coda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 9:31 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 9:00 am
coda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 8:46 am
wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 6:55 pm
UVAlaxfan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 1:35 pm
wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:16 am
UVAlaxfan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:05 am
If it doesn't matter it was incidental what does "indirect contact" mean? to me "indirect" means the initial contact was elsewhere and the contact to the head and neck was incidental or not main contact area. This is clearly a discretion / judgement call. So I take issue with both the rule and the reff on this one.
Hockey not a valid comparison. The puck is on the ice not carried up by the head.
it's not a judgment call at all. it's one of the very few contact calls that isn't. it's "if this was first/or primary hit, then it's this". obviously, it still matters how hard the contact was for judgment.
the rules prior were a lot of judgment on intent, which was bogus. the only judgment for the 3 adjudications is whether it's excessive/3 minutes. if i were writing rules on this, the criteria is exactly how i'd define it. the non-releasable aspect is up for debate.
Says it right in the rule, indirect (one minute) vs. direct (two minute) contact. That is judgment. i dont see the full time piece in the rule posted here, but if that is judgment call than even worse by the official.
indirect vs direct is not judgment. it's seeing what you see black and white, like an offsides where a guy touches a line. i haven't the faintest what you're saying. what do you consider not a judgment call? 1 vs 2 minute doesn't concern severity when judging between the 2. it's what/where you saw the impact of the hit happen.
and i must ask... what is your solution? for the refs to use more judgment to assess the severity of these 2?
I have always hated targeting penalty, mostly because it tries to correct the result and not the process. Take the snap shot above. That is an illegal cross check, but it has been allowed by refs forever. That type of play happens 30 times a game at the college level. That hit is almost always going to be at the chest/shoulder area. Now we are saying if you are an inch high on that or you dont anticipate the offensive player changing levels, it is a 2 minute unreleasable. IF you dont want that hit out of the game, enforce cross checking like you are with a stick to the helmet
So...you're saying it is an
illegal cross check to begin with...and it's high and it hits the helmet, way more dangerous than a check at the hip level, which is actually much better leverage...
Not sure what the argument is about.
Clear penalty... don't throw the check above hip level and a foot up, and don't ever hit high...I agree that numerous cross checks are too high, yet not hitting head...and they
should be enforced. Use the butt hand to place pressure, not the crosse.
Just watched it: This was an obvious foul to the head, directly to the head, and with no real benefit other than just a shot at the head as there was no leverage gained at all, just a pop to the head...bad defense.
However, not egregious enough to justify a 3 minute, IMO. But definitely "directly".
Guys are going to adjust.
Play better defense, but the answer isn't to foul if beaten.
I have 2 separate issues with the call.
1. The severity of the punishment. 2 minutes unreleasable seems over-board. 2 minutes unreleasable should be reserved for penalties where players are out of control. If officials are allowing cross-checks as a valid form of defense, than this is certainly not an out-control action by a defender
2. I do not like penalties that enforce a result over process. I have made that argument on targeting in football for years. People have this silly idea that in sports you are can control exactly where you hit an opposing player. Forgetting that a fraction of a second can be the difference between a shot to the chest or neck/head. Maybe the rugby vs CFB example will help explain this issue. In rugby they have wrap rule, which takes things like launching and throwing a shoulder out of the game, because it is illegal to do. In college football launching and throwing shoulder is completely legal, if it occurs 1 inch below the neck. It is an ejection, if that same action occurs 1 inch higher in CFB. That is just asinine way to govern a sport.
All that said, I have 0 issue with that play being a penalty. It is the severity of the punishment that I have an issue with.
On #1, I disagree. IMO, the defender is quite out of control, poor approach and footwork and he takes an unnecessary shot to slow his opponent down because of it. It doesn't look like an intentional, angry desire to hurt (3 minute penalty) but simply poor "process" of playing sound defense. If indirect, 1 minute. Direct to head, 2 minutes.
On #2, I get your argument that the cross check itself should either be legal or not, but I don't understand your argument re "result". If I take a swing and hit your stick dislodging the ball and not hitting anything else, that's not a slash...swinging, missing stick and hitting you in the neck, shoulder...result matters. If I put my shoulder in your chest as you take a shot, no foul, but if I do it after you release, late hit. It's not the form of the swing or hit, in these cases, it's the result. That said, refs do respond to their sense of the degree of control a player exhibits...is it a wild swing, is it a vicious contact that was intended to blow up the play and just missed proper contact? The less control exhibited, the more likely the call, for sure.
I do agree that this does sometimes equate an inadvertent outcome with an intentional effort to hurt, but that's where the 2 minute versus 3 minute versus ejection come in. I agree that the opponent is typically not stationary and indeed can move unpredictably creating that inadvertent contact...but that's still on the defender to control
his stick and body.
Fouls, including inadvertent, will inevitably happen and I don't think we need to blame the refs or the rules, we just live with them as part of controlling the game from chaos....and I'm all for safety rules...we understand much more now about head injuries...
My son played a ton of ball with and against Garett Epple, a guy who played as rough and tough as any I've seen...he was often good for 5 slashes a summer game...slashing guys on the ground he'd already decked...my son, a tender, loved having him on his team...loved the ferocity and competitiveness. I felt the same way about my defenseman in front of me. If they fouled, making a point not to run through the crease, fine by me...on the other hand, I much preferred good defense to begin with...