Dante Fabbro hits Brock McGinn to head

[herzausstein]

Then five games sounds fair.

I wouldn't be shocked with anything from 2-5 games. Quite an ugly hit but I honestly have no clue how they're deciding suspensions right now.

 

[Il Stugotz]

Not an in-person* hearing, which shouldn’t be a surprise

I think he’ll get:
2 games for a first time headshot
1 game for what the f*** was that?
3 games total

*via Zoom

 

[VibesAlive]

Wouldn't surprise me if he gets nothing. But at least 2 games given his non-history should be incoming.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I’m not seeing that at all and that isn’t a reason for the elbow to come up

So did he raise his elbow to brace himself? Like to protect himself from McGinn's helmet or something? Imo, intent isn't an issue. It was an egregious hit that should have been a major, but I honestly think it wasn't called a major because the officials didn't directly see it. The random wheel of Justice should Def be scheduling a meeting over this one.

Like I said, I think the minor was a bad call. This was a clear cut, textbook major.

Remember I was responding to the question of why the linesmen got involved in the huddle, and the suggestion that it was about determining whether the player was injured.

On a call this clear cut, I think it’s fair to say that if either referee had a good look at it, there wouldn’t have been much to talk about. From the fact that a lengthy conference with the linesmen occurred, we can deduce that neither ref had a good look.

The injury to McGinn was self-evident, and that’s ultimately the referee’s call anyway, so it makes no sense to talk to the linesmen about that. If the injury outcome is already established, there’s only one thing left to talk about.

IMO the conference was almost certainly about getting the linesmen’s input to help determine whether this was a guy getting clipped with a high elbow in the course of play, or a guy Tom Wilson’ing halfway across the rink with intent to do damage. By the fact that it was called a minor, we can deduce that the four officials collectively felt it was more the former than the latter.

I still think the minor was a bad call, but I also don’t think Fabbro was trying to get away with a blatant match penalty here. He tried to throw a big hit at McGinn’s near shoulder and got his elbow up, at the exact instant that McGinn’s torso turned with his followthrough on the puck. To me this is more of a reckless hit/elbow with a bad outcome, and less of a Mark Messier sonic elbow with intent to decapitate.

 

[VibesAlive]

It looked pretty "on purpose" to me. If Fabbro hadn't left his feet maybe I would have a different opinion, but between that and the flying elbow it looked pretty dang intentional, whether that was his intent or not.

Just have to wait and see.

 

[bobc222]

Like I said, I think the minor was a bad call. This was a clear cut, textbook major.

Remember I was responding to the question of why the linesmen got involved in the huddle, and the suggestion that it was about determining whether the player was injured.

On a call this clear cut, I think it’s fair to say that if either referee had a good look at it, there wouldn’t have been much to talk about. From the fact that a lengthy conference with the linesmen occurred, we can deduce that neither ref had a good look.

The injury to McGinn was self-evident, and that’s ultimately the referee’s call anyway, so it makes no sense to talk to the linesmen about that. If the injury outcome is already established, there’s only one thing left to talk about.

IMO the conference was almost certainly about getting the linesmen’s input to help determine whether this was a guy getting clipped with a high elbow in the course of play, or a guy Tom Wilson’ing halfway across the rink with intent to do damage. By the fact that it was called a minor, we can deduce that the four officials collectively felt it was more the former than the latter.

I still think the minor was a bad call, but I also don’t think Fabbro was trying to get away with a blatant match penalty here. He tried to throw a big hit at McGinn’s near shoulder and got his elbow up, at the exact instant that McGinn’s torso turned with his followthrough on the puck. To me this is more of a reckless hit/elbow with a bad outcome, and less of a Mark Messier sonic elbow with intent to decapitate.

My only point of dispute here would be that it seemed like you could call this penalty Charging as well, which typically implies an intent to not make a hockey play, but an intent to deliver a violent, crushing hit to an opponent. To me that puts this more in the Tom Wilson camp, though we don't truly have access to Fabro's mind at the time.

 

[tarheelhockey]

My only point of dispute here would be that it seemed like you could call this penalty Charging as well, which typically implies an intent to not make a hockey play, but an intent to deliver a violent, crushing hit to an opponent. To me that puts this more in the Tom Wilson camp, though we don't truly have access to Fabro's mind at the time.

IMO the jump puts it more into the category of boarding than charging. I don’t think this hit gets much attention if Fabbro stays low and compact:



Definitely a bad hit and a major for a reckless hit resulting in injury, but IMO that doesn’t rise to the level of a match penalty for intent to injure.

 

[bobc222]

IMO the jump puts it more into the category of boarding than charging. I don’t think this hit gets much attention if Fabbro stays low and compact:



Definitely a bad hit and a major for a reckless hit resulting in injury, but IMO that doesn’t rise to the level of a match penalty for intent to injure.

I think you could argue both (plus hit to the head if you wanted).

Charging in the rulebook seems to fit:
"A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner. Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner."

Boarding probably also applies per your message.

 

[NHL Review]

Glad to see it’s getting a hearing.. maybe now the on ice officials will see they made a mistake in only assessing it a minor penalty, again.

Embarrassing call

 

[Mustard]

Very out of character for Fabbs. Definitely deserves a game or two. Haven't seen any kind of play from him before.

 

[Stickpucker]

Can someone explain to me what the refs might be chatting about here?

Frederic Lecouliour trying to figure out if McGinn is a Quebecois last name or not as that will decide if it's a 2 min minor or an ejection.

 

[RedMenace]

Jesus Fabbro, what the hell?

 

[danpantz]

2 games

 

[Johnny Rifle]

2 games

About what was expected. Can't argue with this one.

 

[Tryamw]

I think if it had been called a major it would have been only 1 additional.. but pretty much where I expected.

 

[Soundgarden]

I think that's fair considering his lack of history.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

only a 2 minute minor. Refs have no guts.

It's good this got a 2 game suspension but if the league really wants to protects players' brains this should be 4 games. This is not a hockey play gone bad. It's an intentional flaring of the elbow to contact a player's head.

 

[HugeInTheShire]

I hate the 'lack of history' narrative, this was a terrible hit and should have been at lease 7 games, it checks all the boxes for a long suspension
direct head contact.... YEP
intentional..... YEP
the fact that he got 2 games is horrible

 

[Mustard]

I hate the 'lack of history' narrative, this was a terrible hit and should have been at lease 7 games, it checks all the boxes for a long suspension
direct head contact.... YEP
intentional..... YEP
the fact that he got 2 games is horrible

Eh. 7 is pretty extreme and I completely disagree about the history. It should've been a major on the ice, and 1-3 games makes sense. 2-4 games if the guy was injured. 4-8+ games if the guy was severely injured and repeat offender. Each case/player should take context and a degree of subjectivity to it.

 

[HugeInTheShire]

Eh. 7 is pretty extreme and I completely disagree about the history. It should've been a major on the ice, and 1-3 games makes sense. 2-4 games if the guy was injured. 4-8+ games if the guy was severely injured and repeat offender. Each case/player should take context and a degree of subjectivity to it.

I think history should only be taken into account if the player is a repeat offender, I don't care if it's your first offense, you do something like this they should have the book thrown at them

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

I think it was worth 3 but 2 is fine. I’m just glad BC Brock is OK