Red Wings

[Greg H]

And it's odd that Byfuglien did not get penalized for that late hit on Kronwall.

[Rocky Bleier]

At that point the Blackhawks had a license for mayhem. No Datsyuk. No Kronwall. Still, Wings almost beat Mr. O' Halloran and Hawks.

Where's the elbow?

[DanO]

I haven't heard anyone call it an illegal hit except for the Hawks coach for obvious reasons. The refs simply called a foul because the guy got hurt. That's not part of the rules. Total bullshit.

GO LIONS "09" !!!!!!!!!

[Malto Marko]

At that point the Blackhawks had a license for mayhem. No Datsyuk. No Kronwall. Still, Wings almost beat Mr. O' Halloran and Hawks.

Where's the elbow?

I saw (and still see) him leading into the hit with his elbow and this picture the head is snapping back. I guarantee you it is not snapping from a shoulder. His elbow is closer to the chin than his shoulder is and when viewed at full speed, which is where my call is coming from, the damage is being done by an elbow or a forearm. Neither are legal hits.

Point is, while I concur it was not worthy of a major and a game, it is not totally clean, either.

Let me point out that nearly every hit done at this level is rarely totally clean either so the real question here is was this a hit with the intent to injure? I do not believe it was. It surely was however, a hit with the intent to rattle the bones.

[Nick Pappageorgio]

I'm not a huge hockey fan and don't even watch until the playoffs but here's my 2 cents.

The interference call was bullshit, I don't understand how they could come to that conclusion. I'm not exactly sure how they interpret the rules about head-hunting in the NHL.....I don't see any sort of elbow to the head but Kronwall looks to absolutely dropping his shoulder for and impact to the guy's head. If they're interpreting the head hunting thing like QBs in the nfl and any sort of shot to the guy's head is a foul.....then yes it's might be a good call. If the language of the rule is specifically about leaving feet before contact and/or an elbow to the head.....it's not there.

Though I'm never a fan of penalties that are not called after the play, but after a ref's conference based on the outcome (i.e. a hurt player= penalty).

All that being said........it's the NHL playoffs for god sake. One of the reasons I only watch the playoff is because everyone is playing so hard and the refs let them play. I really don't like it when rules are put in place that interfere with defensive efforts.

[chemiclord]

I saw (and still see) him leading into the hit with his elbow and this picture the head is snapping back. I guarantee you it is not snapping from a shoulder. His elbow is closer to the chin than his shoulder is and when viewed at full speed, which is where my call is coming from, the damage is being done by an elbow or a forearm. Neither are legal hits.

Point is, while I concur it was not worthy of a major and a game, it is not totally clean, either.

Let me point out that nearly every hit done at this level is rarely totally clean either so the real question here is was this a hit with the intent to injure? I do not believe it was. It surely was however, a hit with the intent to rattle the bones.

Yeah, that was the image that made me think Kronwall led with the forearm... but when you see it live, and then go frame by frame... you realize that it is indeed the shoulder that make contact first... the problem is that shoulder makes contact first with the head.

The NHL has the mandate out you don't hit other players in the head... either intentionally or not. It happens, it's going to be 5 minutes. Period. No exceptions.

[Malto Marko]

Yeah, that was the image that made me think Kronwall led with the forearm... but when you see it live, and then go frame by frame... you realize that it is indeed the shoulder that make contact first... the problem is that shoulder makes contact first with the head.

The NHL has the mandate out you don't hit other players in the head... either intentionally or not. It happens, it's going to be 5 minutes. Period. No exceptions.

The Zebras do not have the luxury of going frame by frame. They see the way the body is making the hit and the way the person hit reacts to it.

I am not going to argue this any longer but, I do have experience in hockey body language and will tell you the player led with the elbow then tucked it to be legal. Good coaching.


Again, my call comes from the way the hit was delivered and taken. I still would have given him a minor for elbowing and that is all.

Now, if you want to get into hits to the head..........these are called too little and delivered too much. This was not a head hunting hit, but the head was involved in the hit. There is a difference......


....and to extend your period, if it was determined to be a hit to the head and an automatic major, it should have been called as such. Not interference.

[Panoptes]

Wow, the Wings in a controversial situation with "the officials" again.

Go figure!

I saw a shoulder to the head first time, live.

Right call even if using the wrong penalty name.

Hit to the head.

[Malto Marko]

Wow, the Wings in a controversial situation with "the officials" again.

Go figure!

I saw a shoulder to the head first time, live.

Right call even if using the wrong penalty name.

Hit to the head.

Hit to the head is not a Game Misconduct. How can that be the right call with wrong penalty name?

[Panoptes]

Right call in the sense that the hitter deserved extra time in the box for a hit to the head.

Regardless of what they called it.

I didn't complain about the consequences of the BROWN v HUDLER hit. This play was almost the exact same thing, consequence wise.

What I really am doing again is laughing at the Wings fans problems with the officiating.

It never seems to end.

[Greg H]

I haven't heard anyone call it an illegal hit except for the Hawks coach for obvious reasons. The refs simply called a foul because the guy got hurt. That's not part of the rules. Total bullshit.

DanO is correct. Notice that there was no call made immediately after the hit (which was shoulder on shoulder). Only after seeing the severity of the injury did the officials make a call.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Right call in the sense that the hitter deserved extra time in the box for a hit to the head.

Regardless of what they called it.

I didn't complain about the consequences of the BROWN v HUDLER hit. This play was almost the exact same thing, consequence wise.

What I really am doing again is laughing at the Wings fans problems with the officiating.

It never seems to end.

Except that Brown led with his elbow and butt end of the stick, and Hudler was no where near the puck...

Except for that, exactly the same.

[Nick Pappageorgio]

you watch havlat's head snap back again and tell me it was shoulder on shoulder.

Nothing especially dirty or malicious about it.....but it was a blow to the head even if Kronwall didn't intend it that way. KO right on the chin.

[Greg H]

you watch havlat's head snap back again and tell me it was shoulder on shoulder.

Nothing especially dirty or malicious about it.....but it was a blow to the head even if Kronwall didn't intend it that way. KO right on the chin.

OK...

Shoulder to shoulder.

[Nick Pappageorgio]

OK....

you're either blind......or blinded by your love for your team.