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

[Edgy]

If there was no injury, do you think it should have been a suspension?

I don't.

It wasn't a good hit, but I think a minor penalty would have been fine. Stoner came in from the side, and maybe it was a tad late(arguable), but really it wasn't that bad. Call it a cross check, or call it a board.

https://vine.co/v/Og0EHPnPA6j

The bold part remains to be seen, if Patches is injured then regardless of the intent of Stoner, it was a bad hit.

The Vine video shows the hit was from the side but the follow through with the push motion is what caused Patches to go flying into the boards. There should have been a penalty but bad reffing went both ways, this one seems worse because of the end result.

 

[Sojourn]

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.

Okay, look, this is getting silly. Were you taught to check a player just to separate him from the puck? Or were you taught to finish your check on players eligible to be hit, regardless of whether they still have the puck? We're not talking about clear cases of interference where a player doesn't have the puck, and hasn't had it anytime recently. We're talking about a play where a player just had the puck, and passed it off, and you're in a position to check him.

I'm quite certain the NHL doesn't see NHL checks "officially" as only to be used to separate players from the puck. If they did, this hit would have lead to a suspension. In fact, a lot more hits would have lead to suspensions. That's the official stance of the NHL, because that's the precedent they follow. It's one every checking league follows.

 

[habsolutle]

https://vine.co/v/Og0EHPnPA6j

The bold part remains to be seen, if Patches is injured then regardless of the intent of Stoner, it was a bad hit.

The Vine video shows the hit was from the side but the follow through with the push motion is what caused Patches to go flying into the boards. There should have been a penalty but bad reffing went both ways, this one seems worse because of the end result.

exactly like i said..he pushed pacioretty into the board..ahl caliber player who was getting beat all night...disgusting.

 

[Joannie9]

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

Thank you.

Well I agree with you that this rule really is ambiguous. Immediately could be interpreted differently depending on the ref... What's immediately.

 

[Sojourn]

https://vine.co/v/Og0EHPnPA6j

The bold part remains to be seen, if Patches is injured then regardless of the intent of Stoner, it was a bad hit.

The Vine video shows the hit was from the side but the follow through with the push motion is what caused Patches to go flying into the boards. There should have been a penalty but bad reffing went both ways, this one seems worse because of the end result.

By that logic, any good hit that leads to an injury is a bad hit, because an injury resulted. That isn't the case at all.

I'm not defending the hit. I thought it could have lead to a penalty. But it doesn't go from "not that bad" to "clearly bad" just because an injury resulted.

 

[mrmyheadhurts]

How is Pacioretty not expecting a hit there!? I would say he is as much to blame for his injury as anyone.

It certainly wasn't late so we can eliminate interference but I would say it qualifies as boarding and should've penalized as so. The boarding penalty is among the most ambiguous is the NHL rule book and is probably enforced differently by every official in the game.

So all that's left to do is give your interpretation and explain how you would've called it if you were an on ice official. The impact was to the side but enough of his back was caught that it spun him into the boards head first. The fact that this was more of a cross-check than a hit, and the fact that Pacioretty was thrown violently into the boards – despite putting himself in a vulnerable position – and the fact that he was clearly injured, would've been enough for me to give him 5 and a game.

That being said, I'm hardly surprised the NHL did nothing, the fact that they call themselves the Player Safety department is comical.

 

[Sojourn]

Well I agree with you that this rule really is ambiguous. Immediately could be interpreted differently depending on the ref... What's immediately.

"Immediately" is what the NHL decides it is, and they've likely made that decision based on what is commonly expected in the game(as in, throughout all the leagues).

Playoff hockey is a perfect example of hitting with purpose beyond separation. It's pretty much expected that you hit guys to wear them down over a 7 game series. According to you, that's all interference.

 

[waffledave]

Okay, look, this is getting silly. Were you taught to check a player just to separate him from the puck? Or were you taught to finish your check on players eligible to be hit, regardless of whether they still have the puck? We're not talking about clear cases of interference where a player doesn't have the puck, and hasn't had it anytime recently. We're talking about a play where a player just had the puck, and passed it off, and you're in a position to check him.

I'm quite certain the NHL doesn't see NHL checks "officially" as only to be used to separate players from the puck. If they did, this hit would have lead to a suspension. In fact, a lot more hits would have lead to suspensions. That's the official stance of the NHL, because that's the precedent they follow. It's one every checking league follows.

As a player I was taught to finish my check. As a ref I was taught to call it if the hit was initiated after the player lost the puck. In practice if he was hit after more than (what we estimated to be) 1 second we would call it.

 

[Frank the Tank]

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

Thank you.

Yes, I was wondering why he responded with evidence for what you were arguing.

 

[Joannie9]

"Immediately" is what the NHL decides it is, and they've likely made that decision based on what is commonly expected in the game(as in, throughout all the leagues).

Playoff hockey is a perfect example of hitting with purpose beyond separation. It's pretty much expected that you hit guys to wear them down over a 7 game series. According to you, that's all interference.

Sometimes the difference between a clean hit and a penalty is 0,2 second. Don't act like there is no grey area here.

 

[Joannie9]

Yes, I was wondering why he responded with evidence for what you were arguing.

I was showing the ambiguity within the rule. And I could have also used that rule to my advantage saying that the hit wasn't immediately after Pacioretty passed the puck.

Btw I'm a girl.

 

[Andrei79]

I agree with the people saying it's a cheap hit. You always hate when these AHL fodder injure your best scorer.

 

[Sojourn]

As a player I was taught to finish my check. As a ref I was taught to call it if the hit was initiated after the player lost the puck. In practice if he was hit after more than (what we estimated to be) 1 second we would call it.

Exactly my point.

Maybe you could argue that the primary goal of a check is to separate the player from the puck, but to suggest it's used strictly for that? That's ridiculous. That isn't at all how the game is played or officiated, and it's well beyond the point of being allowed because players can't stop themselves. You finish your check on a player who is eligible to be hit. It's that simple.

Heck, it's so drilled into players(no pun intended) that they'll finish their checks even when that eligibility is seen to have expired. And it isn't because they are trying to be jerks(usually), or they are trying to take a cheap shot. It's because that's what they are taught. It's the mentality of checking. You make the hit, wear them down, maybe force them to make a mistake, and I don't mean a mistake right that second. Just letting them know you'll hit them when you can is sometimes enough to make them rush future plays.

 

[Eisen]

Should have been a penalty on the ice.
Hope MaxPac is OK.

 

[Sojourn]

Sometimes the difference between a clean hit and a penalty is 0,2 second. Don't act like there is no grey area here.

I'm not. I'm arguing the purpose of checking, which you have mistakenly limited to separating the player from the puck. That just isn't the case.

I won't argue that the hit might have been late. I'm arguing that it wasn't a "purposeless" hit. You don't check a player just to separate them from the puck. That isn't the point. At least, it's not the only point.

 

[Edgy]

By that logic, any good hit that leads to an injury is a bad hit, because an injury resulted. That isn't the case at all.

I'm not defending the hit. I thought it could have lead to a penalty. But it doesn't go from "not that bad" to "clearly bad" just because an injury resulted.

Not quite. This wasn't a good hit by any means, it was bad hit that might become worse depending on the result.

The initial intent was for a clean hit but once he realized that Pacioretty had his back turned and was at an unsafe distance from the boards, he shouldn't have followed through with a push motion. The follow through turned it from a good hit to a bad one.

 

[Force951]

Well I agree with you that this rule really is ambiguous. Immediately could be interpreted differently depending on the ref... What's immediately.

A league source provided explanation into the department of player safety’s ruling. Using the NHL’s software, the source said, the league had the hit timed at 0.467 seconds after the puck left Pacioretty’s stick. That puts the hit under the NHL standard of 0.5 seconds for a late hit and well below the 0.6-0.7-second threshold the DOPS uses to determine whether late hits warrant supplementary discipline.

Thats from a Hockey News article, so the league defines late as .5 seconds, this was under that and so it wasn't late.

 

[illpucks]

Stoner said it was not intentional, he's sorry and hopes Patches is OK.

 

[Sojourn]

Not quite. This wasn't a good hit by any means, it was bad hit that might become worse depending on the result.

The initial intent was for a clean hit but once he realized that Pacioretty had his back turned and was at an unsafe distance from the boards, he shouldn't have followed through with a push motion. The follow through turned it from a good hit to a bad one.

Patches wasn't hit from behind. He was facing the blue line at the time he was hit.

 

[Knotty Moog]

exactly like i said..he pushed pacioretty into the board..ahl caliber player who was getting beat all night...disgusting.

So theoretically, if Fowler had made the hit it would be less disgusting?

Patches zoned out, unfortunate he got hurt

 

[HydroF]

It was a dangerous hit due to the distance from the boards, but it wasn't late and wasn't in the numbers. Didn't break any rules IMO, but still should have known it was a dangerous and unnecessary hit and shouldn't have followed through.

Pacioretty really has to be more aware of whats going on around him though...

 

[Alaix]

At this point I'm not sure people even care about Max's health status but meh....

According to RDS.ca his injury is not serious. He's being evaluated on a day-to-day basis and might even play against Ottawa...

Wolverine!

 

[Nemesis Prime]

Nothing wrong with that hit.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Not quite. This wasn't a good hit by any means, it was bad hit that might become worse depending on the result.

The initial intent was for a clean hit but once he realized that Pacioretty had his back turned and was at an unsafe distance from the boards, he shouldn't have followed through with a push motion. The follow through turned it from a good hit to a bad one.

Exactly. He has his stick in Pacioretty's numbers long enough to decide whether or not to full extension shove him into the boards. Should have been 2 minutes for boarding. Don't get how people thought it was late (definitely not late enough for interference, or whatever), though I guess there was a good amount of time between shoulders meeting and when we then see Stoner's arms at full extension on the numbers with Max's face in the glass.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Patches wasn't hit from behind. He was facing the blue line at the time he was hit.

He had his arms extended and stick horizontal, perfectly in the middle of Max's numbers when the impact with the boards happened though, so it's obviously a little more complex than simply how they were oriented when their shoulders made first contact.