Hendricks to have hearing for hit on Aaron Ekblad - Suspended 3 Games

[oStealthKiller*]

Is that what a legal hockey hit looks like to you? He knew the outcome and is rightly suspended as a result.

What I've been arguing is had ekblad played the play correctly, nothing would have happened. Hendricks could do everything exactly the same and not injure him if ekblad didn't make a stupid play. If ekblad doesn't turn, that's a rubout with the glass absorbing most of the impact. Ekblad made the hit bad, not hendricks

 

[Digger12]

Spector brought up IMO a good point today about this: The Ekblad hit is partially a byproduct of a player who looked to the rulebook to protect him rather than making sure to protecting himself.

Yes the end result is that Hendricks is suspended for 3 games and that will hurt the Oilers, but if Ekblad doesn't put himself in such a vulnerable position and had been more aware on the ice maybe he's not missing time with what could be a concussion.

If you're Florida's coach, I'm betting he wishes his guy wasn't out of the lineup.

 

[Insta]

Spector brought up IMO a good point today about this: The Ekblad hit is partially a byproduct of a player who looked to the rulebook to protect him rather than making sure to protecting himself.

Yes the end result is that Hendricks is suspended for 3 games and that will hurt the Oilers, but if Ekblad doesn't put himself in such a vulnerable position and had been more aware on the ice maybe he's not missing time with what could be a concussion.

If you're Florida's coach, I'm betting he wishes his guy wasn't out of the lineup.

That's what a few of us were saying the last few pages (and probably some before but I didn't read the whole thread). Ekblad put himself in the position to be knocked out, possibly because of the rules now allowing you to be careless.

In years past, especially when you know the temperature of the game is high, you'd always be ready to be hit by the forechecker. I'm amazed at how nonchalant Ekblad was during a time when he was imminently going to be hit hard. He even shoulder-checked and knew Hendricks was coming and still didn't care!

 

[Replacement*]

Semantics man.. He's not saying he didn't have INTENT.. he's saying that intent was not to INJURE.

I'll just reply to the one post as I can answer both with one. It isn't semantics. If anything to conclude that Hendricks, who wanted to respond to the Hall hit in kind, and belt Ekblad into the middle of next week, but didn't "intend" to injure is playing fast and loose with the facts.

Most people that have seen this feel it was a dirty hit. The NHL thinks its a dirty hit, the NHL has suspended Hendricks accordingly.

Sorry, but people are going to need to come up with something better than there wasn't intent to injure. How do you know that?

Hendricks didn't peel off, Hendricks didn't try to stop, Hendricks got all of him and followed through with full weight into the check. No pull back whatsoever. If anything that indicates intent to hit Ekblad hard.

Which I have no problem with. But saying there was no intent to injure/ Anytime you hit somebody like that there can be in injury. It comes with the territory of finishing that nature of hit.

 

[oStealthKiller*]

I'll just reply to the one post as I can answer both with one. It isn't semantics. If anything to conclude that Hendricks, who wanted to respond to the Hall hit in kind, and belt Ekblad into the middle of next week, but didn't "intend" to injure is playing fast and loose with the facts.

Most people that have seen this feel it was a dirty hit. The NHL thinks its a dirty hit, the NHL has suspended Hendricks accordingly.

Sorry, but people are going to need to come up with something better than there wasn't intent to injure. How do you know that?

Hendricks didn't peel off, Hendricks didn't try to stop, Hendricks got all of him and followed through with full weight into the check. No pull back whatsoever. If anything that indicates intent to hit Ekblad hard.

Which I have no problem with. But saying there was no intent to injure/ Anytime you hit somebody like that there can be in injury. It comes with the territory of finishing that nature of hit.

How do you know there was intent to INJURE?

If you're in a fight u don't not block strikes directed at ur groin, because rules

 

[Replacement*]

Should have only been one game.

Obviously wrong, but just didn't seem malicious or devastating to me.

I think the hit on Hall is more of the type of hit that need to be taken out of the game.

My lord what kind of pansy pro sport are they playing if a perfectly executed open ice hit that wasn't dirty in any way, or illegal in anyway is taken out of the game.

Again this is where people are getting stuck in the homer notion. The hit on Hall was 100% clean and Hall wasn't watching. Mostly that's on Hall. He was tracking a puck and not the incoming bus..

Remove this element of hockey and we may as well be playing pansy no contact rules. But who would watch. Checking is an essential part of the game. One hit was clean, totally, the other wasn't. Pretty simple.

We should probably move on from this. Discussion on this gets so circular.

 

[Narnia]

I doubt Ekblad would have gotten a suspension if he had laid the same hit on an Oilers star player. All us fans want is that the Oilers get the same treatment like the Sunbelt teams. How many times has a similar hit on an Oilers player causing injury happened but the NHL deemed it clean and no suspension. Sick and tired of the same on Oilers players won't get a suspension. I want the Oilers to get treated the same way when the same hit is on an Oilers player and it causes an injury.

 

[Digger12]

That's what a few of us were saying the last few pages (and probably some before but I didn't read the whole thread). Ekblad put himself in the position to be knocked out, possibly because of the rules now allowing you to be careless.

In years past, especially when you know the temperature of the game is high, you'd always be ready to be hit by the forechecker. I'm amazed at how nonchalant Ekblad was during a time when he was imminently going to be hit hard. He even shoulder-checked and knew Hendricks was coming and still didn't care!

It's akin to coming to a crosswalk...does a smart person take a look before taking that first step, or does he blindly walk onto the road assuming that the traffic laws will protect him?

If it's the latter, while he is legally in the right he'd be pretty damn stupid in my book, and the driver who hit me getting thrown in jail will be small comfort to me as I'm in a body cast having my life changed forever, assuming I even have a life still.

 

[oStealthKiller*]

I doubt Ekblad would have gotten a suspension if he had laid the same hit on an Oilers star player. All us fans want is that the Oilers get the same treatment like the Sunbelt teams. How many times has a similar hit on an Oilers player causing injury happened but the NHL deemed it clean and no suspension. Sick and tired of the same on Oilers players won't get a suspension. I want the Oilers to get treated the same way when the same hit is on an Oilers player and it causes an injury.

Reffing and player safety are the leagues price for 4 in 6

 

[Replacement*]

How do you know there was intent to INJURE?

If you're in a fight u don't not block strikes directed at ur groin, because rules

There was intent to get all of Ekblad and hammer him silly into the boards. Intent to get all of him.

The sheer physics of that type of hit along the end boards is going to be associated with a certain probability of hurt, or injury.

I mean Hendricks belted Ekblad with everything he had. he didn't let up at all with the player in a vulnerable position.

Given that, and the actions involved, its not incumbent on me, or the NHL to PROVE intent. What instead is used is the circumstantial careful review of video and factors in the event and preceding and post event.

The onus is on people, if they want to argue the opposite of what has been officially concluded, is to provide a proper framework of actions in the event that support the notion that there wasn't intent. I see no valid defense of that. I instead see people whitewashing a flaccid "Hendricks didn't have intent" as if they have proof for that conclusion. When in fact to adopt an opposed position that there wasn't intent requires some solid argument. Not just declarative assumption.

in effect some posters here are offering up a presumed defense of Hendricks act and assuming there was no intent. Without backing their stance in any way.

I still maintain as well it was silly for Hendricks to engage in the "There I equaled the score" gesturing after the hit. Kind of gives the NHL even more to work with there. He's a vet, needs to watch himself better.

Now the team he was trying to help is without his services for 3 games.

 

[McDraekke]

I'll just reply to the one post as I can answer both with one. It isn't semantics. If anything to conclude that Hendricks, who wanted to respond to the Hall hit in kind, and belt Ekblad into the middle of next week, but didn't "intend" to injure is playing fast and loose with the facts.

Most people that have seen this feel it was a dirty hit. The NHL thinks its a dirty hit, the NHL has suspended Hendricks accordingly.

Sorry, but people are going to need to come up with something better than there wasn't intent to injure. How do you know that?

Hendricks didn't peel off, Hendricks didn't try to stop, Hendricks got all of him and followed through with full weight into the check. No pull back whatsoever. If anything that indicates intent to hit Ekblad hard.

Which I have no problem with. But saying there was no intent to injure/ Anytime you hit somebody like that there can be in injury. It comes with the territory of finishing that nature of hit.

No one is arguing that Hendricks didn't intend to hit Ekblad hard.

Your argument is implying that every big hit is intent to injure, then. And unfortunately, it is within the rules to injure someone as long as the hit is clean, regardless of intent or not. Every big hit in hockey is an attempt to throw someone off of their game, shake them up, make them play with their head on a swivel, etc etc. And with that comes injury sometimes. But are they intending to injure? Hard to say, but likely not in my opinion.

You ask how do we know that there isn't intent to injure? The onus should be the opposite: how do you know that there was intent to injure?

 

[Insta]

It's akin to coming to a crosswalk...does a smart person take a look before taking that first step, or does he blindly walk onto the road assuming that the traffic laws will protect him?

If it's the latter, while he is legally in the right he'd be pretty damn stupid in my book, and the driver who hit me getting thrown in jail will be small comfort to me as I'm in a body cast having my life changed forever, assuming I even have a life still.

Good analogy. Sure you're legally in the right, but it isn't a huge amount of consolation for you when you're in the hospital. Also, in this case you do look and you see a speeding car coming at you not looking like it's slowing down and you still decide to walk out.

 

[Replacement*]

It's akin to coming to a crosswalk...does a smart person take a look before taking that first step, or does he blindly walk onto the road assuming that the traffic laws will protect him?

If it's the latter, while he is legally in the right he'd be pretty damn stupid in my book, and the driver who hit me getting thrown in jail will be small comfort to me as I'm in a body cast having my life changed forever, assuming I even have a life still.

But if we take this to full extent Hall, who was FACING the hit (but not looking at all at what was coming) is more in a position in which it could be stated that he should be able to avoid that hit then somebody looking the other way.

If I really want to go for the jugular here I can point out that Hall is silly enough to allow this kind of hit to occur to him within 1.5 games of his statement about getting tired of being hit and trying to play smarter out there.

Really if we're being objective here, and I hate to say this, of the two, Hall is much more able to be criticized for not being more aware of the hit. By his own admission he's the one that has been belted repeatedly in his career, leading to injures, and that he was resolved to work on that.

I think that's a more objective view that a fan of neither club would probably conclude.

 

[oStealthKiller*]

There was intent to get all of Ekblad and hammer him silly into the boards. Intent to get all of him.

The sheer physics of that type of hit along the end boards is going to be associated with a certain probability of hurt, or injury.

I mean Hendricks belted Ekblad with everything he had. he didn't let up at all with the player in a vulnerable position.

Given that, and the actions involved, its not incumbent on me, or the NHL to PROVE intent. What instead is used is the circumstantial careful review of video and factors in the event and preceding and post event.

The onus is on people, if they want to argue the opposite of what has been officially concluded, is to provide a proper framework of actions in the event that support the notion that there wasn't intent. I see no valid defense of that. I instead see people whitewashing a flaccid "Hendricks didn't have intent" as if they have proof for that conclusion. When in fact to adopt an opposed position that there wasn't intent requires some solid argument. Not just declarative assumption.

in effect some posters here are offering up a presumed defense of Hendricks act and assuming there was no intent. Without backing their stance in any way.

I still maintain as well it was silly for Hendricks to engage in the "There I equaled the score" gesturing after the hit. Kind of gives the NHL even more to work with there. He's a vet, needs to watch himself better.

Now the team he was trying to help is without his services for 3 games.

I'm sorry, but I can't take u seriously if u think that the boards make hits some sort of super duper extra hurt hit. The boards are the best place to get hit! You use the boards to absorb most of the impact, like how ekblad was supposed to do

Edit:
Do you really think the ppl running the NHL are spewing holy words? I guess anyone who has a job in the NHL must be a be all end all in hockey matters. Just like mike Babcock who recently said hits like this are because of theVICTIM turning

 

[Spawn]

It was a devastating hit from behind. I don't know what there is to debate honestly. He saw numbers and went in hard. Most certainly a suspension.. Hopefully Ekblad is alright.

 

[Replacement*]

No one is arguing that Hendricks didn't intend to hit Ekblad hard.

Your argument is implying that every big hit is intent to injure, then. And unfortunately, it is within the rules to injure someone as long as the hit is clean, regardless of intent or not. Every big hit in hockey is an attempt to throw someone off of their game, shake them up, make them play with their head on a swivel, etc etc. And with that comes injury sometimes. But are they intending to injure? Hard to say, but likely not in my opinion.

You ask how do we know that there isn't intent to injure? The onus should be the opposite: how do you know that there was intent to injure?

You don't seem to follow the standard rules of logical engagement here.

I am not the one taking an opposed view of what was officially decided by people put in place by the NHL to specifically attend to these events.

You're taking the position that Hendricks didn't have intent, didn't do anything wrong, "its just like any hit" and waffling and thinking the onus is on me to prove anything.

I'm not countering what the NHL decided here. I'm not the one voicing a defence of Hendricks clearly dirty hit. I expected a suspension from the outset and Hendricks got one. A pretty considerable suspension for a player without suspension priors.

 

[joestevens29]

Good analogy. Sure you're legally in the right, but it isn't a huge amount of consolation for you when you're in the hospital. Also, in this case you do look and you see a speeding car coming at you not looking like it's slowing down and you still decide to walk out.

So realistically in both situations the person getting hit and the person doing the hit get punished.

I think there is a lesson to be learned on both sides here, but in no way should Ekblad or the pedestrian be blamed for someone doing something illegal.

 

[Insta]

So realistically in both situations the person getting hit and the person doing the hit get punished.

I think there is a lesson to be learned on both sides here, but in no way should Ekblad or the pedestrian be blamed for someone doing something illegal.

Well the NHL rulebook still has a clause that the person can't put themselves in a vulnerable position just before the hit. The NHL and I disagree on its application here as I think Ekblad did that.

I'm not completely exonerating Hendricks because I think he could've let up, but I don't agree with the length of the suspension nor some of the analyses the NHL gave in their video. If they gave 1 game I'd probably be okay with it, but 3 games is too much.

 

[Replacement*]

I'm sorry, but I can't take u seriously if u think that the boards make hits some sort of super duper extra hurt hit. The boards are the best place to get hit! You use the boards to absorb most of the impact, like how ekblad was supposed to do

I can't take your rebuttal seriously if you don't have an elemental understanding of physics.

In an open ice hit the potential energy of the hit results in the hit just being one blunt force and with the object being hit able to bounce off into open space. Thus the force of the hit is dissipated somewhat by the object sliding away from the hit.

This is much different than a hit dissipated into the boards which although there is some give still result in a sandwich effect where the full force of the hit is absorbed by the object instead of being able to be bounced off of it. The added thing being that the object being hit is now crunched by two separate force vectors. From the original accelerating object, and from the object (boards) that fixes the hit in one spot.

if you don't follow this consider a fender bender.

One car hits another car which simply glides forward on ice. The injury/damage through that nature of hit is less as the car simply slides forward and so that not all energy of the hit was absorbed. Forward motion dissipates some of the energy of the impact.

In contrast a car hit, and slammed into a car or wall in front of it is going to result in much more damage, and more injury. That car is much more likely to be a write off and will incur damage in front and back.

Finally, anybody that has EVER been in Bumber cars knows exactly what I'm stating. Some bumper car hitting you in open space is nothing. But slam somebody directly into another bumper car or a wall and you have more of an impact. Those are the juicy hits everybody goes for in bumper cars. The kind of hit where the recipient is going to get it both ways. Its like a double hit. That said the hardest hits are also when objects are going at speed in opposing directions. I'll give you that.

Not sure how this isn't clear.

 

[oStealthKiller*]

I can't take you seriously if you don't have an elemental understanding of physics.

In an open ice hit the potential energy of the hit results in the hit just being one blunt force and with the object being hit able to bounce off into open space. Thus the force of the hit is dissipated somewhat by the object sliding away from the hit.

This is much different than a hit dissipated into the boards which although there is some give still result in a sandwich effect where the full force of the hit is absorbed by the object instead of being able to be bounced off of it. The added thing being that the object being hit is now crunched by two separate force vectors. From the original accelerating object, and from the object (boards) that fixes the hit in one spot.

if you don't follow this consider a fender bender.

One car hits another car which simply glides forward on ice. The injury/damage through that nature of hit is less as the car simply slides forward and so that not all energy of the hit was absorbed. Forward motion dissipates some of the energy of the impact.

In contrast a car hit, and slammed into a car or wall in front of it is going to result in much more damage, and more injury. That car is much more likely to be a write off and will incur damage in front and back.

Not sure how this isn't clear.

Spoken like someone fresh out of the classroom who never dealt with reality. I can tell u from experience that open ice hits hurt more and I find it hard to believe anyone who played hockey will disagree. And check my edit on that other post, I'm sure you will love it

 

[McDraekke]

You don't seem to follow the standard rules of logical engagement here.

I am not the one taking an opposed view of what was officially decided by people put in place by the NHL to specifically attend to these events.

You're taking the position that Hendricks didn't have intent, didn't do anything wrong, "its just like any hit" and waffling and thinking the onus is on me to prove anything.

I'm not countering what the NHL decided here. I'm not the one voicing a defence of Hendricks clearly dirty hit. I expected a suspension from the outset and Hendricks got one. A pretty considerable suspension for a player without priors.

I never once said that Hendricks' hit wasn't wrong and was just like any hit. If you would like to read back, I suggested quite clearly that they both have their part in this situation. I do think the dangerous hit is worthy of a suspension, but 3 games is a bit much for a player who is not a repeat offender, without knowledge that his intent was to injure.

It was not clearly a dirty hit. It is clearly a dangerous hit, and many people in this thread are giving logical explanations as to why there was no intent, you are just ignoring it and brushing it off while using your special method of arguing that makes people want to quit arguing instead of carrying on.

I'm not appealing the suspension with my arguments, I don't need to follow standard protocol set in place to overturn a decision. I am giving my reasoning and explanations as to why I think they are wrong in their decision.

If you want, I can try and find Hendricks and ask him if he had intent to injure - guess what, he'll probably say no, because he isn't a dirty player. But that certainly won't change your mind, and barring telepathy and digging into Hendricks' feelings and inner thoughts, I'm not sure how we could convince you otherwise

 

[Insta]

I can't take you seriously if you don't have an elemental understanding of physics.

In an open ice hit the potential energy of the hit results in the hit just being one blunt force and with the object being hit able to bounce off into open space. Thus the force of the hit is dissipated somewhat by the object sliding away from the hit.

This is much different than a hit dissipated into the boards which although there is some give still result in a sandwich effect where the full force of the hit is absorbed by the object instead of being able to be bounced off of it. The added thing being that the object being hit is now crunched by two separate force vectors. From the original accelerating object, and from the object (boards) that fixes the hit in one spot.

if you don't follow this consider a fender bender.

One car hits another car which simply glides forward on ice. The injury/damage through that nature of hit is less as the car simply slides forward and so that not all energy of the hit was absorbed. Forward motion dissipates some of the energy of the impact.

In contrast a car hit, and slammed into a car or wall in front of it is going to result in much more damage, and more injury. That car is much more likely to be a write off and will incur damage in front and back.

Not sure how this isn't clear.

What he means is if you brace yourself against the boards as opposed to getting hit into the boards, it's much better. On the other hand, when you skate into an open ice hit, it can be devastating. Because not only do you take the full brunt of the impact, but you have forward velocity to go with it.

 

[Narnia]

Good analogy. Sure you're legally in the right, but it isn't a huge amount of consolation for you when you're in the hospital. Also, in this case you do look and you see a speeding car coming at you not looking like it's slowing down and you still decide to walk out.

Even if there's a walk light, you still have to look both ways for cars because idiots will turn the minute the light turns to go for pedestrians.

 

[McDraekke]

It was a devastating hit from behind. I don't know what there is to debate honestly. He saw numbers and went in hard. Most certainly a suspension.. Hopefully Ekblad is alright.

This isn't mentioned enough times in this thread.

 

[scb23]

You don't seem to follow the standard rules of logical engagement here.

I am not the one taking an opposed view of what was officially decided by people put in place by the NHL to specifically attend to these events.

You're taking the position that Hendricks didn't have intent, didn't do anything wrong, "its just like any hit" and waffling and thinking the onus is on me to prove anything.

I'm not countering what the NHL decided here. I'm not the one voicing a defence of Hendricks clearly dirty hit. I expected a suspension from the outset and Hendricks got one. A pretty considerable suspension for a player without priors.

What makes their judgment more valid? It's a very subjective situation. Under Boarding, straight from the rule book is the statement:
There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the
application of this rule by the Referees.

What Ekblad did here is the same kind of thing Hall got criticized for for years. That has nothing to do with this hit, I know, but I just don't understand how Ekblad can shoulder check, see Hendo coming, and proceed to put himself in the most atrociously vulnerable position possible. His skates were against the board, be ready for the hit.

This kind of play happens numerous times every game. Eat the puck, take the hit, then make the pass. Or make the pass without putting your head down into the boards. Finishing a hit on a fore check is pretty damn common in the NHL. If you go in assuming that's not a possibility you'll get caught with a bad one eventually, and that's what happened IMO. Hendo's only INTENT was to fore check and finish his hit, and he hit him hard, yep.