NHL Master Thread

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Here's the actual rules:
59.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty, at the discretion of the Referee
based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player
who “cross checks” an opponent.
59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee
based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player
who “cross checks” an opponent
59.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match
penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately
injured his opponent by cross-checking.
59.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is assessed for
cross-checking, an automatic game misconduct penalty shall be
imposed on the offending player

I guess you missed the discretion part. If the ref determines that the cross check is accidental, he would hand out a minor based on the rules. In this case the ref decided that it was a major so an automatic misconduct was handed out. If he decided it was a minor, he is still able to hand out a match penalty if he thinks the hit is malicious.

You need to read the rules you posted and not twist them. Where does it say an accidental cross check to the head is a minor. As a matter of fact where does it say anything about a hit to the head?

[yuneeq]

You need to read the rules you posted and not twist them. Where does it say an accidental cross check to the head is a minor. As a matter of fact where does it say anything about a hit to the head?

I didn't twist anything, all I said is that the rules leave it up to the refs discretion.
They could have given a minor penalty which I believe was appropriate for a non-malicious hit where he didn't even extend his hands to hit Crosby with more force. As you realize, the rules don't discriminate between head shot or chest, rather the severity of the contact which was really not much.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

As you realize, the rules don't discriminate between head shot or chest, rather the severity of the contact which was really not much.

Actually they do (hits to the head) but it would be a waste of time to post them.

[yuneeq]

Not a nice comment.  Not funny

Who's laughing?
My point is that people are so quick to deem anything malicious because they watched a slo-mo replay and can't accurately determine the intent of the offending player. Hockey is such a fast sport and players can get hurt even when there's little to no malice involved. Slow down that hit on Sheary, if it was a Caps player that him we'd be having the same argument, just this time Hornqvist had more time to react than Niskanen.

I hate both the Pens and the Caps so I'm an unbiased viewer.

Actually they do (hits to the head) but it would be a waste of time to post them.

Here, I'll help you out. I'm sure your laziness was "accidental". 

Rule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head
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.
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.
48.2 Minor Penalty – For violation of this rule, a minor penalty shall be
assessed.
48.3 Major Penalty – There is no provision for a major penalty for this rule.
48.4 Game Misconduct Penalty – There is no provision for a game
misconduct for this rule.
48.5 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match
penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately
injured his opponent with an illegal check to the head.
If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by
the Commissioner at his discretion.

So you have spelled out clearly, an accidental hit to the head would not get a match penalty.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Here, I'll help you out. I'm sure your laziness was "accidental". 

I just wanted you to educate yourself that that the rules take head shots different from chest shots as you wrongly thought they didn't. Now for your next assignment learn the difference between a check to the head and a cross check to the head.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Like I said before I watched it live so I thought why not watch it is slo-mo. Seen something very interesting. As Crosby is falling and coming at Niskanen he only has one hand the stick. He then puts his other hand on the stick and delivers the cross check to the head severely injuring Crosby.

[yuneeq]

I just wanted you to educate yourself that that the rules take head shots different from chest shots as you wrongly thought they didn't. Now for your next assignment learn the difference between a check to the head and a cross check to the head.

Of course I know the difference, I know more about hockey than you do.
The headshot rule is irrelevant to the conversation so why would I mention it.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I know more about hockey than you do.

That's a pretty bold statement when you didn't even know there was a difference in the rules for head shots and chest shots.

As you realize, the rules don't discriminate between head shot or chest, rather the severity of the contact which was really not much.

[yuneeq]

That's a pretty bold statement when you didn't even know there was a difference in the rules for head shots and chest shots.

The cross checking rules I showed you don't discriminate between headshots and chest shots.
Should I break it down to you a little more? As we are discussing an unintentionally dangerous hit, we don't even mention head shots. Because A) head shot rules don't apply to unintentional hits b) cross checks rules don't discriminate between chest and head.

Capiche?

I'm sorry, but if you knew a little bit more about hockey you wouldn't think head shot rules were relevant to the convo.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I feel sorry for you. You have such a hard time accepting you are wrong. This whole conversation is about Crosby getting crosschecked to the head and injured.

Let me try and explain this so you will even understand. If he was crosschecked in the chest on this play there would not have been any penalty. Since the crosscheck was to the head it is a penalty. Do you understand now the rules are different for a hit to the head than to the chest. You can't look at one thing in a vacuum.

As you realize, the rules don't discriminate between head shot or chest, rather the severity of the contact which was really not much.

[yuneeq]

I feel sorry for you. You have such a hard time accepting you are wrong. This whole conversation is about Crosby getting crosschecked to the head and injured.

Let me try and explain this so you will even understand. If he was crosschecked in the chest on this play there would not have been and penalty. Since the crosscheck was to the head it is a penalty. Do you understand now the rules are different for a hit to the head that to the chest.

Of course there's a penalty on the play.
The question is whether he deserves a minor or major penalty (which automatically includes game misconduct), and that is determined both by looking at the offenders intent, and severity of the contact as determined by the ref. And as I made it clear, I believe it was an unintentional hit with not so much contact. So that deserves a minor penalty.

Also worth to educate you that cross checks to the chest also deserve a minor despite the fact that it doesn't usually get called.

[springles]

quite a back and forth for 2 guys who dont have a team in that series.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

quite a back and forth for 2 guys who dont have a team in that series.

I have a team. Just not my first choice.
Anyway I feel a responsibility to educate the young grasshoppers. 

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Of course there's a penalty on the play.
The question is whether he deserves a minor or major penalty (which automatically includes game misconduct), and that is determined both by looking at the offenders intent, and severity of the contact as determined by the ref. And as I made it clear, I believe it was an unintentional hit with not so much contact. So that deserves a minor penalty.

So now you want switch the conversation to should it be a minor or major? You are to funny but I will play along.
Your next assignment is what rule covers hitting a player in the head with a stick causing injury. Hint: You have to look in more than one place. 

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Also worth to educate you that cross checks to the chest also deserve a minor despite the fact that it doesn't usually get called.

Wrong again. Crosschecking all by it self is not a penalty. It depends how much force is used that will decide if it is a penalty or not. At least you are learning something from all this. 

59.1 Cross-checking - The action of using the shaft of the stick between the two hands to forcefully check an opponent.

[yuneeq]

So now you want switch the conversation to should it be a minor or major? You are to funny but I will play along.

Doesn't have a dirty past. He was bracing for the collision and picked up his stick to brace the collision. He's still responsible for his stick and deserved a minor penalty but he was not malicious at all.

Good morning. Let me know when you finish reading the rest of what I wrote.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Good morning. Let me know when you finish reading the rest of what I wrote.

I read what you wrote but that is your version of what happened. The undisputable facts are he crosschecked him to the head causing injury. The ref did not feel it was intentional.

Your next assignment is what rule covers hitting a player in the head with a stick causing injury. Hint: You have to look in more than one place. 

[yuneeq]

Wrong again. Crosschecking all by it self is not a penalty. It depends how much force is used that will decide if it is a penalty or not. At least you are learning something from all this. 

59.1 Cross-checking - The action of using the shaft of the stick between the two hands to forcefully check an opponent.

Gently touching the other players chest with your stick is not a cross check just like gently touching the other player with your hand isn't considered the legal version of roughing.

I read what you wrote but that is your version of what happened. The undisputable facts are he crosschecked him to the head causing injury. The ref did not feel it was intentional.

Well I did say a bunch of times that it was my opinion that refs got it wrong, and you also decided to assume that it was unintentional for arguments sake. So our conversation was based on that assumption.

What are smoking? Lets say it was 100% accidental. A cross check to the head is not a minor penalty.

b) A major plus a game misconduct penalty shall be assessed to any player who injures an opponent as a result of cross-checking.

I still stand by my original opinion that an accidental, cross check to the head with not much severity only deserves a minor penalty. You can argue that it was intentional but I'm not interested in continuing that conversation.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Well I did say a bunch of times that it was my opinion that refs got it wrong, and you also decided to assume that it was unintentional for arguments sake. So our conversation was based on that assumption.

Are you saying they (refs) got the rules wrong? That if it was not intentional (hit to the head that caused injury) it should have been a minor according to the rules?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

You can argue that it was intentional but I'm not interested in continuing that conversation.

Neither am I as I said from the beginning there is no way to know.