At the time, it did not seem like the right decision. In the dying seconds of game 1 in the series between the Nashville Predators and the Detroit Red Wings, Shea Weber lost control of his emotions and went all WWE on Detroit forward Henrik Zetterberg.
There was a clear risk of injury and the play by Weber was irresponsible and flat out unlawful. If this were a regular season game, I would have expected Weber to receive at least a one game suspension for what he did.
But this isn't the regular season. It is the playoffs. And Shea Weber is the captain of the Nashville Predators.
So the NHL went out and fined Weber $2,500 for the play and announced that it was "reactionary" and that Zetterberg did not "suffer an apparent injury on the play".
Sure Zetterberg seemed fine but what message does the NHL send by only slapping a fine on Weber? Go ahead and punch your opponent in your head and you'll only receive a $2,500 fine? Even though this would be a play that would surely be suspendable in the regular season?
Well clearly not because the same night, Canucks forward Byron Bitz (that's right, Byron Bitz) received a 2 game suspension for a boarding hit on Los Angeles defenseman Kyle Clifford.
So here we have 2 different plays where we would expect there to be supplemental discipline (namely suspensions) for the players involved. But one gets off the hook and I'm pretty sure we all know why.
If Shea Weber were suspended one game by the NHL, Detroit could have easily dominated Nashville in game 2 and perhaps have turned around the series with the momentum they gained. It's not a secret that Weber is too valuable a piece to Nashville for him to miss 2 games.
So now we have more of a guideline for this.
Weber threw a punch (which didn't exactly connect) and then followed it with a shove of Zetterberg's face into the boards.
There was a clear risk of injury and the play by Weber was irresponsible and flat out unlawful. If this were a regular season game, I would have expected Weber to receive at least a one game suspension for what he did.
But this isn't the regular season. It is the playoffs. And Shea Weber is the captain of the Nashville Predators.
So the NHL went out and fined Weber $2,500 for the play and announced that it was "reactionary" and that Zetterberg did not "suffer an apparent injury on the play".
Sure Zetterberg seemed fine but what message does the NHL send by only slapping a fine on Weber? Go ahead and punch your opponent in your head and you'll only receive a $2,500 fine? Even though this would be a play that would surely be suspendable in the regular season?
Well clearly not because the same night, Canucks forward Byron Bitz (that's right, Byron Bitz) received a 2 game suspension for a boarding hit on Los Angeles defenseman Kyle Clifford.
So here we have 2 different plays where we would expect there to be supplemental discipline (namely suspensions) for the players involved. But one gets off the hook and I'm pretty sure we all know why.
If Shea Weber were suspended one game by the NHL, Detroit could have easily dominated Nashville in game 2 and perhaps have turned around the series with the momentum they gained. It's not a secret that Weber is too valuable a piece to Nashville for him to miss 2 games.
So now we have more of a guideline for this.
A) It has to be a suspendable act
B) The victim cannot be injured
C) The attacker cannot be a valuable piece of the team
So now that we have these three things here, let's look at 2 incidences in tonight's hockey games.
The first I bring to you from game 2 of the Rangers and the Senators. Rookie sensation Carl Hagelin gets overwhelmed in a physical contest and delivers a dirty hit on Ottawa captain Daniel Alfredsson.
Well according to the new guidelines we just set, it was definitely a suspendable hit (at least 2 or 3 games for that flagrant elbow), it injured Ottawa's captain Daniel Alfredsson, but how important is Carl Hagelin? He's a first line forward and he really gets things going offensively for the Rangers. But do we put him on the same level as Weber? And we know that if Hagelin gets suspended, the entire state of New York will immediately point at the Weber incident in argument. So there is no real correct answer for the NHL here.
Here's another incident, this time involving San Jose' Shark's defenseman Brent Burns.
This is another flagrant elbow. But here Burns is a big-name player for the Sharks and it turned out that Scott Nichol was alright. But again, in the regular season this would most likely be at least a 1 game suspension.
So there is no winning outcome for the NHL and NHL Senior Vice President of Player Safety and Hockey Operations Brendan Shanahan. They clearly messed up on the Shea Weber instance. I feel they made the right call with Byron Bitz but now they have to face the music with the next two plays. If it were up to me, it should be 2 games for Hagelin and 1 for Brent Burns. But there's no telling what will happen in both of those players' hearings tomorrow afternoon. We'll see if Shanny gets these ones right.
Note: Carl Hagelin was just given a 3 game suspension for his elbow on Alfredsson. In Brendan Shanahan's explanation (linked), he pointed out how Hagelin threw an elbow and was in violation of that rule and that Alfredsson was injured on the play. So the NHL did a good job here not making another mistake by avoiding supplemental discipline just because they didn't give to Weber. Also, considering Burns wasn't suspended, it could be that perhaps the NHL will be using the eye-for-an-eye method and that they may only suspend a player if their victim misses time because of the injury (we see this by the lack of supplemental discipline for the hit on Ryan Callahan (linked) by Chris Phillips in the same game in which Callahan was okay). But the NHL did a good job putting their foot down and setting some type of order.
Just to clarify on a point, if Hagelin had done this in the regular season, he would have easily received a 5 or 6 game suspension. Duncan Kieth and Rene Bourque had similar plays in the regular season in which they blatantly targeted the head of opposing star players and they each received a 5 game suspension. They use a different scale in the postseason because they have a 7 game "season" to work with as opposed to the 82 game regular season. So I think the NHL did a fine job with this one.
Note: Carl Hagelin was just given a 3 game suspension for his elbow on Alfredsson. In Brendan Shanahan's explanation (linked), he pointed out how Hagelin threw an elbow and was in violation of that rule and that Alfredsson was injured on the play. So the NHL did a good job here not making another mistake by avoiding supplemental discipline just because they didn't give to Weber. Also, considering Burns wasn't suspended, it could be that perhaps the NHL will be using the eye-for-an-eye method and that they may only suspend a player if their victim misses time because of the injury (we see this by the lack of supplemental discipline for the hit on Ryan Callahan (linked) by Chris Phillips in the same game in which Callahan was okay). But the NHL did a good job putting their foot down and setting some type of order.
Just to clarify on a point, if Hagelin had done this in the regular season, he would have easily received a 5 or 6 game suspension. Duncan Kieth and Rene Bourque had similar plays in the regular season in which they blatantly targeted the head of opposing star players and they each received a 5 game suspension. They use a different scale in the postseason because they have a 7 game "season" to work with as opposed to the 82 game regular season. So I think the NHL did a fine job with this one.
You forgot about Chris Phillip's elbow as well, which Torts alluded to in his post-game conference.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the point
DeleteAlso how Carkner punched Boyle and that only got him one game.
ReplyDeleteThe point of the article was about comparing hits to weber situation so specifically regarding elbowing so I didn't include the Carkner controversy
DeleteIf you like, i just uploaded a post about the carkner-hagelin controversy
DeleteGreat analysis, but i gotta disagree about the Suspension (length) for Hagelin. (BTW this is more in response to your posts on FB than here, it was just easier to respond here). I'll submit that I agree that Hagelin deserved the major, and deserved a suspension, but I disagree on the 3-game length and even during the regular season I would disagree that this hit would warrant 5-6 games.
ReplyDelete1) Hagelin's hit can't be compared to Weber because it was an entirely different situation, and heres my first point - Hagelin was coming in hard on a classic body check into the boards (more on the elbow aspect later) whereas Weber had clear intent to take out frustration - and (probably) injure, so i'll leave that comparison aside.
2) So, then Hagelin's hit is comparable to Keith's, Bourque's, and Burns' since those three were clear elbows (as in this case). But here I disagree - those three hits are all where there is a clear extension of the elbow from start to finish of the hit, whereas with Hagelin, it's absolutely clear that his elbow is down almost the entire way in to Alfredsson. His elbow comes up as Alfredsson turns and lifts his stick, and Hagelin ends up hitting Alfredsson with the extended elbow. While again, I agree that this is a violation of the elbowing rule and deserving of a major and probably suspension as well - the intent as in the Keith/Bourque/Burns hit, is clearly not there.
1) I have been stressing that to a lot of people that you can't compare the Weber play with this play because A) it was a completely different situation and B) the NHL, in my opinion, should have given supplemental discipline there so it was a mistake.
Delete2)I agree that those other three hits are different with respect to intent (players leading in with their elbow). I still feel that this is a play that the NHL wants to get rid of and this was essentially the case of a rookie getting caught up in the moment in a physical game. I said I wouldn't be surprised with a 2-3 game suspension. The NHL went with the upper.
3) Intent is very important in these situations, as Shanahan himself says. He was recently interviewed on Cisco NHL Live where he talks about reasons for suspensions for goaltender interference (rules that are definitely close to both our hearts :) and he focuses repeatedly on 2 things - 1, the situation of the game, if the player is likely performing his illegal action out of frustration because he is losing, or for some other reason, and 2, if the player has such a history of flagrant hits. Neither of these apply in Hagelin's case - the Rangers were winning at the time, and Alfredsson hadn't done that much in the game to warrant frustration by the Rangers, and Hagelin is clearly not a dirty player. Granted his Majors career so far has been short, but he has never taken a major penalty, and is simply not the type of player to do such a thing maliciously.
ReplyDelete4) Seemingly, the only factor then that is clearly working against Hagelin here then, (as you point out) is that Alfredsson seems to have been injured on the play (I write "seems" because at the time of my writing this, rumor has it that Alfredsson might actually play tonight in game 3...). To this end, I therefore agree that supplemental action is warrented, however, and I definitely respect Shanahan, I feel he went too far. 3 games? And, according to your analysis, Hagelin has become a major part of the Ranger's game.
5) Finally, and I save this for last because I think each incident has to first be inspected on its own in a vacuum (and because, as you wrote, it wasn't the focus of your article), how can Carkner justifiably receive a 1-game suspension, with the Hagelin 3? I'll use two of your points here, that 1-Boyle was uninjured so should warrant less of a penalty, but 2-Carkner's not all that important to the team, so should warrant more time. Slightly tangential - the office that doles out these penalties is called the "office of Player Safety and Hockey Operations." If the focus is on player safety, it would seem to me that prior history, intent to take out frustration/injure, and resulting injury of the receiver should be most important. Carkner falls under 2 of 3 of those - prior history and intent (and it doesnt matter that Carkner is "taking revenge" for whatever Boyle did to Karlesson a game earlier - in fact, I would argue that if that were the case, there is even more intent to injure, and Carkner's play should definitely warrant more time - and as for the NHL being in favor of sticking up for teammates - in the same game, yes, I would agree, but to carry over to another game to take out a cheap shot like that, I would find it hard to accept that the office of player safety would accept that as an excuse for cheapshotting Boyle over Hagelin's hit - a guy with no history and no intent/reason to injure). Hagelin falls under 1 of those - resulting injury to receiving player. As a last comparison between the two, Hagelin's hit was during the flow of the game - Alfredsson dumping the puck, Hagelin finishing his check (albeit illegally). Carkner's hit was behind the play and definitely excessive (continually punching him while hes down, first punch was with his glove on also I believe).
Like I said, I definitely have respect for Shanahan, I just am perplexed (to borrow the term from the official Ranger's response) by the decision here.
3) Like I said, this was most likely a rookie getting caught up in a physical match and letting his emotions get to him. The “situation of the game” was a physical matchup. The whole Carkner-Boyle situation was quite ugly and both teams were physical all night. I’m not saying the NHL saw this as revenge for Carkner jumping Boyle, but the fact that the game was aggressive doesn’t exactly help his case. True, Hagelin is not at all a dirty player and this is what is troubling. I wrote how Keith also isn’t a dirty player and got 5 games but then again, Keith’s play was a tad different (as you pointed out). I know this answer won’t satisfy anyone but maybe the punishment would have been worse had it been a player with a history of illegal hits.
Delete4) True, Alfredsson did practice today with the Senators after passing his baseline test this morning. But the NHL made the announcement the day before and they only had information that was available at the time (As far as I know, Shanahan does not use a crystal ball for his suspensions). At that time, all the NHL knew was that Alfie missed the rest of the game with a concussion and could perhaps miss more time. Alfredsson did not play tonight. But the injury could have added another game to Hagelin’s suspension. As for the major role that Hagelin plays for the Rangers, it’s a bit different than a star player like Weber (not backing up the NHL on not suspending a star player, I’m just saying). Hopefully the NHL doesn’t look into this THAT much, but a player like Hagelin (a rookie who fills the top line and creates space for Richards and Gaborik while adding speed and hard forechecking) will not be given the green light while a player like Weber (heart and soul of Nashville’s team, top defenseman, top of the powerplay, and, arguably, Nashville’s most marketable player) will.
5) So I’ve done my best to kind of back this decision up. I have heard an incredible amount of complaints over the last day from angered Ranger fans (and rightfully so). I felt Carkner should have received about 2 games for the play. My main argument was that the NHL was all for player security. Brian Boyle did jump Karlsson in game 1. The enforcers of the NHL are needed to keep their star players safe so they can do what they do and not get into trouble with the opposition. I think the expectation (and yes, even in a different game. Do you remember all the aggression the Sabres took out on Lucic the next time they played after the Miller-run?) was that Boyle will receive some type of retribution for this. The play was extremely dirty and it was behind the play which makes it all the more unlikeable. This type of retribution does happen pretty frequently except it’s usually not as illegal. Carkner did not throw a punch with his glove on. The main issue was that Boyle was an unwilling combatant and that Carkner continued throwing punches even though Boyle was on the ice. Throw in that Carkner is a repeat offender (in a similar case where he stepped up for a teammate) and the ruling does not make too much sense.
DeleteI think that the NHL viewed this as a normal beginning of a fight. They didn’t look at it as Carkner cheapshotting him. They looked at it that Carkner just began the fight with the unwilling combatant. If that is the case, it makes a little more sense. The NHL saw a player defending his star (which, in my opinion, makes a good case for Carkner. I think there is a fine line between revenge and stepping up for a player). They tagged him for fighting an unwilling combatant. Now I said that it should have been 2 games especially because of his history and his role of being an enforcer on the team. But it appears the NHL didn’t agree.
Now everyone is going to have their own view on this. I’m trying to withdraw my say as a Devil fan and am trying to keep this as impartial as possible. But Ranger fans are going to see one thing and Senators fans will see another thing and at the end of the day, both of them will feel that they are right. Department of Player Safety is not a perfect system and they do make mistakes (see Weber incident) but they are here to decide on plays like these.
Btw, I was not planning on writing about this matter but now that I did, I conveniently turned it into a post. Thanks!
Delete