Prince!!!!!!!

Strome again nice pass!!
- NYI44

Little Red Corvette.

- eichiefs9

That was a great show.

Good board battle, good pass, good finish. Looks like we have a solidified line there. Thank god

I haven't seen the hit yet but I don't think anything you said here really negates whether or not a hit is boarding. Or does boarding have something to do with late-hits/head-shots/hits-from-behind that I am unaware of?
- RonPielep

Boarding is the most illdefined penalty in hockey. It's a total judgement call. Hack the NHL even defines it as a judgement call.

If we're going to start policing where on the ice you're allowed to check and where you're not...then I'd rather they eliminate hitting altogether.

Can't really figure out why you think Cizikas would be considered "stupid" for making a hit there. Wasn't as if Condra had no idea he was coming. That was a textbook perfect hit. The result is unfortunate but it doesn't change that.
- eichiefs9

Still haven't seen it but isn't the bold kinda the point of boarding calls? To police hits that are a dangerous distance from the boards?

That was a great show.
- JimmyP

Strome is like you are not benching me again Cappy. Bailey better sit down.

Still haven't seen it but isn't the bold kinda the point of boarding calls? To police hits that are a dangerous distance from the boards?
- RonPielep

Huh? No..that isn't the point on its own. It has to consider if the player is defenseless, intent etc....

Boarding is the most illdefined penalty in hockey. It's a total judgement call. Hack the NHL even defines it as a judgement call.
- keaner17

Yeah that's fair. I just thought the judgement call was primarily based on whether the player was in a dangerous position relative to the boards, hence the name.

Let's hope they come out if the intermission uncharacteristically strong

I haven't seen the hit yet but I don't think anything you said here really negates whether or not a hit is boarding. Or does boarding have something to do with late-hits/head-shots/hits-from-behind that I am unaware of?
- RonPielep

There's "an enormous amount of judgement involved", which means the referees aren't going to call it unless there was an egregious foul involved with the violent impact with the boards. Hitting a guy clean and square and sending him flying 5ft into the boards is hardly deserving of a boarding call. Had Condra had his back turned and Casey did that? Sure, absolutely. You'd see no argument from me.

It was a good hit with with a terrible outcome. That happens sometimes in contact sports.

Huh? No..that isn't the point on its own. It has to consider if the player is defenseless, intent etc....
- keaner17

Yeah but I still think that's a part of the call (maybe less than the name would lead on).

Yeah that's fair. I just thought the judgement call was primarily based on whether the player was in a dangerous position relative to the boards, hence the name.
- RonPielep

Boarding is more based on vulnerability and if the player had a chance to protect himself.

Yeah but I still think that's a part of the call (maybe less than the name would lead on).
- RonPielep

The name has existed for decades, and had more to do with hits from behind originally. They have allowed judgment to come into play over recent years in response to concussion issues. In those cases the referees are given the power of judgment to determine if the player was hit in a defenseless position.

3 seconds left? We did that?

Wooooo

There's "an enormous amount of judgement involved", which means the referees aren't going to call it unless there was an egregious foul involved with the violent impact with the boards. Hitting a guy clean and square and sending him flying 5ft into the boards is hardly deserving of a boarding call. Had Condra had his back turned and Casey did that? Sure, absolutely. You'd see no argument from me.

It was a good hit with with a terrible outcome. That happens sometimes in contact sports.
- eichiefs9

Yeah like you say, it's really poorly defined. I only really understood the first part. So in this case it really depends on:

i) Was Condra in a defenseless position?
ii) If i) is true, did Casey try to avoid/minimize contact.
iii) If i) is true, did Condra put himself in a defenseless position immediately prior to the check (i.e., check was unavoidable).

Sounds like i) wasn't necessarily true anyways or at least it's debatable and the refs judgement was that i) is false.

3 seconds left? We did that?

Wooooo
- potvin05

Did Cappy really put Strome Nelson and Prince together? I was hoping Quine got added to the line but this works.

The name has existed for decades, and had more to do with hits from behind originally. They have allowed judgment to come into play over recent years in response to concussion issues. In those cases the referees are given the power of judgment to determine if the player was hit in a defenseless position.
- keaner17

Because of the amount of judgement in the call it seems like the kinda thing where the NHL will/should stand by the refs on-ice decision (unless they blatantly (frank)ed it up). So I'm guessing Cizikas won't be hearing anything.

There's "an enormous amount of judgement involved", which means the referees aren't going to call it unless there was an egregious foul involved with the violent impact with the boards. Hitting a guy clean and square and sending him flying 5ft into the boards is hardly deserving of a boarding call. Had Condra had his back turned and Casey did that? Sure, absolutely. You'd see no argument from me.

It was a good hit with with a terrible outcome. That happens sometimes in contact sports.
- eichiefs9

Well said.

Because of the amount of judgement in the call it seems like the kinda thing where the NHL will/should stand by the refs on-ice decision (unless they blatantly (frank)ed it up). So I'm guessing Cizikas won't be hearing anything.
- RonPielep

I wouldn't think so. At worst it was borderline, but I think a majority would think it was clean but unfortunate.

Because of the amount of judgement in the call it seems like the kinda thing where the NHL will/should stand by the refs on-ice decision (unless they blatantly (frank)ed it up). So I'm guessing Cizikas won't be hearing anything.
- RonPielep

He was turning while playing the puck and simultaneously cc hit him in chest with his shoulder. He probably would have been better off if he was closer to the boards but he was a good 5 feet away. Don't see how that's boarding

Yeah like you say, it's really poorly defined. I only really understood the first part. So in this case it really depends on:

i) Was Condra in a defenseless position?
ii) If i) is true, did Casey try to avoid/minimize contact.
iii) If i) is true, did Condra put himself in a defenseless position immediately prior to the check (i.e., check was unavoidable).

Sounds like i) wasn't necessarily true anyways or at least it's debatable and the refs judgement was that i) is false.
- RonPielep

The day a hit to the chest is called for boarding is the day hitting is no longer part of hockey. Unfortunate, but clean.

Hey guys, I haven't read the comments too much, but that was a clean hit

I wouldn't think so. At worst it was borderline, but I think a majority would think it was clean but unfortunate.
- keaner17

"clean but unfortunate" is a phrase a lot of people do not understand. Especially new hockey fans or people who have never played before.

In fact, I think there is a big push to eliminate the existence of this phrase altogether, which sucks because that basically means eliminating contact...

Yeah like you say, it's really poorly defined. I only really understood the first part. So in this case it really depends on:

i) Was Condra in a defenseless position?
ii) If i) is true, did Casey try to avoid/minimize contact.
iii) If i) is true, did Condra put himself in a defenseless position immediately prior to the check (i.e., check was unavoidable).

Sounds like i) wasn't necessarily true anyways or at least it's debatable and the refs judgement was that i) is false.
- RonPielep

Do you have access to youtube? (ie: are you on a work computer that blocks it?), if so I'll post the video for you to decide.

i) I don't think I'd consider Condra "defenseless", although it depends on your interpretation of that term. He had just chipped the puck up the boards and Casey came in and nailed him.

ii) I would not say Cizikas tried to minimize contact

ii) Was the hit unavoidable? I guess not? But in that sense, isn't any hit avoidable?

I don't think it's as much poorly defined as it is "loosely" defined so that referees can exercise some degree of judgement based on the players intent. Did Casey intend to hit him? Sure. But I think the room for judgement exists to penalize plays in which the player executing the hit manages to do something blatantly illegal during the act. The hit itself was completely clean, but unfortunately Condra flew back and the boards happened to be there.