• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Official Ottawa Senators Thread

Sucker Punch said:
Corn Flake said:
Chris Neil getting suspended for that hit on Boyle?  Looked like he should be to me.
Click to expand...

For what?

Not late, not a headshot, didn't leave his feet, wasn't blindside, no history of discipline.

The only way he gets suspended is if you can make a compelling argument that he intentionally targeted Boyle's head in an attempt to injure him.

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obT7dtdXefc

Clean hit.  That video isn't very good, but it doesn't even look like a headshot to me, looks like he caught body before head.
Click to expand...

How was that not a headshot?  If Boyle has a concussion, I'd say it's pretty clear it was.
 
Better view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIzt7xLnKcw

100% clean.  Brian Boyle has 7 inches on Chris Neil.  Since Neil didn't leave his feet, the only way he makes contact with Boyle's head is if Boyle puts himself in a vulnerable position.

If you're gonna cut across the center of the ice, keep your head up.

EDIT:

sE7Y6.jpg


That's not maliciously targeting the head.
 
Not sure if he should be suspended but Neil has been "on the edge" numerous times in last few years and has gotten benefit of the doubt every time. At some point one of them have to be the straw that breaks the camel's back.  It's amazing that he is not a repeat offender with all his crap over the years.
 
There were I believe 5 examples given in the Torres video.  I will bet that I can find at least 5 examples of Neil hits that were as bad as at least 3 of them yet neither resulted in suspension.  If you are going to use history then you should use all history regardless if suspension is issued.
 
Sucker Punch said:
I've never been incarcerated...
Click to expand...

I've never been incinerated...

I think he lead with his hip on a vulnerable player, maybe deserved a penalty much like Staal, though that probably should have been slashing instead of roughing ( if I'm to take the Konopka penalty from last game seriously )
 
Bates said:
There were I believe 5 examples given in the Torres video.  I will bet that I can find at least 5 examples of Neil hits that were as bad as at least 3 of them yet neither resulted in suspension.  If you are going to use history then you should use all history regardless if suspension is issued.
Click to expand...

There were a bunch of examples in the Torres video because he was suspended or fined for every single one of those plays, and being a repeat offender increases the severity of the suspension, not the risk of one.
 
That's exactly my point Busta.  Everytime Torres does a slight head shot he will now get a suspension that grows each time.  Evertime Neil does the same hit he continues to get the benefit of the doubt because he has no history.  Neil has planty of history just the League has never held him accountable for it.  Picture last night's Boyle hit being done by Torres, 10 game suspension on the way.  For Neil not even a hearing.  How can that be considered fair?  Another example is Malkin, he had 2 headshots in one game this week that would have earned Torres a several game suspension.  Malkin doesn't even get a phone call.
 
I just looked at the replay that SP provided with the different angles and it doesn't look so cut and dry. I couldn't even tell if the head was the principal point of contact - it looked like there was simultaneous contact with the upper body and the head.

The league will look at it, but Torts calling it the same as the Torres hit is exaggerated by a long shot.
 
I am so confused.  This hit has very similar potential for injury as the Torres hit.  Because one is technically within the rules and one is not doesn't change the fact that serious injury could have resulted.  You can still get a concussion when there's not a head shot.

The league micromanages hits and then shuns a player who causes injury when the culture and speed of the game all but ensures that some hits will go over the line.  Issuing 25 game suspensions to 3rd line plugs is not going to change the speed or culture when hits like Neil's here are deemed okay.

Violent contact is what needs to be taken out of the game.  The contact should be enough to remove the player from the puck, but levelling a player like Neil does here is just too dangerous.
 
Sucker Punch said:
Manson said:
The contact should be enough to remove the player from the puck, but levelling a player like Neil does here is just too dangerous.
Click to expand...

There's always women's hockey.
Click to expand...

Or figure skating!  Or some other predictable Don Cherry-esque response.
 
Manson said:
I am so confused.  This hit has very similar potential for injury as the Torres hit.  Because one is technically within the rules and one is not doesn't change the fact that serious injury could have resulted.  You can still get a concussion when there's not a head shot.

The league micromanages hits and then shuns a player who causes injury when the culture and speed of the game all but ensures that some hits will go over the line.  Issuing 25 game suspensions to 3rd line plugs is not going to change the speed or culture when hits like Neil's here are deemed okay.

Violent contact is what needs to be taken out of the game.  The contact should be enough to remove the player from the puck, but levelling a player like Neil does here is just too dangerous.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with a clean hit that injures a player.  You assume risk when you choose to play hockey for a living, and one of those risks is that you will get hit.  If it's illegal, it's not something you should be supposed to deal with; if it's within the rules, I don't have much sympathy for the player.  All hockey players implicitly agree to this scenario, I don't see why anytime a player is injured on a clean hit there has to be discipline.  Hits and injuries happen.
 
Potvin29 said:
I don't have a problem with a clean hit that injures a player.  You assume risk when you choose to play hockey for a living, and one of those risks is that you will get hit.  If it's illegal, it's not something you should be supposed to deal with; if it's within the rules, I don't have much sympathy for the player.  All hockey players implicitly agree to this scenario, I don't see why anytime a player is injured on a clean hit there has to be discipline.  Hits and injuries happen.
Click to expand...

I don't think he should be suspended.  The hit was within the rules.

My opinion is that the rules need to change and the general feel of your post will be seen as archaic thinking in 10 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top