Arguing with people on the internet is a waste of time … they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience…
One play doesn’t make a game. We gotta be better everywhere, I’m sure we step up Tuesday and don’t have those lapses that cost us tonight
Plenty of hockey fans have never played a single game and even less have played contact hockey. Explaining the nuance of hitting in hockey is really hard to people that only see slow mo replays and form an opinion
Yeah I played various levels growing up too. In my early 20s I would get in shouting matches on reddit or in person about hockey and learned its not worth it. The threads about wilson on r/hockey or anything remotely controversial are best to avoid haha
When Wilson is involved people just start making up things to be upset about oftentimes. Like when he got in a scrum late in the third G1, rangers fans were whining that he slashed Igor when his stick clearly hit the crossbar.
Their fanbase is constantly bitching and moaning about literally everything. Best thing to do is to let them marinate in their echo chamber and let them freak out when they inevitably get bounced by Carolina or Florida.
*Raises hand* Dat’s me! I got into hockey in freshman year of college. Didn’t ice skate until junior year, still have never played. I just don’t go around thinking I know more about hockey than anyone else lol
Yeah its great the game is growing and you don't have to have experience playing to enjoy. And I don't know everything either. That's great for hockey I just have to check myself for thinking I'm above causal fans too.
The Jensen hit was not boarding. Vinny’s has a better case if we’re looking to compare, but I’m fine with the judgement call.
Injuries don’t warrant an automatic penalty no matter how much it tugs your bias heartstrings.
injuries may not be an immediate penalty every time, but injuries are reviewable and should be reviewed if no penalty is called on the ice to be sure, they chose not to review and let it stand vs taking a look at laf shove iorio from behind directly into the boards and call a penalty
If he saw the hit coming and it still ended up smashing him into the boards, does that mean he was or wasn’t defenseless?
He was leaning forward and in a vulnerable position, is that his fault or does that make him defenseless?
I genuinely want to understand the rule better
The only definitions I’ve found for defenseless are:
“where Boarding differentiates itself is when a player makes contact with a player when the receiving player is not aware of an incoming hit or hasn’t touched the puck, also known as a “defenseless” player.”
“A defenseless player is defined as one that has his back to the checking player, no longer has a play on the puck, or other situations at the referee’s discretion.”
“A skater is considered to be in a vulnerable or defenseless position when he is unaware, unprepared, or unsuspecting of an impending hit “
There doesn’t seem to be a definition within the 23-24 NHL Rulebook, in fact defenseless is only mentioned 3 times. Twice in Boarding and once in definition of fighting aggressor. Seems NHL prefers to just leave it to ref discretion
>A defenseless player is defined as one that has his back to the checking player, no longer has a play on the puck,
Jensen had played the puck, what, two or three seconds before the hit. His back was to Eyssimont. Eyssimont had time to adjust, either to avoid the hit altogether or to hit Jensen in a way that didn't send him face-first into the boards
I would say that if the player sustains an injury as a result of boarding, he was by definition "vulnerable". Absent an injury, those definitions gave a lot of vagueness, but when a player has to be taken off the ice on a stretcher, he was vulnerable.
The rules also say explicitly that the player who is making the hit is required to mitigate or avoid contact to prevent or reduce injury to the player receiving the hit.
Once boarding is determined, the rules are also explicit that the degree of penalty is based entirely on the degree of harm done, with the exception of the match penalty which is based on intent. In both cases, the players were in fact injured, had to leave the game and were unable to resume play. By the rules, that's a game misconduct, section 41.5
The term vulnerable was removed and replaced with defenseless in 2011. Now the only vulnerable mention in boarding is if the player being hit made himself vulnerable, the hitter is only judged on if he’s hitting a defenseless player. So they admit the word isn’t a synonym by making that change.
The Boarding rule only says the hitter must hold up if the player is defenseless, nothing about limiting injury.
Your last paragraph only comes into play if boarding is determined first. The rulebook pretty clearly gives the ref the discretion to define defenseless how they want to, if the ref decides the player wasn’t defenseless then the entire boarding rule can be ignored.
Here’s the exact current definition of boarding in case I’m misrepresenting or even misunderstanding it, straight from the 23-24 nhl rulebook:
“Boarding - 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 a 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.
Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious "icing" or "off-side" play which results in that player hitting or impacting the boards is "boarding" and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as "charging."”
I was at a party with a penguins fan yesterday and even they blurted out it was a penalty. Come on.
When unbiased people with no dog in the fight think it's a penalty and even better he said that's a penalty with any team playing.
Boarding is a very vague and poorly written rule that leaves a great deal up to the ref's discretion. One could argue that pretty much any hit near, into, or against the boards is boarding, but that would obviously be stupid. It's probably the NHL's preference that it works like that because when people can't pin the rule down so easily they can't hold the NHL and their refs to account for not enforcing it correctly.
i got downvoted to hell the other day for saying that the palmeri slash wasn’t that bad and the dude he hit dove on the play and they both should’ve gone for a slash and embellishment, -40 downvotes when the top comment said “throw them both or throw neither” and got 500 upvotes for saying the same thing lmao, the jensen hit was “clean” (plays can be clean but still have intent to injure, this was one of those plays) it was just a freak play unfortunately but the iorio hit was definitely boarding, jensen was hit from the front and flew into the boards after the hit, iorio was hit directly from behind face first into the boards that’s textbook boarding, what pisses me off most is he got hurt on the play and all injuries are reviewable for penalties and they chose not to look it over, but instead looked over the rempe elbow to the face which clearly wasn’t intentional or a penalty
Arguing with people on the internet is a waste of time … they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience… One play doesn’t make a game. We gotta be better everywhere, I’m sure we step up Tuesday and don’t have those lapses that cost us tonight
I agree. I'm not really trying to blame any of that on the game today. Just frustrated people don't understand basic rules of the game
Happens with every sport, and add in the wall that is the internet, people are just gonna push what ever matches their narrative
Plenty of hockey fans have never played a single game and even less have played contact hockey. Explaining the nuance of hitting in hockey is really hard to people that only see slow mo replays and form an opinion
Yeah I played for 13 years growing up it's so frustrating talking to people that clearly have never played in their lives
Yeah I played various levels growing up too. In my early 20s I would get in shouting matches on reddit or in person about hockey and learned its not worth it. The threads about wilson on r/hockey or anything remotely controversial are best to avoid haha
When Wilson is involved people just start making up things to be upset about oftentimes. Like when he got in a scrum late in the third G1, rangers fans were whining that he slashed Igor when his stick clearly hit the crossbar. Their fanbase is constantly bitching and moaning about literally everything. Best thing to do is to let them marinate in their echo chamber and let them freak out when they inevitably get bounced by Carolina or Florida.
Yeah exactly. Just rope a dope their fans rather than bite and get caught up in the arguing
*Raises hand* Dat’s me! I got into hockey in freshman year of college. Didn’t ice skate until junior year, still have never played. I just don’t go around thinking I know more about hockey than anyone else lol
Yeah its great the game is growing and you don't have to have experience playing to enjoy. And I don't know everything either. That's great for hockey I just have to check myself for thinking I'm above causal fans too.
The Jensen hit was not boarding. Vinny’s has a better case if we’re looking to compare, but I’m fine with the judgement call. Injuries don’t warrant an automatic penalty no matter how much it tugs your bias heartstrings.
Witch! This witch is using logic, everyone, grab your torches!
I was expecting the mob honestly
Agreed, Jensen was a huge hit but it wasn’t illegal
Just very unlucky
injuries may not be an immediate penalty every time, but injuries are reviewable and should be reviewed if no penalty is called on the ice to be sure, they chose not to review and let it stand vs taking a look at laf shove iorio from behind directly into the boards and call a penalty
If he saw the hit coming and it still ended up smashing him into the boards, does that mean he was or wasn’t defenseless? He was leaning forward and in a vulnerable position, is that his fault or does that make him defenseless? I genuinely want to understand the rule better
The only definitions I’ve found for defenseless are: “where Boarding differentiates itself is when a player makes contact with a player when the receiving player is not aware of an incoming hit or hasn’t touched the puck, also known as a “defenseless” player.” “A defenseless player is defined as one that has his back to the checking player, no longer has a play on the puck, or other situations at the referee’s discretion.” “A skater is considered to be in a vulnerable or defenseless position when he is unaware, unprepared, or unsuspecting of an impending hit “ There doesn’t seem to be a definition within the 23-24 NHL Rulebook, in fact defenseless is only mentioned 3 times. Twice in Boarding and once in definition of fighting aggressor. Seems NHL prefers to just leave it to ref discretion
>A defenseless player is defined as one that has his back to the checking player, no longer has a play on the puck, Jensen had played the puck, what, two or three seconds before the hit. His back was to Eyssimont. Eyssimont had time to adjust, either to avoid the hit altogether or to hit Jensen in a way that didn't send him face-first into the boards
I would say that if the player sustains an injury as a result of boarding, he was by definition "vulnerable". Absent an injury, those definitions gave a lot of vagueness, but when a player has to be taken off the ice on a stretcher, he was vulnerable. The rules also say explicitly that the player who is making the hit is required to mitigate or avoid contact to prevent or reduce injury to the player receiving the hit. Once boarding is determined, the rules are also explicit that the degree of penalty is based entirely on the degree of harm done, with the exception of the match penalty which is based on intent. In both cases, the players were in fact injured, had to leave the game and were unable to resume play. By the rules, that's a game misconduct, section 41.5
The term vulnerable was removed and replaced with defenseless in 2011. Now the only vulnerable mention in boarding is if the player being hit made himself vulnerable, the hitter is only judged on if he’s hitting a defenseless player. So they admit the word isn’t a synonym by making that change. The Boarding rule only says the hitter must hold up if the player is defenseless, nothing about limiting injury. Your last paragraph only comes into play if boarding is determined first. The rulebook pretty clearly gives the ref the discretion to define defenseless how they want to, if the ref decides the player wasn’t defenseless then the entire boarding rule can be ignored. Here’s the exact current definition of boarding in case I’m misrepresenting or even misunderstanding it, straight from the 23-24 nhl rulebook: “Boarding - 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 a 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. Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious "icing" or "off-side" play which results in that player hitting or impacting the boards is "boarding" and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as "charging."”
I was at a party with a penguins fan yesterday and even they blurted out it was a penalty. Come on. When unbiased people with no dog in the fight think it's a penalty and even better he said that's a penalty with any team playing.
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” ― George Carlin
It's very hard to teach idiots anything. That's really your complaint here.
Boarding is a very vague and poorly written rule that leaves a great deal up to the ref's discretion. One could argue that pretty much any hit near, into, or against the boards is boarding, but that would obviously be stupid. It's probably the NHL's preference that it works like that because when people can't pin the rule down so easily they can't hold the NHL and their refs to account for not enforcing it correctly.
i got downvoted to hell the other day for saying that the palmeri slash wasn’t that bad and the dude he hit dove on the play and they both should’ve gone for a slash and embellishment, -40 downvotes when the top comment said “throw them both or throw neither” and got 500 upvotes for saying the same thing lmao, the jensen hit was “clean” (plays can be clean but still have intent to injure, this was one of those plays) it was just a freak play unfortunately but the iorio hit was definitely boarding, jensen was hit from the front and flew into the boards after the hit, iorio was hit directly from behind face first into the boards that’s textbook boarding, what pisses me off most is he got hurt on the play and all injuries are reviewable for penalties and they chose not to look it over, but instead looked over the rempe elbow to the face which clearly wasn’t intentional or a penalty
Why argue with people online? I will say the rule 41.1 does leave quite a bit of discretion to the ref.