Vilmanis went for the full Kronwall launch. The only thing he has going for him is that he stopped his momentum towards McAvoy before the hit. Still really bad.
Fans that already angry hear specific rulebook phrasing or additional context they don't like/understand (especially regarding checks to the head) and just want to argue about it emotionally instead of actually processing what you said.
Sadly very few people are going to respond properly to this follow up and just stay mad on the original video without hearing you correctly.
I'm curious just because I don't think you mentioned in either video. Do you think it should have been a major? Is the reason it wasn't, because there was no or little head contact and I think they can't change the penalty to charging during the review? I'm not sure why other viewers took what you said the wrong way honestly, I thought you were clear in the original video. They must have only listened to the first 10 seconds before you finished your thought
Both are good, clean checks. In Stank's case, he has his head down, he's leaning. If he is upright with his head up he takes Wilson's shoulder to the chest and this discussion doesn't take place.
Absolutely nothing wrong with the Vilmanis check: he's not even moving when contact is made. It's more like McAvoy ran into him. Why there's even a discussion is beyond me. The elbow wasn't thrown at Mac: it comes up as a result of contact. Mac's coconut just happens to occupy the same space. It's incidental to the check.
This nonsense about "poor angle of approach" needs to stop. This is a speed game taking place on ice and players should not be expected to have an internal GPS calculating angles and velocity and all the rest of that rot. Stuff happens in fractions of a second. This nitpicking on physics and geometry is ridiculous. When I played, we were told to always take the shortest route to the puck or puck carrier: we were not told to break out a compass and graph paper and put Pythagoras into operation.
Likewise, referees are not computers on skates and since they are part of the playing surface and dodging sticks, pucks, skates and players, like everyone else, we can forgive them missing something that appears egregious with the benefits of super-slow-mo and hindsight a day after it happens.
The problem is this: the modern hockey player has not been taught how to protect himself from these kinds of hits for nearly two decades, now. We're a "puck possession" and skill/speed game now, and players first responsibility is to protect the PUCK and not THEMSELVES. THIS IS POOR COACHING, the sort they've gotten all along their way to the NHL. You see this all the time when players suddenly turn face-first to the boards to maintain possession and then get drilled in the back from a guy already on the tracks. TAKE THE HIT to make the play, don't depend on the referees to protect you and the extra power play you might draw is not worth future CTE. Dissecting it all in terms of directions, angles, and pinpointing initial contact is bordering upon either anal-retentive or delusional. We will never achieve PERFECT.. It just doesn't work that way.
There is no need to talk of suspension in either of these cases.
The fact that you believe you need to clarify your remarks is just an example of splitting the hair even finer. You have a great feed here, so the criticism is not about the content so much as it is about the repetitious nature of the two or three points you keep making in circumstances where they don't apply.
No player extends his elbow toward another players head in an effort to defend themselves. They tuck their shoulder and arm in. Good grief. You understand the hit deserves suspension, but use language that absolves the player of any intent. I don't think he found himself in the way and tried to defend himself against a player returning from a head injury. I just don't. Sure, four games, good enough for me. I agree with that. I just think it's sinister, not circumstantial.
11 Comments
an ‘oh no’ moment? come on dude
Vilmanis went for the full Kronwall launch. The only thing he has going for him is that he stopped his momentum towards McAvoy before the hit. Still really bad.
Fans that already angry hear specific rulebook phrasing or additional context they don't like/understand (especially regarding checks to the head) and just want to argue about it emotionally instead of actually processing what you said.
Sadly very few people are going to respond properly to this follow up and just stay mad on the original video without hearing you correctly.
I'm curious just because I don't think you mentioned in either video. Do you think it should have been a major? Is the reason it wasn't, because there was no or little head contact and I think they can't change the penalty to charging during the review? I'm not sure why other viewers took what you said the wrong way honestly, I thought you were clear in the original video. They must have only listened to the first 10 seconds before you finished your thought
Sure, most people agree Wilson should probably get a suspension about every 3rd game
All shoulder
Hey @toughcall, really appreciate you taking the time to break down plays and rules in your videos. Hats off to you mate💯
Both are good, clean checks. In Stank's case, he has his head down, he's leaning. If he is upright with his head up he takes Wilson's shoulder to the chest and this discussion doesn't take place.
Absolutely nothing wrong with the Vilmanis check: he's not even moving when contact is made. It's more like McAvoy ran into him. Why there's even a discussion is beyond me. The elbow wasn't thrown at Mac: it comes up as a result of contact. Mac's coconut just happens to occupy the same space. It's incidental to the check.
This nonsense about "poor angle of approach" needs to stop. This is a speed game taking place on ice and players should not be expected to have an internal GPS calculating angles and velocity and all the rest of that rot. Stuff happens in fractions of a second. This nitpicking on physics and geometry is ridiculous. When I played, we were told to always take the shortest route to the puck or puck carrier: we were not told to break out a compass and graph paper and put Pythagoras into operation.
Likewise, referees are not computers on skates and since they are part of the playing surface and dodging sticks, pucks, skates and players, like everyone else, we can forgive them missing something that appears egregious with the benefits of super-slow-mo and hindsight a day after it happens.
The problem is this: the modern hockey player has not been taught how to protect himself from these kinds of hits for nearly two decades, now. We're a "puck possession" and skill/speed game now, and players first responsibility is to protect the PUCK and not THEMSELVES. THIS IS POOR COACHING, the sort they've gotten all along their way to the NHL. You see this all the time when players suddenly turn face-first to the boards to maintain possession and then get drilled in the back from a guy already on the tracks. TAKE THE HIT to make the play, don't depend on the referees to protect you and the extra power play you might draw is not worth future CTE. Dissecting it all in terms of directions, angles, and pinpointing initial contact is bordering upon either anal-retentive or delusional. We will never achieve PERFECT.. It just doesn't work that way.
There is no need to talk of suspension in either of these cases.
The fact that you believe you need to clarify your remarks is just an example of splitting the hair even finer. You have a great feed here, so the criticism is not about the content so much as it is about the repetitious nature of the two or three points you keep making in circumstances where they don't apply.
The hit catches a lot of core in the sense that if you leap to hit somebody in the head the lower part of your body will contact their core, yes.
No player extends his elbow toward another players head in an effort to defend themselves. They tuck their shoulder and arm in. Good grief. You understand the hit deserves suspension, but use language that absolves the player of any intent. I don't think he found himself in the way and tried to defend himself against a player returning from a head injury. I just don't. Sure, four games, good enough for me. I agree with that. I just think it's sinister, not circumstantial.
He is going to have a field day with videos from the latest battle for Florida game lol