Reaves ejected for hit on Wilson

[ericdaoust]

There's been a significant drop in head shots over the years, despite players of all sizes and shapes being around during this time. Players adapted and learned how to hit legally. Simple as that.

[tropheus_guy]

I just saw the hit after reading the ramblings. Honestly, that hit didn't seem all that bad to me. Shoulder to shoulder. I suppose it was a split second too late, but I'm surprised he got a penalty and I will be even more surprised if he is suspended.

Honestly, I think Wilson was guilty of watching his pass and not paying attention on the ice. Because he was looking at his pass, he was caught off guard and his head hit the ice. Reaves didn't hit him from behind and he didn't hit Wilson's head. To me, that was a clean shoulder-to-shoulder check.

The fact that the hit was against Wilson will cause some people to be biased, but I have no opinion one way or the other about Wilson.

Totally agree it was unfortunate (or fortunate if you think he had it comin) that he lost his balance and fell in his face. if he didnt hurt himself and got up like he would have normally then i dont think there's any call made on the ice.

Im sure if they switched places Tom would have throttled Reave's to the head instead of shoulder to shoulder. I don't get why he wont fight Reaves unless hes a scared, and he should be.

Anyways I vote clean hit. Good on Tom for making it off the ice (looked liek Big Buff) when he got rattled last game. Cant wait for the rematch.

[NoDoughty]

Such a silly point. Yes, in order for the hit to be "legal", a part of that is that you have to not hit his head. This means, that you can hit taller people higher than you can hit shorter people. The relevant question needs to be "did you hit him in the head?", not "how tall is he". It's a little baffling to me, to be honest.

Rylant

I share your bafflement. The NHL doesn't make a distinction, neither should we.

[saucelife90]

If you are going to hit a guy from the side and he is short and you are going drive your shoulder into his head , then I do think that you let up and don't take his head off. I am not sure if this is what you are asking. Blindside hits to the head are not allowed, for good reason, I feel like I am missing the point honestly. I don't ask this sarcastically, but is the point you are making that all hits should be allowed and we should not worry about headshots? Or that because the hit on Wilson would have been a head shot on Gaudreau, then the hit on Wilson should not be allowed?

What I'm getting at is, had this been a late/blindside hit and there was head contact due to the player being smaller, instead of a late/blindside hit to Tom Wilson (who luckily? in this case is tall) people would be in an uproar.

Is it fair to say that a blindside hit to the shoulder causing a concussion from whiplash is just as bad as a blindside hit to the head causing a concussion?

[Moses]

Strap on you lid! The idea is if you fall and smack you head on the ice the helmet is there to take the impact. Wilson took the hit, lost his helmet, then landed (with the first point of contact) on his forehead. That is the big takeaway here. Headfirst, facefirst, onto the ice. Dumbassery.

[lucafen4]

Wilson just... "ran into a lion in the jungle."

that's all

[SeaDawg]

What I'm getting at is, had this been a late/blindside hit and there was head contact due to the player being smaller, instead of a late/blindside hit to Tom Wilson (who luckily? in this case is tall) people would be in an uproar.

Is it fair to say that a blindside hit to the shoulder causing a concussion from whiplash is just as bad as a blindside hit to the head causing a concussion?

Perhaps if Wilson was a smaller player, Reaves wouldn't have hit him the way he did, knowing full well that the point of contact would have been the head instead of the shoulder?

[als_revenge]

The ref got this call exactly correct as per rule book. It's 5 minutes for interference. All this talk about head shots is irrelevant; he wasn't hit in the head and the 5 minute interference call is based on the injury - it doesn't matter where he hit him for this call. I have the feeling that many of the people commenting on this hit don't actually know NHL rules...

[Sidenown]

Perhaps if Wilson was a smaller player, Reaves wouldn't have hit him the way he did, knowing full well that the point of contact would have been the head instead of the shoulder?

This! YES if Reaves had hit a smaller player this way, and the principal point of contact was to the head there would be a (justified) uproar....because you can't hit players like that. So he would have had to adjust and decide whether or not to finish the check. The same thing goes for high-sticks, a high stick on gaudreau probably isn't one on Chara.

[stevegamer]

What I'm getting at is, had this been a late/blindside hit and there was head contact due to the player being smaller, instead of a late/blindside hit to Tom Wilson (who luckily? in this case is tall) people would be in an uproar.

Is it fair to say that a blindside hit to the shoulder causing a concussion from whiplash is just as bad as a blindside hit to the head causing a concussion?

No, it's not fair. The chances of a concussion from a blow to the head are much higher, and the whiplash is far worse, as is the loss of ability to balance resulting from said hit. Therefore it is certainly not "just as bad".

[stevegamer]

The ref got this call exactly correct as per rule book. It's 5 minutes for interference. All this talk about head shots is irrelevant; he wasn't hit in the head and the 5 minute interference call is based on the injury - it doesn't matter where he hit him for this call. I have the feeling that many of the people commenting on this hit don't actually know NHL rules...

Does that make the ejection the correct call? it happened late in the 2nd, not at the end of the game.

[als_revenge]

Does that make the ejection the correct call? it happened late in the 2nd, not at the end of the game.

This is exactly what I mean about people not knowing NHL rules. The game misconduct was mandatory … so, yes, it absolutely was the correct call.

56.4 Major Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence, to a player guilty of interfering with an opponent (see 56.5).
56.5 Game Misconduct Penalty – When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

[The Comish]

This is exactly what I mean about people not knowing NHL rules. The game misconduct was mandatory … so, yes, it absolutely was the correct call.

56.4 Major Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence, to a player guilty of interfering with an opponent (see 56.5).
56.5 Game Misconduct Penalty – When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

But it's a big book. I like the Coles Notes playoff edition better...published on a medium sized Post-It Note.

[als_revenge]

But it's a big book. I like the Coles Notes playoff edition better...published on a medium sized Post-It Note.

Well, yeah, there is that, lol. Suppose it is easier to just talk about the incompetence of the refs