Hanzal suspended for 2 games

[rt]

The egregious stuff should be taken out of the game via lengthy suspensions and fines.

These finicky little borderline plays should be dealt with in-game via penalties assessed by on-ice officials.

Hatcher on Roenick should be twenty games. Hanzal on Petry should be two minutes.

 

[PerpetualTankYear]

So basically any hit that makes any type of contact with the head at all, is illegal?

 

[GiveAFlyingPuck]

So basically any hit that makes any type of contact with the head at all, is illegal?

Yes, unless your name begins with a "K", ends with an "a", and has "lesl" in the middle. On the up side you are allowed to throw knees out there all you want.

 

[cobra427]

So basically any hit that makes any type of contact with the head at all, is illegal?

Yes, unless the player being hit turns into the hitting player. I think he got one game for the hit to the head and one game for being a repeat offender. I thought he would get 1-3 games. Hits to the head get suspensions in the regular season now. The length is determined by the severity, if it was intentional, injuries, etc.. Hanzel had a head of steam and happened to catch the guy in the head as he turned. Hanzel is a victim of circumstance and his height played a roll too, being taller, hitting a head is more likely. Sucks, but not surprised by the suspension or length.

 

[Guest]

Frankly, since Hanzal has been nursing some injuries lately I'm not that concerned about the suspension. If anything it might be a good thing because it'll force him to sit and get a little healthier and he'll come out flying the next game he plays. If it was much more than 2 games I would be pissed, but considering the circumstances I'm not.

 

[Vip]

Well, I'm gonna refrain from getting extremely angry about this. Not worth it.

Looking at the bright side, Hanzal can use this time to rest up. Tip said he had been playing pretty sore.

 

[Vip]

Yiiikes. Okay. I'm done here. Someone PM me when Arizona makes it into the 19th ****ing century.

I think you guys are especially going to love air conditioning and penicillin.

C'mon man.

 

[Sinurgy]

That you value your own fleeting entertainment more than a human being is barbaric.

That you feel more qualified to make decisions for the athletes than they are for themselves hints at an extraordinarily large ego.

And regarding the whole "but they're adults!" thing, this stuff trickles down to the peewee level and beyond. Kids are literally dying because of it. But god forbid someone suggest there are more important things than a safety obliterating a running back.

Don't purposefully twist it, we're talking about professional athletes here and you know it. To try and turn it around like someone arguing with you doesn't value the life of kids is straight up gutter ball man. You've never debated in such a downright cheesy fashion, is this even Pho?!

There is no "freedom" option here. You either think violence and bodily destruction is a fair cost for entertaining you, or you think the world would be better if those people were able to live full, healthy lives, even if it meant losing some of the physicality in your precious sports. Either way, you're "choosing what's best for people." The difference is, in one of them, you get to be a humane member of a society.

Aahhh the old false dilemma, as if the giant strawman you've been constructing wasn't enough. Since we're playing that game, either you respect individual liberty or you don't and sadly it would appear that you don't.

Yiiikes. Okay. I'm done here. Someone PM me when Arizona makes it into the 19th ****ing century.

I think you guys are especially going to love air conditioning and penicillin.

Go home Pho, you're drunk.

 

[RABBIT]

I'm at a loss of words. Does the NHL have an appeal process? Hanzal was penalized in-game, Petry was fine, and there was no distinct motion in which any intent could be determined. Is there a lesson to be learned here? Give him a fine, call it a day. Ridiculous. Shanahan is such a ****ing puppet to the department of player safety, that you can actually see them elbow deep in his ass. Shanny committed dirtier hits than this on a monthly basis. If you're going to make a safety spokesperson out of someone, make it someone who actually played safely and get this pretentious hypocrite back to NHL retirement.

I think there should be guidelines to every play that requires a hearing to determine if it is suspension worthy.

A. Can it be determined that there was intent?
B. Was the receiving player injured as a result?
C. Can a resolution be reached just as efficiently with a fine?
D. Was the player penalized on the play and is any further discipline required?

4 simple steps that could make this circus show less ludicrous.

AND, it should be voted on by a new organization, consisting of a group of 5 recently retired players (5, for majority voting tactics.) A sort of Alumni Player's Association, so the current NHLPA doesn't have to be distracted by disciplinary circumstances. I guarantee if this procedure was adopted, we would see less controversy in the NHL, and more democracy.

 

[BAdvocate]

Of course the NHL network is going to say it's a bad hit because the NHL network is a mouthpiece of the NHL... you're not going to see a dissenting opinion there.

of course coyote fans would say that because we're the mouthpiece of the Coyotes......

I guess no reason to debate the hit when we can come up with conspiracy theories.

 

[BAdvocate]

I'm at a loss of words. Does the NHL have an appeal process? Hanzal was penalized in-game, Petry was fine, and there was no distinct motion in which any intent could be determined. Is there a lesson to be learned here? Give him a fine, call it a day. Ridiculous. Shanahan is such a ****ing puppet to the department of player safety, that you can actually see them elbow deep in his ass. Shanny committed dirtier hits than this on a monthly basis. If you're going to make a safety spokesperson out of someone, make it someone who actually played safely and get this pretentious hypocrite back to NHL retirement.

I think there should be guidelines to every play that requires a hearing to determine if it is suspension worthy.

A. Can it be determined that there was intent?
B. Was the receiving player injured as a result?
C. Can a resolution be reached just as efficiently with a fine?
D. Was the player penalized on the play and is any further discipline required?

4 simple steps that could make this circus show less ludicrous.

AND, it should be voted on by a new organization, consisting of a group of 5 recently retired players (5, for majority voting tactics.) A sort of Alumni Player's Association, so the current NHLPA doesn't have to be distracted by disciplinary circumstances. I guarantee if this procedure was adopted, we would see less controversy in the NHL, and more democracy.

yeah, you're at a loss of words

maybe now you are lol.

 

[kihekah19*]

Yiiikes. Okay. I'm done here. Someone PM me when Arizona makes it into the 19th ****ing century.

I think you guys are especially going to love air conditioning and penicillin.

Oh thank all that is holy!

Expect no pm, we're fine here without the holier than thou.

 

[kihekah19*]

of course coyote fans would say that because we're the mouthpiece of the Coyotes......

I guess no reason to debate the hit when we can come up with conspiracy theories.

No doubt we're all biased here.

Leetch said that the reason for suspension was because Marty left his feet prior to makiing head contact. I did not see it that way at all. I witnessed one foot leaving the ice as he drove power into the hit AS contact was made and the second foot (perhaps) leaving the ice (looked as if his toe may have still had contact w/ice) as the hit was completed. I find his logic incorrect. Leetch flat out said it was "charging" and that was called on the ice, the reason for the suspension was leaving his feet prior to making contact with the head.

"Charging" was called on the ice and in my book the FACT that Hanzal coasted from basically the goal line at a diagonal, all the way to the boards, where contact was made, as he was turning his body prior to contact, actually negates even the charge. Therefore, I didn't agree with the call on the ice and if they have an issue with the head contact a fine would be in order in lieu of suspension. Instead he received a penalty, fine and suspension - overkill.

 

[cobra427]

Guys, the bottom line is, Hanzel hit his head, so he is guilty. Unless the opposing player somehow turned his head at the last minute, or ducked to cause the head hit, it is Hanzels fault. They want players to do everything they can to avoid hits to the head. Now I agree, this is next to impossible, and it is not the hitting players fault or intent sometimes, fast game, big players, but this is how the interpretation of the rules work now. I listened to the Leetch video, and yes, we can pick apart his explanation. But, at the end of the day, it was a head hit, so 1 game suspension, 2 for your repeat offender status. It might not be fair and might not ultimately be the best solution for the game, but I don't know why it is so hard to understand?

 

[kihekah19*]

Guys, the bottom line is, Hanzel hit his head, so he is guilty. It might not be fair and might not ultimately be the best solution for the game, but I don't know why it is so hard to understand?

Don't get me wrong, I understand perfectly. The suspension as explained by Leetch is flat out incorrect.

For those that don't understand: Your explaination is MUCH better.

 

[PHX FireBirds18]

People are pissed about the inconsistency and how we get unfairly punished more so than other teams. Yet this brutal elbow is seen in the same light as clipping someone in the head due to being 6'6.

 

[cobra427]

People are pissed about the inconsistency and how we get unfairly punished more so than other teams. Yet this brutal elbow is seen in the same light as clipping someone in the head due to being 6'6.

Honestly, I don't think we are treated unfairly. The hit in this clip was from last year, so the context of how these hits are punished has likely changed and part of that might be due to the concussion lawsuits in the NFL. Having said that, Brown was not looking when he put his elbow up. So again, it was a head hit Brown caused, he gets 2 games. It would have been more if he was a repeat offender, as obviously it was more reckless then Hanzels hit. I totally see the 2 games. I can't stand Brown as a player either because he is the master at embellishing....

 

[BAdvocate]

No doubt we're all biased here.

Leetch said that the reason for suspension was because Marty left his feet prior to makiing head contact. I did not see it that way at all. I witnessed one foot leaving the ice as he drove power into the hit AS contact was made and the second foot (perhaps) leaving the ice (looked as if his toe may have still had contact w/ice) as the hit was completed. I find his logic incorrect. Leetch flat out said it was "charging" and that was called on the ice, the reason for the suspension was leaving his feet prior to making contact with the head.

"Charging" was called on the ice and in my book the FACT that Hanzal coasted from basically the goal line at a diagonal, all the way to the boards, where contact was made, as he was turning his body prior to contact, actually negates even the charge. Therefore, I didn't agree with the call on the ice and if they have an issue with the head contact a fine would be in order in lieu of suspension. Instead he received a penalty, fine and suspension - overkill.

well said. especially since it was done without the NHL is against us rallying cry, which is what I take issue with.

 

[PHX FireBirds18]

Honestly, I don't think we are treated unfairly. The hit in this clip was from last year, so the context of how these hits are punished has likely changed and part of that might be due to the concussion lawsuits in the NFL. Having said that, Brown was not looking when he put his elbow up. So again, it was a head hit Brown caused, he gets 2 games. It would have been more if he was a repeat offender, as obviously it was more reckless then Hanzels hit. I totally see the 2 games. I can't stand Brown as a player either because he is the master at embellishing....

That whole repeat offender thing is a big pile of dung if you ask me. Hanzal is not a repeat offender but since he got suspended for something so minor he is seen as such now. Brown should be one but he's gotten away with plenty. I really don't think that much has changed in the way they view hits since that play happened. It's unfair to penalize Hanzal for two games when more violent acts don't even get recognized. Just to make things clear since I don't think I ever voiced my opinion on it but I felt like that Nolan hit was not suspension worthy.

 

[Etch]

I basically agree with Kihekah 100% here. I'd debate the fact that it was even a charge at all, he clearly glides at least from the goal line. He shouldn't be blamed for gliding quickly. The whole charging rule needs to be fixed imo, basically just punishes you for playing the game at a faster pace then people who coast around, but that's a debate for another day and not worth arguing over.

This was a hit to the head, as much as I hate to say it. Hanzal is basically unable not to hit his head because of the size difference, but under the current rules I guess that's no excuse. I'll agree with the head hit part, none the rest of Leetch's explanation.

 

[_Del_]

Anytime you leave your feet to initiate the hit, it's a charge. Been that way for years. Still dont think its suspension worthy, and that its a joke the deliberate knee-on-knee got a fine, but it is what it is.