Supplemental Discpline 2013-14

[chippa13 1844]

Criticizing Kronwall for the way he wears his visor is an entirely valid point. He does not wear it for protection as it covers no parts of his face or eyes. Scott Stevens was never suspended for any of the hit that he threw, either. That doesn't change the fact that they were predatory hits with the sole purpose of destroying his opponent. At least Stevens would accept a fight now and again. Kronwall is simply getting to feel the other side for once.

Johnny Boychuk has developed a habit of looking for these Kronwall type of hits, as well, and I don't like it.

[psh 25]

I'll admit that Kronwall wears his visor high, but you're implication is that it a form of turtling or avoiding fights. I'd simply say that fighting has nothing to do with Kronwall's game, nor should it. He's too valuable on the ice

I also disagree with the idea that Kronwall is getting his due. I don't see any poetic symmetry in this case. Kronwall is known for hits from the front, in the lane of the oncoming player. I don't regularly watch the Wings, but I can't think of any of his big hits coming blind from a player's backside. The hit he took was to the back and defenseless, whereas getting "Kronwalled" seems to mean getting lit up from the front side.

I do agree with your criticism of purely predatory hits and think it does apply to Kronwall from time to time. I've long criticized hits that remove the hitter as much as the hittee from the puck. If the hitter has no chance of coming out with the puck, it's a bad hit from a strategic perspective (unless, as you say, the motivation is less defensive and more pyschological or physical punishment). Those hits may have some limited initimidation value, but I'd much rather see Kronwall emulate Lidstrom and swoop in for the puck, pick it clean, and make the transition pass before the puck carrier knows what happened. That type of play, in the long run, will pay more dividends and would probably extend Kronwall's career.

[Chadd 916]

The McLeod hit on Spurgeon is hardly a case of showing that he is reckless. He was on top of Spurgeon the whole way in, yet Spurgeon decided to stop four feet from the boards. McLeod doesn't appear to drive through him or finish the check. I'm not an Avs fan, and to be honest, don't recall hearing McLeod's name before. I'm really disappointed to hear that he is getting an in-person hearing with the league. That means they are going to give him something, even though they have let far worse go without official review.

I'll admit that Kronwall wears his visor high, but you're implication is that it a form of turtling or avoiding fights. I'd simply say that fighting has nothing to do with Kronwall's game, nor should it. He's too valuable on the ice

I also disagree with the idea that Kronwall is getting his due. I don't see any poetic symmetry in this case. Kronwall is known for hits from the front, in the lane of the oncoming player. I don't regularly watch the Wings, but I can't think of any of his big hits coming blind from a player's backside. The hit he took was to the back and defenseless, whereas getting "Kronwalled" seems to mean getting lit up from the front side.

I do agree with your criticism of purely predatory hits and think it does apply to Kronwall from time to time. I've long criticized hits that remove the hitter as much as the hittee from the puck. If the hitter has no chance of coming out with the puck, it's a bad hit from a strategic perspective (unless, as you say, the motivation is less defensive and more pyschological or physical punishment). Those hits may have some limited initimidation value, but I'd much rather see Kronwall emulate Lidstrom and swoop in for the puck, pick it clean, and make the transition pass before the puck carrier knows what happened. That type of play, in the long run, will pay more dividends and would probably extend Kronwall's career.

I don't see a huge difference between hitting a guy from a blind side and hitting someone from the front when they are trying to find the puck in their feet as Kronwall does. In both cases the person getting drilled has no idea that the hitter is coming. He waits until other players are vulnerable and attacks them with the intent to do as much damage as possible, usually by launching up into the other guy at contact.

[goblue9280 33]

Stevens also never delivered any of his hits after the NHL instituted a crackdown on head shots/elbows/hits from behind. Kronwall has never received supplemental discipline in this new era. The NHL has clearly indicated they are only attempting to outlaw certain hits (namely head contact) and that what you deem predatory hits by Kronwall are perfectly acceptable by the NHL's current standard of play.

"Getting to feel the other side for once." - Again, when has Kronwall been on the side of delivering a hit from behind or head shot that resulted in supplementary discipline?

Criticizing Kronwall for the way he wears his visor is an entirely valid point. He does not wear it for protection as it covers no parts of his face or eyes. Scott Stevens was never suspended for any of the hit that he threw, either. That doesn't change the fact that they were predatory hits with the sole purpose of destroying his opponent. At least Stevens would accept a fight now and again. Kronwall is simply getting to feel the other side for once.

Johnny Boychuk has developed a habit of looking for these Kronwall type of hits, as well, and I don't like it.

[wrangler 157]

Five games for McLeod.

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=464830&catid=60

[RadioGaGa 162]

2 Games for Grabner.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=434714

Don't recall seeing the infraction.

[Chadd 916]

Five games for McLeod.

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=464830&catid=60

No history, they admit Kronwall turned and he still gets five games? This one makes no sense at all, especially when there was nothing for the hit on Nichol

[goblue9280 33]

No history, they admit Kronwall turned and he still gets five games? This one makes no sense at all, especially when there was nothing for the hit on Nichol

He was given 5 games because as was stated in the video (like I said a couple posts back) McLeod changes direction AFTER he sees Kronwall pivot. The extra camera angles (which weren't broadcast in tv) really highlight this point. McLeod changed direction to deliver a hit from behind and never made any attempt to slow down or avoid contact... thus 5 games.

[psh 25]

No history, they admit Kronwall turned and he still gets five games? This one makes no sense at all, especially when there was nothing for the hit on Nichol

I assume they are aware of the Spurgeon hit as well, so there may be no history of discipline or suspensions, but he's made that same hit, resulting in a serious injury, before.

I don't see a huge difference between hitting a guy from a blind side and hitting someone from the front when they are trying to find the puck in their feet as Kronwall does. In both cases the person getting drilled has no idea that the hitter is coming. He waits until other players are vulnerable and attacks them with the intent to do as much damage as possible, usually by launching up into the other guy at contact.

I don't necessarily disagree. I'd like to see more hockey fans and players take this position and stop with the "he should have had his head up" argument. Devastating hits following passes in the feet or when a player is engaged with another player in a puck battle should call for restraint on the part of the hitter, but that just isn't the rule at this point. I'd like to see that changed, perhaps along the lines of the NFL's "defenseless receiver" concept.

[chippa13 1844]

So now there can be "suspected history"? If the Spurgeon hit was not suspension or fine worthy then it doesn't count. The NHL can't say, "Well, looking back maybe we kinda shoulda, ya know, suspended or fined for that other hit maybe so we'll nail him on this suspension even though he really sorta mostly doesn't have a history."

[psh 25]

Absolutely. The NHL is not infallible, especially when it comes to discipline, and it has demonstrably evolved. Moreover, you seem to take the position that Kronwall's history is relevent to this discussion, even though he is the player who received the hit and has no suspension history. Whatever it takes to get the game safer, short of changing the nature of the game itself, seems to be fair game to me.

[Chadd 916]

Absolutely. The NHL is not infallible, especially when it comes to discipline, and it has demonstrably evolved. Moreover, you seem to take the position that Kronwall's history is relevent to this discussion, even though he is the player who received the hit and has no suspension history. Whatever it takes to get the game safer, short of changing the nature of the game itself, seems to be fair game to me.

My issue is the lack of consistency. The standards are different from night to night, hit to hit and player to player. After this one, the player turning into the hit and leading with their head caveats don't apply if they decide you changed your angle the wrong way. But hey, someone left on a stretcher and it made the NHL look bad, so there must be a serious suspension.

[Stewie 721]

like they said, kronwall changed his direction, but so did McLeod to go in for the hit. had he continued on his original following path, he probably wouldnt have gotten a big suspension, but when you change direction in response to the player your chasing down changing direction, you assume responsibility for the path to your hit.

[Chadd 916]

like they said, kronwall changed his direction, but so did McLeod to go in for the hit. had he continued on his original following path, he probably wouldnt have gotten a big suspension, but when you change direction in response to the player your chasing down changing direction, you assume responsibility for the path to your hit.

They have never cited that in cases where it would have been applicable before this week

[psh 25]

I'd put it another way. When there is a chase into the boards, the pursuing player has the better line of vision and is in a less vulnerable position, so the onus is on him to pull up if necessary. His objective should be to seal off the player in front and come out with the puck, or at least free it up. But, when the player in front has his back to you and is headed for the boards, you can't count on blowing him up. Checking from behind is already a penalty and boarding is already a penalty. This isn't moving the arrow too far, it seems. If you can get shoulder to shoulder, go for the big hit, but if you're coming in from behind, make your angle shallower and go for pinch, instead. It will make you safer, too, because you can't whiff on a big hit and drive your own head into the boards that way. I had that concept drilled into me as a 10 year old peewee.

I think the problem with this thread might be that there is a predisposition to dislike Kronwall and therefore not really care about this particular hit. I understand that and don't blame posters for it. I see the McLeod type of hit, though, as an extension of the icing races that are being removed from the game. Those plays are unecessarily dangerous and I'd like to protect our players, the most valuable asset in the league. I'll acknowledge that cracking down on those hits might give rise to players intentionally turning into the boards to try to elude a forechecker. That would have to be something that is monitored and responded to. However, that kind of behavior would be so contrary to players' instincts that I'm hopeful it wouldn't become too pervasive of an issue.

[chippa13 1844]

Absolutely. The NHL is not infallible, especially when it comes to discipline, and it has demonstrably evolved. Moreover, you seem to take the position that Kronwall's history is relevent to this discussion, even though he is the player who received the hit and has no suspension history. Whatever it takes to get the game safer, short of changing the nature of the game itself, seems to be fair game to me.

Kronwall's history is just for my dislike of how Kronwall seeks out his hits. As for the issue at hand, the league says that Kronwall turned and contributed to the bad hit and yet a player with zero history gets hit hard on his this with a five gamer out of the gate. Since the league has not issued any kind of mandate on stiffer penalties, I would expect the NHLPA to be all over appealing this one.

[Chadd 916]

Kronwall's history is just for my dislike of how Kronwall seeks out his hits. As for the issue at hand, the league says that Kronwall turned and contributed to the bad hit and yet a player with zero history gets hit hard on his this with a five gamer out of the gate. Since the league has not issued any kind of mandate on stiffer penalties, I would expect the NHLPA to be all over appealing this one.

I agree entirely with you, that has to be a bad sign for one of us.

[Stewie 721]

correct me if i am wrong, but I am pretty sure you cant appeal a suspension 5 games or under.

[chippa13 1844]

Scott laid out Eriksson with check to the head. He'll at least be chatting with Shanahan.

[Stewie 721]

think that will get a 5 prob

[IPv6Freely 2092]

Heh. Looks like he made some pretty solid body contact here.....

[chippa13 1844]

In person hearing, date is TBD per Bob McKenzie tweet.

[wrangler 157]

Watching the replays, it seems to me that Scott got a lot of chest with his hit, deliberately aiming for the body. Also, this wasn't like the hits we've generally seen, with a guy launching, and/or hitting through the other player. Scott took it easy, compared to what he could have done. Even so, I think he hit Eriksson harder than he intended, for a casual passing hit. I'm surprised they're looking at 5+ on this one, even considering it a late and unnecessary hit.

[bagsbie 8]

Scott was deliberately aiming for the head. For once, I agree with Millbury, John Scott simply does not belong on in the NHL. NHL should start fining coaches for these hits.

[EBondo 233]

Watching the replays, it seems to me that Scott got a lot of chest with his hit, deliberately aiming for the body. Also, this wasn't like the hits we've generally seen, with a guy launching, and/or hitting through the other player. Scott took it easy, compared to what he could have done. Even so, I think he hit Eriksson harder than he intended, for a casual passing hit. I'm surprised they're looking at 5+ on this one, even considering it a late and unnecessary hit.

Disagree 100%.

This hit is exactly what has been wrong with the NHL. Late and unnecessary like you said, but he was absolutely aiming for the head. That picture says it all. These guys just do not belong in the league in any capacity, and three of the best examples of these guys are employed by the SAME TEAM (Kaleta, Scott, Ott). They're not there to play hockey, so why are they in the National Hockey League?

I've said time and time again, if teams are going to continue to employ these kinds of players, the roster spot should be gone for the duration of whatever suspension is handed down. Maybe then people will learn.