USCHO.com Fan Forum | board.uscho.com > College Hockey > Men's Division I > Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA
View Full Version : Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA
Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
HarleyMC
Michigan? how about we work on UAA sunday and then go from there :p
Sunday will be a battle for the Gophers. I think UAA will most likely come out with a very physical game plan.
Anything new on Leddy?
Yes, Hammy's twitter is saying out 6-8 weeks with a cracked jaw. Tough price to pay.
I guess Lofquist is ready to play and Wehrs has been a pleasant surprise so expect Lofquist to take his spot Sunday.
It was reported that Leddy committed a rookie fopaux by taking a shot while keeping his head down too long thus leaving himself vulnerable to have his bell rung.
I'm not convinced the analysis is accurate as it's sometimes very difficult to begin with to not have your head down when attempting to execute a shot. From the photo below it looks like Jade Portwood came in with a shoulder to the head while Leddy was just coming up from the act of shooting. It appears to me Portwood initiated the check with an intent to deliver a blow to the head.
My question is: Did the refs possibly miss a charging call on Portwood with an "intent to injure" which the NCAA is determined to eliminate?
Intent to injure penalties comprise the last point of emphasis. The main focus is stick fouls, which the committee emphasized a year ago. These penalties continue to be a problem.
"These include slashing, checking from behind, high-sticking, blows to the head and anything that would give them game a black eye," Joe Bertagna, Commissioner of the Hockey East Association and chair of the committee said. "One of the great things about college hockey is the intensity and pace, and we don't want to take away from that. At the same time, dangerous penalties must not be tolerated." -American Hockey Coaches Association/NCAA Men's and Women's Ice Hockey Rules Committee.
http://i594.***********.com/albums/tt28/harleymc1/Leddyhit.jpg
state of hockey
He had just taken the shot. I agree that Portwood knew his head was low there and did nothing to try and not make contact to it. But, rules are rules, and this is a gray area. I don't think Portwood is an awful human being or anything. This stuff happens.
slyhippo
That is rough. I was looking forward to watching him play a little when the team was playing better. Judging from those first couple games he looked very poised out there and is hockey smart beyond his years.
Where else are you supposed to hit a guy when they're coming straight at you with their head down like that? You can't just make somebody leading with their head completely off-limits. There are still some situations where hits to the head are unnecessary, but I agree with the players when they say it's (at least partially) Leddy's fault for keeping his head down. It might still be a dirty/illegal play based on how long it happened after he released the puck, but contact to the head in those situations seems unavoidable, which is why people are always so adamant about keeping your head up.
I see your point. But people are also adamant about not hitting people late.
There are two separate issues at play here.
Like I said, I don't think Portwood had any kind a malicious intent here. These things happen.
It appears obvious from the photo that Leddy had released the shot and his head was coming up when the hit in question occurred. If you look at the way Backstrom (#13) is facing, he appears to be following the puck in the zone. Therefore it appears Leddy was hit long "after" the shot was released. That was an unnecessary hit by Portwood. Noteworthy is the fact that based upon his head position, Portwood is not following the puck but intent on delivering the blow. Personally, I'm not convinced this doesn't deserve another look as a potential penalty the refs missed, especially considering the extent of the injury.
Furthermore, there is no need to hit a player who has not only released the shot but clearly Portwood was in control of his faculties enough to lean his shoulder into Leddy's head while it was coming up. Where is a player supposed to hit another player coming straight at him? Anywhere but his head, simple as that.
Based on the photo evidence: 1) the hit was unnecessary since the shot had been released, and 2) Portwood knew exactly where the hit would land based upon the fact that he leaned his shoulder into Leddy's head while it was coming up. That indicates to me, malicious intent to injure in an area every experienced player understands is especially vulnerable to serious injury. A penalty commensurate with this type of infraction should have been assessed. It deserves another look.
brianvf
That's a lot of assumptions based off of one photo.
Is there a video of the incident?
Franklen
Might be time to let the Leddy hit go. It's lousy that he is going to miss so much time, but the hit wasn't late, Portwood's shoulder isn't especially high, and his elbow is close to his body in the entire time. It was a bang bang hockey play that led to a very unfortunate injury. Yeah, he went in hoping to make a big hit but it doesn't appear to me that there was anything malicious about it.
And for the record, I am a fan who thinks it would be good if something could be done to prevent hits to the head. A play like this though reinforces how difficult it would be to do that. It's a contact sport and sometimes people get hurt.
True, a video replay would be absolutely necessary if there was an official review.
Might be time to let the Leddy hit go. It's lousy that he is going to miss so much time, but the hit wasn't late, Portwood's shoulder isn't especially high, and his elbow is close to his body in the entire time.
The photo shows the immediate point of impact. Leddy's head isn't even thrown back at that point. Portwood's shoulder doesn't have to be high in the placement of a hit at that stage. However, video would be the best evidence in a case like this.
I have to agree Harley, I think you are stretching it a bit (a lot?) based on one photo. If you have video and then see all your analysis great, but let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. The other things that don't show up in that photo, the speed of Portwood and intent as somebody else said, was Leddy moving...and of course the speed of the game.
As a ref, that's a clean hit, based on the picture, with an unfortunate outcome...which happens a lot unfortunately. In no way should Portwood be a villain based on that photo.
Stauber1
The hit was certainly late. It should have been a penalty.
That said, I don't think the intent was to bust Leddy's jaw. I do think the intent was to "rock" him though.
Bottom line, it was after the play, and an effort was made to bring the shoulder in contact with the head. That's a no-brainer.
My thoughts are that 1. Leddy had to have his head down to take the shot, not that it was a rookie mistake. (You might expect to get hit in that situation but not with that outcome. It is like a QB willing to take a hit to get a pass off. You are willing to take a hit for a chance at a goal. I can't believe he hasn't been in that same situation in his career before.) 2. I thought it should have been a penalty at the time, but not quite enough for a review after the fact. A shot to the head (Backstrom clearly leaned in for the hit and it would only result in a hit to the head) should be a penalty. Saying "where is he supposed to hit a low player coming at him?" is like saying " a check from behind headfirst into the boards is ok because it is the only way the player can be checked in that position". If there is risk of injury, you don't make the check, or you get a penalty. It should be as simple as that. However, like the option of different degrees of checking from behind, I would say this was more a bad judgement (2 min minor type) than an intent to injure (major). That is why I would leave it alone at this point.
It is too bad though. He was just starting to show signs of his confidence picking up, it seemed, and I was looking forward to some fun plays.
Greyeagle
SAWEEP! Of course, AA is the cortisone shot of the WCHA. :)
61ache
The hit wasn't late. Personally, I don't think it was a dirty hit in any stretch of the imagination (I'm a Gopher fan). Whether you think it was a dirty hit, or a clean hit, whatever anyone says isn't likely to change your mind. At the end of the day, Leddy came across the middle, in the high slot, head down, and was injured by a hit. It's unfortunate, but that's what happened, those are the results, and all the debate won't change it.
MinnesotaNorthStar
Is there a video of the incident?Agree here. In real time the hit didn't look that bad to me (granted, it was almost off the screen). It was a little late from what I remember, but I'd be okay with a penalty being called or the ref letting it go. Harley's grasping at straws using a still photo to show that it was late and malicious. All you can tell from that picture is the shot had been released. For all we know (just using the picture, no other source of input) the puck is only 6 inches out of the shot, which would mean not a late hit. Also, Leddy may have flinched after seeing Portwood out of the corner of his eye after shooting, thereby ducking slightly and having Portwood contact his head instead of his body.
For all we know (just using the picture, no other source of input) the puck is only 6 inches out of the shot, which would mean not a late hit.
You are right in not being able to tell from the photo, but the puck was already on net when the hit happened. That much I remember. You can see the other UAA player (13) looking over to where the play was at that point.
Leddy is obviously watching his shot a little long and is coming across with his head down, so the contact to the head isn't my beef. It's just that it was a bit late.
I really do find it hard to believe that Portwood was trying to break Leddy's jaw and give him a concussion though. Whatever, this crap happens from time to time. If a penalty was called, a 2:00 minor would be the max it could have gotten.
That's why I stated "only using the photo and nothing else." Having watched the game, yes, the puck was already on net when it happened. I did state earlier I thought the hit was a little late...;) :p
But that wasn't the part that I quoted, therefore that part of the post doesn't really count. Or something. :o