Did you watch Game 3 between the Vancouver Canucks and the Boston Bruins?
In case you missed it, the final score was 8-1 Bruins giving Boston their first win of the Finals and knocking Vancouver's series lead down by half, 2 games to one.
One of the big plays was a hit by Rome on Horton in the scoreless first period that injured Horton. Some say it was deliberately targeting the head, some say it was blindsided, some say it was just late. What do you think?
I'm in the late, maybe blindside category. I don't really think it was a deliberate attempt to injure the head area. Was it a late hit? Absolutely. I totally agree with the penalty under Rule 56: Interference. I'll explain in a minute.
But first let me say the announcers had it wrong about Rule 48. This is a new rule just put into place this season. It states:
RULE 48 - Illegal Check to the Head
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head - A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principle point of contact is not permitted.
...and so on...
I did not see anything in that play that would indicate the head was targeted. Contact was made on the body more than the head. It was a little blindside, but not totally off-guard. Horton should have been doing more to be aware of his surroundings. Rome was skating backwards with Horton the whole time. He made an adjustment to put himself in a position to check Horton, but did not come all the way across the ice to pummel an unsuspecting opponent. Now, Rome left his feet, but it looks more like the impact of the play rather than his own actions that caused him to go up in the air.
I agree with the Rule 48, but this is not a Rule 48 hit. This is a Rule 56 hit.
So, is Rome innocent in all of this? No. Absolutely not. He did deliver a late hit. It just so happens his target was not expecting it. It was the little step he made after the pass and positioning his body in a way to deliver the blow. The pass was away, clearly. Even in the regular speed it was clear the pass was away. If Rome hadn't taken that step, he would be totally innocent of wrong doing. But that's not the case. He interferred with the play. Let's look at part of Rule 56.
RULE 56- Interference
56.1 Interference - A strict standard on acts of interference must be adhered to in all areas of the rink.
Body Position: Body position shall be determined as the player skating in front of or beside his opponent, traveling in the same direction.
...
A player is allowed the ice he is standing on (body position) and is not required to move in order to let an opponent proceed. A player may "block" the path of an opponent provided he is in front of his opponent and moving in the same direction. Moving laterally and without establishing body position, then making contact with the non-puck carrier is not permitted and will be penalized as interference. A player is always entitled to use his body position to lengthen an opponent's path to the puck, provided his stick is not utilized (to make himself "bigger" and therefore considerably lengthening the distance his opponent must travel to get where he is going); his free hand is not not used and he does not take advantage of his body position to deliver an otherwise illegal check.
... and so on...
So. Rome is guilty of not establishing body position and inhibiting the movement of an opponent without the puck. It was the little "correction" step that did it. If Rome had done it earlier and was in the way, it would have not been interference. The argument may then have been opened about whether or not the check itself was illegal.
The immediate call was correct, interference. But what type of penalty to assess? Minor? Major? The minor requirement is immediately met.
56.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who interferes with or impedes the progress of an opponent who is not in possession of the puck.
...
What about major?
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).
Okay, I agree. It was a pretty violent way to interfere with someone, so give him five minutes in the box. But wait, there's a footnote.
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.
So Rome got an automatic game misconduct due to injury. I agree with the ruling, and the rules. He meant to deliver a vicious blow, and he did it late. Major penalty. He injured the opponent (intent is not a requirement), so he's gone on a game misconduct.
What's next for Horton and Rome? Well, Horton was moving all of his fingers and toes (great sign!), but will miss the remainder of the playoffs. That's really bad. He was +11 and scoring lots of goals. Rome? His disciplinary hearing is probably over by now and we shall see what happens.
I don't think he should be further suspended. It was a late hit, but again, I don't think it was blindside or targeting the head. A fine a believe is in order, but it wouldn't surprise me to see a suspension for up to 2 games.
TTFN
No comments:
Post a Comment