Paul Stewart: Niederreiter Push Wasn't Smart But Wasn't Dirty

For comparison, Kerry Fraser had a bit of a different outlook on this: http://www.tsn.ca/talent/...major-misconduct-1.395899

Great to see that level heads prevail on this. Thank you Paul for your thorough analysis. You are spot on. Unlike the New York (Mr Ranger and Mr Islander) based portion of the Hockey Buzzcast crew, who had the torches and clubs out essentially calling on a lynch mob to get Nino. Specifically to Mr New York Islander, go back about a year and watch the Islander/Wild game played in Minnesota. Watch the hit that Matt Martin put on Keith Ballard. Keith Ballard has not play since and never will again. No penalty called and no suspension imposed. That one may have raised the bar for all times.

Whether a suspension is warranted is debatable. What is increasingly becoming not debatable is the inconsistent supplemental/no supplemental discipline issued by the league. Take Robert Bortuzzo"s hit on Jaromir Jagr last season. Bortz got a two game suspension because of what the league deemed as a legal check, but interference. The puck was long gone was the league explanation. Last year Letang was injured after being contacted when the puck was long gone. This year Matta is injured after being contacted when the puck is long gone. What is the difference in determining if discipline is warranted? Is it the severity of the contact? IMO this is why the Department of Player Safety struggles to maintain any level of credibility.

I couldnt disagree with this more, Mr Stewart. Whether the shove was a small push or an all out attempt to injure, the bottom line is that a needless act caused a serious injury to the "Defenseless Player". No, Im not one of the Pittsburgh reactionaries who thinks the backup goalie opened the door intentionally. But in a play where the puck is long gone, a player (Nito N. from Wild) shoves an unsuspecting--in this case, defenseless--player who catches his skate and then falls awkwardly into the boards.
The point is, NONE OF THIS happens without that senseless shove.
While hits and shoves happen throughout the game hundreds of times, this particular shove was not a normal part of the game, because the puck had been long gone.
Senseless, stupid acts like this--no matter how harmless his original intention--will never leave the league until the NHL acts harshly on acts like this.
Basically, a needless push from behind --that was not a part of normal play--resulted in a serious injury to a defenseless player. Isn't that exactly the type of play the league is trying to get rid of?

Ever wonder why NHL refs don't get respect? Watch that game and you'll understand. That was a terribly officiated game. Bad calls on both teams and obvious missed calls for both teams. Those guys did not do their jobs that night. It makes the games a lot less fun to watch.

Paul,

I think you are dead wrong here. I don't think anyone in Pittsburgh thinks NN meant to injure Maata, but as you yourself stated, the hit was completely unnecessary. The fact that it was from behind and the puck was long gone makes it even worse. If he's facing NN and has an opportunity to brace himself for the hit, fine. Its a bit late, but that's hockey.

More importantly than any of that is the rule for boarding itself. I'm sure you can quote it chapter and verse, but I will put it here for the benefit of others. Bold passages are my own highlights, but otherwise this is directly from the NHL website:

A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently or dangerously. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.

There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize contact. However, in determining whether such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the referees when applying this rule.

I don't know how anyone can look at that play and determine it does not warrant a boarding penalty. Maatta is in a defenseless possition, skating away from NN and does not have the puck. NN's show propels him into the boards. BOARDING. I honestly would love to hear your thought process when you look at this from the standpoint of the rule as published.

Beyond all that, it was at best, bad judgement on NN's part, and bad luck for Maatta. But its also the kind of play that shows the kind of the lack of respect that the players today have for each other.

PS, I wonder if Olli Maatta agrees with you that the play wasn't reckless. He'll only have 4 weeks of not playing to watch the video and decide.

If that was a Penguin player with that hit I'm sure you would be all over it.

Paul,

I think you are dead wrong here. I don't think anyone in Pittsburgh thinks NN meant to injure Maata, but as you yourself stated, the hit was completely unnecessary. The fact that it was from behind and the puck was long gone makes it even worse. If he's facing NN and has an opportunity to brace himself for the hit, fine. Its a bit late, but that's hockey.

More importantly than any of that is the rule for boarding itself. I'm sure you can quote it chapter and verse, but I will put it here for the benefit of others. Bold passages are my own highlights, but otherwise this is directly from the NHL website:

A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently or dangerously. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.

There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize contact. However, in determining whether such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the referees when applying this rule.

I don't know how anyone can look at that play and determine it does not warrant a boarding penalty. Maatta is in a defenseless possition, skating away from NN and does not have the puck. NN's show propels him into the boards. BOARDING. I honestly would love to hear your thought process when you look at this from the standpoint of the rule as published.

Beyond all that, it was at best, bad judgement on NN's part, and bad luck for Maatta. But its also the kind of play that shows the kind of the lack of respect that the players today have for each other.
- Emperor Filonius

You're expecting an NHL ref to actually enforce the rule book
Don't hold your breath.

Agree 100% with the blog. Pens fans are hysterical, 10 game suspension

I couldnt disagree with this more, Mr Stewart. Whether the shove was a small push or an all out attempt to injure, the bottom line is that a needless act caused a serious injury to the "Defenseless Player". No, Im not one of the Pittsburgh reactionaries who thinks the backup goalie opened the door intentionally. But in a play where the puck is long gone, a player (Nito N. from Wild) shoves an unsuspecting--in this case, defenseless--player who catches his skate and then falls awkwardly into the boards.
The point is, NONE OF THIS happens without that senseless shove.
While hits and shoves happen throughout the game hundreds of times, this particular shove was not a normal part of the game, because the puck had been long gone.
Senseless, stupid acts like this--no matter how harmless his original intention--will never leave the league until the NHL acts harshly on acts like this.
Basically, a needless push from behind --that was not a part of normal play--resulted in a serious injury to a defenseless player. Isn't that exactly the type of play the league is trying to get rid of?
- Amanion

Lost me at the bold...

Also with regards to the underlined, hits and shoves happen many many times a game with the puck long gone, get over yourself.

Paul,

I think you are dead wrong here. I don't think anyone in Pittsburgh thinks NN meant to injure Maata, but as you yourself stated, the hit was completely unnecessary. The fact that it was from behind and the puck was long gone makes it even worse. If he's facing NN and has an opportunity to brace himself for the hit, fine. Its a bit late, but that's hockey.

More importantly than any of that is the rule for boarding itself. I'm sure you can quote it chapter and verse, but I will put it here for the benefit of others. Bold passages are my own highlights, but otherwise this is directly from the NHL website:

A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently or dangerously. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.

There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize contact. However, in determining whether such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the referees when applying this rule.

I don't know how anyone can look at that play and determine it does not warrant a boarding penalty. Maatta is in a defenseless possition, skating away from NN and does not have the puck. NN's show propels him into the boards. BOARDING. I honestly would love to hear your thought process when you look at this from the standpoint of the rule as published.

Beyond all that, it was at best, bad judgement on NN's part, and bad luck for Maatta. But its also the kind of play that shows the kind of the lack of respect that the players today have for each other.
- Emperor Filonius

You conveniently left out the underlined in your bolded narrative. Nino didn't cause Maatta to hit the boards violently or dangerously. The only thing violent or dangerous about the play was the open bench being the point of contact and if you want to hold Nino responsible for an open bench door then you are an absolute fool.

And with regards to the last bolded part, wtf are you on about?

I love the expression every man & his dog is using for this 1 - "that type of push happens in every game a lot". So that type of push that ends up injuring someone happens in every game? Wow I missed that & all the other injuries that are occurring every game.

'Similar' pushes may happen that don't result in an injury may happen, but pushes the same as that don't. Maatta was bent over, & next to the boards when he was contacted from 'behind'.

So just clearing that up ref, the incident was 'late', 'from behind', 'next to the boards', on a player that was 'off balance & unable to protect himself', but it was ok because hits the same as that happen 'all' the time?

And they say the referees don't have agendas??

If that was a Penguin player with that hit I'm sure you would be all over it.
- acdc1206

If it was Downie, Rinaldo or Torres there would be a suspension - sans aucun douté.

So that means there is complete disregard to the action. So new offenders go knock yourselves (or an opposition player) out!

Agree 100% with the blog. Pens fans are hysterical, 10 game suspension

Who is calling for a 10 game suspension?

Lost me at the bold...

Also with regards to the underlined, hits and shoves happen many many times a game with the puck long gone, get over yourself.
- RonPielep

NHL has made an attempt to rid the game of senseless acts that result in injured players, specifically when they occur on defenseless players who cannot protect themselves. Clearly in this case, Maatta is not able to defend/protect himself.
It does not matter that this is a "small shove or light push" the ACT is what caused the player to fall and get injured. And it is not an act involved with the game. Paul Stewart doesnt think additional discipline is warranted, but he does clearly acknowledge that the puck was long gone when this contact occurred. THAT IS PRECISELY THE POINT! It was not a push/shove/check that occurred as a result of playing hockey, it was that "extracurricular" stuff, a "tough guy" taking a free shot behind the play at someone he knows will not retaliate. He was pushing Olli Maatta, not Matt Cooke or James Neal here!
So the perp took a shot at a player behind the play with the puck long gone, and that act caused the player to crash into the boards and resulted in a significant injury. How on Earth is that NOT worth a suspension? Again, it doesnt matter that pushes and shoves and checks happen repeatedly throughout the game. This act occurred when most people weren't looking and had absolutely nothing at all to do with playing the game.

And no one in PITT is asking for a 10 game ban.. we just want some form of supplemental discipline. We are tired of Penguins players being injured on late, after the play hits and the League just looking the other way every time it happens.

Lost me at the bold...

Also with regards to the underlined, hits and shoves happen many many times a game with the puck long gone, get over yourself.
- RonPielep

THey may happen many times a game, but it doesn't mean that it is OK. In fact, that makes it inteference, or boarding, but my mistake here is I'm actually foolish enough to consider the actual rule.

You conveniently left out the underlined in your bolded narrative. Nino didn't cause Maatta to hit the boards violently or dangerously. The only thing violent or dangerous about the play was the open bench being the point of contact and if you want to hold Nino responsible for an open bench door then you are an absolute fool.

And with regards to the last bolded part, wtf are you on about?
- RonPielep

So if he goes face first into the boards, you know that he wouldn't have gotten hurt how exactly? Thanks for that insight Kreskin.

As for my last comment if speaks for itself. The players don't respect each other, and because the league won't come down on stuff like this, and because fighting has gone the way of the do-do, little sh*ts like NN, Marchand, Cooke, Dubinsky et all can run around with impunity.