The 2009-2010 Suspension Thread

[Chadd 916]

That could easily be a 10-15 gamer....I bet he gets 3.

They will cite the fact that there wasn't a penalty and not give him anything.

[hockeyfreak7 0]

there was no call to be made. intent to injure needs to be blatantly obvious that the player deliberately attacked the opposition in a way that could cause physical harm. an open ice hit (granted, it was not the cleanest of hits), is NOT intent to injure. maybe if carter tried to pull a cormier, or led with his hands, or whatever..but as long as the hit is mechanically within the rules, you can not call it intent to injure.

bertuzzi = intent to injure.

cormier = intent to injure.

but, carter's hit was not late nor did he lead with anything but the shoulder. it was an unfortunate play...and yes, he did catch salmella in the head, but that wasnt the intent. no where in that play can anyone prove or disprove that he was "head hunting".

and for the record, the damage was done by salmella's head hitting the ice...not by carter's shoulder.

EDIT: now if you want to impose a penalty for any hit to the head, intentional or accidental, that is another story that can not be applied here.

[Hipster 5]

there was no call to be made. intent to injure needs to be blatantly obvious that the player deliberately attacked the opposition in a way that could cause physical harm. an open ice hit (granted, it was not the cleanest of hits), is NOT intent to injure. maybe if carter tried to pull a cormier, or led with his hands, or whatever..but as long as the hit is mechanically within the rules, you can not call it intent to injure.

bertuzzi = intent to injure.

cormier = intent to injure.

but, carter's hit was not late nor did he lead with anything but the shoulder. it was an unfortunate play...and yes, he did catch salmella in the head, but that wasnt the intent. no where in that play can anyone prove or disprove that he was "head hunting".

and for the record, the damage was done by salmella's head hitting the ice...not by carter's shoulder.

EDIT: now if you want to impose a penalty for any hit to the head, intentional or accidental, that is another story that can not be applied here.

As much as I hate an overabundance of rules for everything, I think the players are so much bigger, faster and stronger than even 10 years ago, that some rules changes need to be made on these killshots to the head. Human brains are not meant to take 30mph collisions (2 players each moving 15mph).

My opinion:

If the checker and puck carrier are facing each other in a one on one situation, then the responsibility lies with the puck carrier to keep his head up.

If the checker comes from the blindside while the puckcarrier is already engaged with another defender, then the responsibility lies with the checker.

In the NFL they don't letyou block a guys knees if he's already engaged with another blocker and players go ballistic when it happens. The brain is far more important to quality of life for most people outside the NFL than the knees.

I'm all for hard clean hockey, but something needs to be done about these blindside killshots even if they are technically legal hits.

[Chadd 916]

Carter actually makes a move got get around the shoulder and put the hit directly to the head. Just like Richards did to Booth and attempted to do to Ovechkin. That shows a deliberate intent to inure the other player as there is no reason to target the head of another player, other than to cause injury to that player.

Carter locks in just after he crosses the blue line and coasts until he gets close, then takes a stride to accelerate, slips around the shoulder and hits up into the head with his shoulder and follows through with the elbow. It is a predatory act that shows a willful desire to cause injury. If Carter actually puts body on body, it's late-ish but not an attempt to injure the other player.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, just stating the reasons behind my opinion.

[camhockey16 5]

i noticed players keep getting cut from their visors hitting their face or noses on these types of plays - i wonder if it is because the players file the visors down and they still have a relatively sharp edge? is that just the price you pay for wearing a visor or will the players start rounding the edges of their visor more to prevent getting cut?

[Hipster 5]

He sent a message and set a tone with what was, in my opinion, a legal hit.

I don't think that's enough reason to justify what he did. Theonly message he sent was that when his partner gets beat, he's willing to blindside you and aim for your head.

I never like it when "sending" a message is used to absolve or justify irresponsible action. It was the Flyers vs. the Devils, not the Crips vs.Latin Kings.

If Carter wants to send a message, then suspend him until he writes "I will not deliver blindside killshots and I will respect my fellow NHL players"

oncefor every player in the league. That should be his message.

[LkptTiger 1]

There is a reason that there are cliches and expressions like "Keep your head up" and "Trolly Tracks" in this game. It's not Carter's fault that Salmela put himself in the position to get smoked. Anssi had NO business bringing the puck into that area in that situation. The hit was on-time and Carter's elbow stayed down through contact.

Could he have taken a bit more of Salmela's torso? Sure...but, ultimately, we have to call it what it was: a big, legal hit on a guy caught with his head down in the middle of the ice.

[RiSeOnFiRe 0]

There is a reason that there are cliches and expressions like "Keep your head up" and "Trolly Tracks" in this game. It's not Carter's fault that Salmela put himself in the position to get smoked. Anssi had NO business bringing the puck into that area in that situation. The hit was on-time and Carter's elbow stayed down through contact.

Could he have taken a bit more of Salmela's torso? Sure...but, ultimately, we have to call it what it was: a big, legal hit on a guy caught with his head down in the middle of the ice.

I could not disagree more. Anssi had no business bringing the puck to the net? Seriously?? And sure the check was legal in the sense that he didn't jump, and elbow was low, but his point of contact screams illegal and intent to injure. You can't deny that.

[LkptTiger 1]

I said no business and I mean no business. Anssi is a textbook example of what happens when you ignore the warnings every hockey player has had beatten into him throughout his development.

[hockeyfreak7 0]

while i disagree that "Anssi had no business bringing the puck into that area", i agree with his point.

if you want to argue with the nhl's stance on head hits, then more power to you...but because carter got him in the head does not justify a suspension at this given time.

if it was a blatantly intentional play and it was obvious that he was aiming for salmella's head, then it would be intent to injure. but being 6'3" and given the awkward position of salmella at the time, you can not make that conclusion lightly.

the fact of the matter is that you can not assume that it is intentional unless it is made perfectly clear (such as bertuzzi or cormier to make a reference), so if you want to eliminate these plays, you need to eliminate ANY play to an opposing players head regardless of intent. but im afraid that would in turn eliminate open ice hitting altogether...

EDIT: and if i havent made it clear already, in my opinion, intent to injure is a call that can not be made on a "hockey play" such as an open ice hit. intent to injure is a suspendable offence, but it should be reserved for plays that are irrefutably unnecessary and delberate.

EDIT #2: LkptTiger- i dont see how you can make that claim if it was a play that resulted in a goal. another cliche that you have left out is "taking a hit to make the play". salmella knew he was going to get run over when he stepped into the middle...but he still made the play. unfortunate result, but that just shows strength or character.

[Chadd 916]

while i disagree that "Anssi had no business bringing the puck into that area", i agree with his point.

if you want to argue with the nhl's stance on head hits, then more power to you...but because carter got him in the head does not justify a suspension at this given time.

if it was a blatantly intentional play and it was obvious that he was aiming for salmella's head, then it would be intent to injure. but being 6'3" and given the awkward position of salmella at the time, you can not make that conclusion lightly.

the fact of the matter is that you can not assume that it is intentional unless it is made perfectly clear (such as bertuzzi or cormier to make a reference), so if you want to eliminate these plays, you need to eliminate ANY play to an opposing players head regardless of intent. but im afraid that would in turn eliminate open ice hitting altogether...

Watch the full video. Carter knows what he is going to do as soon as he crosses the blue line and spends the next 55' trying to time it correctly. He then makes a move to get around Salmala's shoulder and apply the hit up to the head. If it was about trying to play defense or deny a scoring opportunity, he could have easily cut him off before he reached the front of the net, let alone scored. If it isn't about attempting to injure, he hits the body; shoulder, side, even back. Instead, Carter does everything possible to inflict the most damage on the most vulnerable part of the other player.

It's one thing if it is a bang-bang play, but Carter stalked him from the blue line to the crease.

The most important factor at play here is that Carter is a bigger name than Salmala.

If you don't think it was intentional, that's fine. It's absurd to say that because you don't believe that it wasn't intentional, nobody can believe something different. I see things that show intent to injure, others may not. There's nothing wrong with disagreement. The NHL has allowed these types of hits to get out of hand and we're seeing far too many people leaving the ice on stretchers because of it. The NHL needs skill guys on the ice if they ever want to appeal to the casual sports fan and the NHL needs casual sports fans if it is to be anything other than a niche sport.

[Half 2]

Everybody knows you have to keep your head up and watch out for the check from behind after you score right?

[hockeyfreak7 0]

you are making exaggerated claims here, chad. salmela was still tangled with richads on the boards when carter entered the zone. he could not possibly have foreseen an opportunity for a hit until salmela beat richards and then stepped to the middle. by that time,carter was just behind the hash marks. much less than "spending the next 50' trying to time it correctly".

add on top of that the fact that salmela had JUST dropped his shoulder when he took the shot, finally exposing his head at the last second. i honestly have watched the video over 20 times trying to see what you see, chad, but i just cant. there is literally not enough time for carter to recognize the opportunity for the hit, then react accordingly when salmela dropped his shoulder to shoot.

lol, im trying to work with you here, man, but its just not there. it was just an awkward collision with a dangerously unfortunate result.

your claim that "carter stalked him from the blueline to the crease" is first of all, untrue, but secondly unfair. it was around the hash marks, when carter locked in for the hit...but more importantly, how do you expect someone to make a hit without locking eyes on their target? i guess you could make the claim that carter could have passed up on the hit completely...which i am sure he could have done, but that is another argument altogether, and i am afraid that begins to question the fundamentals of the game altogether.

EDIT @ Half: please watch the video again, he had not scored when carter moved in for the hit. he had literally just released the puck milliseconds before. the rules state that you are allowed to finish your check provided that the player has immediately released the puck. it was not a late hit.

[Half 2]

EDIT @ Half: please watch the video again, he had not scored when carter moved in for the hit. he had literally just released the puck milliseconds before. the rules state that you are allowed to finish your check provided that the player has immediately released the puck. it was not a late hit.

Just watched it again, puck hit net just as Carter drilled him. The fact that he lowers his shoulder and then follows through with the elbow head level just doesn't add up. Dude was out before he hit the ice. You can take a scoring chance away without going high. Tie up the guys stick if you have to. I'm sure he could of done that before he drilled him.

[Chadd 916]

you are making exaggerated claims here, chad. salmela was still tangled with richads on the boards when carter entered the zone. he could not possibly have foreseen an opportunity for a hit until salmela beat richards and then stepped to the middle. by that time,carter was just behind the hash marks. much less than "spending the next 50' trying to time it correctly".

add on top of that the fact that salmela had JUST dropped his shoulder when he took the shot, finally exposing his head at the last second. i honestly have watched the video over 20 times trying to see what you see, chad, but i just cant. there is literally not enough time for carter to recognize the opportunity for the hit, then react accordingly when salmela dropped his shoulder to shoot.

lol, im trying to work with you here, man, but its just not there. it was just an awkward collision with a dangerously unfortunate result.

your claim that "carter stalked him from the blueline to the crease" is first of all, untrue, but secondly unfair. it was around the hash marks, when carter locked in for the hit...but more importantly, how do you expect someone to make a hit without locking eyes on their target? i guess you could make the claim that carter could have passed up on the hit completely...which i am sure he could have done, but that is another argument altogether, and i am afraid that begins to question the fundamentals of the game altogether.

Carter stares him down from the time he enters the zone, never even looks to see if there is another Devil in the zone. He's not playing defense, he's hunting. As for Salmala exposing his head, it's irrelevant. Carter makes a move to get around his shoulder and then hits up into Salmala's head, it's not like Salmala's head is in a place where Carter had to go through it to make body contact. I have no issue with a hit in that situation, simply with the fact that Carter did nothing on that play to indicate he was doing anything other than trying to injure Salmala.

Again, I'm fine with people seeing something different in the play. That's just the way I see it.

[Half 2]

Carter stares him down from the time he enters the zone, never even looks to see if there is another Devil in the zone. He's not playing defense, he's hunting. As for Salmala exposing his head, it's irrelevant. Carter makes a move to get around his shoulder and then hits up into Salmala's head, it's not like Salmala's head is in a place where Carter had to go through it to make body contact. I have no issue with a hit in that situation, simply with the fact that Carter did nothing on that play to indicate he was doing anything other than trying to injure Salmala.

Again, I'm fine with people seeing something different in the play. That's just the way I see it.

I agree completely. Seems like a common theme lately is to go head hunting.

[RadioGaGa 162]

So we all know what we are referring too...

Even if the hit is okay (time wise)...He comes from behind, maybe not DIRECTLY behind...but still, it goes back to the "player in a vulnerable position" distinction they want to make.

[hockeyfreak7 0]

Just watched it again, puck hit net just as Carter drilled him. The fact that he lowers his shoulder and then follows through with the elbow head level just doesn't add up. Dude was out before he hit the ice. You can take a scoring chance away without going high. Tie up the guys stick if you have to. I'm sure he could of done that before he drilled him.

yes, the puck hit the net just as carter drilled him. so you agree with me? milliseconds after the puck was released, carter made impact. that is within the rules. it WAS immediately after he released the puck.

and dont try to tell me that there was an ounce of elbow in that hit. yes, the arm came up after the hit. if thats your beef, then argue with physics, not me.

and, again, if want carter to be suspended for making the hit in the first place then you are sending the wrong message to the league. that will be the start of the elimination of open ice hitting from the game. you can make that case for any open ice hit. "he could have tied up his stick instead". well...obviously...but hitting is a part of the game.

Carter stares him down from the time he enters the zone, never even looks to see if there is another Devil in the zone. He's not playing defense, he's hunting. As for Salmala exposing his head, it's irrelevant. Carter makes a move to get around his shoulder and then hits up into Salmala's head, it's not like Salmala's head is in a place where Carter had to go through it to make body contact. I have no issue with a hit in that situation, simply with the fact that Carter did nothing on that play to indicate he was doing anything other than trying to injure Salmala.

Again, I'm fine with people seeing something different in the play. That's just the way I see it.

alright, then i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree :)

[Fire0nIce228 1]

I don't think it was late, the guy had just releaIsed the puck, whether its in the net or not is irrelevant when it took the puck maybe all of a second to leave his stick and hit the back of the net. The elbow was down when he hit him but did come up after the contact was made. As LkptTiger said if your going to go to the front of the net like that you should expect someone to step up on you, especially if your just going to lower the boom and crash the net like that.

Really bad that Carter hit him in the head, but I don't think he premeditated the hit.

[Sed27 0]

Even if the hit is okay (time wise)...He comes from behind, maybe not DIRECTLY behind...but still, it goes back to the "player in a vulnerable position" distinction they want to make.

Radio you are completely right about Salmela being in a vulnerable position. He has just finished (1) fighting off the check from Richards and (2) scoring the goal when Carter cranks him on the blind side.

The problem here is not so much with the timing of the hit, but the fact that two players are already engaged when a third comes crashing in.

[LkptTiger 1]

Hockey isn't a game of five simultaneous 1-on-1 match-ups.

[Sed27 0]

Hockey isn't a game of five simultaneous 1-on-1 match-ups.

No, hockey isn't a game of 1 on 1 match ups. Nor am I saying that Carter can't check Salmela...

What I do take issue with is the reckless manner in which he levels the hit. Salmela can't defend himself because as he drives to the net, he is also attempting to break away from Richards.

He never has a chance to see Carter coming from the opposite side of the ice.

[BenderHockey 127]

The problem here is not so much with the timing of the hit, but the fact that two players are already engaged when a third comes crashing in.

If I didn't know better, I would swear you are talking about Scott Stevens here.

[Law Goalie 147]

The really odd thing about this is that hitting in hockey was, not so long ago, about *not* hitting the head; the aim was to 'knock the wind out of him' rather than 'knock him out' into unconsciousness.

I remember Bobby Hull describing the hardest hit he ever took, from Marcel Pronovost: "he hit me from my shoulders to my knees... we hit with our whole bodies... and he's as solid as that oak tree." The two areas of the body Hull exempts are below the knees (slew-footing, kneeing) and from the neck up (shots to the throat, neck and head). He goes on to describe being barely able to breathe, finishing part of his shift, and gulping air on the bench for a couple of minutes.

So with a clean hit away from the head, one of the greatest (and physically strongest) players ever had to abandon his shift, skip a couple more, and kept his head on a swivel and probably dropped a gear in his skating for the rest of that game, and probably every time the Hawks played Detroit after that.

Carter could have delivered the same kind of hit to Salmella, but he went around the shoulder to attack the head, much the same way Samuelsson or Kasparitis might have clipped Salmella's knee or otherwise low-bridged him.

What I want to know is who's teaching players to hit the head, much the same way I wanted to know why we had a rash of knee-on-knee in the mid-80s and early-90s. I seriously doubt it's coaching; I suspect that, much like 'takedowns' in fighting, this is something that has been glorified by certain sportscasters who have little or no sense of the history or reality of the game.

[LkptTiger 1]

He never has a chance to see Carter coming from the opposite side of the ice.

The fact that Anssi appeared to be fascinated with his skate laces might have had something to do with that. I quote Tree: "Head was down".