Mason Raymond taken to hospital

[ridinryan44]

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).

That's exactly how I felt. The puck, while never under Peverley's control, was right there at the time. Not sure of the specifics, but I see how a penalty could or could not be called.

[mister_mcgoo]

Huh?! Edler made no attempt whatsoever to go for the puck. In fact, he totally ignored the puck and instead nailed Peverley into the end board. Clearly interference.

A player is under no obligation to move out of someone's way when they are going for the puck. But you can't go out of your way to impede their progress towards the puck. Edler clearly did so.

Boychuk didn't go out of his way to interfere, but he did tie up a player who had not established puck possession at all.

If your Edler assessment was accurate, you would see that all the time (defenders going back on an icing and nailing the forechecker instead of trying to touch the puck). Do you? I don't. They usually go touch the puck instead - the legal thing to do.

wtf does Edler have to do with any of this? This thread is about Mason Raymond and the play that led to his unfortunate injury. The Edler hit was dirty to be sure but its got jack shit to do with this discussion.

As far as Boychuk interfering with Raymond, I can see how you could make an argument for that at least, I just don't think its a very good argument. I could equally argue that Raymond interfered with Boychuk on the play and be just as correct. If there was no injury on the play no one would have batted an eyelash, it would have been just another hockey play in a game full of such plays

[ridinryan44]

wtf does Edler have to do with any of this? This thread is about Mason Raymond and the play that led to his unfortunate injury. The Edler hit was dirty to be sure but its got jack shit to do with this discussion.

As far as Boychuk interfering with Raymond, I can see how you could make an argument for that at least, I just don't think its a very good argument. I could equally argue that Raymond interfered with Boychuk on the play and be just as correct. If there was no injury on the play no one would have batted an eyelash, it would have been just another hockey play in a game full of such plays

Huh? There were people discussing the Edler hit as well, your highness.

[Loch]

If there was no injury on the play no one would have batted an eyelash

... just like Rome's hit on Horton...

This is how the NHL does things, for better or for worse.

[mister_mcgoo]

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...

I agree a penalty could potentially have been called for something like interference/hooking/holding etc but it would have been a chintzy penalty at best. I can appreciate that side of the argument even though I don't agree.

The best analogy I have for the play and why its completely legal is to think of it like a basketball game, what happens during a big rebound off the backboard? Who has possession of the ball? No one. Its a free ball, each player on the court has an equal right to it. Now they can't foul one another to try to gain possession otherwise its a loose ball foul, so if your opponent is ahead of you you cant grab onto his leg and haul him down so you can get to it first, you cant elbow him, you cant hack his arm to prevent him from getting to it. And if your opponent has position on you, you cant go thru or over him to get to the ball. But otherwise its completely up for grabs. Same exact thing in this scenario...watch the video in slow mo from about the 13.5 sec mark (I took a screen shot of that frame, see below).

Who is closer to the puck at that point? I challenge you to conclusively tell me one guy is closer than the other without breaking out one of those little measuring thingies they user in curling. In fact, if anything I would argue that Boychuk, if not slightly closer, has position on Raymond by a hair...his stick is on the ice and looks closer to me, but whatever, its too close to call. The important thing is that both guys have established position at this point, the onus is not on either to relinquish it just because a collision is imminent, especially given that the puck is right there and its in the offensive zone, to suggest that should be the case is to ignore the basic fundamentals of the game.

What happens next is clear, Raymond tries to use his speed to beat Boychuk to the puck and Boychuk refuses to relinquish his position, they collide, get tied up, Raymond is already a little off balance going into the contact and Boychuk is a big boy so Raymond corkscrews off him and gets hurt.

I'd also like to point out the 3rd party in the photo who no one has mentioned, the referee who is in excellent position to make the no-call on the ice. You can beat up on the refs a lot for missing stuff etc but with that point of view and that proximity to the play, I'll take his word for it over a bunch of speculators on a fantasy hockey site watching a lo-res youtube clip

[mister_mcgoo]

Huh? There were people discussing the Edler hit as well, your highness.

by all means discuss away good sir, I just fail to see what the one has to do with the other aside from the fact that they occurred in the same game...completely different circumstances and completely different plays. Edler deserved a major at least, Boychuk got just what he deserved, nothing

[ridinryan44]

Edler deserved a major at least, Boychuk got just what he deserved, nothing

I agree on Boychuk, disagree on Edler.....

[Rylant]

I agree that the reason that people are talking penalty / suspension, is because Raymond was seriously injured. Let's be real; we see plays like this happen on a daily basis. If Raymond wasn't injured on the play, nobody would even bother to take the 10 seconds it would take to write a thread suggesting there should be a penalty, let alone a suspension. I don't like the idea that the single only criterea for whether or not somebody should be suspended is how badly was the other guy was hurt. That kind of mentallity sets a double standard and I think is partly responsible for the reason the NHL has a questionable reputation when doling out suspensions in the first place.

Rylant

[Vancityguy]

Gillis is on the radio right now, says Mason Raymond's broken back is more serious than they initally thought, he was close to never being able to walk again but the doctor's were able to stabilize him. Apparently they will be lucky if he returns by mid next season and it was close to not only being career ending but he's lucky he's not paralyzed.

Still flabbergasted by this one, Boychuck clearly has time to let up when he see's Raymond in a very very vulnerable position and chooses instead to run him into the boards, breaking his back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcPGSSErUR0

Far more dangerous than anything yet in the playoff's and could have paralyzed the kid.

[slufoot]

I'm truly fascinated by the difference of opinion on this particular play. Angus (on twitter) thinks the Boychuk hit was more malicious than Rome's hit.

That's because Angus watches games wearing Blue and Green goggles. I think he has season tickets beside the visitors penalty box. jk

See Thieving Giraffe's comments... easily the most objective and realistic in this thread:

Mike Hurley on NESN confirms no suspension, and also cites multiple unconfirmed sources reporting a fractured vertebra or back injury. Thankfully 4-6 weeks recovery, rather than months.

I was among the first to say that a penalty could be called on the play, but I think that a suspension would be overkill and set the precedent for suspension from a dozen plays a game. And I think that if the Rome hit hadn't happened, there would be no call for suspension. Strikes me as an equalizer movement.

A couple of important differences between the Boychuk and Rome hits.

First, Boychuk initiated the check while the puck was at Raymond's feet, rather than .94 seconds later (a long time in hockey terms). I do think that it could have been called interference, but only because he finished the check in a way that continued to take Raymond out of the play for longer than your standard check on a player with possession. The problem was the angle of Raymond's body, not a boarding, roughing or typically dangerous hit.

But even if it could have been called interference, it's not a penalty that does get called, regular or post-season. Players are taught to finish their checks like that if they're near the boards, and this unfortunate result aside, it's not the kind of dangerous hit that they're trying to take out of the game. Unfortunately, the one out of a thousand times that this kind of hit causes injury, happened to be Boychuk-Raymond's. But the Rome hit was the kind of open-ice, unexpected hit that the NHL has been targeting for a year now. If Horton had gotten up uninjured, is there any doubt that the refs have still called the penalty? And yet I can't imagine the Boychuk hit being called without the injury, regular season or playoffs.

[ross10019]

I still think no suspension was the right call but seeing the replay again I think Boychuck probably should have let up given Raymond's very awkward position going into the boards, and given that the puck was long gone by that point.

Very bad break for Raymond, feel for him, missing all of Game 6 and Game 7 and having such a long rehab ahead of him.

[Loch]

Kerry Fraser thinks it should have been a penalty.

That should certainly be proof enough for all the Leafs fans right?

[mister_mcgoo]

LOL

Actually, I like Fraser's explanation on that play. Except the end of it.

The way the NHL doles out justice these days, you can't have it both ways... either the play was legal and no suspension, or it was worthy of a penalty and therefore suspendable, because of the resulting injury.
Again, I don't agree with doing it that way, but that's how the NHL has chosen to do things - the end result is an important factor.

So if Fraser's right and a penalty was missed, it would have also been a suspension because of the severity of Raymond's injury (had a penalty been called). Just speculating.
Matters not.

Also interesting to note that Fraser says the interference wasn't the issue... it was the way he did it. i.e. the forking with the stick to knock him off balance

you guys realize that there is no official NHL policy to dole out suspensions based on injury right? You guys keep treating it like its an official clause in the language of their disciplinary statutes for suspensions or something. I don't follow the logic of this argument at all, especially when its often patently false (see Pacioretty, Savard, etc). Campbell is gone and we have a new sheriff in town (one whom I respect infinitely more) so I don't see why everyone is clinging to the past, the way I see it is that its a clean slate and so far they've done an admirable job in deciding what is and is not a suspension

[ridinryan44]

I hate the idea of a punishment based on injury for the most part, but their are some things about it that I like. I'd love to see some consistency, but I also think that getting extra games for injuring a player is a good idea, but there's a certain way I'd like it to play out.

Using Rome's hit as an example, which I believe was a hit worthy of suspension, I would like to see him getting a pre-set suspension (say 4 games for a hit that makes contact with head) but then get an extra two games based on the fact that Horton was hurt so badly. Now, if Rome makes the same hit, but Horton is just fine, I'd like to see the same 4 game suspension without the extra games. The idea of suspending for injury isn't a sexy one, but I think it's nature of the beast. In simplest terms I'd like to see extra games given for injuries, but I don't want to see the non-injury hits go unpunished, if that makes any sense. It wouldn't be easy to do, and I don't see it happening, but in a situation like Bertuzzi's where he literally stalked Moore, that's the type of situation where I would like to see a player get extra games due to the extreme nature of the injury.

I don't think we'll ever shake the fact that people want to see more punishment when a player is badly injured. Maybe it could be utilized in such a fashion that there are suspension lengths written in stone based on the play (boarding - 4 games, hit to the head - 6 games, slash - 2 games etc) and then Shanny's role would include doling out extra games using his own discretion. Again, I don't see it happening, but it would make me happy for one!

[mister_mcgoo]

Not an official clause, no. But the league admitted injuries play an important factor. And in the most recent example available, Rome got way more of a suspension than he would have otherwise received (had Horton not been injured so badly...)

did they? when? where? I heard no such statement, especially not since Shanny was instated.

Rome's suspension was spot on, +/- a game on either side depending on how you see it.

he hits him:

1)late
2)in the head
3)leaves his feet
4)blindside/lateral hit - partial at least

textbook head shot and the league responded accordingly, doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference that Horton was injured, how seriously he was injured or that its the finals. The suspension was spot on