Old News, but I need to ask
by Toews-makes-funny-faces on May 16, 2010 6:37 AM CDT
Email
Print
I know this has been discussed, but Willie Mitchell recently blasted our dear friend Gary Bettman and Colin Campbell for headshots in the NHL Yahoo Article. But this is not whats bugging me. So here is a little Blackhawks History with Willie Mitchell for those who may not be familiar with this guy.
In the comments part of the Yahoo article you will find some who think this hit was clean, while others use it as a prime example (and hypocritical of Mitchell) of head shots that need to be banned.
I am all for getting rid of hits to the head, but I feel this is a poor example of the ones the NHL needs to focus on. My feeling is this is a totally clean open ice Hockey hit. Even with new rules in place, this hit should not even draw a penalty, let alone a suspension. I do not see intent to injure, aim for the head, Mitchell pulled his arms in, hit with his shoulder not leaving his feet, and Toews put himself in a vulnerable position. Toews had his head down and was not looking in front of him. These are the clean types of hits that will happen from time to time, it is the ones aimed at the head that need to be dealt with harshly. But I do not want to see players affraid to hit another player out of fear it "may" turn into a head shot, I think that would damage the game.
Don't get me wrong, when I saw this hit happen, I was like how the rest of you were "OH FUCK" and thought Mitchell needed to get pounded back into his cave, but after watching it a few times was, well Damn, what can you say?
So my question to you all, is (I know we have done this already) was this hit from Mitchell on Tazer a clean Hockey hit, or was it the type of hit the NHL needs to the hammer down on?
27 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Charging
“Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A "charge" may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.”
It seems that as Mitchell takes his strides towards Toews, the intent is to check, not hurt, but the force of the check was established from him taking those strides, covering that distance. Not a clean hit from the charging definition in my mind.
I would not call this charging.
Mitchell was flat foot the entire time in camera, >20’ feet of travel at least. He was not making strides, so I do not see how it could be charging. He was skating toward Toews with existing momentum (which was not too much really) not striding though, and got in position to deliver a check. If Toews had realized Mitchell was there, he could have easily missed being hit, but if Mitchell was striding to Toews, Toews would have been leveled either way which would make it a charge.
Get off my Land!
ART.I§8-11; AM I-XXVII
James Madison is my Hero!
by Toews-makes-funny-faces on May 16, 2010 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm with you on this
as I think most people are. It was a horribly violent hit, but absolutely clean. The only thing I can see is if the NHL comes down on this as a blindside hit, since Toews wasn’t looking in Mitchell’s direction. Personally, this type of hit makes me cringe, but that’s kind of the point.
Henrik looks pissed, too, that they blew the whistle on his break-away.
(170 g) * (3x10^8 m/s)^2 = 1.5x10^16 J
I have no problem with the hit itself (except that it sucked)
but there should be some kind of better indication of when a penalty is over and a player is exiting the box.
Well, folks, I want to thank you for being here for the recording of my live comedy album. Funny material and laughter will be dubbed in later.
by ChicagoNativeSon on May 16, 2010 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions
I think someone mentioned
that the PP goalie usually watches the clock and whacks his stick on the ice to signal to the his team what’s going on.
Watch it with the jinxing!
Time for some thrillin' heroics!
Except the PP goalie in this case
had to be in the crease, because the puck was in the Hawks zone. They usually only do that when the play is in the offensive zone. The real problem with this play was Versteeg passing to Toews. He had a clear view of the box before the pass and should have put two and two together (similar, although more egregious, to the pass that led to Campbell destroying Umberger, which was linked in a different fanpost).
(170 g) * (3x10^8 m/s)^2 = 1.5x10^16 J
This was not charging - not at all (nor was it anything else illegal)
Mitchell didn’t drive into him, didn’t leave his feet, had the arms down (no elbow or hands to the head) – it was a clean hit that just happened to be blindside as Toews was looking back to catch a pass.
Mitchell could probably have done much worse and stayed within the realm of legal.
Confusion will be my epitaph.
You’re not responding to me, right? This is some sort of reply fail. Because I wrote that it was completely clean, and the fault lies with Versteeg.
(170 g) * (3x10^8 m/s)^2 = 1.5x10^16 J
Okay
Maybe even after all this time, I’m making knee-jerk reactions. Combined with watching the video again, and your reply, I’m willing to change my opinion. I am not seeing any strides as he approaches Toews, I was wrong. I also mentioned something to a friend and he told me with my interpretation of the charging rule that 80% (he was pulling that number out of no where) of checks would be deemed charging. I thought about that a little and again realized I am incorrect. Maybe it was the whole season flashing before my eyes again that made me jump to conclusions.
I thought it 90%
or did I just make that up?
Get off my Land!
ART.I§8-11; AM I-XXVII
James Madison is my Hero!
by Toews-makes-funny-faces on May 16, 2010 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions
wrong!
it’s 78%. Unround numbers are more credible (at least for 92% of the population.)
Gentlemen! I have invented...this thing!
my interpretation of the charging rule that 80% of checks would be deemed charging.
Pierre Pilote and Glen Hall don’t watch hockey anymore because they think most checks in the modern game ARE charging penalties. The rest they think are boarding…
The danger of that play was coming out of the box. You get a running start then take two strides and you can cover a lot of ice. People talk about Toews having his head down but when you look at the rink and nobody is there you can put you head down. Then somebody appears out of nowhere (the box) and you aren’t prepared.
that's why your teammates are supposed to be telling you stuff like that!
Confusion will be my epitaph.
I agree TMFF
I hated seeing the Captain get labeled like that, but it was a clean hit and I don’t believe it was charging either.
Captain
wont be skating with his head down anymore
Hossa's Attorney says:
TAKE OFF THOSE CLOWN SHOES OR I WILL SHOOT THIS DOG!
I consider this a "Legal" hit
but I’ll never say it was clean. When a player gets that kind of momentum to line up a hit and follows through the way Mitchell did (legally high), the player on the receiving end is going to end up with scrambled gray matter. I don’t know what kind of rule changes the NHL can make. I’d start off with a Roughing penalty. Another thing that I didn’t like on this hit was the way Mitchell’s stick was up in the air. I know his stick didn’t hit Toews but I find it careless that it raised. To me, it’s also an indication of how hard he wanted to follow through with the check which in my opinion showed his intent to injure.
Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'Sir' without adding, 'You're making a scene."
i agree with you
it was a legal hit, but it was dirty and i don’t recall but i’m sure there was a lot of retatliation from the hawks on this which is fair cuz you gotta stick up for your captain
Col
I see this as an unavoidable part of having a real contact sport - and not something that could be removed without undoing the game
Confusion will be my epitaph.
I still think that the rules
can be modified so that if a player has his stick up on an open ice hit he should be penalized. When a player keeps his stick at a normal level, the point of impact on the other player is lower than when the stick is up. While I know I would never survive a hit this hard, I’d much rather take it in the chest than the head.
Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'Sir' without adding, 'You're making a scene."
His stick was down before the hit. The motion of the hit brought it up. You can’t penalize someone for having their body do what a body naturally does.
(170 g) * (3x10^8 m/s)^2 = 1.5x10^16 J
I'm referring to his left side
If Mitchell keeps his left arm down the power of his hit would not be so high. When it is high he is able to hit more power with his shoulder. I’m not sure if I’m explaining it right. Try doing the two methods and I think you’d be able to understand it more than I can explain it.
Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'Sir' without adding, 'You're making a scene."
I agree
Hockey is a contact sport which at times has violent collisions. You can’t legislate that out of the game without turning hockey into curling.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- The Chicago Blackhawks’ seven-game losing streak is bad for everybody
- According to NHL, here’s why Dominic Moore escaped suspension for Fedotenko hit
- How Mats Sundin’s no-trade clause controversy made fans reconsider loyalty in NHL
- Nordiques Nation invades Hockey Day in Canada
- Youth hockey coach, parents clash over alleged tirade over 9-year old’s 200th goal puck
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
