Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by Breakfast of Champs, Mar 23, 2011.
Would stevens be suspended for the infamous/famous hit on eric lindros?
wasn't that hit basically a north-to-south hit or maybe Steven came up a bit from the side. I don't think that hit would have been a offense today. The Kariya hit is in that case closer to a suspensionable hit.
Arguably targeted the head. I guess it would depend on the day of the week that it happened.
"How is Stevens allowed in the NHL? Something has to be done to protect the integrity of the game!"
It's definitely on the borderline of what would be allowed. A better example of a headshot Lindros took that would (or at least should) be legal under the new rules is the one Kasparitis layed on him, that was almost completely a head-on collision (no pun intended).
Yeah, its a lot more problematic then many pretend.
There are many dirty hits in this league. But I think that a D standing up a forward at a blueline always should be deemed a hockey hit (unless there are elbows involved). I mean, if the forward is prepaired to get hit he'll turn and take the hit with the shoulder. Its only when the forward is looking at the puck we see injurys.
And "targeting the head" in that situation?
I don't know, I played 3rd tier hockey untill I was 21 y/o. IE, I am hardly Scott Stevens. But when I played and made hits like that, where you stepped up against a forward coming at you at full speed, you take a decision and within a blink of an eye bodis, your own included, are flying all over the place.
I am seriously not sure that Steven's actually targeted the head. It was big hits no matter what.
Not a blindside hit.
Didn't leave his feat.
Not illegal by today's rules.
My thoughts exactly.
My personal opinion is that it should be allowed and is perfectly legal in my mind but I disagree with most of you that it would not result in a suspension in todays kinder, gentler NHL for two reasons:
1) The injury that resulted from the hit. Recently, when a player goes down the arm almost instantly comes up and when it is questionable if it was a "head shot" or not the recent calls have usually resulted in 5 and a game with a league review to follow.
2) Listening to many of the GM's at the recent meetings I heard over and over again about hits on vulnerable players who were already "engaged" with another player. From what I remember of that hit there could be an argument that he was already engaged with one, if not two, Devils before Stevens lowered the boom on him.
This doesn't even take into account the heat the NHL is under right now and if a "star" like Lindros went down today because of this hit I would almost guarantee a suspension.
Myself, I would love to see guys like Stevens and Marchment still around, if for no other reason, just so I could watch the tears flow on the main board.
You are a gentleman and a scholar.
No it was clean. It was just really, really hard and Lindros had his head down not expecting it.
I don't think the fact that lindros was a star would have made the NHL come down hard on Stevens. People forget just how much lindros was hated around the league - it would be more like pronger getting taken out than Crosby, but lindros got even more bad press than pronger.
Agreed on every count.
On the topic of Lindros, a much better litmus test would be the hit he laid on Dackell back in '98. That met (or should I say broke) every criteria you mentioned above. It was from behind into the glass, a good second and a half after the puck left Dackell's stick, he left his feet, and followed through with a bit of an elbow.
Back then, Lindros didn't even receive a penalty. Today, I fully expect this site would've crashed had he not received at least 5 games.
Not today but soon enough; it won't be long before hits targeting the head will be illegal and rather than looking at angles the challenge will be determining intent.
Good luck determining 'intent.'. I really hope that's not a rule. Otherwise you'll get a 'did chara intend to steer his head into it?" ****show every few weeks.
You mean we don't now?
Damn near all of Steven's headshots were of the "He shoulda been looking where he was skating" category...
Anyone have a clip of someone talking to a friend and then walking into a pole? I want to blame the pole.
So as long as I'm in front of a guy I can direct my shoulder into his head/face and it's legal? I just don't think it would fly with the focus on headshots right now.
I think it's a clean hit, but considering the current emphasis on headshots and the lack of consistency in the league office, it would probably result in a suspension.
Think about it this way... if Doughty hit Crosby that way, you think he's going to walk scott free? Not a chance.
I agree with you, and the true fan does as well because this is how hockey is played.
However, we've seen the media analyze and calculate every single hit nowadays. We all know the schools of people who wanted to hang Chara. But for some reason in 2011 the onus is NEVER on the guy with the puck skating with his head down which is something Lindros ALWAYS did. I have little doubt there would be a huge movement to suspend Stevens for 20 games for that hit. There would be people calling for that, and they'd be wrong.
At the speed hockey moves it is impossible to tell grown men trying to keep their job that if an opponent's head catches your shoulder then you're out! We've seen first hand how this has softened up the NFL with a linebacker having 0.5 seconds to react to stopping a first down but then try and not to graze the player's helmet. So the way the rule is enforced is fine. Stevens' hit was fine in 2000 and fine in 2011. However, sadly there would be armchair athletes all over the world that would want Stevens' head on a stick.
You're basically saying that open ice hits on players with their heads down should be illegal, unless the player making the hit somehow crouches really low.
Edit- thankfully, that isn't the rule just yet.
I really don't get the crosby comparisons. Crosby is the nhl's golden boy. Lindros was still the dark sheep of the league, even in 2000.
Agreed and if this is what the NHL is coming to then instead of "headshots" we are back to careers being ended by "kneeshots". Rule 44 is backburner to Rule 48 right now but from the way it looks in a few years it will be back in the forefront along with the reemergence hip checks. Can't go high so go low. From what I read and hear these days somehow going to the knees is less career threatening and "not as dirty". I would disagree but who am I to argue with the flavor of the month?
I think the Campbell hit on Umberger is the best example of a Stevens-like hit but without targeting the head as Stevens did. I don't think Umberger noticed the fine distinction, though.
Scott Stevens was allowed to get away with hits no one else was allowed to get away with. His elbows and forearms were called shoulders. His deliberate hits to the head were mystically clean. He feigned shock and surprise when his identical premeditated hits to the head caused injuries. He was one of the dirtiest players of his time. Yet some defend him like he was their son.
Separate names with a comma.