Gudas has a nice headshot on Glendening. Concussion. Hit wasn’t even reviewed.
- Feds91Stammer

Gudas is a special case. He only gets penalized when he is the one in control when the hit was thrown. In many cases, the beard takes over and controls him. Obviously the Glendening hit was the beard, and not Radko.

I totally get it. Cooke was one of my favourites. The lg is a joke. Either allow everyone to play this way or call set the rules in stone and call it every damn time.
- 10inchTerror

When Cooke hit Savard (with an elbow to the head) after Savard took a shot on net, do you think he should have been suspended, revised rules or not?

That has nothing to do with. Hits and such are part of the game, clean hits.
You obviously never played a game.
- kastr99

Anytime you want to prove you're an bumhole, just end with "you've obviously never played a game." No,one gives a poop about your Beer League career.

Bigger problem is how a player can be suspended for 7 games for a hit that the 2 refs agreed was no penalty . League is reacting to all the bad press and Wilson’s rep . Couple of games ok . 7 to many. And I am a Bruin fan

Bigger problem is how a player can be suspended for 7 games for a hit that the 2 refs agreed was no penalty . League is reacting to all the bad press and Wilson’s rep . Couple of games ok . 7 to many. And I am a Bruin fan
- johnnypie

You're not even a fan of the game, let alone the Bruins if you think the hit was marginal.

Anytime you want to prove you're an bumhole, just end with "you've obviously never played a game." No,one gives a poop about your Beer League career.
- Tedge77

You're not even a fan of the game, let alone the Bruins if you think the hit was marginal.
- Nasty_Duck

Please ,I was attending games , listening to games when there was MARGINAL TV coverage since the 60’s. So I probably qualify as a hockey fan . As far as the hit and the suspension my point is the league has a problem if 2 refs review the hit and don’t even call a penalty which could have had a major impact on that game. That’s where you have to get it right . No penalty. Terrible . Now the only reason he got 7 games is because it’s Tom Wilson . If you don’t admit that go away .

All headshots need to be removed from the game. Concussions are a terrible injury that can change a person for years.

This case seems like Wilsons reputation got him in trouble though. I don't think he was headhunting or a "predator" here like some people have said. The whole play comes together in less than 2 seconds and about 1 second from when Wilson veers off from the front of the net to the corner to make the hit.

It looks like he's got Carlos shoulder lined up and for whatever reason Carlo puts his head down and in the process back his body up enough that now Wilson is hitting his head instead of the shoulder.

Really just seems like unfortunate luck for Carlo. It wasn't a necessary hit by Wilson but it sure looks like the hit he was intending to make was within the rules.

Please ,I was attending games , listening to games when there was MARGINAL TV coverage since the 60’s. So I probably qualify as a hockey fan . As far as the hit and the suspension my point is the league has a problem if 2 refs review the hit and don’t even call a penalty which could have had a major impact on that game. That’s where you have to get it right . No penalty. Terrible . Now the only reason he got 7 games is because it’s Tom Wilson . If you don’t admit that go away .
- johnnypie

He got 7 games for two reasons...
1) a violent boarding hit that resulting in a head injury
2) history of such hits

So you were ... like 1/4 right in your assessment. Wilson's name happened to be attached to that history of suspensions.

He got 7 games for two reasons...
1) a violent boarding hit that resulting in a head injury
2) history of such hits

So you were ... like 1/4 right in your assessment. Wilson's name happened to be attached to that history of suspensions.
- Nasty_Duck

That hit gets no one else 7 games. Love you students of the game who go back and forth when it comes to hitting. You don’t want to admit that the hitting part of the game still involves physically punishing the opponent. It’s not just to gain puck possession. So whenever there is a big hit where someone gets rocked that part is ignored. If you want hockey with just incidental contact say it . But hitting is used to punish and wear down an opponent. To alter their game. So don’t make like players aren’t trying to cause physical pain . Now of course there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed. Wilson in this case was looking to punish Carlo not blatantly hurt him. If that hit is thrown by almost anyone else it’s 2-3 games

That hit gets no one else 7 games. Love you students of the game who go back and forth when it comes to hitting. You don’t want to admit that the hitting part of the game still involves physically punishing the opponent. It’s not just to gain puck possession. So whenever there is a big hit where someone gets rocked that part is ignored. If you want hockey with just incidental contact say it . But hitting is used to punish and wear down an opponent. To alter their game. So don’t make like players aren’t trying to cause physical pain . Now of course there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed. Wilson in this case was looking to punish Carlo not blatantly hurt him. If that hit is thrown by almost anyone else it’s 2-3 games
- johnnypie

And you know this ... how?

But in the end what you think you know is irrelevant. Even accidental high sticks in a game can result in a major. Wilson should have let up with Carlo in the position he was in. But Wilson did not.

And it does not matter one bit if you think hits like that are "part of the game". They are not. And the suspension proves this.

And you know this ... how?

But in the end what you think you know is irrelevant. Even accidental high sticks in a game can result in a major. Wilson should have let up with Carlo in the position he was in. But Wilson did not.

And it does not matter one bit if you think hits like that are "part of the game". They are not. And the suspension proves this.
- Nasty_Duck

First what I think I know is fact. Players hit to physically punish . You can’t deny that. Wilson did not blatantly elbow, target the head, leave his feet , he glided into Carlo .a all facts that show it wasn’t some attack. Now I thought it was a penalty ,maybe a major and a game . A hit on the edge maybe a few games. My problem is no penalty called by the refs and then because of who it is 7 games . Obviously the refs felt it was PART Of THE GAME . Loved how the bruins handled it. Do you think anyone else gets 7 for that hit ?

First what I think I know is fact. Players hit to physically punish . You can’t deny that. Wilson did not blatantly elbow, target the head, leave his feet , he glided into Carlo .a all facts that show it wasn’t some attack. Now I thought it was a penalty ,maybe a major and a game . A hit on the edge maybe a few games. My problem is no penalty called by the refs and then because of who it is 7 games . Obviously the refs felt it was PART Of THE GAME . Loved how the bruins handled it. Do you think anyone else gets 7 for that hit ?
- johnnypie

Anyone else with similar history would get 7 games. The history (not the name) factored into the number of games.

Anyone else with similar history would get 7 games. The history (not the name) factored into the number of games.
- Nasty_Duck

That similar history is kind of vague. Now I don’t know maybe you do , how many times did a player draw a 7 game suspension for a hit that did not even draw a 2 minute penalty ?

That similar history is kind of vague. Now I don’t know maybe you do , how many times did a player draw a 7 game suspension for a hit that did not even draw a 2 minute penalty ?
- johnnypie

Similar as in multiple previous suspensions.


Relying on on-ice officials to not miss something.
I'm getting the impression you're just trolling me now.
There's no way you actually believe that.

Similar as in multiple previous suspensions.


Relying on on-ice officials to not miss something.
I'm getting the impression you're just trolling me now.
There's no way you actually believe that.


- Nasty_Duck

Trolling ? I am saying if it was that bad a hit there is no way the refs call nothing . 7 games is a substantial suspension . What other 7 game suspension was given to a player when the play itself didn’t warrant any in game penalty. Kadri for example has a similar history , he gets multiple games but he was tossed from game for his actions , 7 game suspension means its a no gray area hit . The guy is getting tossed from that game and then suspended. This hit wasn’t that . Wilson has had other gray area hits sheary , zadorov etc where no penalty and no suspension . This suspension was 7 games because it was Wilson.

Trolling ? I am saying if it was that bad a hit there is no way the refs call nothing . 7 games is a substantial suspension . What other 7 game suspension was given to a player when the play itself didn’t warrant any in game penalty. Kadri for example has a similar history , he gets multiple games but he was tossed from game for his actions , 7 game suspension means its a no gray area hit . The guy is getting tossed from that game and then suspended. This hit wasn’t that . Wilson has had other gray area hits sheary , zadorov etc where no penalty and no suspension . This suspension was 7 games because it was Wilson.
- johnnypie

https://www.nhl.com/news/...ety-questions/c-738846#q3

Read # 3

https://www.nhl.com/news/player-safety-questions/c-738846#q3

Read # 3
- Nasty_Duck

When did I say they couldn’t suspend him?
I asked you to give me an example of a player getting a 7 game suspension for a hit the refs deemed part of the game to use your quote. NO penalty. My point being when a player gets a substantial suspension the hit in question is a flagrant no gray area type hit . It draws some kind of in game penalty . When hits are reviewed that drew no penalty and the player safety crew ( who of course you have the utmost confidence in) give some kind of suspension it is always in the under 5 category. It’s 7 games because it was Wilson . The bad part of this is that refs are going to throw players out quicker for any big hit . They look inept if the league hands out a long suspension and the ref didn’t even call a penalty .

When did I say they couldn’t suspend him?
I asked you to give me an example of a player getting a 7 game suspension for a hit the refs deemed part of the game to use your quote. NO penalty. My point being when a player gets a substantial suspension the hit in question is a flagrant no gray area type hit . It draws some kind of in game penalty . When hits are reviewed that drew no penalty and the player safety crew ( who of course you have the utmost confidence in) give some kind of suspension it is always in the under 5 category. It’s 7 games because it was Wilson . The bad part of this is that refs are going to throw players out quicker for any big hit . They look inept if the league hands out a long suspension and the ref didn’t even call a penalty .
- johnnypie

No. It is 7 games because of the type of hit AND because the player in question has a history of previous suspensions. Not sure why you don't understand that.

If it was a players 1st incident it might be 2 or 3 games. The name attached does not matter. It's the suspension history that tacks on the extra games.

But you can believe what you want to believe. Makes no difference.

As for "looking inept" - that ship sailed long ago. Heck, they even missed the cross-check from the other Was player ON THE SAME PLAY. Carlo gets cross-checked as he's reeling from the Wilson hit. I never said I had much confidence in the NHL officiating. They just retroactively fixed a mistake this time.

No. It is 7 games because of the type of hit AND because the player in question has a history of previous suspensions. Not sure why you don't understand that.

If it was a players 1st incident it might be 2 or 3 games. The name attached does not matter. It's the suspension history that tacks on the extra games.

But you can believe what you want to believe. Makes no difference.

As for "looking inept" - that ship sailed long ago. Heck, they even missed the cross-check from the other Was player ON THE SAME PLAY. Carlo gets cross-checked as he's reeling from the Wilson hit. I never said I had much confidence in the NHL officiating. They just retroactively fixed a mistake this time.
- Nasty_Duck

Sorry what you don’t understand is the type of hit would have gotten no one else 7 games . Exactly what TYPE of hit was it ?
And the ship has sailed with that player safety crew also. They made this call based on the player not the hit . As for fixing the mistake if that was game 7 in the playoffs suspending Wilson after the game wouldn’t have made up for the missing major and game misconduct .

I understand a players past has something to do with the length of suspension obviously. But you can’t overreact to every punishing hit depending on who is doing the hitting .