Player Discussion Tom Wilson, Part 3

Discussion in 'Washington Capitals' started by Calicaps, Feb 27, 2019.

  1. g00n t0m WiLs0n PhAnBoI

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    22,821
    Likes Received:
    5,874
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    schmocation
    Hitting isn't violent? So if I slap you in the face that's not violent? I notice you chose a very limited definition. There are far more.

    Definition of VIOLENT

    The rules of Boarding mention the "violence" of the hit. This can very openly be interpreted to simply mean something "extremely powerful or forceful" or even just physically forceful in nature.

    So again, per the language of the rule ANY hit can be called "illegal" by way of being "violent".

    Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently or dangerously. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee. There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize contact. However, in determining whether such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.

    Which means per your previous statement that "unnecessary" hits are determined by legality COULD include ANY hit.


    But I'm sure that's not what you meant, even though your reasoning leads directly to that possibility.

    And again, per the last underlined part of the rule above, note the caveat regarding the opponent putting himself in a vulnerable position (head down in this case) and whether or not the check was unavoidable, which it arguable was not since we can see Wilson's face being smashed by Carlo's fist before Wilson even touches Carlo, obstructing his vision and no doubt causing him to lose some control over his movement.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2021
  2. Ridley Simon Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,922
    Likes Received:
    5,823
    Trophy Points:
    231
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Finance
    Location:
    Marin County — SF Bay Area, CA
    Seems that @twabby is though?

    Which - again - is a double standard toward Tom Wilson because he is the FBHP in the world. He’s being unfairly targeted simply because of that.
     
  3. twabby Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,241
    Likes Received:
    4,840
    Trophy Points:
    156
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    I'm not saying injury should be the only factor in punishment, I'm saying it should be a major factor in punishment. It's reasonable to use that as a major factor in punishment. Pretty much every criminal and civil court in western society uses injury/damages as a major factor when issuing rulings, sentences, judgments, etc. Why is hockey unique in that only intent should matter and not outcome?

    There's no double standard here. Tom Wilson is fast and big. He's uniquely fast and big. He is applying an objectively larger amount of force to people's heads than other players are. If other players applied an equal amount of force to other players' heads at a similar frequency to Tom Wilson and did not receive similar punishment, then there would be a double standard. But no one does, because very few players can apply that level of force to other players' heads because Tom Wilson is so big, fast, and strong. And for those few players who can apply that level of force, they don't do it, or don't it at at nearly the frequency that Tom Wilson does.
     
    um likes this.
  4. g00n t0m WiLs0n PhAnBoI

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    22,821
    Likes Received:
    5,874
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    schmocation
    This is utterly hopeless.
     
  5. txpd Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    63,477
    Likes Received:
    9,818
    Trophy Points:
    231
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Occupation:
    Photographer
    Location:
    New Bern, NC
    This is like telling Joe Frazier he cant throw a left hook because it can do permanent damage greater than the other boxers.

    One more thing. We all know that the Caps have designed a team to play a heavy playoff game that wears its opponents down. Lets be honest about what that means. Pain. Dumping it in deep and pounding their D means hurting them over and over again. These guys are not trying to squeeze a guy off the puck. They are trying to hurt him enough that he will get rid of the puck too soon into a turnover or be too sore to win puck battles.

    No sugarcoating here. The Caps game plan is to take your will to win by beating it out of you.
     
  6. txpd Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    63,477
    Likes Received:
    9,818
    Trophy Points:
    231
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Occupation:
    Photographer
    Location:
    New Bern, NC
    In court you have to prove specific breaking of the law before you deal out the punishment. In Wilson's case the league comes straight out and says that they dont have suspendable violations but that "the totality of the circumstances" is why they are suspending him. Thats like your court saying the prosecution has not proven its case but the results were bad and we are going to punish you. You keeping ignoring that.

    I realize that you are also ignoring Friedman saying that the only reason he was suspended was that he is Tom Wilson and that his league sources are all saying that hit wouldnt have gotten a second look had it come from anyone else. But those comments jive with what the league said.

    The Capitals style of play is to bring the pain. Its how they won the cup. Should the league be working thru officiating and suspension to discourage the Capitals from playing that kind of game?
     
  7. twabby Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,241
    Likes Received:
    4,840
    Trophy Points:
    156
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    In boxing there is no rule against clobbering another dude in the head as hard as one can.

    However, in the NHL there is a rule about clobbering a player's head into the boards violently, and it has been the standard that the level of punishment is impacted by if and how severe an injury might be. Tom Wilson clobbered Brandon Carlo's head into the boards violently, and Brandon Carlo is now out week-to-week. So Tom Wilson was punished.

    Suppose Tom Wilson applied a maximal amount of force to a player's chest in open ice, but did not break a rule in doing so. He didn't charge, he didn't hit the guy well away from the puck, etc. Suppose also that he broke the other player's sternum. I would argue that the fact that the other player's sternum was broken does not matter, and that the hit is clean and should not be punished because no rules were broken. There is no rule against hitting players as hard as you can, provided there is no infraction on the play such as charging, interference, or boarding.

    But that's not what happened here. He boarded a player in the estimation of the NHL. Again, if you want to make the argument that Brandon Carlo wasn't defenseless, then fine. I don't fully agree with that, but I also don't fully disagree with that. I think 7 games is a reasonable outcome for the level of doubt involved with Carlo's defenselessness combined with Tom Wilson not deserving this benefit of the doubt. If there was no doubt about him being defenseless I think 20+ games would have been a more fitting punishment, given the injury and history of Tom Wilson.
     
  8. twabby Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,241
    Likes Received:
    4,840
    Trophy Points:
    156
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    You keep ignoring the full context of the "totality of the circumstances" phrase from the suspension video:

    Your characterization of the NHL saying there are not suspendable violations is not only patently false, it's being willfully deceptive to try to help prove your point. The bolded sentence is the NHL saying, clearly, that they think this hit is absolutely 100% suspendable. There's no ambiguity there.

    Please, address the bolded statement above and how it fits in with your opinion that the NHL said that they do not have suspendable violations.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2021
  9. Calicaps NFA

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    19,182
    Likes Received:
    9,486
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    editor
    Location:
    Berserkly
    The issue for most of us... I think... is that although head contact happened, it wasn't because Tom did anything wrong per se. It was incidental and unfortunate, but not a function of him leaving his feet/throwing an elbow/targeting the head specifically/anything else deemed illegal by DoPs. It just happened. Sometimes bad things happen. That's why they couldn't accuse him of an illegal check to the head and had to call it boarding even though it's not really even boarding in the sense that it wasn't a hit from behind and Carlo wasn't propelled into the glass from any distance.

    But Wilson gets punished only because he's him. DoPs says as much and per Friedman, people in the league (whose expertise I know you don't particularly value) know it.
     
  10. g00n t0m WiLs0n PhAnBoI

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    22,821
    Likes Received:
    5,874
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    schmocation
    [​IMG]\
    Needs Willie's face
     
  11. CapitalsCupReality It’s Go Time!!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    51,995
    Likes Received:
    9,053
    Trophy Points:
    231
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Devil’s Advocate, Caller of BS
    That follow through incidental contact to the face with the glove was nothing in the grand scheme of that hit.

    To read Twabby, you would think it was a vicious punch to the jaw.

    From my POV, it’s Midnight, Twabby and Ignored Member on an island.....
     
    Eirikrautha, Rayquaza64, txpd and 2 others like this.
  12. hockeykicker Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    32,976
    Likes Received:
    8,986
    Trophy Points:
    156
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    If we cannot tell the difference between criticizing the post vs criticizing the poster then this thread will be closed. You have been warned.
     
  13. AussieCapsFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2017
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    2,302
    Trophy Points:
    112
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Tech Consultant
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    Just close it anyway. At this rate Wilson will be back from his suspension and people will still be in here arguing over the same crap.

    He got suspended for 7 games. Was it fair? Most of you think it wasn't. Have all the pages of discussion changed a thing? Nope.

    Seems like it's time to move on.
     
  14. twabby Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,241
    Likes Received:
    4,840
    Trophy Points:
    156
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    You, just earlier in the thread, said you don't see any contact to the head:

    Now presented with this video, it seems like you are admitting that yes, there is significant contact to the head whether intentional or not. That's at least a start, a start that posters such as @g00n will not even admit and why I am not willing to engage with them further until they admit it.

    So no, I don't think the issue is that most people here admit head contact happened and that it was an unfortunate accident, it's that people here are not even willing to admit that simple facts such as head contact happened in the first place. @txpd still hasn't addressed my question about why he thinks the NHL has said that there was no suspendable offense in the first place despite given a direct quote from the suspension video the NHL produced saying there was a suspendable act in their opinion.

    If people are not even willing to admit simple, black-and-white facts like this are true, then the only reasonable assumption to make is that they are either not arguing in good faith, or that their homer glasses are so tinted that they cannot perceive reality correctly. Either way, it is pointless discussing with them further until they can admit these simple, black-and-white facts.

    However since you at least seem to have a decent grasp on reality and don't seem to be trolling, I'll continue discussing it with you. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that Wilson didn't go into the hit with bad intentions. But recklessness has to be considered, especially with someone who is able to deliver as much force as Wilson, and especially with someone who has shown reckless abandon in the past. I don't think the butt-end of the stick did enough to deflect Wilson's glove and full force into Carlo's head. But even if that were the case, if a mere deflection like that is enough to cause a significant injury, then I think the onus is on Wilson to pull up and either decline to make the hit, or significantly reduce the force he used in the hit so reduce the chance of an injury. He chose to do neither, instead proceeding with the hit with full force. You could say he got unlucky to make contact with Carlo's head, but you could also say that he got unlucky to hit Oskar Sundqvist in the head and that his intention was not to pick his head during the hit that earned him a 14-game suspension in 2018 (reduced from the initial 20). Both were unfortunate outcomes that resulted from reckless decisions to engage in a hit that could reasonably be assumed to have a devastating outcome given the fact that Wilson was applying so much force in a dangerous fashion. If he can't control where that force ends up being applied (in this case, the side of the head of Brandon Carlo) then he should decide not to apply that force unless he is willing to accept the consequences for a hit gone wrong.

    Wilson gets uniquely punished because he is a unique repeat offender in the league. No one else has his suspension history or history of borderline illegal to illegal hits. He uniquely has earned little to no benefit of the doubt based on the choices he has made in his career. I am not surprised that people around the league believe others wouldn't have received much if any punishment because no one else in the league is as uniquely bad as Tom Wilson in terms of producing devastating headshots with illegal hits. He broke Zach Aston-Reese's jaw and gave him a concussion, he concussed Oskar Sundqvist, he concussed John Moore, he boarded Sammy Blais, he hit Robert Thomas incredibly late high and hard, he boarded Brian Campbell, etc.. No one else has his history, so of course no one else is going to be under the same level of scrutiny. This is not picking on Tom Wilson because they don't like him personally, this is picking on Tom Wilson because he is uniquely bad at breaking the rules and injuring players and especially injuring players' heads and honestly he needs to be stopped because the level of deterrence so far has frankly been insufficient.

    7 games is more than reasonable given his history, the circumstances of the hit, and the result of the hit.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2021
  15. g00n t0m WiLs0n PhAnBoI

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    22,821
    Likes Received:
    5,874
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    schmocation
    Never thought I'd see gaslighting on a hockey board but here we are.

    I never said the gloves didn't touch Carlo's face so you can peel yourself off that cross. Several people have said/shown many times that the hands were in between the torso areas, and Carlo's head was lowered at the last instant. The hands were pinned and simply incidental to contact, not "clobbering" his head into the boards. Yet you keep repeating this lie.

    You refuse to acknowledge what actually happened, and now apparently you're ducking the fact that Carlo's fist was in Wilson's face first.

    Even worse, you think Wilson could've somehow backed off or changed his trajectory once the stick/glove was in his face a split second before impact.

    It just shows your perspective on hitting and hockey in general is purely theoretical and not grounded in reality.

    Keep ignoring what people say so you can insert your own narrative. It's really convincing.
     
  16. twabby Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,241
    Likes Received:
    4,840
    Trophy Points:
    156
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Why do you think Carlo was concussed on the play, if not because of the force of Wilson's fist clobbering Carlo's head into the glass?

    Maybe because it was in slo-mo you thought it wasn't that bad, but here is full speed:

    [​IMG]

    It's interesting that on one hand you do not want Wilson punished because it's not fair to punish a guy for being big, fast, and strong, but on the other hand this was just a little incidental tap that couldn't in any way be compared to being a vicious punch to the jaw, despite visual evidence showing that yes, there is a ton of force being applied directly to the side of the head of Brandon Carlo.
     
  17. RandyHolt Keep truckin'

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Messages:
    33,862
    Likes Received:
    5,378
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    He barely hit him

    #GlassJaw
     
  18. Calicaps NFA

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    19,182
    Likes Received:
    9,486
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    editor
    Location:
    Berserkly
    Not "significant," no. If you read back, I objected and continue to object to your characterization of the contact... There's head contact but it's not the primary point of impact; it's sure not clobbering; and it's incidental, occurring despite Wilson doing every single thing the DoPs told him 2 years ago he had to do to clean up his act. So your position is effectively that Wilson cannot hit guys, even legally, because they might get hurt.
     
  19. Ridley Simon Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,922
    Likes Received:
    5,823
    Trophy Points:
    231
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Finance
    Location:
    Marin County — SF Bay Area, CA
    We can’t use crimes here, to try and augment our argument. Someone breaks the law, then sure, there can be varying levels of punishment.

    Wilson DID NOT break any hockey laws. Other than being the FBHP. Which isn’t his fault. Ergo there is absolutely a double standard. If 2 people do the same thing that is within the laws (rules) of the realm....and one persons exact same action has a worse effect/impact than the other persons does?

    Do you want they call that sir?

    An accident. Which aren’t punished.

    I appreciate that you are passionate about your stance and this discussion. But that doesn’t make you correct.
     
  20. Ridley Simon Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,922
    Likes Received:
    5,823
    Trophy Points:
    231
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Finance
    Location:
    Marin County — SF Bay Area, CA
    LOL. You bought this? This is their way of saying “it’s Tom Wilson, he’s the FBHP on the planet, and we cannot control him — so we need to continue to punish him for being the FBHP on the planet, as we have nothing else to stop it”

    don’t be naive good sir
     
    CapitalsCupReality likes this.
  21. Hivemind We're Touched

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    31,542
    Likes Received:
    6,292
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    "Primary point of contact" is only relevant to Rule 48 (Illegal Check to the Head). That wasn't the rule Wilson was suspended for, and a player's head can still be injured even if the initial contact is made elsewhere. Wilson was suspended for Rule 41 (Boarding). The Boarding rule is as follows:

    Bolded emphasis is mine.

    Wilson's contact with Carlo's face and head exacerbated the conditions of his boarding call. While not the "primary point of contact" (which, once again, doesn't matter for boarding), there was certainly contact with the face, and it involved causing Carlo's head to violently contact the boards (which does matter for boarding).

    Wilson shoved Carlo's heads into the boards. It's boarding.


    Carlo has missed a grand total of 15 NHL games in the 4 seasons prior to this one. Dude definitely doesn't have a glass jaw.

    I do find it hilarious how Wilson's defenders simultaneously claim he's an unstoppable juggernaut who can't be blamed for his own power, and also that every one of his borderline hits is barely even contact. Talk about trying to have it both ways.
     
    AussieCapsFan likes this.
  22. Calicaps NFA

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    19,182
    Likes Received:
    9,486
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    editor
    Location:
    Berserkly
    The argument isn't that his hits aren't forceful. On the contrary, they definitely are. But my argument, in this instance at least, is that the injurious contact/consequences aren't illegal in terms of the actions Willy took. They are unfortunate but they don't constitute a substantial element of his conduct.
     
  23. artilector Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,321
    Likes Received:
    1,107
    Trophy Points:
    184
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    I'm gonna chime in here for a second.

    The NHL has painted itself into a corner a long time ago by refusing to follow an actual set of rules, and instead bending rules at will to manage the optics depending on entirely subjective context. The results of such an approach are inevitably a total mess, IMO.

    And they've abdicated any responsibility by putting all of it on the players -- an impossible situation where legal hits suddenly become illegal if the opponent gets injured -- which goes against not only logic, but also against the very soul of hockey as a tough, physical sport with intrinsic risks.

    Since there's no actual objective set of rules, there's no real "right" or "wrong" here, there's only the league's subjective dictat, which can spin the situation any way it wants. A league official goes to a bad Mexican restaurant, Wilson gets 7 games. If he ordered pizza, maybe Wilson gets 1, who knows. Who cares. Fans have to either accept it, or stop watching.

    Since the early 90s, the NHL "product" has deteriorated like no other sport I can think of, maybe one could make an argument for F1 or something.

    Anyway, easy solution for me here -- another few games I don't need to watch.
     
    Calicaps likes this.
  24. g00n t0m WiLs0n PhAnBoI

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    22,821
    Likes Received:
    5,874
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    schmocation
    I don't think noting primary point of contact was about parsing a rule so much as refuting this ridiculous spin Twabby is putting on the hit. What person "clobbers" or punches another person with their hands pinned to their body instead of extending/shoving/punching?

    It's a lie.

    And it's not a double standard to note someone is elite at X but being punished for Y. Another strawman. Or maybe it's a false dichotomy. Let's go with both.
     
  25. Hivemind We're Touched

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    31,542
    Likes Received:
    6,292
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 50,000
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Read the portion of my post that was responding to your quote. Specifically read the boarding rule I quoted. Wilson’s actions are illegal, and a repeated element of his play across multiple seasons.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"