Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
Depends fully on whether or not you think Jensen was "defenseless". Everything else about the boarding rule applies here.
Nick Jensen stretchered off - reported to be conscious and alert
- Thread starter AnInjuredJasonZucker
- Start date
It could have easily been and perhaps should have been, boarding.
Weve seen a few calls like that this year where a player is trying to gain red and shoot it in but gets hammered into the boards from that awkward distance to the boards like he was
hockeykicker
Moderator
- Dec 3, 2014
- 35,207
- 12,812
hatterson
Registered User
I can't fathom being knocked unconscious and not going to the hospital. I understand they have doctors and everything at the arena to check him, but you'd assume they'd want to run X-rays, MRIs or other scans to make sure nothing else can go wrong.
OurlordAndSaviorKuch
Number one Bull$hit
Finished a hard check with an unfortunate result, Not his fault Jensen was already off balance.
Please go be a fan of a different team……
Please go be a fan of a different team……
These hits should be Boarding calls otherwise I don’t understand what boarding actually is. These hits where they’re not far enough away to be open ice but not close enough to absorb or bounce off the boards. They’re very dangerous hits.
Similar to the Tanev hit on Tinordi couple years ago. Tanev was ejected and I thought it was the right call then.
Similar to the Tanev hit on Tinordi couple years ago. Tanev was ejected and I thought it was the right call then.
T REX
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2013
- 11,396
- 8,689
He had his head down with the puck. It was a good LEGAL hit that had an unfortunate result. Again, even the caps announcers said it wasn't a penalty.
Keep yer head up peeps.
To me it was a boarding minor but regardless, it was a cheap hit — legal or not. It was late and he took advantage of someone in a vulnerable position in the most dangerous area on the ice. The left arm to Jensen’s left shoulder has no other purpose other than to twist him around and get him off balance and as a result he had no chance to defend himself.
The hit had zero impact on the play and showed a lack of respect for his opponent. Anyone who has played the game knows it was a cheap shot.
The hit had zero impact on the play and showed a lack of respect for his opponent. Anyone who has played the game knows it was a cheap shot.
Dennis Reynolds
I have to have my tools!
"But Jensen didn't skate himself into the boards", You're really just playing dumb, aren't you?
Essyimont has no way of knowing Jensen is going to take all of his weight off his left leg for a dump in and stare, he has no way of knowing Jensen is defenseless and vulnerable and going to be flattened like a pancake, he's finishing his check at an angle that shouldn't result in that outcome. He's not near the boards, he's giving up ~30 lbs to Jensen, he's hitting him from the front/side and on the shoulder, he's hitting him within like a second of the dump in, none of this screams dangerous.
Do you really not see the difference between that and a player pinned along the boards and vulnerable? There's a reason refs have stopped calling penalities when a player turns their back at the last minute along the boards and putting themselves in a dangerous position, there is a responsibility to the one being checked to avoid being vulnerable, where as if you're already along the boards in a bad position you have no choice. This is where I understand why Jensens dumped and stared, he's not in a part of the ice that is dangerous, or so he thought.
It's just unfortunate
Their analysts even during the intermission pointed out that he took all of his weight off his leg and stared, he gave up on the possibility of being checked when he was still a legal target.
They did try and say he hit him from behind which he didn't, but at least give them credit for point out that Jensen made himself off balanced which caused him to go flying.
HTFN
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2009
- 12,293
- 10,981
A.) Jensen is at the end of that motion, Eyssimont knows he's not in a position to take contact very well. That's why he's selling out to finish the hit, for a bigger result. Even taking the motion out of it, we've all seen enough hockey to know that he's chasing down a guy who is going to get rid of the puck as soon as he gains the red line and does. This isn't a threat, it's a guy he's going to try to finish by the letter of the law but doesn't need to worry about at all. You're right that nothing about the play screams dangerous.... except the follow through.
B.) It's exactly because of his angle and that pretty unnecessary follow through that he tossed a guy all the way into the boards, which can and should be argued as a boarding call. How near you are to the boards is not a part of the language of the rule, it's a matter of if the hit causes the opponent to violently and dangerously impact them. So when you elect for the big finish you need to have control same as open ice hits, and if you instead knock someone out you maybe... f***ed that up a little.
C.) The NHL and its fans concluded a long time ago that while things like shooting the puck change the position of your head and body, it's not fair to call that "putting yourself in a defenseless position" because it's kind of a really important part of the game. Cooke on Savard made that point crystal clear, not all plays are the responsibility of the puck carrier to avoid illegal contact. In this scenario Eyssimont could easily finish Jensen and remove him from the play without casting him into the wall.
D.) I posted the rule earlier so I'll say this again, because it's important: distance is not a factor. If I get my arms up into your chest and propel you 10 solid feet before you hit the wall but you still hit wall first, I still boarded you. Is that normal? No. Did I, by my actions, cause you to go dangerously into the boards? Yes.
You're in a rush to defend to the point where I don't think you realize what's being said, and you're adding all this rhetoric like "giving up 30 lbs" when it just doesn't matter. There's finishing a check and then there's knocking a guy out with the base of the boards, nobody's calling for a suspension or saying it's premeditated, it's just a bad hit that should be covered by that rule as written but isn't.
This is also a gap in their officiating as it relates to safety that I've been bothered by for at least like 10 years at this point, it's got very little to do with this specific hit. Hell, you're a Bolts fan, I've been on this one at least since Lecavalier tossed Jack Hillen and f***ed his shoulder/possibly career up. To me boarding should encompass more scenarios where players are not hit into the boards as a fluid motion but hit, thrown, and collide with the boards as a secondary impact. It's massively dangerous and the back-to-back impacts in different directions with no natural outlet for the momentum (like most on-wall checks) seem to increase the risk of injury/brain trauma.
Last edited:
Maple Leaf
VIP
- Sep 18, 2009
- 8,893
- 4,343
Leksand
Registered User
Many thanks!
The Boarding rule is really quite vague. To me the most striking formulation is "There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees." It's borderline colloquial, certainly not legalese, and with the "enormous" in there pretty much gives it all to what the ref thinks even if there are formulations what the rule is. (Curious what the IIHF rule book says, but that's for another day).
After reading the actual rule text, I think you're right and as I note above another post the refs have an "enormous amount" of discretionary power. Really seems different from some other rule books.
BTW the IIHF rule is essentially the same but with "considerable" instead of "enormous" amount of judgment.
Last edited:
HTFN
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2009
- 12,293
- 10,981
Personally it still should be, but I'm also of the opinion that injury shouldn't dictate any of this anyway.
I think the "boarding range" should be something like 6-8 feet, which accounts for the average length of the body plus momentum. You can be hit anywhere in that range and, in the process of falling, fully extend in a way that leaves you absolutely f***ed for board contact.
I recognize fully that NHL refs aren't interpreting the rule this way, and it's become much more of a catchall for things that aren't technically checking from behind but still piss people off... but again, by the wording of the rule, how is this not a hit that results in the opponent violently colliding with the boards in a massively unsafe way?
trick9
Registered User
- Jun 2, 2013
- 12,228
- 5,273
Clean by the rules as it's more of a shove than a hit but shoving a player who is in vulnerable position into the boards high-speed is dangerous and f***ing gutless move.
Derailed75
Registered User
I haven't seen the video but if its a hard legal check why would you give him a penalty?
Ok so I watched the video should not have been a penalty at all what so ever. Very unfortunate result but Eyysimont "hit" was a shove that actually was pushing him back but Jensen's momentum carried him into the boards. Clean hit ugly result. Glad he's ok.
Last edited:
Memento
Future Authoress.
Quite simply, I would give him a two-minute penalty for boarding. It does fit the criteria, but it also prevents the game from devolving into an out-of-control grudge match. Give him the penalty to prevent more ugliness from coming out.
Again, hard, legal check, but it fits the boarding criteria. Two minutes, nothing more afterward.
Derailed75
Registered User
I dont think it does though. Part of the rule is driving him into the boards. He pushed him back not towards the boards. I strongly disagree with giving a clean hit within the rules a penalty to keep the other team from drumming something up. If you want to keep things under control you throw the book at the first retaliatory action by the other team.
Memento
Future Authoress.
Fair enough. I just feel like nipping it in the bud, and the hit, while legal and non-malicious, could be put as a boarding penalty under the rules (given how close the boards were).
It's an unfortunate outcome, and the most I'd give it is two minutes, if even that (and the only reason is to prevent the game from getting out of hand). I just don't see any malicious intent or recklessness towards another player.
Derailed75
Registered User
I agree with the thought about the hit and think calling that a penalty is opening up more for interpretation calls which a truly detest in every sport.
T REX
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2013
- 11,396
- 8,689
