Player Discussion Tom Wilson, NHL All-Star (Part 3)

[Hivemind]

I am actually not downplaying the severity, I just want it to be all judged the same way. Isn't that the exact opposite of whataboutism?

This is a thread about Tom Wilson. You responded to a comment regarding Wilson's hit with a post about a Ritchie hit. That's a textbook example of whataboutism. You can have issues with DoPS all you want, but the post you responded to never mentioned the DoPS or their enforcement methods. It was simply my take on the fact that Wilson constantly trying to blow people up is what lands in him hot water when something goes wrong. He needs to learn that factors beyond his control can lead to hits that may be legal in other circumstances going very wrong, and to be more cognizant of that potential when lining people up.

 

[tenken00]

This is a thread about Tom Wilson. You responded to a comment regarding Wilson's hit with a post about a Ritchie hit. That's a textbook example of whataboutism. You can have issues with DoPS all you want, but the post you responded to never mentioned the DoPS or their enforcement methods. It was simply my take on the fact that Wilson constantly trying to blow people up is what lands in him hot water when something goes wrong. He needs to learn that factors beyond his control can lead to hits that may be legal in other circumstances going very wrong, and to be more cognizant of that potential when lining people up.

The comment was in regards to if this is truly about player safety, then all hits of this kind should be punished. Not just Tom Wilson. This is a mess of the league's own doing. But if others are not punished, then is it truly about player safety or is it really about their image?

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

This is a big disingenuous circle debate by those who don’t like Wilson.

Trying sooooooo hard to crap on him it’s pathetic.

 

[txpd]

If Wilson didn't look to blow people up with every hit

Definition of "blow people up" and definition of "every hit"?

As video of plain old everyday body checks is rare, i offer a famous Ov goal started by a Wilson hit on Kunitz. Was Kunitz "blown up"???

 

[tenken00]

This is a thread about Tom Wilson. You responded to a comment regarding Wilson's hit with a post about a Ritchie hit. That's a textbook example of whataboutism. You can have issues with DoPS all you want, but the post you responded to never mentioned the DoPS or their enforcement methods. It was simply my take on the fact that Wilson constantly trying to blow people up is what lands in him hot water when something goes wrong. He needs to learn that factors beyond his control can lead to hits that may be legal in other circumstances going very wrong, and to be more cognizant of that potential when lining people up.

And whataboutism would signify that I am trying to get Tom Wilson off scott-free by bringing up unrelated incidents with loose connections. I am actually saying: punish Tom, but punish everyone else equally if you truly care about players. Just do it.

 

[Hivemind]

The comment was in regards to if this is truly about player safety, then all hits of this kind should be punished. Not just Tom Wilson. This is a mess of the league's own doing. But if others are not punished, then is it truly about player safety or is it really about their image?

Once again, read the post of my you quoted, and the post it was quoting. Neither of them was mentioning the DoPS or league scrutiny. You're attempting a non-sequitur.

I'm not going to claim the DoPS is doing a great job. But I will also say that taking a player's history into account is valid. Regardless of how the rules are written, there will always be a degree of subjectivity into applying those rules to real life scenarios. Because of that, there will always be judgements that need to be made. Considering a player's history as part of those judgements is valid, as the mission shouldn't be extracting retribution on players who committed illegal hits, but rather dissuading those hits from happening again in the future. And when a player has demonstrated a repeated history of crossing that line, it becomes necessary to scrutinize and judge that player harsher.

I can't believe I've been sucked into discussing this topic for the 1000th time on these boards.

 

[racingmoose]

The comment was in regards to if this is truly about player safety, then all hits of this kind should be punished. Not just Tom Wilson. This is a mess of the league's own doing. But if others are not punished, then is it truly about player safety or is it really about their image?

Agreed. You're pointing out a consistency issue which does tie into the approach to safety and Tom Wilson.

 

[tenken00]

Once again, read the post of my you quoted, and the post it was quoting. Neither of them was mentioning the DoPS or league scrutiny. You're attempting a non-sequitur.

I'm not going to claim the DoPS is doing a great job. But I will also say that taking a player's history into account is valid. Regardless of how the rules are written, there will always be a degree of subjectivity into applying those rules to real life scenarios. Because of that, there will always be judgements that need to be made. Considering a player's history as part of those judgements is valid, as the mission shouldn't be extracting retribution on players who committed illegal hits, but rather dissuading those hits from happening again in the future. And when a player has demonstrated a repeated history of crossing that line, it becomes necessary to scrutinize and judge that player harsher.

I can't believe I've been sucked into discussing this topic for the 1000th time on these boards.

There is an easy fix to that. Make the call and/or consequences non-subjective. Or as non-subjective as you can. Done.

Why make this issue a lot of gray? Write the rules. Make it apply to everyone.


Edit: and I apologize because my post wasn't directly specific to you. Your post was just the last post I read before hitting the button

It was more of a reply in general, not exactly to you and your prior posts. lol Sorry!

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I am actually not downplaying the severity, I just want it to be all judged the same way. Isn't that the exact opposite of whataboutism?

unless I missed a post or 2, Goon’s whataboutism comment wasn’t directed at you lol....

 

[Hivemind]

There is an easy fix to that. Make the call and/or consequences non-subjective. Or as non-subjective as you can. Done.

Why make this issue a lot of gray?

As someone who's referee'd other competitions, there's no good way to do that in reality (and sometimes a by-the-book ruling ends up being unfair). There's always nuance to applying rules in the real world.

Look at your own example of that Ritchie hit. It was an open ice hit (not boarding) and wasn't a headshot (contact was made with the shoulder). What black-and-white ruling would you use to suspend Ritchie for that? It's the context of the hit that makes it dangerous.

 

[txpd]

What he said also wasn't what you think it was. Tom Wilson isn't persecuted because his name is Tom Wilson. Tom Wilson is scrutinized heavier because of his lengthy history of bad hits.

Friedman said that the opinion in the hockey business is that nobody gets suspended for that hit....except Tom Wilson. So, I understand you. You think that plays that are not penalties for other players in the league are penalties for Wilson and thats ok with you?

 

[g00n]

What he said also wasn't what you think it was. Tom Wilson isn't persecuted because his name is Tom Wilson. Tom Wilson is scrutinized heavier because of his lengthy history of bad hits.

Same difference. See previous posts about the circular reasoning behind this.

 

[tenken00]

As someone who's referee'd other competitions, there's no good way to do that in reality (and sometimes a by-the-book ruling ends up being unfair). There's always nuance to applying rules in the real world.

Look at your own example of that Ritchie hit. It was an open ice hit (not boarding) and wasn't a headshot (contact was made with the shoulder). What black-and-white ruling would you use to suspend Ritchie for that? It's the context of the hit that makes it dangerous.

The defenseless player part? Isn't that what they got Tom Wilson for? Or did they get him for something else?

 

[Hivemind]

Friedman said that the opinion in the hockey business is that nobody gets suspended for that hit....except Tom Wilson. So, I understand you. You think that plays that are not penalties for other players in the league are penalties for Wilson and thats ok with you?

Wilson is the only active player with his rap sheet. It's no different than Raffi Torres or Matt Cooke or Steve Downie.

 

[Hivemind]

The defenseless player part? Isn't that what they got Tom Wilson for? Or did they get him for something else?

Write me a black-and-white rule to define a "defenseless player."

The defenseless player ruling was part of their boarding analysis.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

There is an easy fix to that. Make the call and/or consequences non-subjective. Or as non-subjective as you can. Done.

Why make this issue a lot of gray? Write the rules. Make it apply to everyone.


Edit: and I apologize because my post wasn't directly specific to you. Your post was just the last post I read before hitting the button

It was more of a reply in general, not exactly to you and your prior posts. lol Sorry!

They can’t really be subjective when they are saying “but it’s Tom Wilson”.

The hit should be determined to be legal or not, then you apply the other crap.

This was arguably a good hit and they still added the Tom Wilson penalty.

they basically just did “0 x Tom Wilson” and instead of the right answer = 0, they defied math and made it 7! Lol....

 

[tenken00]

Write me a black-and-white rule to define a "defenseless player."

The defenseless player ruling was part of their boarding analysis.

Well it clearly wasn't a hit from behind like boarding.

 

[g00n]

This is a thread about Tom Wilson. You responded to a comment regarding Wilson's hit with a post about a Ritchie hit. That's a textbook example of whataboutism. You can have issues with DoPS all you want, but the post you responded to never mentioned the DoPS or their enforcement methods. It was simply my take on the fact that Wilson constantly trying to blow people up is what lands in him hot water when something goes wrong. He needs to learn that factors beyond his control can lead to hits that may be legal in other circumstances going very wrong, and to be more cognizant of that potential when lining people up.

This is crap.

Whataboutism "attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument".

Asserting that Wilson gets treated the way he does because he tries to blow people up with dangerous and reckless hits is CERTAINLY directly refuted and disproven by showing examples (evidence) that the cause for the treatment is NOT unique to TW.

Talking about Matt Cooke, who engaged in different tactics and cheap shots, getting similar treatment in theory is whataboutism since it's not the same thing, and doesn't deal with what's actually going on. It's a redirection without direct relevance.

Anyone on this board that's still comparing Cooke to Wilson is of questionable perception and loyalty, imo.

 

[g00n]

unless I missed a post or 2, Goon’s whataboutism comment wasn’t directed at you lol....

Do you have someone on ignore?

 

[Hivemind]

Well it clearly wasn't a hit from behind like boarding.

Checking from Behind (Rule 43.1) and Boarding (Rule 41.1) are two different rules. Boarding doesn't require a hit from behind.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Yep....when you have to use Matt Cooke to attack one of your own team’s players.....


Paaaaaaaathetic.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Do you have someone on ignore?

I’m really tempted to expand my ignored member list right now.

it’s one thing to fiercely debate and have passion for the subject like most of us do, but it’s another thing entirely to purposely engage in circular logic games. I see it both on the Kuzy topic and Wilson.

 

[g00n]

I think the problem is systemic Tom Wilsonism. He's accumulated his record because the system has been tilted against him, and then in future situations his record is used to justify further punishment.

I'm only half-joking.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I think the problem is systemic Tom Wilsonism. He's accumulated his record because the system has been tilted against him, and then in future situations his record is used to justify further punishment.

I'm only half-joking.

can we further tax the rich to better defend against Tom Wilsonism?!

 

[hb12xchamps]

I really don’t think we need a refresher on Tom Wilson’s suspension history cmon people. A lot of these posts seem to be unnecessarily degrading which makes these arguments go way offhand.

I will go back to my original point on this subject. Whether you agree about the severity of the hit or not, what the DoPs did by suspending Tom Wilson in an unprecedented manor has opened up a larger can of worms. I was actually surprised the NHLPA didn’t say anything about the way the DoPs worded their ruling because this ruling now sets precedent for further suspensions of this kind.