Post-Game Talk: Winning Is Good - Jets 3 Sens 2

[ffh]

Buff didn't deliberately target the head so spare me this nonsense that his and Malkins actions are remotely similar.

I just didn't want the person that I was responding to use it as an excuse I know the buff malkin are not the same hits. he is positive that the league will suspend trouba because we are a small market team and not because of the hit itself . if that was the case buff would have been suspended also. which he wasn't.

 

[Koonta]

I just didn't want the person that I was responding to use it as an excuse I know the buff malkin are not the same hits. he is positive that the league will suspend trouba because we are a small market team and not because of the hit itself . if that was the case buff would have been suspended also. which he wasn't.

I maybe agree with you on the small market angle because I haven't seen or recall any bias that supports that but I have surely seen bias on the star power of the player doing the act numerous times. The DOPS is a joke that no one can figure out.

 

[ffh]

McKenzie just posted article on tsn saying trouba and malkin hits are not the same.

 

[Ducky10]

When I watch the hit frame by frame, from different angles I would agree that the hit was late (so penalty deserved) but was also likely unavoidable. He was heading for the puck in front of the net, which was swept away and now he is on a collision course with Wheeler. When impact is made, I see contact with both head and shoulder, and Malkin's skates are still on the ice. It is possible the collision forced Malkin up into the air, not that he jumped at Wheeler's head. And Wheeler was bent over, while Malkin is a very large man. He can't make himself smaller any more than Buff can, which is why both players' hits can be so devastating without there necessarily being a desire to injure another player.

None of this is conclusive, but I can why the DoPS ruled as they did. It may not be the correct ruling, but it is IMO a defensible ruling.

You watched this frame by frame and came to this conclusion? Not even ****ing close. By every conceivable angle it's clear Malkin wasn't even looking at the puck and clearly left his feet to jump into Wheeler. I mean, it's not even debatable.

 

[Duke749]

McKenzie just posted article on tsn saying trouba and malkin hits are not the same.

Well yeh, no one is arguing that. But neither hit belongs.

 

[ffh]

Well yeh, no one is arguing that. But neither hit belongs.

if like McKenzie you are making the case that the malkin his is legal then it most surely belongs.

 

[SensibleGuy]

I just read mckenzies article. Holy stretch batman. "Full body on body contact?" Lol...so malkin gets off because he was fortunate enough that his momentum happened to cause his body to collide with wheeler's after hammering his head? Lol. Not to mention that even in the vid Mckenzie uses as his evidence I don't see much body on body contact anyway...and there's one nice clear angle which shows there is actually pretty much nothing but head contact. But let's go with the bad angle. Helps the case he's making, haha...

 

[Evil Little]

No **** they're different hit, you Ass Clown. One's a mistimed hockey play and the other is a fly-by charge to the head on a guy who never had the puck.

DOPS is a joke and they probably didn't think they'd have to answer for the Malkin call. I'm a little nervous that they are. Thinking at least 4 for Trouba if they're making a statement about Malkin. Dumb ****s.

Ridiculous. "Head shot, but not a bad one. Even if it was a charge. And interference."

 

[Romang67]

if like McKenzie you are making the case that the malkin his is legal then it most surely belongs.

McKenzie is not making the case that Malkin's hit was legal. He's saying that Malkin's hit to the head wasn't enough for a suspension, Malkin's interference wasn't enough to warrant a suspension, and Malkin's charge wasn't enough to warrant a suspension.

I strongly disagree with McKenzie, as I believe the fact that Malkin disregarded several different rules in an attempt to lay punishment on a player which wasn't eligible to be hit. I think intent must factor into a suspension, and it's hard to show more obvious intent than with the Malkin hit. I think the NHL is bowing down to a greater star, as the NHL tends to do. This is not Malkin's first rodeo, and he continues to go unpunished for frankly dubious reasons.

 

[Koonta]

McKenzie just posted article on tsn saying trouba and malkin hits are not the same.

No not the same, Malkins was on a player that didn't have the puck and he leapt into him to make sure he got a good portion of the head. Bob is citing the exact rule and how it is written, and to me does nothing but further illustrate the incopetence of the DOPS that all of Malkins actions resulted in not even a frown of dissaproval from the league and then the come out with the BS that it almost crossed the line on 3 points when someone from took them to task on it, bumbling morons.

 

[Koonta]

if like McKenzie you are making the case that the malkin his is legal then it most surely belongs.

It's not legal from the start because Wheeler didn't have the puck.

 

[KingBogo]

Talk about make it up on the fly while dancing around the issue comment.

 

[surixon]

Talk about make it up on the fly while dancing around the issue comment.

It's an absolute joke, shame on the league. The fact that they even came out with a **** poor justification in and itself is ridiculous.

 

[Jetabre]

It's an absolute joke, shame on the league. The fact that they even came out with a **** poor justification in and itself is ridiculous.

Yeah, pretty brutal if that's what they came up with. They might as well say 'Because it's Malkin'.

 

[nobody important]

You watched this frame by frame and came to this conclusion? Not even ****ing close. By every conceivable angle it's clear Malkin wasn't even looking at the puck and clearly left his feet to jump into Wheeler. I mean, it's not even debatable.

And yet, the official review seems to support everything I said:

NHL director of media relations John Dellapina said there were three things that were really close to the line but the DoPS didn’t believe any of the three crossed the line to take it to a suspension.
•First, the illegal check to the head: “They watch thousands of these and they think that the body took the main brunt. While the head might have been the first point of contact, that’s not relevant in the rule any more. Principle doesn’t mean first. They judge main and they believe that the shoulder took the main brunt of the hit.”


•Secondly, the charging: “That was probably the one they thought was closest. At contact, his feet are in the process of coming off the ice. The way they usually suspend for charging is when they feel somebody launched himself into somebody. They don’t think that’s this. They think this is people coming together in the centre of the ice, you kind of brace yourself and lift up.”


•Thirdly, the interference: “While it’s technically interference, the way they apply the rules, if a guy is making a play on the puck, the fact that he fails to make the play on the puck doesn’t preclude you from hitting him (Wheeler reached for the puck but it was fired away by teammate Mark Stuart before he could touch it).”

[mod]

 

[EpicGingy]

By a large amount of official review, not even including the review on Malkin, it's clear that the official review is FUBAR, so citing them is worthless.

I'd consider HFJets less biased than the DoPS, and I don't think HFJets is unbiased by any means. Although I only post in HFJets, so maybe that adds? Idunno, but what I do know is that the Malkin hit on Wheeler was dirty and I don't buy a letter of the reasoning behind the lack of even a hearing.

 

[Duke749]

Are you really trying to say that wasn't charging?

 

[Ducky10]

And yet, the official review seems to support everything I said:

NHL director of media relations John Dellapina said there were three things that were really close to the line but the DoPS didn’t believe any of the three crossed the line to take it to a suspension.
•First, the illegal check to the head: “They watch thousands of these and they think that the body took the main brunt. While the head might have been the first point of contact, that’s not relevant in the rule any more. Principle doesn’t mean first. They judge main and they believe that the shoulder took the main brunt of the hit.”


•Secondly, the charging: “That was probably the one they thought was closest. At contact, his feet are in the process of coming off the ice. The way they usually suspend for charging is when they feel somebody launched himself into somebody. They don’t think that’s this. They think this is people coming together in the centre of the ice, you kind of brace yourself and lift up.”


•Thirdly, the interference: “While it’s technically interference, the way they apply the rules, if a guy is making a play on the puck, the fact that he fails to make the play on the puck doesn’t preclude you from hitting him (Wheeler reached for the puck but it was fired away by teammate Mark Stuart before he could touch it).”

[mod]

[mod]

It's because it was Malkin, if you want to buy their ridiculous reasoning, that's on you.

 

[Aavco Cup]

I have no issue with the Trouba suspension. I have a major issue with how Malkin was dealt with

 

[LadyJet26]

I have no issue with the Trouba suspension. I have a major issue with how Malkin was dealt with

Same here. Malkin is notorious for getting dirty. Especially when frustrated. Still a huge fan of his, but he gets away with a lot because 1. He's a Penguin and the only star Pens player to be suspended is Letang. 2. He's a superstar.

I didn't watch the game (was having a doctor who marathon and forgot it was on) so I didn't see Troubas hit live. I've seen the replay and it's definitely worthy of a suspension. So is Malkin's though. The NHL only looks at the end result. Player is injured the other gets suspended. It's a joke.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

GDT will be posted shortly for the Leafs game - closing up shop here now.