Skip to content

Kesler avoids revenge angle regarding Kronwall

Feb 2, 2012, 8:30 AM EST

In the Vancouver Canucks most recent meeting with the Detroit Red Wings, Niklas Kronwall showed why his last name has morphed into a verb with a huge hit on Ryan Kesler. Go ahead and bask in its violent glow one more time:

The Canucks won the game 4-2, but much of the talk regarding that Dec. 22 contest revolved around the big body check and Kesler’s distaste regarding Kronwall refusing to drop the mitts afterward. (Maybe Kesler was really just angry that he ignored Henrik Sedin‘s warning about Kronwall, which Helene St. James details here in the Detroit Free Press.)

When asked about getting back at Kronwall/the Red Wings for the hit, Kesler simply said that he “needs to keep his head up” and then went into cliche mode. (In this case, he went the “we need two points” route, but you can read all about it here if that talk really floats your boat.)

Deep down, Kesler might have revenge on his mind, but letting the game itself get more attention isn’t the worst thing. After all, the Red Wings (69 points) and Canucks (66 points) represent the top two teams in the Western Conference, so don’t begrudge Kesler for trying to eschew the juicier revenge storyline for a drab old clash of the titans angle.

  1. hockinj25 - Feb 2, 2012 at 11:18 AM

    Keep your head up and you won’t get hit. Also, nobody Kronwalls besides Kronwall

  2. ruddigervancity - Feb 2, 2012 at 11:38 AM

    Kesler absolutely has to keep his head up there, but how was that not a penalty on Kronwall? His skates are six inches off the ice before he even makes contact with Kesler… I’d have had no problem with the play if he didn’t leave his feet.

    • bensawesomeness - Feb 2, 2012 at 12:25 PM

      I’m a Wings fan, so i’m a tiny bit biased on occasion – putting it out there now

      There are alot of hits that Kronwall makes that are big hits that are relatively clean – this one should have gotten a penalty

    • chibimike - Feb 2, 2012 at 12:55 PM

      Leaving your feet is not a penalty according to the NHL rules, it is just stupid announcers that don’t know the rules that lead you to believe it is.

      42.1 Charging – A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

      Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

      Notice the bolded line in the definition of charging: as a result of distance traveled. It is defines charging as one player more or less stationary, the other moving. If both players are moving toward each other, it is by definition not charging.

      This is why Kronwall never ever gets charging calls, because the referees know the definition. It is just the dopy announcers and analysts who don’t know the rule.

      • mgp1219 - Feb 2, 2012 at 1:14 PM

        how about “or jumps into” in the first line of the ruling?

      • chibimike - Feb 2, 2012 at 1:26 PM

        The second part of the definition defines when “charging” applies. Notice the second part starts “Charging shall mean…”. So, if a player skates at a stationary player and leaves his feet to hit him, it is charging.

      • elvispocomo - Feb 2, 2012 at 6:00 PM

        The rule doesn’t say, “who skates or jumps into, *more commonly referred to as charging* an opponent in any manner.” It gives three criteria that fall under the charging rule, and then goes on to explain what the third criteria (which is charging) actually means. Just because they named the rule 42.1 Charging doesn’t mean it’s only inclusive of what’s in the second paragraph.

        If if they only defined charging as what is in the second part, why would they even both referencing “skates or jumps into” in the first part? You could be deemed having charged a player by only having traveled a short distance but accelerated the whole way into the player and then jumped at him. It doesn’t mean you have to cross from one side of the ice to the other for it to be a penalty.

        Distance traveled can be mitigated by both players skating towards each other, but doesn’t completely rule it out, but neither is it only if one player is stationary. A player could be skating perpendicular to another or away and if the hitter has to make considerable effort to get to him and make the hit, then charging is possible.

        Granted, if players are standing side by side and one jumps into the other, it’s not likely going to be a charging penalty, but Kronwall comes from almost the faceoff dot outside the zone and makes three crossover strides to gather speed to make the hit. On it’s own, not really charging, but when you add the jump in there on top of him having to skate towards Kesler to make the hit, it’s easy to see why the call would have been made.

      • chibimike - Feb 2, 2012 at 11:20 PM

        So rule 42.1 reads, Charging is:
        1) skating into another player – no, this is called checking
        2) jumping into another player – don’t know what this is
        3) charging – hmmm, charging is defined as charging, circular logic

        Charging is checking, jumping or charging? It makes no sense the way you try to define it.

        Also note, look at Kronwalls twenty or so huge hits like this one. Not once was he called with charging. Do you think all the referees (and the league for that matter) don’t know the rule, or is it possible your reading of the rule is wrong?

  3. mgp1219 - Feb 2, 2012 at 1:11 PM

    typical Cannots…they do nothing in defense of a teammate who was destroyed by a dirty hit. Kessler had to get up and try to take care of business himself. shameful.

    • chibimike - Feb 2, 2012 at 1:29 PM

      Wasn’t a dirty hit, so his teammates did the right thing. Kesler was hilarious with his pouting, “If you’re going to hit people, you better be prepared to fight, wahhhh.”

  4. yettyskills - Feb 2, 2012 at 2:18 PM

    Keep your head up Kesler
    And stop jumping Kronwall

    • elvispocomo - Feb 2, 2012 at 6:09 PM

      That sums it up pretty well. Neither was innocent, and hits [sic] happen.

Featured video

More than a Stanley Cup hangover?
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. S. Crosby (4123)
  2. B. Bishop (3744)
  3. C. Perry (2416)
  4. D. Krejci (2388)
  5. C. Crawford (2364)
  1. C. Kunitz (2338)
  2. B. Elliott (2243)
  3. O. Palat (2038)
  4. J. Schwartz (1814)
  5. T. Hall (1744)