Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Hit From Behind?  Andy Sutton On Matt Hendricks

No penalty for the hit

. Sutton did get two minutes.

Filed in: NHL Teams, Anaheim Ducks, Washington Capitals, | KK Hockey | Permalink
  Tags: andy+sutton, matt+hendricks

Comments

Nathan's avatar

Geez Paul, you’re always picking on Andy Sutton… smile

Seriously though, definitely should’ve been a penalty called on that one, seemed pretty obvious.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 02/17/11 at 12:57 PM ET

Flashtastick56's avatar

Doesn’t Sutton have a history of dirty hits like this?

CRUCIFY HIM!

Posted by Flashtastick56 from Meriden, CT on 02/17/11 at 01:02 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Saw that live last night and was hoping you’d post this hit for discussion.

Yes, hit from behind.  Should have been a penalty.  The Ducks homer feed was busy asking about why Erskine didn’t get an instigator (which he probably should have) and came across the conclusion that it might just have been because the refs felt that they were cancelling out a boarding call by not calling an instigator.  This may be the only time I’ve agreed with the Ducks’ announcers.

Although, I disagree with the idea that it’s a good idea to let two penalties cancel out as non-calls.  The Sutton hit wasn’t supplemental discipline-worthy, but it should have been at least two minutes.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 02/17/11 at 01:07 PM ET

Avatar

Sutton two minutes boarding at a minimum. How did the refs miss that? The puck was too close to the play? Then the NHL wonders why fights start and things can get out of hand.

Hits like this should be four minutes and the insitgator only two, because even though the refs blew it, the player making the play woulnd’t have known that before hand. Does it require additional games, I’ll let the wheel decide, but if there were harsher penalties from the start players would think twice.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 02/17/11 at 01:21 PM ET

Avatar

Actually, Sutton did get a 2 minute minor for boarding and Erskine did get 2 for instigating and a 10 minute misconduct. game summary
So it might be, that the ducks or washington announcers didn’t pick it up.

Posted by murphy from Slovakia on 02/17/11 at 01:29 PM ET

Evilpens's avatar

SO! Are you an Expert ?  LOL

Posted by Evilpens on 02/17/11 at 01:29 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

So it might be, that the ducks or washington announcers didn’t pick it up.

Posted by murphy from Slovakia on 02/17/11 at 10:29 AM ET

Thanks for clarifying.  I should have paid better attention myself.

Well then, good on the refs.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 02/17/11 at 01:32 PM ET

Avatar

So it might be, that the ducks or washington announcers didn’t pick it up.

I don’t think so, since the play went up the ice, with the Ducks in possession, and wasn’t stopped until the fight started (and, I don’t know about the other ref, but the one who was ten feet away staring directly at the play didn’t put his arm up).

I’m guessing the refs realized they missed the call and tacked it on so that the penalties would equal out.

Posted by Garth on 02/17/11 at 01:35 PM ET

Paul's avatar

Yes, there was a penalty.  I actually saw the hit live but then when I watched the video and they said no penalty, I had a brain freeze.

My fault.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 02/17/11 at 01:45 PM ET

Avatar

Glad to see the refs didn’t miss a hit that obvious. I still think you make hits like that automatic 4 instead of just 2. Suspensions don’t put a team at a disadvantage if it winds up just being a goons that get them, but an in-game penalty affects a team immediately and helps the team the penalty was committed against.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 02/17/11 at 02:42 PM ET

MOWingsfan19's avatar

2 minutes for that kind of hit isn’t a deterrent and never will be.

Posted by MOWingsfan19 from I really like our team on 02/17/11 at 02:52 PM ET

Avatar

Andy Sutton.Another no talent tool that bounces from team to team.The only time you see his name mentioned after a game is for a dirty hit or because he fought a non fighter.

Posted by bobnoakridge from Oak Ridge, TN on 02/17/11 at 02:56 PM ET

Da lil Guy's avatar

There’s no question it’s boarding but I think that’s all it is. The defenceman has got to be allowed to make a physical play on the puck carrier in this situation. Hitting him with sufficient force to drive him into the boards from two feet out is a penalty, but using contact to separate the player from the puck is a good hockey play. The problem is that ‘soft’ isn’t in Sutton’s vocabulary.

Posted by Da lil Guy from Guelph, Ontario on 02/17/11 at 04:21 PM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

Sutton two minutes boarding at a minimum.

hockey1919, this isn’t boarding.  boarding isn’t when you check someone into the boards from behind.  boarding is ANY excessively violent check into the boards - from behind or otherwise.

this wasn’t excessively violent, although it was a check from behind.  so it’s not boarding.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 02/17/11 at 04:25 PM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

using contact to separate the player from the puck is a good hockey play.

not if you hit him from behind.  ANY check from behind is a penalty, near the boards or not.

there apparently needs to be some clarification on what these penalties are.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26329

Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards.

boarding does not require the check to be thrown from behind.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26333

Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body.

and since it is sometimes confused with boarding, here’s charging…

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26331

Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.
Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 02/17/11 at 04:31 PM ET

Avatar

I still say boarding because to me it is clear that the hit caused the “opponent to be thrown violently in the boards”  I did not once mention hit from behind in my post. We have different definitions of violent, “excessive”  was added by you to the rule.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 02/18/11 at 11:42 AM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image

image