Should a Player be Penalized/Suspended for a Clean Hit if the other Player is Injured On the Play?

[Ms Maggie]

I wanted the opinions of as many people as possible on the matter, how else would one go about getting that info without posting a new topic on the subject?

Oh for heaven's sake. The answer is no. Clearly. Look at the responses. Suspensions should be reserv d for hits like the recent Wilson one, and should be severe.

 

[IceNeophyte]

Oh for heaven's sake. The answer is no. Clearly. Look at the responses. Suspensions should be reserv d for hits like the recent Wilson one, and should be severe.

I see what you did there, and I like it!

 

[stampedingviking]

Simple question, Player A hits player B hard with a check that is within the rules. Player B gets injured on the play. Should Player A be penalized or suspended because Player B was injured?

Take the Wilson hit for example since its fresh. If Wilson had delivered a clean check in that moment and Sundqvist was still injured on the play. Should Wilson still be penalized/suspended? If so, why?

No.

 

[HanSolo]

I’m not attempting to fool anyone, I just asked a question. It’s pretty hard to get others opinions a matter without actually asking other people you know.

It's not a matter of opinion though. There's enough precedent over thousands of NHL games that people will answer with what is objective fact, rather than what is just. And it just so happens the two coincide here,

 

[Taluss]

If it’s clean and the person is suspended then I don’t really understand what the league would justify the player do different next time. At that point just remove hitting all together. (No please don’t)

 

[Habby Gilmore]

If it’s clean and the person is suspended then I don’t really understand what the league would justify the player do different next time. At that point just remove hitting all together. (No please don’t)

I don’t think it to far fetched to think that rising insurance costs will eventually drive the league in that direction(removing hitting). It will be a sad day for hockey.

 

[Habby Gilmore]

It's not a matter of opinion though. There's enough precedent over thousands of NHL games that people will answer with what is objective fact, rather than what is just. And it just so happens the two coincide here,

But the question is a matter of opinion. I asked for people opinions of weather or not they believe a players should be penalized or suspended for a clean hit that results in an injury. I didn’t ask for league records on the subject.

 

[HanSolo]

But the question is a matter of opinion. I asked for people opinions of weather or not they believe a players should be penalized or suspended for a clean hit that results in an injury. I didn’t ask for league records on the subject.

And you're really gonna tell me you didn't already know what people's answer would be? This oblivious inquisitor act is really insincere bud.

 

[Sheppy]

Maybe I'm missing something here and you're being sarcastic, but are you seriously trying to suggest that's a clean hit?

100% a clean hit. Absolute thing of beauty.

If you don’t think it’s clean, I don’t even know what to say, you might as well eliminate it all together.

 

[Leafs87]

Punish the act not the outcome. Cause what if it was a super dirty play but the player didn’t miss a shift ?

 

[thadd]

Nobody in their right mind wants to see clean hits penalized or resulting in suspensions.
What I'm under the impression some people want to see is longer suspensions for illegal hits that result in injury.
I'm one of those people.
If a player lands a hit which is CLEARLY illegal that results in an injury, I feel that the player landing the hit should miss at least as much time as it takes for the victim to be medically cleared.

A rule like that probably would have saved Cam Neely's career.

 

[Habby Gilmore]

And you're really gonna tell me you didn't already know what people's answer would be? This oblivious inquisitor act is really insincere bud.

Of course I knew what the majority would say, that why I wanted to add a poll but I couldn’t figure out how to, to see how many were for or against it percentage wise. It was a legit question, the poll would have helped though.

 

[SI90]

No is the only answer

 

[Habby Gilmore]

Nobody in their right mind wants to see clean hits penalized or resulting in suspensions.
What I'm under the impression some people want to see is longer suspensions for illegal hits that result in injury.
I'm one of those people.
If a player lands a hit which is CLEARLY illegal that results in an injury, I feel that the player landing the hit should miss at least as much time as it takes for the victim to be medically cleared.

A rule like that probably would have saved Cam Neely's career.

I don’t understand why they only punish illegal hits that result in injury, if they really wanted to crack down they should penalize and suspend for illegal hits even if they don’t result in injury.

 

[shtorm2005]

numbers or don't care

how often are players penalized or suspended for clean hits

also a more general question

how long before people finally stop acting like all responsibility is on the guy who gets hit and none is on the guy delivering the hit

ass backwards nonsense and it's a religious mantra with some hockey fans

How often players cuts to the middle with head down? Numbers or don't care. Yet, ppl are ready to make a rule to not hit very vulnerable players because it's too risky.

 

[HanSolo]

Of course I knew what the majority would say, that why I wanted to add a poll but I couldn’t figure out how to, to see how many were for or against it percentage wise. It was a legit question, the poll would have helped though.

So if you knew the answer what is the utility in asking the question? It doesn't help advance your points in the Wilson thread since this is another matter entirely. What, are you trying to ridicule any strange contrarian that might answer this question "yes"?

 

[HanSolo]

How often players cuts to the middle with head down? Numbers or don't care. Yet, ppl are ready to make a rule to not hit very vulnerable players because it's too risky.

Stop. Wilson was in his rights to make a check, just not THAT one.

 

[HanSolo]

I don’t understand why they only punish illegal hits that result in injury, if they really wanted to crack down they should penalize and suspend for illegal hits even if they don’t result in injury.

They do suspend hits that don't result in injury. Just not often enough. But that's a matter of the inconsistency of the DOPS.

 

[Habby Gilmore]

How often players cuts to the middle with head down? Numbers or don't care. Yet, ppl are ready to make a rule to not hit very vulnerable players because it's too risky.

That probably would have been a better thread. Should the puck carrier not be eligible to be hit when he is in a vulnerable/blindsided position.

 

[shtorm2005]

Stop. Wilson was in his rights to make a check, just not THAT one.

So why 40+ pages about Wilson shouldn't deliver that hit? He missed the shoulder that's why he will be suspended. But every hater is pretty sure it was his intention to hit the head for what they call him dirty.

 

[zar]

Simple question, Player A hits player B hard with a check that is within the rules. Player B gets injured on the play. Should Player A be penalized or suspended because Player B was injured?

Take the Wilson hit for example since its fresh. If Wilson had delivered a clean check in that moment and Sundqvist was still injured on the play. Should Wilson still be penalized/suspended? If so, why?

... but it wasn’t a clean hit... Tom.

 

[nickdawg95]

This got 5 and a game.

Unfortunately, refs will look at the outcome and just throw out a game misconduct if a player is injured. Honestly, look for guys to start selling hits in order to gain a 5 minute major, that's where we're heading.

Tell me on what planet this is a 5 and a game. This is as clean of a hit as you could deliver.

that hit is clean as beans

 

[Habby Gilmore]

They do suspend hits that don't result in injury. Just not often enough. But that's a matter of the inconsistency of the DOPS.

True enough. I’m just tired of seeing the guys injured so much now, between the dirty hits, the stick work and the players themselves being dumb enough to leave themselves wide open to big hits or going face first into the corner to retrieve pucks there are just so many unnecessary injuries now. I feel like it’s gonna end up with hockey not having hitting some day and it’s gonna suck.

 

[HanSolo]

So why 40+ pages about Wilson shouldn't deliver that hit? He missed the shoulder that's why he will be suspended. But every hater is pretty sure it was his intention to hit the head for what they call him dirty.

Not everyone is saying he shouldn't have made that hit. Just that he shouldn't have made the hit that way, and he shouldn't have. He decided to hit a guy he could tell was unaware as high as he could. This isn't a simple matter of missing the shoulder. This is continuing to use the same method that has ended with disastrous results for his targets in the past and has gotten him suspended. That's why people are "haters"

 

[IceNeophyte]

That probably would have been a better thread. Should the puck carrier not be eligible to be hit when he is in a vulnerable/blindsided position.

Of course any puck carrier is eligible to be hit. JUST NOT BY FLYING IN AND HITTING HIM IN THE HEAD.