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

[txpd]

Neither of those hits caused Boyle to miss a game, IIRC.

But if they did cause injuries that caused him to miss time, yes I think both should have faced supplemental discipline.

So, if Carlo isnt injured Wilson is good. You either crosscheck a guy in the face or you dont.

 

[twabby]

So, if Carlo isnt injured Wilson is good. You either crosscheck a guy in the face or you dont.

Yes, in the same way that punching a person in the head and causing a black eye might not result in you getting arrested at all, but punching a person in the head and causing them to die would likely result in manslaughter and several years in prison.

 

[g00n]

Yes, in the same way that punching a person in the head and causing a black eye might not result in you getting arrested at all, but punching a person in the head and causing them to die would likely result in manslaughter and several years in prison.

THIS IS NOT CRIME. Stop with the terrible analogies.

So if 2 players fight and one guy gets a concussion, the guy who hit him should get suspended?

 

[g00n]

You are making a reductio ad absurdem argument.

There is no slippery slope here that logically leads to making all hits illegal...

-BECAUSE-

...there is a clear and objective distinction between Wilson's conduct and the conduct of every other player. The difference is huge.

In fact it is so huge that virtually everyone on hfboards recognizes this obvious distinction, except a small gaggle of Capitals fans.

Busy morning but now I have a sec.

I've already laid out the path for you to follow here. They aren't breadcrumbs they're neon signs. But I'll try again.

• Hitting causes damage. It causes trauma. That means injuries.
  
• So if you're allowing hitting you're allowing injuries from hitting.
• If you're trying to eliminate injuries then you have to eliminate hitting. Other levels of competition ALREADY DO THIS so it's not a logical fallacy.
• If you want hitting but you're only trying to reduce injuries, your job is more complicated. You can't just punish based on injury because it's SO unpredictable a situation. The same hit to 2 different people or even the same players, at various times, will produce drastically different results due to fatigue, speed of play, and other factors.

So there's no way to know when a hit with nearly ANY level of force or speed will injure someone. Which means you must either include broad language that allows referee discretion in judging what's right and wrong, or ban hitting.

And as we've seen, players get away with the same things Wilson gets penalized and suspended for, all the time. That includes speed, areas of contact, proximity to boards, injury, and all of it.

 

[Midnight Judges]

• If you're trying to eliminate injuries...

Nobody is suggesting you can eliminate injuries. So again, your entire chain of logic breaks down based on a straw man argument that you are relying on.

 

[g00n]

Nobody is suggesting you can eliminate injuries. So again, your entire chain of logic breaks down based on a straw man argument that you are relying on.

Did you read the rest? It's part of the logical setup.

If you're not trying to eliminate injuries then you can't use injuries as a criteria for discipline.

Stop cherrypicking what I say so you can knock down actual strawmen.

 

[Calicaps]

Yes, in the same way that punching a person in the head and causing a black eye might not result in you getting arrested at all, but punching a person in the head and causing them to die would likely result in manslaughter and several years in prison.

So is it your contention then that it is not possible for a player to be injured by a legal hit? Or perhaps more accurately, do you believe that injury is the major determining factor in the legality of a hit?

 

[Corby78]

You are making a reductio ad absurdem argument.

There is no slippery slope here that logically leads to making all hits illegal...

-BECAUSE-

...there is a clear and objective distinction between Wilson's conduct and the conduct of every other player. The difference is huge.

In fact it is so huge that virtually everyone on hfboards recognizes this obvious distinction, except a small gaggle of Capitals fans.

lol, so your argument is Wilson is suspendable because he is mean, the rest of the players are just playing hockey. And this is backed up because opposing fans don't like him. Brilliant deduction.

 

[Corby78]

Did you read the rest? It's part of the logical setup.

If you're not trying to eliminate injuries then you can't use injuries as a criteria for discipline.

Stop cherrypicking what I say so you can knock down actual strawmen.

It was your fourth bullet, he probably didn't get that far.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

It was your fourth bullet, he probably didn't get that far.

tough to see through all that red interference that hating Tom Wilson causes...

 

[twabby]

So is it your contention then that it is not possible for a player to be injured by a legal hit? Or perhaps more accurately, do you believe that injury is the major determining factor in the legality of a hit?

Of course it's possible to be injured by a legal hit.

Injury is a major factor in determining punishment, yes, but in almost all cases the legality of a hit is usually determined by the circumstances of the hit, rather than the outcome. For example, if Brandon Carlo did not have to go to the hospital after Tom Wilson clobbered his head into the boards but instead returned for his very next shift, it should have still been a penalty called on the ice for boarding. But the supplemental discipline should have been far less, or perhaps even nothing.

 

[Midnight Judges]

If you're not trying to eliminate injuries then you can't use injuries as a criteria for discipline.

Nobody has suggested you can eliminate injuries.

You can try to reduce injuries by going after the ones that aren't necessary to the actual game of hockey.

 

[g00n]

Nobody has suggested you can eliminate injuries.

You can try to reduce injuries by going after the ones that aren't necessary to the actual game of hockey.

And how would you go about that? How do you define what's necessary and what isn't?

 

[Midnight Judges]

If you want hitting but you're only trying to reduce injuries, your job is more complicated. You can't just punish based on injury because it's SO unpredictable a situation. The same hit to 2 different people or even the same players, at various times, will produce drastically different results due to fatigue, speed of play, and other factors.

I'm not suggesting to just punish based on the injury.

But it is a necessary factor in the decision to punish.

 

[Midnight Judges]

And how would you go about that? How do you define what's necessary and what isn't?

If it's an illegal hit then that alone opens the door for a hit to be deemed unnecessary.

 

[g00n]

Of course it's possible to be injured by a legal hit.

Injury is a major factor in determining punishment, yes, but in almost all cases the legality of a hit is usually determined by the circumstances of the hit, rather than the outcome. For example, if Brandon Carlo did not have to go to the hospital after Tom Wilson clobbered his head into the boards but instead returned for his very next shift, it should have still been a penalty called on the ice for boarding. But the supplemental discipline should have been far less, or perhaps even nothing.

You're aware that some of this horrible history you keep citing for Tom Wilson includes plays that did not result in missed shifts or missed games, right? Or even a penalty?

When the NHL decided to get TW onto the books as a repeat offender during the 2017 preseason it started vs the Blues, with the 2 game suspension for hitting Robert Thomas. There was no penalty and no injury. But Wilson was still suspended 2 games.

The 2nd suspension for the hit on Sammy Blais, just a few days later, came after Blais was checked for concussion and returned to the game. Wilson was ejected and suspended for 4 games despite poor camera coverage and what appeared to be a glancing blow.

 

[Calicaps]

Of course it's possible to be injured by a legal hit.

Injury is a major factor in determining punishment, yes, but in almost all cases the legality of a hit is usually determined by the circumstances of the hit, rather than the outcome. For example, if Brandon Carlo did not have to go to the hospital after Tom Wilson clobbered his head into the boards but instead returned for his very next shift, it should have still been a penalty called on the ice for boarding. But the supplemental discipline should have been far less, or perhaps even nothing.

You keep saying this but it doesn't make it true.

anyway... DoPs basically said--and apparently the view is shared by some significant number of people within the league--that the "circumstances of the hit" as you say, weren't, in and of themselves, any big deal. You continue to ignore that.

 

[g00n]

If it's an illegal hit then that alone opens the door for a hit to be deemed unnecessary.

Is hitting violent?

I'm not suggesting to just punish based on the injury.

But it is a necessary factor in the decision to punish.

How so? Given again what I said earlier about the unpredictability of injury in hitting, and the acknowledged chance of injury even on legal hits?

 

[twabby]

You keep saying this but it doesn't make it true.

anyway... DoPs basically said--and apparently the view is shared by some significant number of people within the league--that the "circumstances of the hit" as you say weren't, in and of themselves, any big deal. You continue to ignore that.

If you are also denying Tom Wilson's gloves smashing Brandon Carlo's head into the boards, intentional or not, defenseless or not, then I'm afraid I will have to exit this discussion as well. There needs to be a shared reality in order to have a meaningful discussion.

 

[g00n]

If you are also denying Tom Wilson's gloves smashing Brandon Carlo's head into the boards, intentional or not, defenseless or not, then I'm afraid I will have to exit this discussion as well. There needs to be a shared reality in order to have a meaningful discussion.

It's a disingenuous thing to keep saying. It gives the impression TW took his hands and PUSHED or in your terms "clobbered" Carlo's head into the boards when in reality TW's hands were pinned to his chest and the hit was basically torso to torso, with the hands just being IN BETWEEN.

How would you have TW make that hit, then? It would've been a legal hit if not for the head contacting the boards, yes? And that happened because Carlo lowered his head at the last instant, down to where TW's hands were.

This is in the damn rules, Twabby. When the guy being hit changes position at the last instant, it's supposed to change the "circumstance".

 

[Calicaps]

If you are also denying Tom Wilson's gloves smashing Brandon Carlo's head into the boards, intentional or not, defenseless or not, then I'm afraid I will have to exit this discussion as well. There needs to be a shared reality in order to have a meaningful discussion.

So if I don't agree with your version of events, you quit? OK.

But for the record, here's the pic @Ridley Simon posted of the moment of contact... I don't see any gloves to the head. I see a side-of-shoulder to a front-of-shoulder with one hand out of view (presumably at Wilson's right side) and the other against Wilson's chest which is a natural spot as he's keeping his elbows to his body. (Not that you can see the yellow collar on Carlo's sweater, which if Tom was punching him in the fact right here, would be obscured.)

 

[Midnight Judges]

Is hitting violent?

Not necessarily:

using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

How so? Given again what I said earlier about the unpredictability of injury in hitting, and the acknowledged chance of injury even on legal hits?

Because as you said previously, injuries only happen on a very small fraction of hits, and yet Tom Wilson is the common denominator for a disproportionately large quantity of those injuries.

So as a matter of data, Tom Wilson injuring opposing players actually is relatively predictable.

I don't think you can punish for injuries on legal hits. Like, not at all. But once a hit is deemed illegal, the offending player bears the responsibility for it.

 

[Calicaps]

Not necessarily:





Because as you said previously, injuries only happen on a very small fraction of hits, and yet Tom Wilson is the common denominator for a disproportionately large quantity of those injuries.

So as a matter of data, Tom Wilson injuring opposing players actually is relatively predictable.

I don't think you can punish for injuries on legal hits. Like, not at all. But once a hit is deemed illegal, the offending player bears the responsibility for it.

Is this actually true? Wilson also throws more hits than most players, even most hitters. What percentage of his hits actually results in injury?

 

[twabby]

So if I don't agree with your version of events, you quit? OK.

But for the record, here's the pic @Ridley Simon posted of the moment of contact... I don't see any gloves to the head. I see a side-of-shoulder to a front-of-shoulder with one hand out of view (presumably at Wilson's right side) and the other against Wilson's chest which is a natural spot as he's keeping his elbows to his body. (Not that you can see the yellow collar on Carlo's sweater, which if Tom was punching him in the fact right here, would be obscured.)

His right fist clearly makes contact with Carlo's head and slams it into the boards.

 

[g00n]

His right fist clearly makes contact with Carlo's head and slams it into the boards.

You do realize Carlo's fist clobbers Tom Wilson in the face before Wilson even touches Carlo, right?