James Tanner: Tom Wilson gets lightly reprimanded

Tanner I commend you for taking a hard stance and not backing down. I do not always agree with you but these past two articles are spot on.

As a penguins fan who hates most of your articles, I appreciate your honest opinion in this case, even though its against your own team.

James, I agreed with you 100% until I came across this:

They need to institute an automatic suspension for any headshot. You're liable if you accidentally high stick someone, so what's the difference?
- james_tanner1

The difference is missing, at most, 2-4 minutes of a game for an accident as opposed to missing an entire game, as well as potentially missing the remainder of the game you're currently playing in, for an accident.

Years back, Mike Knuble and Brendan Shanahan were both skating backwards and collided, as neither saw the other coming, and they were big men. Shanahan had to stretched off the ice and was out cold for several minutes, and Knuble fractured his cheekbone and orbital bone. But, per this rule, they would both be automatically suspended for the first games that they were cleared for because they both accidentally hit each other in the head.

Obviously this is the most extreme "accidental" head shot in recent memory, but it's also the problem with automatic suspensions for plays like this. But then again, since the NHL arbitrarily removed the automatic suspension of Malkin instigating a fight with less than 5 minutes left, they could always use their God powers to remove these suspensions, as well...which makes the rule sort of void.

James, I agreed with you 100% until I came across this:



The difference is missing, at most, 2-4 minutes of a game for an accident as opposed to missing an entire game, as well as potentially missing the remainder of the game you're currently playing in, for an accident.

Years back, Mike Knuble and Brendan Shanahan were both skating backwards and collided, as neither saw the other coming, and they were big men. Shanahan had to stretched off the ice and was out cold for several minutes, and Knuble fractured his cheekbone and orbital bone. But, per this rule, they would both be automatically suspended for the first games that they were cleared for because they both accidentally hit each other in the head.

Obviously this is the extreme "accidental" head shot in recent memory, but it's also the problem with automatic suspensions for plays like this. But then again, since the NHL arbitrarily removed the automatic suspension of Malkin instigating a fight with less than 5 minutes left, they could always use their God powers to remove these suspensions, as well...which makes the rule sort of void.
- jmatchett383

You've got a point, which is why I hate 'all or nothing' automatically applied rules. I think you could make a compromise where the league has the right to suspend anyone automatically for even accidental headshots, but they can make an exception in the rare case where suspending a player wouldn't make any sense.

Much like how I think the ref should have some discretion when assessing a penalty for shooting the puck over the glass.

James, I agreed with you 100% until I came across this:



The difference is missing, at most, 2-4 minutes of a game for an accident as opposed to missing an entire game, as well as potentially missing the remainder of the game you're currently playing in, for an accident.

Years back, Mike Knuble and Brendan Shanahan were both skating backwards and collided, as neither saw the other coming, and they were big men. Shanahan had to stretched off the ice and was out cold for several minutes, and Knuble fractured his cheekbone and orbital bone. But, per this rule, they would both be automatically suspended for the first games that they were cleared for because they both accidentally hit each other in the head.

Obviously this is the extreme "accidental" head shot in recent memory, but it's also the problem with automatic suspensions for plays like this. But then again, since the NHL arbitrarily removed the automatic suspension of Malkin instigating a fight with less than 5 minutes left, they could always use their God powers to remove these suspensions, as well...which makes the rule sort of void.
- jmatchett383

I think common sense comes into play in that situation, either by the league or the ref. A rare situation like that shouldn't invalidate a possible rule change.

Que the pathetic cries of 'You never played the game,' the sexist cries of 'why don't you play ringette''

Por que?

The Capitals and Penguins play game three tonight.

Oh they do, do they?

I'm surprised he got suspended at all?

Wilson is a head-hunter, and I won’t defend him. That said, the Aston-Reese kid did all he could to serve up his coconut to the wrong guy. He’s regretting that choice now. Wilson has committed way more flagrant fouls in the past, and ZAR bears some responsibility here. You gotta defend yourself. The suspension is excessive. Wilson is being punished for former crimes, and the fact that this particular collision caused an injury.

The only league in the world where the rules completely change from the beginning of the season to the start of the playoffs. It sure doesn't help when a former league official doubles down on that fact during an intermission.

Por que?



Oh they do, do they?
- Murphy_Dump

Oh no is it game four? Somebody stop me!

Totally agree on head shots, there has to be more accountability to the player initiating the hit.

Cross checking is a confusing penalty to me, when and where they decide to call it. Actual cross checks happen pretty much every shift but seems like it only gets called when it's "severe" or causes injury. Sometimes it just seems like an irrelevant rule.

They need to institute an automatic suspension for any headshot. You're liable if you accidentally high stick someone, so what's the difference?
- james_tanner1

The issue I always see is the height differences of players. This kind of rule would basically mean that Chara can't hit like 80% of the leagues players would it not? You definitely want head shots out of the game, but I could never figure out how you account for a tall player hitting a smaller guy. How does he avoid contact with the head?

@Matchette: It's pretty much like that in football, and if the NHL adopted a simalr rule, I'd be fine with it and stop talking about it.

In football, if there's a hit to the head, targeting is automatically called and a review is initiated to confirm or deny whether or not targeting actually happened. The tackling player doesn't have the benefit of the doubt in this case, as indisputable evidence is needed to overturn a targeting call (just like any other call). If the call is upheld or confirmed, the penalized player is ejected from the game, and if it occurred in the second half, he's suspended for another game. After that, the NCAA/NFL has the right to dish out additional punishment.

That's what I want to see in the NHL. I want the benefit of the doubt removed from the hitting player. When a hit to the head happens, I want there to be an automatic penalty first of all (not a huge thing to ask for), and then an official review to determine if the player was hitting high or charging. If so, then they should be ejected (maybe even an automatic one game suspension) and THEN it goes to DOPS for additional ruling that takes into account player intent, prior history, etc...

I don't feel like that's totally out of bounds. It doesn't eliminate hitting and players won't get suspended if the head contact was incidental due to the position the player who was hit was in. But I think as it stands the NHL and hockey culture in general gives WAY too much benefit of the doubt to the player dishing out the hit, and to me that's not safe.

Totally agree on head shots, there has to be more accountability to the player initiating the hit.

Cross checking is a confusing penalty to me, when and where they decide to call it. Actual cross checks happen pretty much every shift but seems like it only gets called when it's "severe" or causes injury. Sometimes it just seems like an irrelevant rule.
- 13sundin13

Cross check to the small of the back...every chance a player gets. I can't understand why it's never called.

Do we all understand that this is a contact sport and when two players engage there might be head contact? Aston Reese did his part, he just ended up taking the brunt of it. Wilson was not thinking I'm gonna smash this guys face in, two players lined up and one ended up getting hurt. End of story.

@Matchette: It's pretty much like that in football, and if the NHL adopted a simalr rule, I'd be fine with it and stop talking about it.

In football, if there's a hit to the head, it's targeting is automatically called and a review is initiated to confirm or deny whether or not targeting actually called. The tackling player doesn't have the benefit of the doubt in this case, as indisputable evidence is needed to overturn a targeting call (just like any other call). If the call is upheld or confirmed, the penalized player is ejected from the game, and if it occurred in the second half, he's suspended for another game. After that, the NCAA/NFL has the right to dish out additional punishment.

That's what I want to see in the NHL. I want the benefit of the doubt removed from the hitting player. When a hit to the head happens, I want there to be an automatic penalty first of all (not a huge thing to ask for), and then an official review to determine if the player was hitting high or charging. If so, then they should be ejected (maybe even an automatic one game suspension) and THEN it goes to DOPS for additional ruling that takes into account player intent, prior history, etc...

I don't feel like that's totally out of bounds. It doesn't eliminate hitting and players won't get suspended if the head contact was incidental due to the position the player who was hit was in. But I think as it stands the NHL and hockey culture in general gives WAY too much benefit of the doubt to the player dishing out the hit, and to me that's not safe.
- Victoro311

I'm okay with this. It's the automatic 1 game suspension no matter how it happened that I have an issue with. If you hit the head, you should be given a penalty, no questions asked, as you're responsible for your actions while on the ice. However, if it's deemed to be accidental/incidental, I don't think being suspended one game is the correct action.

But again, since the NHL basically reserves the right to revoke automatic suspensions on a whim, it wouldn't really matter.

Do we all understand that this is a contact sport and when two players engage there might be head contact? Aston Reese did his part, he just ended up taking the brunt of it. Wilson was not thinking I'm gonna smash this guys face in, two players lined up and one ended up getting hurt. End of story.
- ClaudeFather

No, I'm pretty sure Wilson saw an opportunity to destroy a player and took it. Again, per the letter of the rule book, I don't think it was a charge. But he knew exactly what he was doing.

Cross check to the small of the back...every chance a player gets. I can't understand why it's never called.
- mgriffen

Yeah, then they'll call it if the guy falls in a noticeable way or gets injured, seems so arbitrary to me.

No, I'm pretty sure Wilson saw an opportunity to destroy a player and took it. Again, per the letter of the rule book, I don't think it was a charge. But he knew exactly what he was doing.
- jmatchett383

What is wrong with trying to "destroy" another player? This is the playoffs, guys are trying to hit as hard as they can.

You could learn a ton on how to be a respectable and reasonable enemy fan by following the lead of jmatchett

Do we all understand that this is a contact sport and when two players engage there might be head contact? Aston Reese did his part, he just ended up taking the brunt of it. Wilson was not thinking I'm gonna smash this guys face in, two players lined up and one ended up getting hurt. End of story.
- ClaudeFather

Pretty sure that was Wilson's third hit to the head these playoffs already. At some point you got to crack the whip and penalize the guy for it. If not, he will feel he can continue to get away with it therefore continuing making these illegal hits to the head.

The guy is a bum. And it's pretty clear he gets off on trying to injure opposing players.

You could learn a ton on how to be a respectable and reasonable enemy fan by following the lead of jmatchett
- bochangs

Listen I see it can look like that but in this instance it was a hard hit that one guy ended up getting hurt. Has Wilson lined up guys previously and bundled them from behind? Yes, but in this instance him and Reese both engaged and he ended up taking the worst of it.

Athletes play the game on their own volition. They know there is risk of injury. Until the players, their agents, or the NHLPA start speaking openly and objectively about head shots, there will be no impetus to change. If the players themselves, or their almighty Players Assoc don't care about player safety, why should any fan object? It is simply accepted as part of the game.

What is wrong with trying to "destroy" another player? This is the playoffs, guys are trying to hit as hard as they can.
- ClaudeFather

Trying as hard as they can to win the game, not injure players. The league deemed that he didn't care about the safety of Aston-Reese so he is being punished for it. There still has to be some level of safety out there regardless of what time of year it is.