Comments on: Ducks’ Perry suspended four games for ‘violent check’

By: wannabebluesplayer

wannabebluesplayer — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:33:58 +0000

This is the same kind of hit that happened to tarasenko and Olver wasn’t suspended. I don’t understand the NHL’s reasoning ever.

By: woodstakes

woodstakes — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 04:49:48 +0000

As a Wild fan you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!! The hit was very similar to the hit Coyle made on Stajan, but as you pointed out, Stajan although stunned, pretty much got up and skated off all on his own. He did go back to the locker room and did return later on in the game, but irregardless they should have been judged EXACTLY the same way!! They both received majors (if I remember correctly on the Coyle hit) but, Coyle was not given a game nor was he suspended.

As country bear stated earlier, they need to take the injury factor out of it. Start suspending for the hit, not the result. If they set a precedent that hits like this equal 4-6 games for first offenders would be great. If they want to tack on extra time for repeat offenders that’s ok, even tacking on if the player is injured is ok… AS LONG AS THEY STAY CONSISTENT!! The bottom line is players will play to the edge of the rules and when they are looking to make a hit and realize they will lose $100k for it, you know they will learn to back off. But as long as they keep doing it they way they are doing it all the players need to think is “Well, as long as I don’t hurt him I’ll be fine!” and that’s CLEARLY not working!!

By: sabatimus

sabatimus — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:43:13 +0000

I don’t know why the NHL continues to factor in injury or lack thereof. It’s like they’re saying “oh, it’s really ok as long as they didn’t get hurt”. What are they waiting for? A death on the ice?

By: greenmtnboy31

greenmtnboy31 — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:23:24 +0000

True dat, with a clown as the Commissioner.

By: vstar1us

vstar1us — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:16:44 +0000

I think it is enough, as a Wild fan just hate seeing dirty hits!

By: lordfletcher

lordfletcher — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 01:29:20 +0000

It would have been a 5 minute penalty just like the Coyle hit at minimum. Never would have been only a two.

The issue is basing penalties / suspensions off of injuries. A resulting injury should have no impact in an illegal check. A hit to the head on one skater is different to the next and a fraction of an inch can make all the difference but the fact still remains.

By: atwatercrushesokoye

atwatercrushesokoye — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:21:44 +0000

I 100% agree! A month ago (or so) a Wild player hit Matt Stajan late (hit was at the goal line, puck was at the blue line) and led with his shoulder to Stajan’s head, it was exactly the type of hit they say they want to get out of the game but because Stajan was able to skate off on his own and came back later in the game the NHL felt there was no further penalty warranted.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fR8WBQjhs0s

By: atwatercrushesokoye

atwatercrushesokoye — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:17:06 +0000

That’s the NHL though, punish the result not the action. If the Wild player gets up quickly and skates off on his own then this wouldn’t have been a suspension, and I think we can all agree that this hit deserved punishment.

By: craigmaitland

craigmaitland — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:50:37 +0000

If the player skates away there is no suspension. NHL is run by monkeys.

By: DonkeyStick

DonkeyStick — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:22:25 +0000

Not a fan of either team so I have no “homer” opinion…..I thought it was late and clearly interference but if Zucker gets right up there is no suspension. He was given a two minute penalty until refs saw how injured he was. Not a fan of the injury dictating the suspension.

By: thraiderskin

thraiderskin — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:00:43 +0000

It seemed pretty bad to me… He must feel pretty tough blindsiding a guy (quite smaller than him) while HE(Zucker) is actually playing hockey.

By: eigglesnosuperbowls

eigglesnosuperbowls — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:47:14 +0000

Dirtiest hit I seen all year this was a 10 gamer easy !

By: ibieiniid

ibieiniid — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:48:41 +0000

right in the crux of my fantasy season… sigh.

By: kopy

kopy — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:30:19 +0000

You’re right. Bringing up the “injury” aspect is a dangerous road to travel. The explanation would have been complete without it. They already had the 1 second window, significant head contact, and prior history angles. Oh well, moving on…

By: thehighcountrybear

thehighcountrybear — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:22:28 +0000

Sounds about right…the concussion and prior history appear more important than the deed itself…?A penalty system based on lagging indicators will never serve as a deterrent, end of story! One would hope the ‘one second window’ defining a legitimate hit will apply across all contact, regardless of the outcome…

By: kopy

kopy — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:21:52 +0000

Well, it’s in line with what anybody rational expected both in the length of the suspension and Rob Blake’s explanation.