OK, so this was coming sooner or later, but I have some issues with this.
Ovie plays a physical, tough game which is part of what makes him an amazing player (besides his startling propensity to score with his butt on the ice). His hit on Jagr in the Olympics freed up the puck and directly led to a goal. Sometimes he pushes the line on his hits, but can anyone say Scott Stevens?
I didn't see the hit on Campbell as glaringly offensive - sure he gives him a shove near the boards, but not head first nor with any intention that way. Even the league has said they have no problem with the check. The suspension (they say) is due to the fact that an injury resulted. Is that really the benchmark we want to use for assigning suspensions? (If so, I would refuse to get on the ice when opposing teams play the likes of Bergeron, Gaborik etc)
Sadly, the league needed to do something to show Ovie doesn't get different treatment just because he's an Art Ross/Hart candidate, hence the two games. I agree any head shots or intent to injure should carry a suspension, but if the check is clean, and a player lands awkwardly and is hurt, whose at fault?
Food for discussion...
D
6 comments:
I actually thought Ovie got off a bit light for this.
Whether the hit is technically from behind or not is irrelevant, it was a classic boarding call, and Ovie is lucky Campbell hadn't pivoted into his turn even further or he would have been head first into the boards.
The problem I have is with the Richards/Cooke hits. In both cases the player leads with the shoulder from the blindside into the jaw/head of their opponent. In both cases this is termed to be technically 'legal', and much ink is spilled about whether this is or should be the case.
To me its obvious these are illegal hits. Call it charging, interference (they have gotten rid of the puck), or just 'intent to injure', anyway you cut it those hits should never have been considered legal.
I'm with Cam here on Ovie. I love the guy and love his game. He's a modern day Rocket Richard but like Le Rocket, he plays on an edge and sometimes goes over it.
I have no problem with the Olympic hit on Jagr - it was straight on and devestating - but this one on Campbell was dangerous in its own right and part of a pattern of conduct by Ovechkin (see Gleason and Gonchar) that should, IMHO, have attracted additional games as a repeat offender.
Ovechkin seems to be benefiting from the Pronger rule (he of the EIGHT?!? suspensions) where one is symbolically suspended "because superstars get suspended too" all the while getting a rar more lenient sentence than were he not a superstar.
Actually,
I thought the suspension for Ovie was right on the mark.
Intent to injure is a rule covered already in the books which why i am still shocked every time i see the hit on booth or savard...without penalty or suspension
Ovie's play is on the edge, which why we all love him but his hits are reckless, but not intending to injure...he even got a major and a game misconduct unlike richards and cooke who got nothing.
As for the Pronger rule - he has gotten away with far worse...
I also think he got off light, but so have lots of other players. Blatant intent to injure should be several games, if not longer.
Hope the new rule for next season is really clear and tough.
well...
if the nhl adopted no-touch icing i'd be happier...
a push from behind led to the end of my junior A career courtesy of mike ricci and i would have been in his draft year...maybe he saved me from being a star or an AHLer...
nevertheless my first concussion...off the ice on a stretcher during a tournament and the end of my junior career...
there are so many dangerous hits in hockey that if one follows the career of many players you'l see dangerous plays...
its the blindsides, hits from behind, headshots etc that need to change
plus the equipment!!!
its now football armour vs what we use to play with back inthe late 80's, early 90's...
Post a Comment