Mason Raymond taken to hospital

[Thieving Giraffe]

That article misquoted Kypreos on the weeks. The article says 4-6 weeks, but if you follow the link Kypreos says 4-6 months. As does the Vancouver Province.

Edit - the NESN report has been fixed to appropriately reflect the timeline.

Sigh... sorry to be wrong about that one.

Wouldn't that be up to Vancouver's medical staff to ask or get the board out there??? I'm sure the arena would have had no problem getting that out there had that been the case...

Yes, the trainer is responsible for requesting whatever aid (or aides) he or she believes to be necessary. TDBG provides access to medical staff including on-call MDs. They get free tickets in exchange for their services... something tells me they didn't have any trouble finding takers for this game.

I do agree that the precaution should have been taken. My first thought upon seeing the injury take place was lumbar compression, but perhaps he didn't present that way to the trainer. I wonder if either the trainer did not see the hit occur, or if the pain presented as abdominal. I'm sure they'll have an internal conversation about it.

[mister_mcgoo]

suspension??? sorry but that's abso-fuc-king-tively ridiculous...

He got badly hurt which is unfortunate and I really hope he can make a full recovery but that's about the only negative thing I see with regard to the play. Boychuk did nothing out of line on this play at all, there is nothing malicious or deliberate in his actions. What I see is two players vying for the puck who got tangled up and went into the boards...unfortunately for Raymond, he went in very awkwardly and got hurt. Its not even interference on the play, the puck is in the possession of neither player, it takes a bounce off the back boards and both players are trying to play it and in the process their sticks and bodies got locked up and that's it. The refs made the correct call on the ice and the league made the correct call on the non-suspension

[ridinryan44]

suspension??? sorry but that's abso-fuc-king-tively ridiculous...

He got badly hurt which is unfortunate and I really hope he can make a full recovery but that's about the only negative thing I see with regard to the play. Boychuk did nothing out of line on this play at all, there is nothing malicious or deliberate in his actions. What I see is two players vying for the puck who got tangled up and went into the boards...unfortunately for Raymond, he went in very awkwardly and got hurt. Its not even interference on the play, the puck is in the possession of neither player, it takes a bounce off the back boards and both players are trying to play it and in the process their sticks and bodies got locked up and that's it. The refs made the correct call on the ice and the league made the correct call on the non-suspension

Couldn't agree more... there wasn't even a hit there. I was surprised to see anyone thinking there should have been a penalty there.

[Loch]

suspension??? sorry but that's abso-fuc-king-tively ridiculous...

He got badly hurt which is unfortunate and I really hope he can make a full recovery but that's about the only negative thing I see with regard to the play. Boychuk did nothing out of line on this play at all, there is nothing malicious or deliberate in his actions. What I see is two players vying for the puck who got tangled up and went into the boards...unfortunately for Raymond, he went in very awkwardly and got hurt. Its not even interference on the play, the puck is in the possession of neither player, it takes a bounce off the back boards and both players are trying to play it and in the process their sticks and bodies got locked up and that's it. The refs made the correct call on the ice and the league made the correct call on the non-suspension

I agree that it is a stretch for suspension, but Boychuck's stick is up parallel to the ice and he makes no attempt to play the puck... I could have seen hooking or maybe interference called there. So this isn't the same as two guys not seeing each other and hitting knees... there is a deliberate play, just not vicious one (or blatantly illegal).

Raymond didn't 'go into the boards'... he was pushed in. You can argue that it was legit for Boychuck to finish his check, but you can't argue that there was no check (I suppose you could, but I kinda figure you need force from both ends to injure a back like that).

Anyway, I hope Raymond makes a full recovery, back injuries can be tricky.

[ridinryan44]

I agree that it is a stretch for suspension, but Boychuck's stick is up parallel to the ice and he makes no attempt to play the puck... I could have seen hooking or maybe interference called there. So this isn't the same as two guys not seeing each other and hitting knees... there is a deliberate play, just not vicious one (or blatantly illegal).

Raymond didn't 'go into the boards'... he was pushed in. You can argue that it was legit for Boychuck to finish his check, but you can't argue that there was no check (I suppose you could, but I kinda figure you need force from both ends to injure a back like that).

Anyway, I hope Raymond makes a full recovery, back injuries can be tricky.

I just don't see any push...I see two guys and their momentum carrying them into the boards 'cus they were locked up together.

[vaseuro]

whoever said "suspension" is obviously a nucks fan, or has raymond on their fantasy teams......OR BOTH!!! hahahaha

there wasn't even a penalty called on the play, and rightfully so.

[Loch]

I just don't see any push...I see two guys and their momentum carrying them into the boards 'cus they were locked up together.

As they get to the boards you can see Boychuck's left shoulder rotate in towards the boards (he's originally going in right-side first). If I had to guess I'd say he is trying to pin Raymond up against the boards so that he doesn't get beat coming out of the corner.

I don't know that anyone could honestly say that Boychuck meant to hurt Raymond.

[ridinryan44]

As they get to the boards you can see Boychuck's left shoulder rotate in towards the boards (he's originally going in right-side first). If I had to guess I'd say he is trying to pin Raymond up against the boards so that he doesn't get beat coming out of the corner.

I don't know that anyone could honestly say that Boychuck meant to hurt Raymond.

I see.. maybe I'll have to re-watch just 'cus other media types are saying that there was somewhat of a hit there... I just remember when I saw it live I had no problem with it, didn't see much of a hit.

[TK12555]

tough break, hope he recovers ahead of schedule.

[mister_mcgoo]

I agree that it is a stretch for suspension, but Boychuck's stick is up parallel to the ice and he makes no attempt to play the puck... I could have seen hooking or maybe interference called there. So this isn't the same as two guys not seeing each other and hitting knees... there is a deliberate play, just not vicious one (or blatantly illegal).

Raymond didn't 'go into the boards'... he was pushed in. You can argue that it was legit for Boychuck to finish his check, but you can't argue that there was no check (I suppose you could, but I kinda figure you need force from both ends to injure a back like that).

Anyway, I hope Raymond makes a full recovery, back injuries can be tricky.

I dunno man, perhaps the reverse angle would show if it was a hook, he does have his stick up a bit but I still don't see how you make that call, the puck is in open ice, at that point it is free game and neither player has position on the other, they're both fighting for it and tying each other up

[ridinryan44]

yeah, I guess this one will receive no consensus one way or another.

I am unsure how people call it a legal play, since Raymond was clearly never in possession of the puck.

Then again, Peverley was never in possession either, when Edler nailed him (also textbook interference imho). But that one wasn't called either.

Great point... personally I didn't think the Edler hit was a penalty either, Peverley would have been right on that puck had the hit not occurred....glad it turned out the way it did, and glad Pev didn't get hurt. Too bad for raymond...

[mister_mcgoo]

yeah, I guess this one will receive no consensus one way or another.

I am unsure how people call it a legal play, since Raymond was clearly never in possession of the puck.

Then again, Peverley was never in possession either, when Edler nailed him (also textbook interference imho). But that one wasn't called either.

its legal because they're both going for the puck, they each have the right to do so and to try to establish position, they tie up and go into the boards...the same play happens a hundred times a game with no call so I fail to see why this should be any different

[Loch]

its legal because they're both going for the puck, they each have the right to do so and to try to establish position, they tie up and go into the boards...the same play happens a hundred times a game with no call so I fail to see why this should be any different

I fail to see how you concluded that Boychuck was going for the puck... he certainly didn't seem to be.

The fact that 'the same play happens a hundred times a game with no call' doesn't prove anything... I'd say about 5% of the slashes (as defined by the NHL rules) get called... yet some are still penalties.
I was merely remarking that I could see how a penalty could have been called on the play...

[Thieving Giraffe]

Then again, Peverley was never in possession either, when Edler nailed him (also textbook interference imho). But that one wasn't called either.

If you're talking about the play I think you are, they did call it, though they called it boarding. 7:55 of the first. That one was also a penalty because an icing was pending, per the changes they implemented a year or two ago.

[Thieving Giraffe]

p.s. thanks TG for pointing out that Edler did in fact get a penalty on that play. We agree that it was interference too, right? Not just boarding.

Yes, though boarding was equally valid. Per Rule 81:

81.1 Icing. Any contact between opposing players while pursuing the puck on an icing must be for the sole purpose of playing the puck and not for eliminating the opponent from playing the puck. Unnecessary or dangerous contact could result in penalties being assessed to the offending player.

I believe that the refs usually go for one or the other of those calls when this is violated, though which is not specifically stated in the rule.

I'm not 100% sure that it would have been interference otherwise. It certainly looked like it from the Versus feed, but from this (choppy) replay, it does look like the puck was more or less on Peverley's stick (or at least close enough to constitute possession).