Bad take on this one. They teach you from a young age not to put yourself in a vulnerable position, especially when you know a hit is coming. 2 minutes was plenty.
Paraphrase: 'Pulock had him lined up for a clean shoulder to shoulder hit, and Drury turns….' So far, so good. Then the "If he, wud have, maybe, hadn't, shud have" stuff starts………all based on what you wish the rules were. This is a very bizarre interpretation of the current rules. Do I wish the rules were based more on 'probability of injury'? YES! but they aren't. You need to change your tuber to "Tough Call. What I wish".
I disagree, the issue as I see it is, the Cane player was in the danger zone two three feet from the boards, the fact that he turned around changed how the NY player had to hit him off balance and that made it look worst than what it was. No Penalty due to change in direction.
This is charging, and from what I've seen the more lenient officiating enables players to do this more than in the regular season, putting players under unnecessary risk. Call the game by it's rules, not by what part of the season we're in.
Also I'm pretty sure Drury saw Pulock coming and attempted to shield the puck, he just didn't expect the violent check. Both of these guys knew what they were doing.
I'm an Islanders fan, and there is no doubt that this is a penalty for boarding. Even though Drury turned late, Pulock should have let up at least a little. However, I really don't think that this is or should be a major penalty. The first point isn't very compelling. The whole argument about him turning late isn't to absolve the checker of all responsibility, it's to acknowledge that in situations like these the puck carrier shares a responsibility to making the safe play. The second point is really weak. Checks like that happen extremely frequently and are completely legal. The same goes for him picking up his stick, it happens regularly with no complaint. The only point I think has any merit I don't think you mentioned at all, which is that Pulock has a responsibility to NOT commit fully to the check when he recognizes the puck carrier is in a vulnerable position. That he chose to commit to the hit is why it's a penalty, not the result of the play.
This is a good non-suspension call by the officials. This is a hockey play Drury has control of the puck and Pulock is within his rights to hit him. In my view Drury is intentionally turning his back to draw the hit from behind. Pulock did not let up on the follow through and was correctly penalized.
9 Comments
2 game suspension minimum
Bad take on this one. They teach you from a young age not to put yourself in a vulnerable position, especially when you know a hit is coming. 2 minutes was plenty.
Paraphrase: 'Pulock had him lined up for a clean shoulder to shoulder hit, and Drury turns….' So far, so good. Then the "If he, wud have, maybe, hadn't, shud have" stuff starts………all based on what you wish the rules were. This is a very bizarre interpretation of the current rules.
Do I wish the rules were based more on 'probability of injury'? YES! but they aren't. You need to change your tuber to "Tough Call. What I wish".
I disagree, the issue as I see it is, the Cane player was in the danger zone two three feet from the boards, the fact that he turned around changed how the NY player had to hit him off balance and that made it look worst than what it was. No Penalty due to change in direction.
2 out of 5 Troubas That low crouch extending up, leaving his feet to make that hit high and violent…
What’s your point? Stick is off the ice here guy. https://youtu.be/ii2r04iT0e0
This is charging, and from what I've seen the more lenient officiating enables players to do this more than in the regular season, putting players under unnecessary risk. Call the game by it's rules, not by what part of the season we're in.
Also I'm pretty sure Drury saw Pulock coming and attempted to shield the puck, he just didn't expect the violent check. Both of these guys knew what they were doing.
I'm an Islanders fan, and there is no doubt that this is a penalty for boarding. Even though Drury turned late, Pulock should have let up at least a little. However, I really don't think that this is or should be a major penalty.
The first point isn't very compelling. The whole argument about him turning late isn't to absolve the checker of all responsibility, it's to acknowledge that in situations like these the puck carrier shares a responsibility to making the safe play.
The second point is really weak. Checks like that happen extremely frequently and are completely legal. The same goes for him picking up his stick, it happens regularly with no complaint.
The only point I think has any merit I don't think you mentioned at all, which is that Pulock has a responsibility to NOT commit fully to the check when he recognizes the puck carrier is in a vulnerable position. That he chose to commit to the hit is why it's a penalty, not the result of the play.
This is a good non-suspension call by the officials. This is a hockey play Drury has control of the puck and Pulock is within his rights to hit him. In my view Drury is intentionally turning his back to draw the hit from behind. Pulock did not let up on the follow through and was correctly penalized.