Clayton Stoner hits Pacioretty. Patches injured on the play.[MOD WARNING IN THE OP ]

[Sojourn]

This ref saw it too

but you know, good strong hockey play.

Are we back to doing that? Posting a picture that takes the hit out of context, and doesn't show what happened prior? Stoner didn't hit him from behind, despite what that picture suggests.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Not sure its suspendable, but should have at least been reviewed. Its a clear boarding penalty though, and just the most significant example of a very poorly officiated game (both ways).

 

[TootooTrain]

Uh yeah they are. That's why interference penalties exists. What are hits for then ?

Joking? The purpose of a hit isn't just to separate the man from the puck. It's also used to physically wear down the opponent aswell as intimidation. Not in the traditional sense, but it makes for example wingers think twice trying to drive wide.

 

[Joannie9]

To wear down the opposing team. Maybe make them hear footsteps.

Note: I said they aren't just for separating players from the puck. Many hits take place after a player has distributed the puck. Those are legal, and even expected. Any decent coach will get on your ass if you don't finish your check just because the player passed the puck. By your logic, none of those hits are good, and they are all purposeless.

Refs don't call those hits because the player was already committed to hit the other player when he passes the puck. That's the only reason. It's not that easy to stop your momentum.

 

[Nynja*]

Are we back to doing that? Posting a picture that takes the hit out of context, and doesn't show what happened prior? Stoner didn't hit him from behind, despite what that picture suggests.

Do you read posts? I was replying to the comment that "only Gallagher saw it" and posted a photo with the ref clearly looking in the direction of the hit. Nowhere in my post did I say anything remotely close to "Look he's clearly hitting him from behind".

 

[Sojourn]

Refs don't call those hits because the player was already committed to hit the other player when he passes the puck. That's the only reason. It's not that easy to stop your momentum.

Refs don't call those hits because they are legal. Show me in the rule book where it says a player that just passed the puck is not eligible to be hit. You won't find evidence that a hockey check is used only to separate the player from the puck. At no time in the modern NHL has that ever been the case.

 

[Sojourn]

Do you read posts? I was replying to the comment that "only Gallagher saw it" and posted a photo with the ref clearly looking in the direction of the hit. Nowhere in my post did I say anything remotely close to "Look he's clearly hitting him from behind".

Believe it or not, you can't see where the referee is looking from that picture. Unless you have X-ray vision. Maybe the ref saw it. Maybe he didn't. Personally, I think if he saw it he would have called a minor, at least.

 

[AINEC*]

So let me get this straight:

Not boarding, not late, good strong hockey play.

http://gfycat.com/SardonicImportantDwarfrabbit
Tangradi "boarding" Folin, 5 and a game.


How thick are the habs haters blinders exactly? Theres no way in hell Stoners hit was a "good strong hockey play with an unfortunate injury", and the puck was gone for a full steamboat before Stoner initiated contact. Can someone do a side-by-side with Burrows hit that got him 3 games for a late hit?

Both hits are fine imo.

 

[Joannie9]

Refs don't call those hits because they are legal. Show me in the rule book where it says a player that just passed the puck is not eligible to be hit. You won't find evidence that a hockey check is used only to separate the player from the puck. At no time in the modern NHL has that ever been the case.

A player that just passed the puck is a player that doesn't have the puck That's interference. That's the rule.

 

[BigBen]

Boarding or cross-checking. It wasn't clean but it shouldn't warrant a suspension.

 

[Nynja*]

This is almost as ridiculous as the two phantom interference calls Subban took lol. I'm done

 

[Sojourn]

A player that just passed the puck is a player that doesn't have the puck That's interference. That's the rule.

A player that just had the puck is eligible to be hit. You can say it's interference, but NHL precedent(actually, this applies to every league that allows checking) is that the player is eligible to be hit.

This is hockey 101 stuff, man.

 

[Commander Clueless]

This ref saw it too

but you know, good strong hockey play.

It's pretty clear from this fuzzy picture taken halfway through the hit with no indication of where contact was actually made:

Clear dive.

 

[Fabs]

What's the problem with that hit? 2 minute penalty at most. Looks like Pacioretty turned at the time he was hit.

 

[Joannie9]

A player that just had the puck is eligible to be hit. You can say it's interference, but NHL precedent(actually, this applies to every league that allows checking) is that the player is eligible to be hit.

This is hockey 101 stuff, man.

Why do you think that hitting a player right after he passed the puck is okay ?
The only reason refs don't call those hits is because the player that hits the other player is already committed. You can't change direction to hit a player after he passes the puck.

Hockey 101 stuff.

 

[crowi]

A missed 2 min penalty call, that's about it.

 

[waffledave]

A player that just had the puck is eligible to be hit. You can say it's interference, but NHL precedent(actually, this applies to every league that allows checking) is that the player is eligible to be hit.

This is hockey 101 stuff, man.

Actually the rule officially is that the hit needs to have been initiated before the player loses possession of the puck, and the hit must be immediately after the puck has been passed. There is no fixed duration in the rulebook and it's left purposely ambiguous.

 

[mightyquack]

Good hit. Bet he won't be admiring his next pass.

Hope he is fully healthy and back on the ice ASAP too.

 

[habsolutle]

It doesn't look like a hit from behind to me, looks like he hits him from the side and the impact makes Pacioretty turn towards the boards. A little late maybe and could have been a boarding penalty. I wish the thread title was more descriptive of the actual hit though, it sounds slightly sensational to me.

come on dude...you can clearly see stoner push pacioretty with is stick until he hit the board..is arm are fully extended..very dangerous..not even a hit its a push.

 

[Sojourn]

Why do you think that hitting a player right after he passed the puck is okay ?
The only reason refs don't call those hits is because the player that hits the other player is already committed. You can't change direction to hit a player after he passes the puck.

Hockey 101 stuff.

What you're saying flies in the face of everything a coach teaches a player. It's against everything the league says. It's basically against checking period.

I think hitting a player right after the puck is passed because that's what I was taught. It's what every player is taught. It's how every checking league enforces the rules. And it isn't because you can't change direction. It's because the player is still eligible to be hit, and wearing down the opposition in that manner is part of the game.

 

[Sojourn]

Actually the rule officially is that the hit needs to have been initiated before the player loses possession of the puck, and the hit must be immediately after the puck has been passed. There is no fixed duration in the rulebook and it's left purposely ambiguous.

I'm not arguing semantics here. We're talking about whether the purpose of a hit is only to separate a player from the puck, and it's clearly not.

 

[TOML]

Good hit. Bet he won't be admiring his next pass.

Hope he is fully healthy and back on the ice ASAP too.

Admiring how it wasn't headed to anyone in particular, no less.

The more I look at Patches play in this instance, the weaker it becomes. Sees player, turns away from him, passes no nobody, acts totally surprised when he receives contact, then crashes into the boards.

Just a strange way for a big strong guy to act when heading up ice with the puck. Was he just trying to draw a call, perhaps?

 

[Joannie9]

What you're saying flies in the face of everything a coach teaches a player. It's against everything the league says. It's basically against checking period.

I think hitting a player right after the puck is passed because that's what I was taught. It's what every player is taught. It's how every checking league enforces the rules. And it isn't because you can't change direction. It's because the player is still eligible to be hit, and wearing down the opposition in that manner is part of the game.

Rule 56 – Interference
56.1 Interference - A strict standard on acts of interference must be
adhered to in all areas of the rink.

The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.

 

[Sojourn]

Rule 56 – Interference
56.1 Interference - A strict standard on acts of interference must be
adhered to in all areas of the rink.

The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.

So, in other words, a player that just had the puck is considered eligible to be checked.

Thank you.

 

[waffledave]

I'm not arguing semantics here. We're talking about whether the purpose of a hit is only to separate a player from the puck, and it's clearly not.

Officially yes it is. In practice, obviously it isn't. The rules are not clear on this on purpose. There is plenty of gray zone in this sort of thing.

This particular hit was not dirty, but it was cheap. I probably would have called it boarding though.