You Are the Committee

[KeithK]

I wouldn't be happy if I saw one of our guys get rattled next to the glass like that.

People were saying similar things about an RPI hit on one of the Cornell player's @ RPI last year.  There was a couple of seconds left in the game and our player was skating with the puck heading towards the back of the net when the RPI player checked him and sent him into the boards.  It looked dirty to me.  A lot of RPI people were saying he was off balance and already close to the boards so it looked worse than it was and shouldn't have been a DQ.  Either way, our guy was injured and the RPI player got a game DQ.  

Clearly my memory is fuzzy on who did the hitting and who got hurt, but I do remember it resulting in a similar argument about how much responsibility should be on the person who got hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PnJ-KfBIkw

Burgdoerfer hit Taylor Davenport.  Gotta love the team reaction.

I don't think I'm just looking through Carnelian colored glasses but the Burgdoerfer hit was much worse.  He intentionally pushes Davenport backwards into the boards. It was alos the last second of the game, leading me to think that he was venting frustration at the end of a bad game by trying to hurt an opponent. The NoDak hit, by contrast, looks a lot more like a regular check. No doubt that it was illegal since he left his feet and made contact to the head and probably worthy of five due to proximity to the boards. But I can't get worked up about it.

No doubt I would be calling for Frattin's execution if he'd hit a Cornell guy like that.

[jkahn]

A real good start to the weekend would be a UMD loss tomorrow, as the other four WCHA teams are locks for the NCAA.

[Jim Hyla]

I wouldn't be happy if I saw one of our guys get rattled next to the glass like that.

People were saying similar things about an RPI hit on one of the Cornell player's @ RPI last year.  There was a couple of seconds left in the game and our player was skating with the puck heading towards the back of the net when the RPI player checked him and sent him into the boards.  It looked dirty to me.  A lot of RPI people were saying he was off balance and already close to the boards so it looked worse than it was and shouldn't have been a DQ.  Either way, our guy was injured and the RPI player got a game DQ.  

Clearly my memory is fuzzy on who did the hitting and who got hurt, but I do remember it resulting in a similar argument about how much responsibility should be on the person who got hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PnJ-KfBIkw

Burgdoerfer hit Taylor Davenport.  Gotta love the team reaction.

I don't think I'm just looking through Carnelian colored glasses but the Burgdoerfer hit was much worse.  He intentionally pushes Davenport backwards into the boards. It was alos the last second of the game, leading me to think that he was venting frustration at the end of a bad game by trying to hurt an opponent. The NoDak hit, by contrast, looks a lot more like a regular check. No doubt that it was illegal since he left his feet and made contact to the head and probably worthy of five due to proximity to the boards. But I can't get worked up about it.

No doubt I would be calling for Frattin's execution if he'd hit a Cornell guy like that.

What more do you need to say than that, it's a terrible, illegal check that should never be allowed. You'd also probably think differently if you got hit like that.

[tretiak]

http://www.areavoices.com/undhockey/?blog=73641

As you can see from the stills, Frattin didn't leave his feet to make the hit. It was still definitely a charging/contact to the head penalty.

[KeithK]

I don't think I'm just looking through Carnelian colored glasses but the Burgdoerfer hit was much worse.  He intentionally pushes Davenport backwards into the boards. It was alos the last second of the game, leading me to think that he was venting frustration at the end of a bad game by trying to hurt an opponent. The NoDak hit, by contrast, looks a lot more like a regular check. No doubt that it was illegal since he left his feet and made contact to the head and probably worthy of five due to proximity to the boards. But I can't get worked up about it.

No doubt I would be calling for Frattin's execution if he'd hit a Cornell guy like that.

What more do you need to say than that, it's a terrible, illegal check that should never be allowed. You'd also probably think differently if you got hit like that.

I just don't get all that worked up about charging or this kind of contact to the head (guy is looking down, check goes high). It's illegal, give him a penalty, that's enough for me.

[Jim Hyla]

http://www.areavoices.com/undhockey/?blog=73641

As you can see from the stills, Frattin didn't leave his feet to make the hit. It was still definitely a charging/contact to the head penalty.

Come on, those stills are terrible. The skates are blurred and the picture is from a top angle. From that angle you can't tell if his skates are touching the ice. View the video, he certainly had a jumping motion, off the ice and back down. Stop the video at 11 seconds and look.

[Jim Hyla]

I don't think I'm just looking through Carnelian colored glasses but the Burgdoerfer hit was much worse.  He intentionally pushes Davenport backwards into the boards. It was alos the last second of the game, leading me to think that he was venting frustration at the end of a bad game by trying to hurt an opponent. The NoDak hit, by contrast, looks a lot more like a regular check. No doubt that it was illegal since he left his feet and made contact to the head and probably worthy of five due to proximity to the boards. But I can't get worked up about it.

No doubt I would be calling for Frattin's execution if he'd hit a Cornell guy like that.

What more do you need to say than that, it's a terrible, illegal check that should never be allowed. You'd also probably think differently if you got hit like that.

I just don't get all that worked up about charging or this kind of contact to the head (guy is looking down, check goes high). It's illegal, give him a penalty, that's enough for me.

Have you ever had or seen someone recover from a concussion? All sports are trying to stop head hits, as they are accumulative over a players lifetime, and can lead to serious neurological problems. The NHL just made a new midseason rule on blindside hits to the head and are actually trying to implement it during this season.

As I've said, there is no room for that type of play. It can cause serious permanent damage. The player never came back, either.

[marty]

I wouldn't be happy if I saw one of our guys get rattled next to the glass like that.

People were saying similar things about an RPI hit on one of the Cornell player's @ RPI last year.  There was a couple of seconds left in the game and our player was skating with the puck heading towards the back of the net when the RPI player checked him and sent him into the boards.  It looked dirty to me.  A lot of RPI people were saying he was off balance and already close to the boards so it looked worse than it was and shouldn't have been a DQ.  Either way, our guy was injured and the RPI player got a game DQ.  

Clearly my memory is fuzzy on who did the hitting and who got hurt, but I do remember it resulting in a similar argument about how much responsibility should be on the person who got hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PnJ-KfBIkw

Burgdoerfer hit Taylor Davenport.  Gotta love the team reaction.

I don't think I'm just looking through Carnelian colored glasses but the Burgdoerfer hit was much worse.  He intentionally pushes Davenport backwards into the boards. It was alos the last second of the game, leading me to think that he was venting frustration at the end of a bad game by trying to hurt an opponent. The NoDak hit, by contrast, looks a lot more like a regular check. No doubt that it was illegal since he left his feet and made contact to the head and probably worthy of five due to proximity to the boards. But I can't get worked up about it.

No doubt I would be calling for Frattin's execution if he'd hit a Cornell guy like that.

What more do you need to say than that, it's a terrible, illegal check that should never be allowed. You'd also probably think differently if you got hit like that.

I agree with you Jim.  If someone hit me like that I would be lucky if I didn't expire.  I too wonder how many on this board would like to be hit like that.

[Rosey]

I just don't get all that worked up about charging or this kind of contact to the head (guy is looking down, check goes high). It's illegal, give him a penalty, that's enough for me.

I agree: it was a hit from the front.  If he had his head about him and weren't staring at his skates, he would have seen the check coming.  Start going down the road of handing out DQ's for hard hits from the front and the game suddenly becomes a lot less physical.

[Rosey]

I agree with you Jim.  If someone hit me like that I would be lucky if I didn't expire.  I too wonder how many on this board would like to be hit like that.

I weigh 150 lbs, don't work out in the weight room, haven't been playing since I was in diapers (ed: though with any luck I *will* be playing until I'm in diapers), and don't practice 5 hours a day: your argument is a straw man.

A better point of argument is whether the punishment for a hit should depend on how observant the receiving player is, or on how much physical damage the hit does.  I say "no" to both of those, too, but at least it could make for a legitimate discussion.

[Jim Hyla]

I agree with you Jim.  If someone hit me like that I would be lucky if I didn't expire.  I too wonder how many on this board would like to be hit like that.

I weigh 150 lbs, don't work out in the weight room, haven't been playing since I was in diapers (ed: though with any luck I *will* be playing until I'm in diapers), and don't practice 5 hours a day: your argument is a straw man.

A better point of argument is whether the punishment for a hit should depend on how observant the receiving player is, or on how much physical damage the hit does.  I say "no" to both of those, too, but at least it could make for a legitimate discussion.

It has nothing to do with how observant the receiving player is, it's an illegal hit to the head, period. Hits to the head are illegal. This was a particularly vicious one as he left his feet and drove him into the boards. If you don't think this deserves a suspension, then I don't want you on my team, nor on my opponents team. As I said sports in general are trying to stop headhunters because of the terrible damage they can cause. This was clearly one of those.

The terrible part of he game was that Minny couldn't score and he came back to score for UND. Minny was left with 5 D'men and had another, due to a hit, play sparingly.

[KeithK]

The terrible part of he game was that Minny couldn't score and he came back to score for UND. Minny was left with 5 D'men and had another, due to a hit, play sparingly.

Even if Frettin had delivered an overhand two-handed slash to Wehr's head as if the stick were a battle axe and the blow nearly decapitated the maroon clad victim I would've been happy if Minnesota didn't score on the ensuing powerplay.

Though I would support a suspension in that case.

[tretiak]

I've paused it at several spots on the attached video. Pre-contact, Frettin's feet are still on the ice. Then there's contact. Then Frettin's feet leave the ice after contact has already been made. For those of you who didn't play in checking leagues, the force from a hard hit often propels both players off the ice. Also you can't discredit the stills and then base your argument on a similar resolution video.

[KeithK]

I've paused it at several spots on the attached video. Pre-contact, Frettin's feet are still on the ice. Then there's contact. Then Frettin's feet leave the ice after contact has already been made. For those of you who didn't play in checking leagues, the force from a hard hit often propels both players off the ice. Also you can't discredit the stills and then base your argument on a similar resolution video.

I can believe that.  So what is the letter of the rule? If the force of the hit causes propels the hitter off the ice is it by definition an illegal hit?  Is it only leaving your feet beforehand?  Intent to do so?

I'm asking about the letter here, not the squishy "referees shouldn't enforce that" part (which I sometimes agree with).

[David Harding]

I can believe that.  So what is the letter of the rule? If the force of the hit causes propels the hitter off the ice is it by definition an illegal hit?  Is it only leaving your feet beforehand?  Intent to do so?

I'm asking about the letter here, not the squishy "referees shouldn't enforce that" part (which I sometimes agree with).

Boarding
SECTION 3. A player shall not body check, cross-check, elbow, charge or
trip an opponent from the front or side in such a manner that causes the
opponent to be thrown violently into the boards (see 6-23).
PENALTY—Minor or major at discretion of the referee, based on degree
of violence of the impact with the boards.

Charging
SECTION 6. a. A player shall not skate more than two steps or jump into or
charge an opponent. Charging is the action of a player, who as a result
of distance traveled, checks an opponent violently in any manner from
the front or side.
Note: A fair body check is one in which a player checks an opponent who is in
possession of the puck, by using the hip or body from the front or diagonally
from the front or straight from the side.
PENALTY—Minor or major at discretion of the referee.

Contact to the Head
SECTION 8. A player shall not make contact with an opposing player's
head or neck area in any manner.
PENALTY—Minor or major or disqualification at the discretion of the
referee. Contact to the head shall be assessed in front of the
infraction (i.e., contact to the head – elbow).
Note: The rules committee instructs officials to use a zero tolerance policy in
this area.

Hitting After the Whistle
SECTION 22. A player shall not make physical contact with an opponent,
including the goalkeeper (see 6-6-b), anywhere on the ice after the whistle
has blown if, in the opinion of a referee, the player had sufficient time after
the whistle to avoid such contact.
PENALTY—Minor or major at discretion of the referee.
Note: Officials are encouraged to pay particular attention to a player who
instigates or escalates an incident after play is stopped.

Hitting From Behind
SECTION 23. a. A player shall not push, charge, cross-check or body check
an opponent from behind in open ice.
PENALTY—Minor or major at the discretion of the referee.
b. Hitting from behind into the side boards, end boards or goal cage is a
flagrant violation.
RULE 6 / PLAYING RULES HR-73
PENALTY—Major and game misconduct or disqualification at the
discretion of the referee.
Note: The committee reminds coaches and players that the responsibility
remains with the player approaching an opponent along the boards in this
rule. While players turning to draw penalties are a concern, the positive
change in behavior the committee observed outweighs this issue. Any penalty
in relation to this rule along the boards or into the goal cage must be a major
penalty and a game misconduct or disqualification.