result of poor timing or poor angle"


You can't carefully select something as a result of a mistake. None of that adds up. By that definition, nothing could ever be "picked"

 

[Il Stugotz]

The dictionary isn’t going to define “pick” as it is used in hockey jargon lol

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

Wilson has the biggest gray area of anyone currently playing.

 

[FishMonger]

Sorry he was caught in a bad spot....**** happens in fast sports.

Nobody is arguing that.

We're saying the DPoS is being brutally inconsistent, 1 day apart.

 

[FishMonger]

The dictionary isn’t going to define “pick” as it is used in hockey jargon lol

The point was that we were disagreeing on semantics, and it shouldn't be surprising that I took what someone said to be the actual definition of a word.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Nobody is arguing that.

We're saying the DPoS is being brutally inconsistent, 1 day apart.

Humans are inconsistent.

 

[OV Rocks]

Interesting that you paint this as a "personal vendetta". How do you justify the use of that phrase?

Interesting that you think you know more than NHL players about how to protect yourself on the ice, because of what you remember from Peewee hockey.

Interesting that you see this play as a case of a player "putting himself in a bad position", when said player merely tapped the puck around the boards and then got run from behind, having never significantly changed his body position before he got plowed.

Interesting that you think a player looking the other direction should have a complete understanding of the danger he's in, but not Tom Wilson who watched the play develop all the way through and then CHOSE to initiate contact regardless.

Ok Here We Go

I justify using the phrase "personal vendetta" with the fact that this entire argument I have been on the point of the nature of hits in itself. Yes Tom Wilson is my example because that is the tread and I also fully support his hit. Look through all of the posts, it is about the state of hitting in the NHL. You continue to circle it back to how Tom Wilson plays. It is interesting that while I am trying to make relevant points you take shots at Wilson's character, his age he was brought up in, and how his size is meaningless. Interesting that I provide you with videos and stats to argue my point, being that the league can't penalize players for hitting another player when they are vulnerable.

Interesting that I remember the one thing that is preached to every youth hockey player in the world when they are introduced to hitting at whatever level that is. It is a fabric of the sport, you are open to be hit any time that you are on the ice. I am no stud hockey player hell beer league is good enough for me but I know every time I step onto the ice, even in a non contact league, I can be hit even if I am not ready for it.

Interesting that this is the moment of contact, clear as day that Wilson is in front of Wennberg's shoulder. Don't know what your defintion of behind is but clearly the front of a human beings shoulder would not fall under the "back" side of a human being.

Interesting that in the NHL somebody has the ability, especially in the defensive zone, to see a player turning up the boards with his head down, not suspecting a hit, and lines him up to separate him from the puck and where the puck will be going within the appropriate time for a hit. The corners are known as some of the most dangerous areas on the rink. Going into the corner puts the player in a vulnerable position and should be open to being hit from the opposition.

I will gladly keep going with this argument in hopes that you provide some credibility to it, not just attacking Tom Wilson and my knowledge of the game

 

[Anglesmith]

The only reason this might be elevated to suspendable is if he jumped, but from the video in the OP, it's too hard for me to tell whether Wilson elevated before or after the hit. Logically speaking, I would have to imagine that his skates came off the ice after the hit, because Wennberg's position was lower than his.

The hit itself I have no problem with. Legal target for the check, I don't think two hard strides followed by a glide constitutes charging, he hit him side-on and didn't target the head, and he was not caused to make violent contact with the boards. Yes, the victim here was unsuspecting, but that doesn't make this an illegal hit. It's actually a very well-timed hit by Wilson, as if he doesn't wait for Wennberg to turn into him, it would be a horrible, illegal hit.

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

Interesting that this is the moment of contact, clear as day that Wilson is in front of Wennberg's shoulder. Don't know what your defintion of behind is but clearly the front of a human beings shoulder would not fall under the "back" side of a human being.

Yet Matt Cooke's hit was technically in the front of Savard too. Doesn't make it any less predatory or blindsiding.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Ok Here We Go

I justify using the phrase "personal vendetta" with the fact that this entire argument I have been on the point of the nature of hits in itself. Yes Tom Wilson is my example because that is the tread and I also fully support his hit. Look through all of the posts, it is about the state of hitting in the NHL. You continue to circle it back to how Tom Wilson plays. It is interesting that while I am trying to make relevant points you take shots at Wilson's character, his age he was brought up in, and how his size is meaningless. Interesting that I provide you with videos and stats to argue my point, being that the league can't penalize players for hitting another player when they are vulnerable.

This is literally a Tom Wilson hit thread. Circling back to Wilson isn’t a “vendetta”, it’s keeping to the topic of the thread.

It is a fabric of the sport, you are open to be hit any time that you are on the ice.

That’s blatantly untrue. The vast majority of your time on the ice, you are ineligible to be hit.

Interesting that this is the moment of contact, clear as day that Wilson is in front of Wennberg's shoulder. Don't know what your defintion of behind is but clearly the front of a human beings shoulder would not fall under the "back" side of a human being.

As I’ve said twice already, I don’t think this play was illegal by the letter of the law (as opposed to a hit from behind which would be a penalty).

However, this case stands as a perfect example of what Wilson does which is so objectionable. He stalks a guy from behind, waits for that split-second of puck contact, then launches into a hit just as the guy turns back up ice. There’s no purpose in throwing the hit other than to surprise the guy while he’s vulnerable. Much like the old leaping head hits, it’s one of those things that everyone knows is wrong and only a very few are willing to do on purpose, but those few will eventually force a rule change to further reduce hitting overall.

So if you have an issue with the reduction in physicality, take issue with guys like Wilson doing nonsense like this.

Interesting that in the NHL somebody has the ability, especially in the defensive zone, to see a player turning up the boards with his head down, not suspecting a hit, and lines him up to separate him from the puck and where the puck will be going within the appropriate time for a hit.

Give me a break, the puck was on the other side of the rink by the time this happened. In no way did it separate Wennberg from the puck.

 

[CrashBartley]

There is a reason certain players are discussed while others are not. Some players hit to impede or remove a player from the puck, others hit to inflict pain. The latter cross the line more time than the former.

 

[OV Rocks]

Yet Matt Cooke's hit was technically in the front of Savard too. Doesn't make it any less predatory or blindsiding.

To compare this hit to what Cooke did is totally unfair to Tom Wilson. Wilson's hit was a clear point of contact to the opposing players should and honestly wasn't all that hard of a hit for Wilson. The only contact that Cooke made was to the head of Savard. If anything the closest comparable hit is the Wilson one to Schenn with exceedingly more force behind that one. There is no problem to hitting players in the shoulder

 

[MattMartin]

I would give this 3 1/2 classless Wilson's...

Funny I made this post before I even knew about the hit.

We had Classless Subban I think It's time to anoint a new king. I present you with classless Wilson!

From this day forward all dirty plays will go under 1-5 (can use 1/2's) classless Wilson.

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

To compare this hit to what Cooke did is totally unfair to Tom Wilson. Wilson's hit was a clear point of contact to the opposing players should and honestly wasn't all that hard of a hit for Wilson. The only contact that Cooke made was to the head of Savard. If anything the closest comparable hit is the Wilson one to Schenn with exceedingly more force behind that one. There is no problem to hitting players in the shoulder

Yes the poor maligned Tom Wilson, such a martyr in life. He's just misunderstood like so many of today's teenagers

I'll just copy/past what I posted in the Wash/CBJ thread:

"The problem I have with this hit is that Wilson sees numbers the ENTIRE sequence. I mean even if Wenn turns around, it's predatory and a blindside. So forget if he hits him in the head or not, what happens if Ovi isn't on the other side? Wenn's brain is probably on the dasher.

It's just unnecessary- again especially since Wenn's back was to him the entire time.

Gutless"

 

[OV Rocks]

This is literally a Tom Wilson hit thread. Circling back to Wilson isn’t a “vendetta”, it’s keeping to the topic of the thread.



That’s blatantly untrue. The vast majority of your time on the ice, you are ineligible to be hit.



As I’ve said twice already, I don’t think this play was illegal by the letter of the law (as opposed to a hit from behind which would be a penalty).

However, this case stands as a perfect example of what Wilson does which is so objectionable. He stalks a guy from behind, waits for that split-second of puck contact, then launches into a hit just as the guy turns back up ice. There’s no purpose in throwing the hit other than to surprise the guy while he’s vulnerable. Much like the old leaping head hits, it’s one of those things that everyone knows is wrong and only a very few are willing to do on purpose, but those few will eventually force a rule change to further reduce hitting overall.

So if you have an issue with the reduction in physicality, take issue with guys like Wilson doing nonsense like this.



Give me a break, the puck was on the other side of the rink by the time this happened. In no way did it separate Wennberg from the puck.

What you said yourself is precisely what is the perfect hit. Add in the fact that he just released the puck, his head was down, and Wilson could put his hit in the front side of the player. On paper that is a textbook hit. If you have someone doing their job so well that people are starting to question what he is doing you do not eliminate that person from the workforce. Tom Wilson is a force in this league and has a role that involves big hits, that is not nonsense

Also watch the replay. At the point of contact the puck is roughly two stick lengths away, not across the ice. Factor in the second Wilson had to commit to the hit and the puck is just coming off his stick.

 

[OV Rocks]

Yes the poor maligned Tom Wilson, such a martyr in life. He's just misunderstood like so many of today's teenagers

I'll just copy/past what I posted in the Wash/CBJ thread:

"The problem I have with this hit is that Wilson sees numbers the ENTIRE sequence. I mean even if Wenn turns around, it's predatory and a blindside. So forget if he hits him in the head or not, what happens if Ovi isn't on the other side? Wenn's brain is probably on the dasher.

It's just unnecessary- again especially since Wenn's back was to him the entire time.

Gutless"

He did turn around and got hit in the front of his shoulder

 

[Dessloch]

Why is he leaving his feet/jumping into the guy? Would have been enough force wihout leaving the ice.

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

He did turn around and got hit in the front of his shoulder

At the last second. And that's literally the last second. If I'm walking behind you, tap you on the shoulder and shoot you in the chest immediately, does it make it any better to say "well at least I didn't shoot him in the back?". No, because its gutless either way you slice it.

Why does Wilson think this is going to be a good hit at all? Wenn's numbers are to him 99% of the time, why is it necessary for him to lay this hit?

And that's my supposition: it's just not necessary, full stop. Wenn isn't in a scoring area. Wenn isn't holding the puck for 2 seconds looking to make a pass. He's extremely vulnerable, just like Savard was.

I don't care if the point of contact was the toe or the head. It's just not a hockey play to lay predatory hits on guys in this manner

 

[izlez]

At the last second. And that's literally the last second. If I'm walking behind you, tap you on the shoulder and shoot you in the chest immediately, does it make it any better to say "well at least I didn't shoot him in the back?". No, because its gutless either way you slice it.

Why does Wilson think this is going to be a good hit at all? Wenn's numbers are to him 99% of the time, why is it necessary for him to lay this hit?

And that's my supposition: it's just not necessary, full stop. Wenn isn't in a scoring area. Wenn isn't holding the puck for 2 seconds looking to make a pass. He's extremely vulnerable, just like Savard was.

I don't care if the point of contact was the toe or the head. It's just not a hockey play to lay predatory hits on guys in this manner

Man, I'm not usually this "guy", but laying big, clean, on body checks on unsuspecting players are part of hockey, and I never want them to leave.

I'm all for changing the rules to get rid of head contact all together. But just outlawing hits on guys with their head down because "it's predatory and you are gonna hurt him" is not a point I ever want to reach.

 

[tarheelhockey]

If you have someone doing their job so well that people are starting to question what he is doing you do not eliminate that person from the workforce.

Speak for yourself, but I'd rather not have employees that cause people to question whether they're operating within legal and ethical boundaries. It's easy to name a whole lot of industries (financial, medical, legal) where that would not be viewed as a positive trait.

Also watch the replay. At the point of contact the puck is roughly two stick lengths away, not across the ice. Factor in the second Wilson had to commit to the hit and the puck is just coming off his stick.

That's a LOT more than two stick lengths. Remember you're looking at a three-dimensional image.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Man, I'm not usually this "guy", but laying big, clean, on body checks on unsuspecting players are part of hockey, and I never want them to leave.

I'm all for changing the rules to get rid of head contact all together. But just outlawing hits on guys with their head down because "it's predatory and you are gonna hurt him" is not a point I ever want to reach.

Wennberg didn't have his head down at any point during this play. He cannot turn his head 180 degrees like an owl, therefore he had no physical way to see Wilson approaching him from behind to lay a completely unnecessary hit the instant he turned back up ice.