Jeff Quirin: Lunch Bites: To respond or not to respond? Lunch Bites is a lunch sized portion of St. Louis Blues opinions, news, and analysis. Today the hit Vladimir Sobotka sustained and subsequent response are on the menu. Quick Hits include the latest round of players sent packing from training camp.

Fans wanting payback are missing a few things.

To start off with, they didn't see the actual hit. I don't want every hit to then need payback, as the Blues are a team that loves to dish out hits. As long as there wasn't head-hunting going on, this is a non-story drummed up by a bunch of fans that didn't see the game.

Next, this is a preseason game. Do you really want to run around looking for payback, or do you want to see the guys play hockey and evaluate them? Not only preseason, but also against a team you will rarely see. And the guy that made the hit is not likely going to be on the roster either. Is it worth it for Chris Stewart to go after him? No. Do you really want (name any guy not making the team) to go out there and just look to get even? No. Now if it really was a dirty hit with intent to hit him in the head, I could see someone on the ice at the time of the hit going after him to let him know that is not acceptable. But after the fact on another shift? No.

There needs to be a response by the Blues. Sure, plenty of people haven't seen the hit, but heard it called on the radio, heard players call it a straight shot to the head, and heard Hitchcock agree there should have been a response, something he typically doesn't say in situations where fans call for it. Didn't have to be a fight, but the kid should have had someone in his face the rest of the game, at a minimum.

If the kid is old enough to play in the league, he is old enough to be responsible for his actions.

And what you didn't mention, but needs to be... fans feel like the Blues have to police for themselves. Ever since Shanahan was run out of town in disgrace for having an affair with another players wife, there has been a perceived bias in his dealings with the Blues. Right or wrong, fans don't expect any support from the league. They see a blindside hit with the head being the primary point of contact, exactly what the league claims to be wanting to eliminate, let slide. (Olver on Tarasenko). The prevailing thought is: the league refuses to protect the Blues. So we can protect ourselves, or keep getting headshot. It's time to send a message.

Fans wanting payback are missing a few things.

To start off with, they didn't see the actual hit. I don't want every hit to then need payback, as the Blues are a team that loves to dish out hits. As long as there wasn't head-hunting going on, this is a non-story drummed up by a bunch of fans that didn't see the game.

Next, this is a preseason game. Do you really want to run around looking for payback, or do you want to see the guys play hockey and evaluate them? Not only preseason, but also against a team you will rarely see. And the guy that made the hit is not likely going to be on the roster either. Is it worth it for Chris Stewart to go after him? No. Do you really want (name any guy not making the team) to go out there and just look to get even? No. Now if it really was a dirty hit with intent to hit him in the head, I could see someone on the ice at the time of the hit going after him to let him know that is not acceptable. But after the fact on another shift? No.
- carcus

If you didn't see the hit, you have no basis for calling it a non-story while people who did see the hit say there needed to be retribution. ( People like Hitchcock.)

Next, exactly; it's a preseason game. This is exactly the time to go after people and establish there will be payback for hits that are perceived by the team as being a "straight shot to the head." (As Stewart said it was.)

Good read Jeff

Fans wanting payback are missing a few things.

To start off with, they didn't see the actual hit. I don't want every hit to then need payback, as the Blues are a team that loves to dish out hits. As long as there wasn't head-hunting going on, this is a non-story drummed up by a bunch of fans that didn't see the game.

Next, this is a preseason game. Do you really want to run around looking for payback, or do you want to see the guys play hockey and evaluate them? Not only preseason, but also against a team you will rarely see. And the guy that made the hit is not likely going to be on the roster either. Is it worth it for Chris Stewart to go after him? No. Do you really want (name any guy not making the team) to go out there and just look to get even? No. Now if it really was a dirty hit with intent to hit him in the head, I could see someone on the ice at the time of the hit going after him to let him know that is not acceptable. But after the fact on another shift? No.
- carcus

Yeah I agree...you're not sending anyone a "message" during preseason when you're not going to be playing said team often anyways...

This is exactly why being forced to dress 8 roster players is stupid. This 18 year old idiot probably won't see any kind of discipline, and because of his stupid "mistake", we may be without Sobotka for a prolonged period of time. Let the prospects play the prospects so that stupid stuff like this won't happen. These kids aren't experienced enough to be put out there with vets.

I can't speak specifically about this hit because I haven't seen it.

But in general, if a situation like this occurs and I believe the hit to be dirty - I would have a hard time jumping an 18-year old kid but I would have no issue laying the wood to a veteran and then sending him back to the bench with the message that he needs to keep his children in line.

Then its dealt with internally.

I'm with waiting to see the hit before I come to a conclusion about what on ice reaction there should have been. Having said that, my interpretation of Hitchcock's comments make me wonder if I would likely conclude that more should have been done. Of course, the "more" can vary.

To me, the bigger problem I have is with Stewart's comments (It's an 18 yr old kid (Erne). I don't know how it's going to look when one of our heavies goes out there and tries to attack him.) I just don't see an upside to making that comment even if you believe it any context.

- If it was a dirty hit, his age should have nothing to do about the consequences.
- If it was a dirty hit, immediate consequences should be made as there is a deterrent aspect to such actions. It impacts reputations, how other teams view you and play, etc. Reputations get around even in our beer league hockey.
- if it was a clean hit, it's a clean hit and shouldn't warrant a huge response. Of course, if I am a player and really think this, nobody would know as I would basically lie and say I didn't see the hit from my vantage point and that my concern only lies with my teammate.
- It's almost like he made the statement to protect the team from public opinion. He doesn't need to explain anything for anyone to the media and fans. Who cares what we think? The team's reaction or lack there of to the hit is an internal matter that needs to get resolved (supposedly has been according to Hitchcock).
- The last sentence he made should have only been for sobi, hitch and his other teammates ears.
- He could have said something like. "Erne is an 18-year old kid. He has a lot to learn in this game starting with respecting the players more." No need to comment to the media on what the team could have done, who could have done it, why it was or wasn't done.

Yeah I agree...you're not sending anyone a "message" during preseason when you're not going to be playing said team often anyways...
- Colin Dambrauskas

If you guys don't think everything you do on the ice, even in preseason, doesn't contribute to your reputation, I think you are very mistaken. Word gets around the league from players talking to each other, reading reports and watching highlights (none of course in this case).

Of course, I still stick by I have no idea what reaction may or may not have been warranted because I haven't seen the hit but if Hitch and Sobi seem to think it is a bit of an issue (based on twitter quotes from JR), I would tend to think I might side with them on this one.

Some great points here on both sides. The perception that Shanahan isn't backing the Blues is alive and strong in this guy, and it goes without saying that without a standardized system which includes a panel of judges rather than one man, the player safety office is and always will remain a joke.

As far as hits in the preseason, had this been a division rival, the need for an immediate response is more elevated than say, an out of conference team that we may see once or twice per year. In addition, being a pre-season game, you may lose one player to the injury, but what do you lose by going after a kid that won't be there for the regular season? Do you unleash a veteran player on the kid, or one of his team mates, put that player in danger of a suspension? Sure, maybe that player loses a game or two, no big deal, right? What if this happens in the regular season and that player doesn't stand up to a regular NHL'er because he doesn't want to be viewed as a repeat offender, and this time get 4-5 games? Something to consider when calling for the head of a kid we may never see again.

My point is this;
If Hitch saw a need for a response, then Hitch will address it with the guys that were on the ice for the play. Maybe some of those guys aren't exactly going to be around next week either, so why jeopardize playing time they could use to show their skills just to get retribution for a hit that at best has been debated for its intent? In the end, the fans can be disappointed in a lot of ways for a lot of reasons. We need to trust the men on the ice and on the bench to go with their gut instincts in these situations.

Last point, I 100% agree with the comment about handling it on that shift or in the following shifts or not at all. The LAST thing to do is to have a player go out there in the next game still angry about the last meeting, and create a problem. It distracts from the game plan, and it cheapens the message. If it wasn't important enough to address at the time of the problem, then it isn't important for future meetings. Playing with emotion is great, but making decisions based on emotion can be season ending.

Some great points here on both sides. The perception that Shanahan isn't backing the Blues is alive and strong in this guy, and it goes without saying that without a standardized system which includes a panel of judges rather than one man, the player safety office is and always will remain a joke.

As far as hits in the preseason, had this been a division rival, the need for an immediate response is more elevated than say, an out of conference team that we may see once or twice per year. In addition, being a pre-season game, you may lose one player to the injury, but what do you lose by going after a kid that won't be there for the regular season? Do you unleash a veteran player on the kid, or one of his team mates, put that player in danger of a suspension? Sure, maybe that player loses a game or two, no big deal, right? What if this happens in the regular season and that player doesn't stand up to a regular NHL'er because he doesn't want to be viewed as a repeat offender, and this time get 4-5 games? Something to consider when calling for the head of a kid we may never see again.

My point is this;
If Hitch saw a need for a response, then Hitch will address it with the guys that were on the ice for the play. Maybe some of those guys aren't exactly going to be around next week either, so why jeopardize playing time they could use to show their skills just to get retribution for a hit that at best has been debated for its intent? In the end, the fans can be disappointed in a lot of ways for a lot of reasons. We need to trust the men on the ice and on the bench to go with their gut instincts in these situations.

Last point, I 100% agree with the comment about handling it on that shift or in the following shifts or not at all. The LAST thing to do is to have a player go out there in the next game still angry about the last meeting, and create a problem. It distracts from the game plan, and it cheapens the message. If it wasn't important enough to address at the time of the problem, then it isn't important for future meetings. Playing with emotion is great, but making decisions based on emotion can be season ending.
- Soulja183

Sorry, but how often do players actually get suspended just for instigating a fight? Almost never. This whole idea of getting suspended for going after the kid is just theorizing what might happen while ignoring what normally does. Instigator penalty, game misconduct. And while there are penalties for too many game misconducts or too many instigators, those only apply after a certain number, and only regular season games count; IIRC.

And the concept of it only working if it's right away is just ignorant of history. Brett Hull doesn't consistently thank Twist or Chase for protecting him because they were on his line. Not many took liberties w/Hull because people knew they would have to answer for them eventually, because those guys had long memories, and if they didn't get you that game they did in the next one. Would it be best if it were right away? Sure. But sometimes the right guys aren't out there, or the ref gets the player in the box right away. A player getting a pass because no one called him on his cheap shot right away is just ridiculous.

Adam Erne got a 3 preseason game suspension for the hit. Sorry no retribution this year.

Adam Erne got a 3 preseason game suspension for the hit. Sorry no retribution this year.
- Artyukhin76

Who said retribution had to be on Erne? He went after a vet, Blues can always return the favor.


Realistically, I'm guessing Blues talk with someone like Brewer or Crombeen before/after the game, ask them to reinforce privately with the kid that you need to be more careful, and point out to him that someone could retaliate by going after one of the Lightning's regulars for something he pulls, whether deliberately or not; and leave it at that.

Sorry, but how often do players actually get suspended just for instigating a fight? Almost never. This whole idea of getting suspended for going after the kid is just theorizing what might happen while ignoring what normally does. Instigator penalty, game misconduct. And while there are penalties for too many game misconducts or too many instigators, those only apply after a certain number, and only regular season games count; IIRC.

And the concept of it only working if it's right away is just ignorant of history. Brett Hull doesn't consistently thank Twist or Chase for protecting him because they were on his line. Not many took liberties w/Hull because people knew they would have to answer for them eventually, because those guys had long memories, and if they didn't get you that game they did in the next one. Would it be best if it were right away? Sure. But sometimes the right guys aren't out there, or the ref gets the player in the box right away. A player getting a pass because no one called him on his cheap shot right away is just ridiculous.
- Antilles

My concern isn't over instigating, but retaliation hits. After a questionable hit, a big hit that causes injury is much harder to play off as "accidental." Dropping the gloves, that's hockey. A hard check on the guy three shifts later, that's hockey. Eye for an eye head shots to send a message? That is grounds for suspension. I'm cool with guys jumping into a scrum after a hit, I just don't see a need to get payback in a game that means nothing, especially against a player playing in his first game as a pro. As you mentioned, his own team mates may be the best tools for a response. I would be willing to bet that a few of them already have.

Who said retribution had to be on Erne? He went after a vet, Blues can always return the favor.


Realistically, I'm guessing Blues talk with someone like Brewer or Crombeen before/after the game, ask them to reinforce privately with the kid that you need to be more careful, and point out to him that someone could retaliate by going after one of the Lightning's regulars for something he pulls, whether deliberately or not; and leave it at that.
- Antilles

You don't think hitting someone important on the this teamwould bring about a lightning retailation? You breath on Stamkos wrong and Your newly sign top defenseman would be eating out of a straw. A fight and a suspensions is warranted for Erne, anything else is just pain retarded.

My concern isn't over instigating, but retaliation hits. After a questionable hit, a big hit that causes injury is much harder to play off as "accidental." Dropping the gloves, that's hockey. A hard check on the guy three shifts later, that's hockey. Eye for an eye head shots to send a message? That is grounds for suspension. I'm cool with guys jumping into a scrum after a hit, I just don't see a need to get payback in a game that means nothing, especially against a player playing in his first game as a pro. As you mentioned, his own team mates may be the best tools for a response. I would be willing to bet that a few of them already have.
- Soulja183

Who said anything about eye for an eye headshots? And if a preseason game can cost a player his entire season or career; then it doesn't mean nothing.

After seeing the hit, it just reinforces what i said before. It was a stupid play by an inexperienced player, that could have been worse than it actually is. The NHL needs to look at the roster rules and possibly not let kids play against vets, that might prevent things like this.

Who said anything about eye for an eye headshots? And if a preseason game can cost a player his entire season or career; then it doesn't mean nothing.
- Antilles

So your ok with ending the season of another player then?

You don't think hitting someone important on the this teamwould bring about a lightning retailation? You breath on Stamkos wrong and Your newly sign top defenseman would be eating out of a straw. A fight and a suspensions is warranted for Erne, anything else is just pain retarded.
- Artyukhin76

lol. First of all, if Stamkos can't handle getting targeted for some extra checks, he shouldn't be playing hockey. Second, if you say that going after a top player instead of the person who committed the offense is retarded, then why are you saying that is exactly what you would do, going after Petro? Do you think a team should retaliate in kind, or go after the person who committed the offense, make up your mind. Third, the repercussions for some nobody going after someone who matters have always effected more than just the nobody. Welcome to hockey. Finally, your enforcer used to play for us. He isn't intimidating. Neither is Aulie, who lost every single fight he was in last year. The Lightning don't physically scare anyone.

So your ok with ending the season of another player then?
- Artyukhin76

Where did I say or even imply that? That game could have cost Sobotka his season or career, therefore it matters.

Who said retribution had to be on Erne? He went after a vet, Blues can always return the favor.


Realistically, I'm guessing Blues talk with someone like Brewer or Crombeen before/after the game, ask them to reinforce privately with the kid that you need to be more careful, and point out to him that someone could retaliate by going after one of the Lightning's regulars for something he pulls, whether deliberately or not; and leave it at that.
- Antilles

Read your first paragraph.

Read your first paragraph.
- Artyukhin76

How does me saying that if Erne goes after a vet, so can Blues; have anything to do with ending someone's career?

How does me saying that if Erne goes after a vet, so can Blues; have anything to do with ending someone's career?
- Antilles

The implication is to do the same thing Erne did.

Here is the hit if you haven't seen it already

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NpENr_QgZc