I think that it's completely absurd that White will likely be suspended. In no way was the head the principle point of contact and the hit wasn't late. The Brent Burns hit on vdv was infinitely worse and didn't even get a minor.

ever think about going skydiving in costa rica?
- funmaster18

I've been saving up for a trip to Costa Rica! But then again, I'm prone to neck injuries.

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHERE KENSINGTON IS!?!?
- jmatchett383

in the nicer part of Philly

I think that it's completely absurd that White will likely be suspended. In no way was the head the principle point of contact and the hit wasn't late. The Brent Burns hit on vdv was infinitely worse and didn't even get a minor.
- flyerscup2011

Please begin paying attention at the 27 second mark and let me know if you still think the head wasn't the primary point of contact

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXh_DcxdZ6k

If they can make Scott disappear the NHL can make that happen as well.
- mayorofangrytown

I could care less about the All Star game (yeah, I care a smidge), but the fact that the NHL basically orchestrated a trade, especially one that was made to prohibit a player from playing in a meaningless game, is very worrying to me.

I could care less about the All Star game (yeah, I care a smidge), but the fact that the NHL basically orchestrated a trade, especially one that was made to prohibit a player from playing in a meaningless game, is very worrying to me.
- jmatchett383

Bettman is a New Yorker....what do you expect?

I'm not sure what you're looking at. Every replay I've seen is a shoulder to the jaw of Jurco. It's not a clean hit.
- MJL

The same thing others were looking at, including the NBC team, so obviously what you observed wasn't the overwhelming take on the issue.

I further suggest you read the entire sentence for proper context. If you choose instead to pick only parts of the sentence, I'll try and make it clearer - the head wasn't targeted. Admittedly, all IMO.

I think that it's completely absurd that White will likely be suspended. In no way was the head the principle point of contact and the hit wasn't late. The Brent Burns hit on vdv was infinitely worse and didn't even get a minor.
- flyerscup2011

Just my 2 cents

but White definitely deserves a game or 2, wasnt a crazy hit, but he definitely made initial contact with the head

the called off goal, was correct with the exception shouldnt have been a penalty, it was clearly un intentional and an unnecessary penalty

I could care less about the All Star game (yeah, I care a smidge), but the fact that the NHL basically orchestrated a trade, especially one that was made to prohibit a player from playing in a meaningless game, is very worrying to me.
- jmatchett383

I feel the same way. All of the stories swirling out of this are doing the league more harm than if they had just let the guy play in a meaningless exhibition game.

I feel the same way. All of the stories swirling out of this are doing the league more harm than if they had just let the guy play in a meaningless exhibition game.
- mayorofangrytown

I think it's funny they're trying to erase this one spec of personality at an otherwise sterile tradition. Maybe next they'll cut the breakaway competition, before the humor goes from forced to chuckle inducing.

The same thing others were looking at, including the NBC team, so obviously what you observed wasn't the overwhelming take on the issue.

I further suggest you read the entire sentence for proper context. If you choose instead to pick only parts of the sentence, I'll try and make it clearer - the head wasn't targeted. Admittedly, all IMO.
- 77rams

Doesn't make any sense, how do you know the head wasn't targeted? How is Jurco not missing a shift evidence that the head wasn't targeted? Secondly, I watched the broadcast, and Ray Ferraro clearly called it a head shot. Lastly, and most importantly, replays show that the head was clearly the principal point of contact.

Ferraro said and I quote " the hit is directly to the head, the jaw of Thomas Jurco"

Here is the link, complete with audio.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXh_DcxdZ6k

I think you have to call both plays the same. Simmonds interference with the goaltender certainly was incidental, as was the Red Wings player knocking into Neuvirth's catching glove. The fact that Simmonds received a penalty on top of the goal being disallowed was absurd.
- PLindbergh31

i didn't see the glove interference on neuvirth until this morning...and i don't have an issue with that being a goal, but what is the difference here between that and the simmonds play? both goalies had body parts bumped, incidentally, by the opposition outside the crease as the shot was coming. so a glove bump is ok, but not a head bump? sure, neuvirth seemed to "recover" and didn't flop to the ground, but he was still hit nevertheless. you can make an argument both situations are the same and should be called consistently.

again, i ask, what is the definition of interfering with the goalie being able to make a save? and does it matter where the goalie is or not? if the goalie is an idiot and goes to the hashmarks to make a save, and he gets nudged by another player in the course of the play...is this interference? is he being prevented from making the save because the other team is trying to play the puck? i am genuinely asking here....where is the line drawn?

i still think the call was garbage.

i didn't see the glove interference on neuvirth until this morning...and i don't have an issue with that being a goal, but what is the difference here between that and the simmonds play? both goalies had body parts bumped, incidentally, by the opposition outside the crease as the shot was coming. so a glove bump is ok, but not a head bump? sure, neuvirth seemed to "recover" and didn't flop to the ground, but he was still hit nevertheless. you can make an argument both situations are the same and should be called consistently.

again, i ask, what is the definition of interfering with the goalie being able to make a save? and does it matter where the goalie is or not? if the goalie is an idiot and goes to the hashmarks to make a save, and he gets nudged by another player in the course of the play...is this interference? is he being prevented from making the save because the other team is trying to play the puck? i am genuinely asking here....where is the line drawn?

i still think the call was garbage.
- hammarby31

penalty might be garbage but it not being a goal is not garbage and the right call

the big difference is the glove being bumped didnt play a part in him being able to make the stop

the head hit definitely did, should be no penalty but otherwise its correct

i didn't see the glove interference on neuvirth until this morning...and i don't have an issue with that being a goal, but what is the difference here between that and the simmonds play? both goalies had body parts bumped, incidentally, by the opposition outside the crease as the shot was coming. so a glove bump is ok, but not a head bump? sure, neuvirth seemed to "recover" and didn't flop to the ground, but he was still hit nevertheless. you can make an argument both situations are the same and should be called consistently.

again, i ask, what is the definition of interfering with the goalie being able to make a save? and does it matter where the goalie is or not? if the goalie is an idiot and goes to the hashmarks to make a save, and he gets nudged by another player in the course of the play...is this interference? is he being prevented from making the save because the other team is trying to play the puck? i am genuinely asking here....where is the line drawn?

i still think the call was garbage.
- hammarby31

It's the very definition of what it meant by incidental. Incidental means it did not affect the result of the play. They ruled that the glove bump was incidental, and that it did not affect Neuvirth's ability to make the save right or wrong.
They ruled that the contact that Simmonds made with the goaltender was not incidental, and did affect the goaltender's ability to make the save.

Lots of ambiguity in the rules.

the NHL is anti Philly

I didn't hate that call as much as I hated the scramble in front that Simmer buried. The puck was loose the whole time.
- Flyers1218

i didn't get a good look at the hi-lite there, but i'm watching the replay right now on nhl network. hopefully i can get a better look.

Scrub + flyers +head hit+ against darling original 6 + repeat offender - non injury = 8 games

penalty might be garbage but it not being a goal is not garbage and the right call

the big difference is the glove being bumped didnt play a part in him being able to make the stop

the head hit definitely did, should be no penalty but otherwise its correct
- digitalbath

my perspective, and this may be different than what the muddy, pile of poop nhl rule book says, is that if a player is outside the crease, making a hockey play, and the goalie positions himself there after the fact and gets incidentally contacted, the goal should count. and i'm a goalie. mrazek chose to put himself there. if he's inside the blue, there's no contact. what should simmonds do in that situation? stand there and get hit with the puck? turn around and double check to make sure he has room so he doesn't breathe on mrazek?

on the flip side, i've seen players planted firmly inside the crease, preventing the goalie from staking his available ice, before the puck enters the crease, and the goal counts. no contact. which to me is ridiculous. you have to remain outside the crease until the puck enters.

Scrub + flyers +head hit+ against darling original 6 + repeat offender - non injury = 8 games
- Just5

meanwhile rinaldo got a lifetime supply of turtle wax from the league after his hit on coots earlier in the year.

So today's topic of argument is whether White hit Jurco in the head?

The real problem, as I see it, is that the hit was also late, and, as we see way too often in the NHL, it shows a complete lack of respect for another player. You can talk about how violent the game was back in the 70s all you want, but one thing you didn't see were guys trying to drill one another in the head. White should absolutely get suspended, these type of hits have no place in the game.

Now, as far as the call on Simmonds at the end of regulation, that was B.S. I have no problem with waiving off the goal, Simmonds did make contact with the goalie, and, while he may not have been fully in the crease, he was certainly on the edge. However, I don't think it warranted a penalty as the contact was clearly accidental.

Oh well, any game refereed by Dave Jackson is going to be a horror show, he is one of the worst refs that I have ever seen and I've been watching the NHL for nearly half a century.

meanwhile rinaldo got a lifetime supply of turtle wax from the league after his hit on coots earlier in the year.
- hammarby31

Well I'd like a lengthy suspension just to see what this weal kid can do

meanwhile rinaldo got a lifetime supply of turtle wax from the league after his hit on coots earlier in the year.
- hammarby31

He absolutely should have been suspended. In fact, guys like Rinaldo and Matt Cooke and others should have been banned from playing in the NHL a long time ago.

Well I'd like a lengthy suspension just to see what this weal kid can do
- Just5

So today's topic of argument is whether White hit Jurco in the head?

The real problem, as I see it, is that the hit was also late, and, as we see way too often in the NHL, it shows a complete lack of respect for another player. You can talk about how violent the game was back in the 70s all you want, but one thing you didn't see were guys trying to drill one another in the head. White should absolutely get suspended, these type of hits have no place in the game.

Now, as far as the call on Simmonds at the end of regulation, that was B.S. I have no problem with waiving off the goal, Simmonds did make contact with the goalie, and, while he may not have been fully in the crease, he was certainly on the edge. However, I don't think it warranted a penalty as the contact was clearly accidental.

Oh well, any game refereed by Dave Jackson is going to be a horror show, he is one of the worst refs that I have ever seen and I've been watching the NHL for nearly half a century.
- BiggE

I thought the same exact thing, that the hit was late. It sure seemed late. The standard for a late hit is .8 seconds. They timed it at something like .58, so according to that standard, it wasn't late.

I thought the same exact thing, that the hit was late. It sure seemed late. The standard for a late hit is .8 seconds. They timed it at something like .58, so according to that standard, it wasn't late.
- MJL

Well, you can quibble over .2 seconds, but no matter what, that type of hit is uncalled for.

edit: also the way he exploded up into Jurco was not necessary, a simple shoulder to shoulder hit would have been more than sufficient.