I understand powerplay's viewpoint, and don't think this is black and white.

Shoulder hit from the side, Poms twists his body, Hjamldldsson didn't elbow/leave feet/take too many strides. How much check is too much? Epic checks are awesome - if the other guy doesn't get hurt - but are horrible if he does.

Maybe we're splitting hairs with the puck touching. The puck was right there. Split second. The game happens too fast to dissect as such.

Whenever you are on the ice, you gotta be strong, braced, ready to be hit. Some guys simply don't have the size or strength for the game and are gonna get sent flying. See Gerbe. Maybe Poms had let down his guard too much. Maybe.

And I also wonder about, that often in hockey and in life, the result determines the penalty. If blood is drawn, the penalty is more. But we have to wait to see if there's blood first. The more a soccer player whines and writhes on the ground, the greater the penalty. The more Pommers is injured, the more the outrage and the penalty. If he goes uninjured, perhaps little or no penalty.

We can get frustrated here, but I would hope that we could have open debate with less name calling and immature arguments. I myself could not see the total illegality of this hit at first, but some of your thoughts led me to reconsider. I do see it a bit more, although still fuzzy. For instance, it does certainly look like boarding, at least:

Rule 41 - Boarding

41.1 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. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.

There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.

Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing” or “off-side” play which results in that player being knocked into the boards is “boarding” and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.”

_________________

Sorry, stopped reading with this sentence.

It was not a shoulder hit to the side. It was a shoulder right between the numbers. The twisting of the body is from the force or the angle of the hit. It was physics, not Pomminville.

Forget the boarding call. It could have been called as checking from behind as well, which also carries a major penalty and game misconduct.

43.1 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, [b]and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed.

The elbow / leaving his feet / too many strides argument doesn't even apply here.

The hit was from behind. The his was suspendable, and has been suspendable forever.

I can't even fathom how we're having this discussion.

Exactly correct. Its not like Pommers turned his back to him at the last moment. Rather, Hjalmarsson chose not to adjust his approach angle when he had plenty of time to get him from the side only or even slow his progress so he didn't rail him like he did. There is a ton of scenarios that would have led to him not even getting a penalty, no less a suspension.

_________________
"Every time I think you say the dumbest thing ever...you keep on talkin' " - Hank Hill
"Starting today, the Buffalo Sabres' reason for existence will be to win a Stanley Cup" - Terry Pegula

Some random comments based on various other comments about the hit:

- Not shoulder to shoulder. The rear view angle shows Hammer's left arm is covering the #9 on Pommer's back

- I think Pommer did know he was coming. But, since he is a RH shot, he needed to turn the way he did to position his stick to receive the puck

- The turn to face the boards to shield the puck and not get hit is a tactic in today's game that might have roots in the little "Respect" stop signs that kids have on the back of their jerseys growing up through minor hockey. It's a variant on guys carrying their sticks too high because they grow up playing with cages on and there are no consequences for carrying your stick high unlike when kids grew up without any facial protection at all and you learned early on to keep your stick down.

- It's annoying that Hammer gets the same 2 games as Wisniewski does for an obscene gesture

- Making Hammer available for Saturday's rematch in Chicago is begging for something really bad to happen

_________________
Sabres Hockey: Commitment to Mediocrity

I don't see this thread going anywhere. It's the same arguments reworded. Agree to disagree should be the final decision.

_________________

That a thread exists at all to debate whether or not Pominville is at fault here is laughable.

_________________
mechaphil

Exactly. The hit was nasty and dirty. Period.

_________________

I cannot be more clear than I've already been:

I NEVER said he was trying to draw a penalty. That insinuates that he was trying to get hit. That is NOT what I have been saying.

All I said was that he MAY have positioned himself in a way that would have discouraged Hjalmarssen from hitting him, since his upper body was twisted toward him, making a hit illegal.

Not that complicated. How many more times can people put words in my mouth (or post) that I never said or intended to say.

How to you capitalize on the rule against hitting from behind in any way other than drawing a penalty?

That is NOT what this thread is about, never has been.

The point I was making had nothing to do with degree of fault on Pominville, but rather whether Pominville was completely blindsided or instead maybe he had gambled on Hjalmarssen staying away due to his positioning along the boards. Either way, Hjalmersson was guilty of an illegal hit. I've NEVER disputed that.

Just nevermind.

I know: Fuck Hjalmersson. Blood on the ice. Let's go.

How?

By DISCOURAGING another player from coming in and hitting by twisting your upper body so your back is to him, that's how.

Pominville turned slightly to protect the puck coming at him. All players do it. The hit was bad, the penalty was called, the NHL could've done better though. 2 Games for a dick sucking gesture, vs 2 games for a potentially career ending hit. Enough with the rewording of arguments, this thread is borderline from being closed.

_________________

I don't understand why we are talking about Pominville and what his motives were. Doesn't everyone see that Hjalmarsson's hit was idiotic and dangerous? That's what the issue is here, not what Pominville was thinking.

_________________
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Hockey Night in Buffalo

If you're accusing Pomminville of turning his back to the player to discourage the hit, you're also saying that Pomminville knew that he was about to be drilled and was trying to draw a penalty.

However, the facts are that it's not correct that Pomminville turned his body in anticipation of a hit, or to discourage a hit.

Please watch the hit again.



Hjalmarsson is cruising in from the blue line, Pomminville is against the half wall near the top of the circles.

At 1:27, Pomminville's right shoulder goes down because he's moving his stick down in anticipation of playing the puck. He does not turn his body at all in anticipation of a hit in the slightest.

I started this thread with the hypothesis that Pominville may have had a motive when positioning himself the way he did. So that IS the issue in this thread.

My point is EXACTLY that: Pominville DID NOT expect to be hit. He WAS NOT trying to draw a penalty. He perhaps set himself up in a vulnerable position with the expectation that it would DETER the hit since it would be illegal.

There was, however, a slight chance that the player would hit him anyway and that is why I called it a bit of a gamble.

But again, I never said Pominville was trying to draw a penalty or expected to be hit. That's just the point.

This strategy goes on all the time in sports, so it surprises me that this notion is so unbelievable to you guys. Don't be so naive.

Your first post.

You think Pominville saw him and just stayed there, now you're saying he didn't at all.

_________________

I just fail to understand how a player standing next to the boards, facing the play, head up, and readying himself to receive a pass up the wall is in any kind of a "vulnerable position". That play happens 20 times a game. It's not a gamble, it's not a player unnecessarily exposing himself. It's a normal, run of the mill hockey play. He was doing everything that kids get taught to do. Head was up, stick was in a ready position, and he had looked around his immediate area a couple times.

Pominville should have considered, and probably did consider, that he could be hit while standing there. However, he probably did not consider that he would be drilled in the back with an illegal hit, nor should he have to worry about being hit illegally at any time. That's why the hit is illegal.

Pretty much, to make an outlet pass, the wingers need to be at the circles, where he was at.

When you don't have the puck you shouldn't be expecting a hit at all, when you have the puck, expect a hit, especially if you're in a corner or against the wall.

_________________