Kronwall Hit on Havlat

Any hockey fans see the Kronwall hit on Havlat last night? I haven't seen a body check like that since Scott Stevens ended Lindros' career. Check it out:

YouTube - Kronwall Hits Havlat - Wings at Blackhawks Game 3 - May 22 09

He actually got a five minute major and game misconduct. But, it was a clean hit. Just devastating.

Comments

  • yeah it seemed like a clean hit, and the puck was in Havlat's feet so no need for an interference call...
  • Illegal Hit. Refs made the right call.
  • +1. Illegal because, though the puck was in his feet, he had not made a play on the puck before Kronwall nailed him. Thus, interference, and that is all. Impact brought him off his skates, and it was a shoulder that made the impact, so no penalty for any of that, imo.
  • lol I see you guys listened to Don Cherry's comments on the hit tonight?
  • That was a pretty rough one... it looked like he def went in with the elbow.
  • jdAA88 wrote: »
    lol I see you guys listened to Don Cherry's comments on the hit tonight?
    Have not watched Don Cherry in over 4 seasons. No longer relevant to the game, imo. When he makes an accurate assessment of a situation, it is more of a "blind squirrel" scenario than anything else . . .
  • jdAA88 wrote: »
    lol I see you guys listened to Don Cherry's comments on the hit tonight?

    Don cherry only said it was the right call based on the fact that havlat never touched his feet.

    He didnt even touch the facts that

    a) Kronwall left his feet/jumped = charging.
    b) Kronwall rose up and hit Havlat in the face. You are taught to go through a guy when you hit, not rise up into his head. That wasnt a hit, he went to injure. He deserved a penalty, and im glad the league isnt looking into it further because its not a suspension.
  • biilly wrote: »
    don cherry only said it was the right call based on the fact that havlat never touched his feet.

    wat
  • jdAA88 wrote: »
    wat

    it appears I comingled "havlat never touched the puck" with the "puck never touched his feet".
  • It was a clean shoulder check BUT Kronwall had no intention of playing the puck clearly. Havlat didn't brace himself to take a hit instead letting the puck go through his legs. It was unforunate because Havlat was angled down and thats how his head got the abuse.

    Refs actually didn't call it, a linesman did.
  • Everyone who says it was an illegal hit, they should note that neither referee was going to make a call on it. I've seen hundreds of hits just like that over the years and none warrant a penalty. It's hard to tell but the puck hits his skate. And even if not it's right there. Totally OK. Kronwall doesn't need to make a play on it. That's not a rule.

    Anyone who thinks that check deserved a penalty should just go watch basketball. They're not allowed any contact in that snoozefest game.
  • You are confusing what some of us have meant by illegal. So:

    Illegal in that Havlat had not yet made a play for the puck, and the puck has not touched him (afaict), thus interference minor penalty = 2 minutes.

    Illegal in that the manner of the contact could be construed as a deliberate attempt to injure (ie a rising force of impact designed to put maximum torque on the upper body, and thus maximum impact to the head of the player hit. I believe this is still a mafor and a match penalty combined, and can be called by ANY official that sees it, not just the refs.

    My brother has had more then 30 years refereeing experience, at a level = to most Junior A refs. His verdict was 2 for interference, and a Match Penalty for deliberate intent to injure. He hates Chicago as much as I hate Detroit, so there's no bias involved, and we were watching the game together.

    And if you think that contact is not allowed in basketball, you have never watched the game at a high level, court side.
  • With all due respect to your brother's experience, both of the NHL's on-ice referees at the game disagreed with him.
    Milo wrote: »
    And if you think that contact is not allowed in basketball, you have never watched the game at a high level, court side.

    Do they not call a foul when you bump a guy in basketball?

    And you're right. I've never watched a game. I can't help falling asleep.
  • Not all the time. It's sort of like the "holding" penalty in pro football. If the refs wanted to, they could call it on every play/possession. Not a big fan of it either, but basketball is pretty physical in the paint.

    As for the on-ice officials disagreeing, that is certainly true. But then, they was disagreement amongst themselves, too. What's your point? That different officials do not always call a play the same way? No kidding. It does not take away from the fact that Kronwall was deliberately trying to injure Havlat, and deserved to be penalized for it.
  • Hawks fan. All of my life.


    Havlat skated to the boards with his stick on the ice and turned up ice with intent to play the puck. Whether or not he has actually made contact with the puck or not is irrelevant. He skated to the puck and was in the process of gaining control of it.


    So what if Kronwall made no attempt to play the puck. He was doing his job and taking the body. This is hockey for Christ sakes!


    Kronwalls feet never left the ice until after the hit was initiated. He never jumped on purpose or jumped with intent to injure. His feet left the ice because a good hit starts from your legs and you explode through it.


    The hit was also made with his shoulder and not an elbow. His elbow comes up after the hit is made but he sure didn't lead with it. This is standard also. Your arms are automatically going to abduct away from your body as you attempt to gain balance.


    The call was bad. All day long. I am not surprised because over officiating has ruined the game IMO. Filling the box with penalties and handing out expulsions in borderline situations is totally uncalled for. Nobody watches the games to see the officiating. The refs need to stay the fuck out of the way and let the players decide the outcome.


    This is exactly why I hardly watch any NHL anymore after playing 25 years of competitive hockey.
  • Milo wrote: »
    It does not take away from the fact that Kronwall was deliberately trying to injure Havlat, and deserved to be penalized for it.


    LOL. So now you are a mind reader? He was throwing a body check. If you opened your eyes you would see that there are about 1000 of them thrown every game. Every one with intent and every one of them is hard.


    Physical domination is part of hockey. Hard hits slow your opponents down. They start looking over their shoulder instead of heading straight for the puck. When they start slowing down or throwing snow instead of beating you to the puck it buys you time and you start to win more battles. Body contact is meant to be intimidating.


    A 2 hander over someones head is intent to injure. A crosscheck to someones face is intent to injure. A good solid body check is part of the game and if you can't handle it I am sure you can find a nice ringette game to watch.
  • Well thought out post Caddie.

    My only disagreement with you is on intent. I think Kronwall was trying to injure Havlat. Why else does he push "up" into the impact, rather than striding "across" into the impact, like were all taught? That is my only question and, unless coaches are teaching a different way of body-checking these days, I think it's a good one.

    I will agree with you that, other than playoff hockey, the NHL is virtually unwatchable these days . . .
  • Milo wrote: »
    My only disagreement with you is on intent. I think Kronwall was trying to injure Havlat. Why else does he push "up" into the impact, rather than striding "across" into the impact, like were all taught? That is my only question and, unless coaches are teaching a different way of body-checking these days, I think it's a good one.


    Watch the end of the utube clip. The one from the wide angle.

    Kronwell is coasting backwards across the blue line. He pivots and takes one stride before the hit. Havlat is moving very quickly. He hustles to the boards and turns up ice with a ton of momentum. Kronwell is moving much slower of the 2 players.

    If Kronwell doesn't explode through the hit he gets run over because he is moving slower. If he gets run over the Hawks have a 2 on 1.

    The guy was doing his job and doing it well.
  • +1 Caddie.

    It was a clean hit, the refs either didn't think it was a penalty at all or missed it.. saw the guy lying on the ice out cold and realised that if there wasn't a major called their careers were over.

    Havlat keeps his head up instead of down and he doesn't get killed by the bodycheck. The result is totally his own doing.
  • cadillac wrote: »
    Watch the end of the utube clip. The one from the wide angle.

    Kronwell is coasting backwards across the blue line. He pivots and takes one stride before the hit. Havlat is moving very quickly. He hustles to the boards and turns up ice with a ton of momentum. Kronwell is moving much slower of the 2 players.

    If Kronwell doesn't explode through the hit he gets run over because he is moving slower. If he gets run over the Hawks have a 2 on 1.

    The guy was doing his job and doing it well.

    Done. It's actually three steps (2 cross-overs, and the stride into the hit), at least from the end-zone shot at the end, but the other wide-angle shot (ice-level) shows a clean hit.

    Accordingly, I reverse course, and will agree that Kronwall got jobbed by the refs.

    Pens are still taking the cup, though . . .
  • Kronwall is a physical hockey player, he rarely ever passes up a timely hit. You can CLEARLY see that he was going for the hit on Havlat, and NOT playing the puck. It was a clean hit and the refs missed it. Only reason why the linesman called a penalty is because Havlat didn't protect himself and went down on the ice. If he gets back up and plays the shift on there's absolutely no call on the play.
Sign In or Register to comment.