2020-2021 Toronto Maple Leafs General Discussion

[CarltonTheBear]

I wonder if Matthews' absence is more cautionary than anything else. Keep him out of practice as to not put unnecessary strain on his wrist, but he's still good to go for the game, and such. Hopefully.

Tavares taking his spot makes me think he's probably gonna miss at least a game, but we'll see. If they were confident he'd be playing tomorrow I think they would have gone with a placeholder there instead.

 

[Deebo]

I wonder if Matthews' absence is more cautionary than anything else. Keep him out of practice as to not put unnecessary strain on his wrist, but he's still good to go for the game, and such. Hopefully.

Yesterday Dreger suggested that he might miss practice today but play Saturday:

https://twitter.com/kristen_shilton/status/1365083750573473795

 

[herman]

Vesey falls, this time, off the line up

 

[Guilt Trip]

Vesey falls, this time, off the line up

He needs to have a seat.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Lines at practice today...I hope they give Barabanov a shot there. He def looked a lt more comfortable the last 2 games. I expect Matthews to play tomorrow night.

Thornton JT Marner
Barabanov Kerfoot Nylander
Mikheyev Engvall Hyman
Petan Boyd Spezza

Rielly Brodie
Muzz Holl
Dermott Bogo

Campbell
Hutch

 

[Guilt Trip]

Promising...
https://twitter.com/kristen_shilton/status/1365376086301962254
https://twitter.com/kristen_shilton/status/1365375485534945282

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/koshtorontosun/status/1365378854144143374
Make full coverage mandatory, be it cage or visor/cage combo, and get rid of the silly 4-min penalty for a highstick that bleeds.

 

[Kin]

Make full coverage mandatory, be it cage or visor/cage combo, and get rid of the silly 4-min penalty for a highstick that bleeds.

I really don't get what the beef is with the double minor rule. Like, if it's just that it means that the difference between 2 and 4 is fairly arbitrary and down to chance then, sure, but most high sticks are unintentional and the difference between them hitting a guy and being a penalty at all is likewise fairly arbitrary and down to chance. All it does is just, hopefully, provide added disincentive to be careless with your stick.

 

[herman]

Make full coverage mandatory, be it cage or visor/cage combo, and get rid of the silly 4-min penalty for a highstick that bleeds.

I really don't get what the beef is with the double minor rule. Like, if it's just that it means that the difference between 2 and 4 is fairly arbitrary and down to chance then, sure, but most high sticks are unintentional and the difference between them hitting a guy and being a penalty at all is likewise fairly arbitrary and down to chance. All it does is just, hopefully, provide added disincentive to be careless with your stick.

I think you picked the right wording here: hope is not a plan to protect player health and safety. Pretty much every other hockey and stick+ball league has gone with the route to eliminate grievous facial injuries by implementing full protective coverage. Trying to disincentivize with an extra minor for accidentally making someone bleed is arbitrary as you say, and clearly ineffectual (especially if a followthrough high stick is for some reason A-OK).

Go full coverage, and no one has to lose their career to a freak stick to eye mishap, and the league gets to have more players drawing fans/eyeballs to games, especially when the risk is so easily mitigated. If people think this will give players license to start whacking faces, then refs are still well within their duty to call a slash, or intent to injure.

Side benefit: bye bye fighting.

 

[Kin]

I think you picked the right wording here: hope is not a plan to protect player health and safety. Pretty much every other hockey and stick+ball league has gone with the route to eliminate grievous facial injuries by implementing full protective coverage. Trying to disincentivize with an extra minor for accidentally making someone bleed is arbitrary as you say, and clearly ineffectual (especially if a followthrough high stick is for some reason A-OK).

Well, full shielding seems like a separate issue that I'm slightly more ambivalent about as I think that's a risk players can decide for themselves if they want to take.

I'm really just talking about the high stick rule as it exists and, sure, basing an extra two minutes on blood is fairly arbitrary(although as I said, so is the difference between infraction and not) I think having it there is better as a disincentive than not having it there if you're not going to replace it with something harsher like 4 minutes regardless of blood or a major. Given that the shielding thing is unlikely it just always seems like the people with the issue with the blood rule are arguing for a lesser penalty for high sticking which I don't get at all. 

 

[Deebo]

I'm really just talking about the high stick rule as it exists and, sure, basing an extra two minutes on blood is fairly arbitrary(although as I said, so is the difference between infraction and not) I think having it there is better as a disincentive than not having it there if you're not going to replace it with something harsher like 4 minutes regardless of blood or a major. Given that the shielding thing is unlikely it just always seems like the people with the issue with the blood rule are arguing for a lesser penalty for high sticking which I don't get at all.

I think a 2 minute minor is harsh enough any high stick and I don't think the threat of a double minor makes much of a difference if any with respect to how careful a player would be with their stick.

 

[Kin]

I think a 2 minute minor is harsh enough any high stick and I don't think the threat of a double minor makes much of a difference if any with respect to how careful a player would be with their stick.

I disagree with you on the first point there and on the second you may very well be right but I still don't look as the potential for an extra 2 as a bad thing. Generally speaking, I'm pro-power play.

 

[herman]

If they reverted to original rule of no expiry for all minor penalties (full 2 minutes), then I'd drop the double minor for drawing blood.

 

[Kin]

If they reverted to original rule of no expiry for all minor penalties (full 2 minutes), then I'd drop the double minor for drawing blood.

Sorry but maybe I'm just not understanding something here but it looks like your position here is 1) The potential for serious injury due to high sticks is so severe that the decision to wear full face masks out of the hands of players and have it be contractually obligated for their own safety and also 2) the penalties for high sticking should be less severe than they are.

 

[herman]

If they reverted to original rule of no expiry for all minor penalties (full 2 minutes), then I'd drop the double minor for drawing blood.

Sorry but maybe I'm just not understanding something here but it looks like your position here is 1) The potential for serious injury due to high sticks is so severe that the decision to wear full face masks out of the hands of players and have it be contractually obligated for their own safety and also 2) the penalties for high sticking should be less severe than they are.

Sorry, I skipped the part where I agreed with you that the NHL is not likely to ever implement mandatory full shielding.

Is a double minor in the current schema more costly than a non-expiring 2-minute penalty? I was just saying if they reverted back to full 2s for all minors, I'd be okay with them treating all high sticks as minor penalties (i.e. inadvertent infractions) since the blood drawn is arbitrary; turn it into a major if it was clearly deliberate.

 

[Kin]

Is a double minor in the current schema more costly than a non-expiring 2-minute penalty? I was just saying if they reverted back to full 2s for all minors, I'd be okay with them treating all high sticks as minor penalties (i.e. inadvertent infractions) since the blood drawn is arbitrary; turn it into a major if it was clearly deliberate.

No, what I'm saying is right now High Sticking sort of exists in a weird place where it's not seen as severe as a major but is seen as potentially more serious than just tripping or hooking(hence the potential for the extra two). Saying that if they changed up the rules regarding the full two minutes you'd rather it be penalized the same as hooking or holding seems at odds with your belief that the league should mandate face shields.

 

[nutman]

Make full coverage mandatory, be it cage or visor/cage combo, and get rid of the silly 4-min penalty for a highstick that bleeds.

I really don't get what the beef is with the double minor rule. Like, if it's just that it means that the difference between 2 and 4 is fairly arbitrary and down to chance then, sure, but most high sticks are unintentional and the difference between them hitting a guy and being a penalty at all is likewise fairly arbitrary and down to chance. All it does is just, hopefully, provide added disincentive to be careless with your stick.

I think you picked the right wording here: hope is not a plan to protect player health and safety. Pretty much every other hockey and stick+ball league has gone with the route to eliminate grievous facial injuries by implementing full protective coverage. Trying to disincentivize with an extra minor for accidentally making someone bleed is arbitrary as you say, and clearly ineffectual (especially if a followthrough high stick is for some reason A-OK).

Go full coverage, and no one has to lose their career to a freak stick to eye mishap, and the league gets to have more players drawing fans/eyeballs to games, especially when the risk is so easily mitigated. If people think this will give players license to start whacking faces, then refs are still well within their duty to call a slash, or intent to injure.

Side benefit: bye bye fighting.

 

And then we could call it men's figure skating  NHL style.

 

[louisstamos]

Make full coverage mandatory, be it cage or visor/cage combo, and get rid of the silly 4-min penalty for a highstick that bleeds.

I really don't get what the beef is with the double minor rule. Like, if it's just that it means that the difference between 2 and 4 is fairly arbitrary and down to chance then, sure, but most high sticks are unintentional and the difference between them hitting a guy and being a penalty at all is likewise fairly arbitrary and down to chance. All it does is just, hopefully, provide added disincentive to be careless with your stick.

I think you picked the right wording here: hope is not a plan to protect player health and safety. Pretty much every other hockey and stick+ball league has gone with the route to eliminate grievous facial injuries by implementing full protective coverage. Trying to disincentivize with an extra minor for accidentally making someone bleed is arbitrary as you say, and clearly ineffectual (especially if a followthrough high stick is for some reason A-OK).

Go full coverage, and no one has to lose their career to a freak stick to eye mishap, and the league gets to have more players drawing fans/eyeballs to games, especially when the risk is so easily mitigated. If people think this will give players license to start whacking faces, then refs are still well within their duty to call a slash, or intent to injure.

Side benefit: bye bye fighting.

 

And then we could call it men's figure skating  NHL style.

Enh - there's rarely any fighting in Olympic hockey, and in terms of quality of hockey it's some of the best, because it's the best players in the world playing each other.  That's what I want when I watch hockey.

 

[ZBBM]

Make full coverage mandatory, be it cage or visor/cage combo, and get rid of the silly 4-min penalty for a highstick that bleeds.

I really don't get what the beef is with the double minor rule. Like, if it's just that it means that the difference between 2 and 4 is fairly arbitrary and down to chance then, sure, but most high sticks are unintentional and the difference between them hitting a guy and being a penalty at all is likewise fairly arbitrary and down to chance. All it does is just, hopefully, provide added disincentive to be careless with your stick.

I think you picked the right wording here: hope is not a plan to protect player health and safety. Pretty much every other hockey and stick+ball league has gone with the route to eliminate grievous facial injuries by implementing full protective coverage. Trying to disincentivize with an extra minor for accidentally making someone bleed is arbitrary as you say, and clearly ineffectual (especially if a followthrough high stick is for some reason A-OK).

Go full coverage, and no one has to lose their career to a freak stick to eye mishap, and the league gets to have more players drawing fans/eyeballs to games, especially when the risk is so easily mitigated. If people think this will give players license to start whacking faces, then refs are still well within their duty to call a slash, or intent to injure.

Side benefit: bye bye fighting.

 

And then we could call it men's figure skating  NHL style.

Yes, it's very manly to engage in activities that involve serious personal injury and then pretend like it doesn't matter.

It's long past time to require everyone to wear cages.  They all do in youth hockey, don't they?  No reason not to require it.  All the falderol about not being able to see is nonsense.  Everyone would quickly get used to it and move on.

In no other workplace would this level of preventable on-the-job injury be tolerated.

 

[herman]

Is a double minor in the current schema more costly than a non-expiring 2-minute penalty? I was just saying if they reverted back to full 2s for all minors, I'd be okay with them treating all high sticks as minor penalties (i.e. inadvertent infractions) since the blood drawn is arbitrary; turn it into a major if it was clearly deliberate.

No, what I'm saying is right now High Sticking sort of exists in a weird place where it's not seen as severe as a major but is seen as potentially more serious than just tripping or hooking(hence the potential for the extra two). Saying that if they changed up the rules regarding the full two minutes you'd rather it be penalized the same as hooking or holding seems at odds with your belief that the league should mandate face shields.

Hmm, you are right that is internally inconsistent in light of the valuation of penalties like hooking. It does occupy a nebulous space in the list of infractions: it is usually accidental since the stick is the primary puck manipulation device, not impedimentary of opposing players, but potentially career-ending.

In my brain, majors/misconducts are for injurious intent.
Minors breakdown into:
- illegal impediment: (goaltender) interference, hooking, slashing, tripping
- dangerous and highly discouraged: boarding, hit from behind, headshot, kneeing, slewfoot, high stick
- illegal gamesmanship: puck over glass, unsportsmanlike conduct