Monday, October 01, 2007

The Rypien hit on Roy

Here's a tough one. It's an ugly hit, to be sure, but Mathieu Roy's spin into the boards is as dangerous as anything.


The important thing, I suppose, is that Roy is all right, but this could have been a serious injury.

Roy's responsibility? [Tom Benjamin]
Oilers' Roy not seriously injured [The Canadian Press]
If 20 games for what Downie did ... [Penalty Shots]


At 1:23 p.m., October 01, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is a clean hit with the guy turning at the very last second and making himself vulnerable. If anything they should send out a video to the rest of the league telling other defenceman never to do that.

Rypien had him aligned perfectly and then Roy made a very dangerous move. He has only himself to blame.

I'd like some day to see a penalty to players endangering themselves by turning their back on a player obviously coming to hit them near the boards. Two minutes for provoking a boarding.


At 1:28 p.m., October 01, 2007, Anonymous Dan said...

The charge isn't as clear on this video is it is on others. A dirty hit with the intention to hurt.

-this is another highlight from tsn.

If Downie is the new standard, this is a suspension.

At 2:04 p.m., October 01, 2007, Blogger Jeremy said...

I dunno. Anyone who has played hitting hockey knows how hard it is to pull back after lining up a hit...and also knows that when your goal is to run a guy into the boards, "intent to injure" becomes sort of moot point. That said, it looked like charging to me -- even without a jump. The fact that it was "from behind" is even debatable, with Roy's turn into the boards.

At 2:15 p.m., October 01, 2007, Blogger Andy Grabia said...

Normal pursuit +no jumping + not late+ Roy turning=no suspension.

At 2:16 p.m., October 01, 2007, Blogger McLea said...

If Downie is the new standard, this is a suspension.

Oh please.

Roy turned the split second before the check was delivered. What exactly was Rypien supposed to do in that situation? Reverse his momentum mid-hit? I'm all for responsible body checking, but if guys are going to turn their back the second before they get drilled, then it's on them and not on the guy delivering the check. The fact that you believe a suspension is warranted here is ridiculous.

At 2:44 p.m., October 01, 2007, Anonymous Rod said...

The 5 minute charging penalty was appropriate, and that should be the extent of the punishment for Rypien. A suspension in this case would be ridiculous (uh oh, there I go agreeing with mclea).

Roy clearly looked over his shoulder, saw Rypien, and inexplicably turned to boards to avoid him. If he didn't see Rypien, why did Roy turn at all? Dumb decision by Roy made the charge more dangerous than it was.

BTW, this opinion is coming from an Oiler fan that supports Downie's suspension. I'm not one of the idiots defending that hit. Simply put, Downie's hit was clearly worse:
- he jumped
- targeted the head
- he was reckless
- he was looking to take out someone (retaliation for getting hit earlier in the shift)
- Roy had touched the puck just before the hit, while McAmmond was about a steamboat beyond having possession

The hits are completely different. One rightly received a match penalty, the other rightly received a 5 minute charging major. Kudos to the refs for getting those calls right.

At 3:15 p.m., October 01, 2007, Anonymous Dan said...

I am not saying it should be a twenty game supension only that if Downie's warranted 20 then this warrants at least 1-4.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want a league where this hit is a suspension. But nor do I want one where Downie gets 20. The main problem is that Downie's was too large, and if it wasn't, then Rypien deserves a suspension.

At 3:20 p.m., October 01, 2007, Anonymous said...

"dangerous hit on a player who was vulnerable" Tom Benjamin's quote on Rypien hit
-seems to me this quote was thrown around a lot concerning the Downie hit. He got 20 games. If this hit by Rypien resembles Downie's even 1/20 then it should be a suspension.

At 3:25 p.m., October 01, 2007, Blogger Shane Giroux said...

Charging sure, but Roy should not have turned like that. Or if he was set on turning...he should have tried to turn and move out of the way. Turn and move, not turn and stand.

At 3:29 p.m., October 01, 2007, Anonymous said...

If we are blaming Roy (and we should), do we blame McAmmond for having his head down?

At 3:31 p.m., October 01, 2007, Blogger James Mirtle said...

Just a note that Dan and penaltyshots is the same person in this thread.

The lone dissenter, if you will.

At 3:36 p.m., October 01, 2007, Anonymous dan/ said...

What do you think James?

If you go by the Downie suspension, should this be one, albeit not nearly so harsh?

Its my view that the tsn highlight shows most clearly the vicousness of the hit.

At 3:46 p.m., October 01, 2007, Blogger James Mirtle said...

I'm fine with the game misconduct, or perhaps a one-game suspension.

I don't think you'll get a lot of support invoking the Downie hit here given how different the two infractions are. No one's arguing the Rypien hit is legal; it just doesn't have a player leaving his feet hitting the head of an unsuspecting opponent.

Big difference.

At 3:49 p.m., October 01, 2007, Anonymous dan/ said...

Was the Downie suspension too long for you. I guess that is what my argument is in the first place when I invoke Downie. 20 games.....

Roy is gettting a lot of much deserved blame, but McAmmond had his head up his ass just as much as Roy was caught playing atom hockey.

At 4:05 p.m., October 01, 2007, Anonymous showtyme said...

To say that McAmmond had his head up his ass isn't that accurate either. To me, he was looking for the return pass....yes, I think the hit was that late. As much as I generally like Downie, I believe that his hit was dirty and a definite intent to injure. The Rypien hit, which I've only actually seen once, didn't look near as severe.

I'm having great difficulty with the suspension of players based on their injuries... I've said it before and I'll say it again. If McAmmond had not been injured (or if he had played again shortly afterwards), there would have been no more than a slap on the wrist. While I don't know what Roy's condition is, I would suspect that he's going to be ready shortly to get back on the ice (again, I have no idea and I'm just guesstimating). This may be why the NHL doesn't want to suspend Rypien.

Whatever, the NHL needs to learn to suspend based on the ACTION, not the reaction.

At 4:07 p.m., October 01, 2007, Anonymous dan/ said...

This is my last post and then i need to see if I can salvage my job. If there is less than 10 percent similarity in the hits, a very small fraction, then Rypien should be suspended. ONLY IF DOWNIE IS THE STANDARD! Would you guys say there is 5-10 percent? Charge, injury-concussion,

The problem harkens back to what James describes as Colin Campbell's "whim" being the measuring stick for suspensions. No standard leaves guys like us putting our jobs in jeapardy! lol

At 4:46 p.m., October 01, 2007, Anonymous Rod said...

dan, it's not about whether a hit was 10% as bad as Downie's. Justice simply doesn't work that way. It can't. It has to look at the factors involved, and decide punishment based on those. Not whether a slash was 25% as bad or as hard as a slash that was suspended for 8.

As I outlined, there are several factors that are different between the Downie and Rypien hits. The NHL sent out video to all teams prior to the season detailing what aspects of hitting would result in suspension. I obviously haven't seen that video, but C.Campbell referenced that video when discussing the Downie suspension. Apparently Downie's hit covered every aspect of that video. As a result, it rightfully garnered a 20 game suspension.

The factors around Rypien's hit were entirely different. I listed some of the differences in a comment above. Maybe those covered off the aspects in the NHL video. That's not to say Rypien's hit was entirely legal...but that's where the charging major comes in.

One other difference I'll highlight, in response to you equating Roy turning with the elevation of McAmmond's head. I'll spell out the difference as you apparently can't see it. Roy *saw* Rypien coming, and *then* turned toward the boards. Are you suggesting McAmmond *saw* Downie coming, and *then* "lowered" his head? No? OK, there's your difference.

Suspending Rypien for a few games solely because Downie got 20 is a joke. The circumstances of the hit dictate. Pure and simple.

As for your continued assertion that suspensions are at the whim of Campbell, that's partly true. That's his role. That said, the league sent out video to all teams (as mentioned above). The standard wasn't exactly a secret. Each team knew, and their players should have known. In suspending Downie, Campbell followed through on what had been outlined to all the teams. Therefore, the Downie suspension wasn't just a whim.

At 5:32 p.m., October 01, 2007, Anonymous said...

Good news, I've been fired! No, but seriously:

I outlined my argument at my own site, linked by James who threw me a bone. I'm sticking to the argument and it is too long winded to attempt to write it here. I know that the hits don't compare, but they don't have to.

Did Roy turn in order to draw the penalty? I don't think so. I think he was trying to dodge the hit but is too shitty. Oilers are in deep troubs.

p.s. James said he maybe should be suspended. 2 bones in one day. Must have felt bad for me getting thrashed.

I'm willing to bet that you will see more of these highlights with the defenseman being pasted by a blue line in sprint. Should the NHL allow the defense partner to "pick" if necessary, or will that just open up a bunch of interference? I would hate being a defenceman in the NHL because its open season.

At 5:48 p.m., October 01, 2007, Blogger McLea said...

I know that the hits don't compare, but they don't have to.

Time to call it a day buddy.

At 12:27 a.m., October 02, 2007, Blogger Art Vandelay said...

I say we should compare it to Pronger's headhunt on McAmmond in last year's Final. Except Rypien used the glass/boards as his accomplice in this particular cheapshot elbow. It's head-hunting. Should be a suspension. A couple of games, anyway.

At 12:08 p.m., October 02, 2007, Anonymous Keith said...

Rypien was running around trying to injure players in the Calgary game on Friday too. Including, after throwing Peters down to the ice in a fight, throwing several punches at the head of a prone player just trying to cover up and defend himself. He got a misconduct for that, and should have gotten a match penalty.

Sounds like this kid is going to find himself on the wrong end of a bigger, badder opponent sooner rather than later.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link


Free Page Rank Checker
eXTReMe Tracker