Post-Game Talk: Wild

[Pavels Dog]

Copp had an extremely bad night, and I'm one preaching patience with him, mostly because he didn't get a good offseason but man.

Last night was hard to watch/defend him. I didn't expect huge point totals, 40-60 points maybe a year, but the face-offs was a huge, huge disappointment last night. Which is imo a big reason why he was brought in.

Bad night for him but he's over 50% since late october.

 

[Oddbob]

People get way overworked about faceoffs, when the reality is at least 75% of them are nothing burgers, and very few where you absolutely need to win them. Even when your guy wins a faceoff you can end up without the puck if your team doesn't get to it first, and vice versa. The only time where you need a for sure faceoff win is late in tight games in either end of the rink. We have much worse problems than faceoffs, when we can play nearly 40 minutes of hockey and barely have 10 shots and none of those shots were even dangerous shots to boot.

 

[sepster]

Hronek head down or not, that Piece of Shit Reeves had every intention of trying to hurt there. He has done shit like this his whole career, and he had plenty of time not to hit Hronek there as Hronek's had his head down the whole time, and POS went straight to his head and didn't let up at all. Someone on our team needed to go after Reeves regardless if they were going to lose a fight.

This is also two dud games in a row by our team. Creating nothing offensively at all.

Hit was within the rules. Intent doesn't matter. Result is on Hronek. NHL hockey is still a contact sport.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

Hit was within the rules. Intent doesn't matter. Result is on Hronek. NHL hockey is still a contact sport.

The most ironic thing is that he didn't have his head down at all. He was actually looking behind him for back pressure (or to drop the puck). The hit sucks as a Wings fan, but it was legal.

 

[lhsgolf19]

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

People get way overworked about faceoffs, when the reality is at least 75% of them are nothing burgers, and very few where you absolutely need to win them. Even when your guy wins a faceoff you can end up without the puck if your team doesn't get to it first, and vice versa. The only time where you need a for sure faceoff win is late in tight games in either end of the rink. We have much worse problems than faceoffs, when we can play nearly 40 minutes of hockey and barely have 10 shots and none of those shots were even dangerous shots to boot.

I disagree.

When you lose a faceoff it means you have to spend time trying to recover possession of the puck. Lose more faceoffs, have less possession.

And i'm pretty sure it's considered a faceoff loss if your team doesn't get possession off the draw, but couldn't find confirmation.

 

[jaster]

Hronek head down or not, that Piece of Shit Reeves had every intention of trying to hurt there. He has done shit like this his whole career, and he had plenty of time not to hit Hronek there as Hronek's had his head down the whole time, and POS went straight to his head and didn't let up at all. Someone on our team needed to go after Reeves regardless if they were going to lose a fight.

This is also two dud games in a row by our team. Creating nothing offensively at all.

I cannot believe... who was it, Jones? ...tried to say Reaves had no choice but to hit him like that. He made it sound like Reaves was just minding his own business, managing a passing lane in the neutral zone, when Hronek skated into him as if he was the one who initiated the hit. Yeah, Hronek needs to keep his head up, but Reaves seized on an opportunity to head-hunt. You're right, Reaves was already moving in Hronek's direction when Hronek then made himself even more vulnerable. I have no doubt that when Reaves realized he had a chance to absolutely obliterate the guy like an IED in Iraq, he was as happy as a kid on Christmas morning. That's who he his. He'd knock out of the game all 18 opposition skaters if he could.

I did very much enjoy hockey back in the day, when every team had a Reaves. When asymmetrical warfare wasn't as much of a thing. Now, guys like Reaves are extra problematic because not every team has one, so they can't always be kept in check. They get to murder a guy with an illegal hit (I don't consider it dirty though), easily cast aside a challenger to fight, and win the game with basically no consequences. The response from the Wings last night should have been to run their guys. And they kinda did. Credit to Perron and Seider for making some hits. I wish they would have been harder. Wings don't have a fighter (credit to Chiarot for trying though) and they no longer have a PP, so run guys. What's the worst that can happen? Someone gets suspended? Who cares? The players sure don't, and it's not like this roster can get much worse.

 

[jaster]

Hit was within the rules. Intent doesn't matter. Result is on Hronek. NHL hockey is still a contact sport.

Rule 48.1: Illegal Check to the Head: A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted.

 

[sepster]

Rule 48.1: Illegal Check to the Head: A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted.

Contact to the head was not avoidable.... unless he doesn't make the hit at all.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Rule 48.1: Illegal Check to the Head: A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted.

You left out most of the rule. Here's the rest of the rule after the sentence you cited.

In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered:
(i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward.
(ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable.
(iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact.

i) Reaves hit squarely through Hronek's body. The head was not picked due to poor timing, angle of approach or unnecessary extension of his body outward or upward.
ii) Hronek was in a vulnerable position because he did not see the hit coming at all
iii) Hronek did not materially change position of his head or body immediately prior to contact in a way that significantly contributed to contact (this portion of the rule would only further exonerate the hitter had it happened)

I am no fan of Reaves. He's a mostly talentless goon and a clown for showboating. But it's a legal hit.

 

[RedWingzz]

Lalonde after the game:

"I loved our response tonight, I thought we had a great pushback."

Absolutely ridiculous. The coach was satisfied with that response? I honestly don't even know what to say. What a laughable thing to say as the coach. If he is happy with that response and effort, then we are completely doomed. We're gonna be back in the bottom 5 or 6 in no time if the coach was happy with that game.

I'm getting fed up with this organization. Nobody ever gets mad or angry. We've missed the playoffs 6 years in a row (gonna be 7), we've lost 4 games in a row and have looked awful for a couple weeks now, and our coach was happy with that response? It's almost as if as the entire team knew this season was another season without the Playoffs, and are content with the losing.

 

[izlez]

I cannot believe... who was it, Jones? ...tried to say Reaves had no choice but to hit him like that. He made it sound like Reaves was just minding his own business, managing a passing lane in the neutral zone, when Hronek skated into him as if he was the one who initiated the hit. Yeah, Hronek needs to keep his head up, but Reaves seized on an opportunity to head-hunt. You're right, Reaves was already moving in Hronek's direction when Hronek then made himself even more vulnerable. I have no doubt that when Reaves realized he had a chance to absolutely obliterate the guy like an IED in Iraq, he was as happy as a kid on Christmas morning. That's who he his. He'd knock out of the game all 18 opposition skaters if he could.

I did very much enjoy hockey back in the day, when every team had a Reaves. When asymmetrical warfare wasn't as much of a thing. Now, guys like Reaves are extra problematic because not every team has one, so they can't always be kept in check. They get to murder a guy with an illegal hit (I don't consider it dirty though), easily cast aside a challenger to fight, and win the game with basically no consequences. The response from the Wings last night should have been to run their guys. And they kinda did. Credit to Perron and Seider for making some hits. I wish they would have been harder. Wings don't have a fighter (credit to Chiarot for trying though) and they no longer have a PP, so run guys. What's the worst that can happen? Someone gets suspended? Who cares? The players sure don't, and it's not like this roster can get much worse.

I'm genuinely curious how people think enforcers/fighters/fighting will regulate hits like this and influence people to not make hits like this.

Lets imagine that it was Chiarot that made a huge hit last night and the toughest guy in the league squared up with him to teach him a lesson. Does it really look like Chiarot "learned a lesson" from that fight?

Frankly, I'm not really scared to personally fight Reaves in a hockey fight. I have no problem trying to simultaneously grab him, throw a punch, and fall down.

 

[jaster]

Contact to the head was not avoidable.... unless he doesn't make the hit at all.

You left out most of the rule. Here's the rest of the rule after the sentence you cited.

i) Reaves hit squarely through Hronek's body. The head was not picked due to poor timing, angle of approach or unnecessary extension of his body outward or upward.
ii) Hronek was in a vulnerable position because he did not see the hit coming at all
iii) Hronek did not materially change position of his head or body immediately prior to contact in a way that significantly contributed to contact (this portion of the rule would only further exonerate the hitter had it happened)

I am no fan of Reaves. He's a mostly talentless goon and a clown for showboating. But it's a legal hit.

Yeah, the NHL has done a good job writing rules that allow them to say "we want to take head injuries out of the game" while ensuring that head injuries very much remain in the game. So yeah, you guys aren't wrong, the case for this being a "legal" hit has been made. I'm not going to try to employ the NHL's printed shenanigans to argue the legality.

What I have a problem with is people arguing, in cases like this, that guys like Reaves are just out there "trying to be physical," and then using the NHL's rulebook as cover. Nah. He's trying to injure people. Reaves knows exactly what he's doing. Same thing with that Gudas hit on Glendening back in the day I remember arguing about. These guys know exactly what they are doing. They know how to injure and most often get away with it. The NHL has been littered with guys who are trying to injure their opponent, trying to end their season, or their career. They're real, and pretending they're not is ignorant.

I mean, here's where I'll actually give someone like MBH credit. He's plainly stated that he wants head injuries in the game. It's an integral part of the sport he professes to love. Watching guys deliver head hits that result in life-altering injuries is entertainment for him. At least he's honest. I wish more people would be honest on that front, rather than hiding behind "hockey is physical, get used to it." Yeah. I'm no stranger to head injuries. I've given and received them. They're not good. And while they'll always be a part of the game because it is indeed physical, I've run out of time for guys like Reaves. At least guys like Benn and Wilson and Tkachuk and Marchand can play hockey. Reaves is a leftover from a time we'll never go back to.

 

[Oddbob]

Just because you can hit someone in the head, doesn't mean you should.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Just because you can hit someone in the head, doesn't mean you should.

At NHL game speed, how are players supposed to know in advance if they're going to contact someone's head during a hit?

Just don't throw any hit that might contact the head? Because that would be a large quantity of them.

 

[sepster]

Yeah, the NHL has done a good job writing rules that allow them to say "we want to take head injuries out of the game" while ensuring that head injuries very much remain in the game. So yeah, you guys aren't wrong, the case for this being a "legal" hit has been made. I'm not going to try to employ the NHL's printed shenanigans to argue the legality.

What I have a problem with is people arguing, in cases like this, that guys like Reaves are just out there "trying to be physical," and then using the NHL's rulebook as cover. Nah. He's trying to injure people. Reaves knows exactly what he's doing. Same thing with that Gudas hit on Glendening back in the day I remember arguing about. These guys know exactly what they are doing. They know how to injure and most often get away with it. The NHL has been littered with guys who are trying to injure their opponent, trying to end their season, or their career. They're real, and pretending they're not is ignorant.

I mean, here's where I'll actually give someone like MBH credit. He's plainly stated that he wants head injuries in the game. It's an integral part of the sport he professes to love. Watching guys deliver head hits that result in life-altering injuries is entertainment for him. At least he's honest. I wish more people would be honest on that front, rather than hiding behind "hockey is physical, get used to it." Yeah. I'm no stranger to head injuries. I've given and received them. They're not good. And while they'll always be a part of the game because it is indeed physical, I've run out of time for guys like Reaves. At least guys like Benn and Wilson and Tkachuk and Marchand can play hockey. Reaves is a leftover from a time we'll never go back to.

I want hitting in the game. I acknowledge that injuries will happen when open-ice hits are allowed.

If given the choice between a no-hit league with minimal injuries or a hitting league where injuries will occur, I choose a hitting league.

Is that "hiding behind 'hockey is physical, get used to it'" ?

 

[dalem177]

At NHL game speed, how are players supposed to know in advance if they're going to contact someone's head during a hit?

Just don't throw any hit that might contact the head? Because that would be a large quantity of them.

IMO, that is the "bingo!" element. Like I said after I looked at the replay - it LOOKS dirty/bad/illegal. But I'm not a player or ref or safety commission member, so my opinion is not very valuable. And even if it was determined to be "head first", how is a guy moving that fast supposed to stop himself? I dunno. Mickey and sometimes Ken talk about allowing the bear-hug back in the game to keep players from crushing guys against the boards, but open ice is still open ice. What are you going to do?

 

[norrisnick]

IMO, that is the "bingo!" element. Like I said after I looked at the replay - it LOOKS dirty/bad/illegal. But I'm not a player or ref or safety commission member, so my opinion is not very valuable. And even if it was determined to be "head first", how is a guy moving that fast supposed to stop himself? I dunno. Mickey and sometimes Ken talk about allowing the bear-hug back in the game to keep players from crushing guys against the boards, but open ice is still open ice. What are you going to do?

There's a world of difference between nothing and blasting the guy in the face as hard as you can. Reaves is the kind of guy that will default to the latter regardless of other available options. And that is the problem. These guys need to be programmed away from trying to inflict as much damage as the rulebook allows. It's not good for the sport in any way.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Yeah, the NHL has done a good job writing rules that allow them to say "we want to take head injuries out of the game" while ensuring that head injuries very much remain in the game. So yeah, you guys aren't wrong, the case for this being a "legal" hit has been made. I'm not going to try to employ the NHL's printed shenanigans to argue the legality.

What I have a problem with is people arguing, in cases like this, that guys like Reaves are just out there "trying to be physical," and then using the NHL's rulebook as cover. Nah. He's trying to injure people. Reaves knows exactly what he's doing. Same thing with that Gudas hit on Glendening back in the day I remember arguing about. These guys know exactly what they are doing. They know how to injure and most often get away with it. The NHL has been littered with guys who are trying to injure their opponent, trying to end their season, or their career. They're real, and pretending they're not is ignorant.

I mean, here's where I'll actually give someone like MBH credit. He's plainly stated that he wants head injuries in the game. It's an integral part of the sport he professes to love. Watching guys deliver head hits that result in life-altering injuries is entertainment for him. At least he's honest. I wish more people would be honest on that front, rather than hiding behind "hockey is physical, get used to it." Yeah. I'm no stranger to head injuries. I've given and received them. They're not good. And while they'll always be a part of the game because it is indeed physical, I've run out of time for guys like Reaves. At least guys like Benn and Wilson and Tkachuk and Marchand can play hockey. Reaves is a leftover from a time we'll never go back to.

Well mainly I was giving full context of the rule. You quoted only a portion that made it seem like the hit was illegal by NHL rules. It is not.

Second, it's not binary. I enjoy watching hockey, but I don't enjoy seeing guys get concussed. I think the league is much too soft on non-hockey plays that involve head contact, like crosschecks and elbows. And that they should punish more severely on hits involving head contact where the hitter used terrible judgment and execution in throwing a hit that did not involve solid contact to the player's body.

Hits like Reaves on Hronek are much trickier. And the optics are made worse because Reaves is a talentless goon. He's a relic.

Reaves is already circling around to go after Hronek (again, he's a goon so he has little to no responsibility that involves the puck). If Hronek sees the hit coming he likely braces for impact and eliminates or reduces any head contact, even if Reaves doesn't do anything different.

It's a guy who's 6'2" 225 lbs colliding with a guy who's 6' and 190 lbs at NHL game speed. It's a massive collision. To me it's reasonable to draw a line in the sand that the hitter has to be making solid contact to a player's body. But there's so many hits that could result in head contact because of what the guy being hit is doing. It makes suspending for it so random because the hitter could throw the exact same hit with wildly different results depending on what the other guy does.

However If you're talking about a player like Reaves place in the league, that's another discussion where we'd likely see eye to eye on most of it.

 

[RED WINGS STOMP]

Lalonde after the game:

"I loved our response tonight, I thought we had a great pushback."

Absolutely ridiculous. The coach was satisfied with that response? I honestly don't even know what to say. What a laughable thing to say as the coach. If he is happy with that response and effort, then we are completely doomed. We're gonna be back in the bottom 5 or 6 in no time if the coach was happy with that game.

I'm getting fed up with this organization. Nobody ever gets mad or angry. We've missed the playoffs 6 years in a row (gonna be 7), we've lost 4 games in a row and have looked awful for a couple weeks now, and our coach was happy with that response? It's almost as if as the entire team knew this season was another season without the Playoffs, and are content with the losing.

It's like if the Kris Draper situation happened today, this team would just meekly skate away in the end.

In fact, it kind of did earlier this year when Luff got smashed. Doubt anyone on this team goes after that punk rookie on MTL when we play them again.

 

[TheClap]

It's like if the Kris Draper situation happened today, this team would just meekly skate away in the end.

In fact, it kind of did earlier this year when Luff got smashed. Doubt anyone on this team goes after that punk rookie on MTL when we play them again.

I seem to remember it taking nearly a full year before anyone on the Wings retaliated against Lemieux for that hit.

 

[RED WINGS STOMP]

I seem to remember it taking nearly a full year before anyone on the Wings retaliated against Lemieux for that hit.

It did, but some of that was circumstances. He missed the first two games the next year against the Wings with an injury I believe. The third game, Crawford sheltered him a bit in Colorado, but yeah, apparently it takes the Wings getting really pushed around to go back at a team for something like this.

I understand that you don't need to goon up every time a situation like this happens, but you can avoid it all the time either. We seem to be doing that.

 

[RedWingzz]

It's like if the Kris Draper situation happened today, this team would just meekly skate away in the end.

In fact, it kind of did earlier this year when Luff got smashed. Doubt anyone on this team goes after that punk rookie on MTL when we play them again.

Yep....The frustrating thing is the team didn't even raise their intensity. If you're not gonna challenge Reaves immediately (Chiarot gets some credit for eventually going after him) then at least raise the intensity, and win the puck battles and finish your hits. The team was flat and scared in the first period.

Sure they picked it up as the game went on, but this is the NHL, why is our coach satisfied with that? It's puzzling to me. Every hockey analyst had us missing the playoffs again, so it's just like the coach and players are cool with it.

I've said it many times, I don't care if we win or lose, and I didn't expect the playoffs this year, but we look like a bunch of p*******. Then the coach comes out and says "I liked our response." There was no intensity or desire to push back after the Reaves hit, we just folded and shied away from any physicality. It was embarrassing to watch, and I expected someone to hold the team accountable, yet post game the message was "I liked our response."

 

[jaster]

I want hitting in the game. I acknowledge that injuries will happen when open-ice hits are allowed.

If given the choice between a no-hit league with minimal injuries or a hitting league where injuries will occur, I choose a hitting league.

Is that "hiding behind 'hockey is physical, get used to it'" ?

No, but by putting the subject into binary terms, you're effectively doing the same thing lol. It's like when someone makes a suggestion to change the game which decreases physicality even just a smidge and then those people are accused of trying to sneakily and incrementally remove hitting from the game altogether. It's not a binary thing. I'd argue there's room for nuance.

I want hitting in the game too, but I also want to see an attempt to curb traumatic brain injuries. I'd like something in between "no hitting" and a bunch of guys having their brains completely scrambled for the rest of their lives, resulting in life-long trauma, physical suffering, and suicidal thoughts, and I think that's within the realm of possibility.

 

[sepster]

No, but by putting the subject into binary terms, you're effectively doing the same thing lol. It's like when someone makes a suggestion to change the game which decreases physicality even just a smidge and then those people are accused of trying to sneakily and incrementally remove hitting from the game altogether. It's not a binary thing. I'd argue there's room for nuance.

I want hitting in the game too, but I also want to see an attempt to curb traumatic brain injuries. I'd like something in between "no hitting" and a bunch of guys having their brains completely scrambled for the rest of their lives, resulting in life-long trauma, physical suffering, and suicidal thoughts, and I think that's within the realm of possibility.

This conversation thread proves those concerned with the bolded part are justified.