Metallo
NWOBHM forever \m/
Not sure we can get more than a 2nd round pick for Mikko now.
Not sure we can get more than a 2nd round pick for Mikko now.
You're being ignorant if you don't think cross-checking is dangerous. Just ask Viktor Arvidsson if he thinks cross-checks are dangerous.One is a very dangerous thing (slashing the hands) and the other isn't (crosschecking).
Yes, but in hockey you have to carry your stick along with you. So if you want to shove someone, or push them away from the puck, or away from the net, you either have to drop your stick (not gonna happen) or use your stick to win a physical battle.
As Balthazar alluded to, cross checking is already a penalty. If someone crosses the line and uses too much force they get penalized. If there's a broken rib as a result of a bad cross check, they should consider a suspension. The examples they sited as penalties in their video did not come even close to crossing the line for a penalty or suspension IMO, except maybe Kucherov if we're going to be results oriented.
ROR has special defensive instincts and a special high motor that almost no other player has. Other players aren't capable of expending that much energy by keeping their feet moving and defending like ROR. They have to use their physical attributes and strength to defend the dirty areas. That's what makes ROR so good at what he does.
One is a very dangerous thing (slashing the hands) and the other isn't (crosschecking).
One trillion percent right on the money here, my theory is that they're one of leading causes of back injuries for players both heading towards retire and had to retire due to back issues. I am not sure if that is what happened to Subban, but it wouldn't surprise me if him getting cross-chequed for majority of his career lead to his decline in play.I have zero faith in the NHL actually enforcing the rule in the playoffs but this is a start. Cross checking has gotten way out of hand and most of these examples aren't even hockey plays. It's just randomly taking someone out when they're not even near the puck. It's obvious interference too but it's not like they call that either.
How can you say that, though? Literally by the letter of the law they are all penalties. There's no reason trying to justify them. Hockey is a physical sport; that doesn't mean it has to be a dirty/cheap sport. Cross-checking is the exact same as slashing to me. The sooner we can rid them from the game for the most part, the better it will be. There's no reason anyone should be defending via cross-check. It's a cheap way out. Learn how to actually defend.
But that is not playing the body legally. That is a cross-check. It couldn't be any more clear, either. If defensemen at the NHL level don't know how to defend without cross-checking, maybe we need to reconsider whether they're NHL caliber defensemen.The difference in how we view this is I don't think the standard cross check is a dirty/cheap shot.
I think it's a tool that players, specifically defenseman, have used for about a century and if you call penalties on the type of plays they used in their examples, it's going to really limit how defenseman are able to defend down low and in front of the net.
Look at the McDavid play again in their example. How are they supposed to defend against him there if they can't play the body like that? If they go for a hit or try to play the puck, he's probably going to dance around them. They might as well just move aside and give him a breakaway, because they're not going to be able to stop him.
If they call it that tight it will also lead to a lot more diving, like 2-3 of the examples they used without the rule being called this tight. Which isn't good for hockey at all.
Look at the McDavid play again in their example. How are they supposed to defend against him there if they can't play the body like that? If they go for a hit or try to play the puck, he's probably going to dance around them. They might as well just move aside and give him a breakaway, because they're not going to be able to stop him.
Um... yeah. That's kind of the point. If you have to cheat to stop someone, then you don't deserve to stop him.
____________________
I for one am glad they're cracking down the crosschecks. I know Landy will be happy - he gets pummeled in front of the net.
That being said, I think the priority should actually be interference - it's the new clutching and grabbing. I can't even count the number of times a guy throws the puck into the zone then tries to use his speed to go after it, and a big, slow defenseman just rubs him out on the boards despite the player not having the puck, and not having touched it for several seconds. Another example is when a puck is dumped in and a forward and defender are both racing for it. 9/10 times the defender will lay the body on the forward before either player has even touched the puck. I swear if they started cracking down on interference it would have the same effect as when they started cracking down on hooking and holding.
I personally view it like when hand checking was taken away in the NBA. Changed the game, and suddenly all of these "solid" defenders were exposed.If defensemen at the NHL level don't know how to defend without cross-checking, maybe we need to reconsider whether they're NHL caliber defensemen.
Bednar’s system would be in shambles if this happened. He uses a lot of picks which are very much in the gray area.
If a cross check is in the rule book as being a penalty there’s no such thing as a clean cross check?The difference in how we view this is I don't think the standard cross check is a dirty/cheap shot.
I think it's a tool that players, specifically defenseman, have used for about a century and if you call penalties on the type of plays they used in their examples, it's going to really limit how defenseman are able to defend down low and in front of the net.
Look at the McDavid play again in their example. How are they supposed to defend against him there if they can't play the body like that? If they go for a hit or try to play the puck, he's probably going to dance around them. They might as well just move aside and give him a breakaway, because they're not going to be able to stop him.
If they call it that tight it will also lead to a lot more diving, like 2-3 of the examples they used without the rule being called this tight. Which isn't good for hockey at all.
With the crackdown on cross-checking I'm doubly glad that Ian Cole isn't on this team anymore.
We do have Rantanen, who lost his mind and couldn’t stop cross checking folks last year.