What's the difference...

[RangersReds03]

between these two plays?
YouTube - Derek Boogaard Spears Chris Neil Oct 2, 2010

YouTube - Alexandre Burrows/Marc Staal Incident (January 13 2011)

Boogaard was given a 5 min. major, pretty sure a game misconduct and suspended 2 or 3 games, which he deserved. Burrows besides getting NOTHING, drew a penalty on the play.

 

[elocomotive]

The difference seems obvious.

Boogard came up behind a player just standing there and took a cheap shot.

Burrows and Staal were battling and it looked like they both committed penalties. Burrows didn't get called, but that's what happens on retaliation sometimes.

In terms of dirtiness, not even close - the Boogard play was classless.

 

[RangersReds03]

I don't know for me the intent is the same. And they weren't exactly battling out for long they come together for the first time at the 6 second mark he hits him in the nuts by the 9 second mark.

 

[puckhead]

Burrows had the decency of looking Staal in the eye when he rattled his nuts.

/twas a missed call no doubt. shoulda been 2 each.

 

[mbhhofr]

Boogard's was a spear. Burrows had his stick between Staal's legs and lifted his stick into his crotch. He didn't spear him. Penalties aren't called by one's intent. Spearing is a major. Burrows could have been given a minor.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Boogard's was a spear. Burrows had his stick between Staal's legs and lifted his stick into his crotch. He didn't spear him. Penalties aren't called by one's intent. Spearing is a major. Burrows could have been given a minor.

Not entirely true. At the ref's discretion, he can call a penalty if he believes there was intent to injure on a play even if the person missed.

For example, if a guy swings his stick like a baseball bat at another player's head but that guy ducks out of the way quick enough and doesn't get hit, the ref can call the intent.

Same with an intended spear. Which this wasn't.

 

[mbhhofr]

Not entirely true. At the ref's discretion, he can call a penalty if he believes there was intent to injure on a play even if the person missed.

For example, if a guy swings his stick like a baseball bat at another player's head but that guy ducks out of the way quick enough and doesn't get hit, the ref can call the intent.

Same with an intended spear. Which this wasn't.

There is no penalty in the book for INTENT To Injure. It's ATTEMPT To Injure. The referee is not a mind reader he doesn't know what the player's intention is, but he knows what he attempts to do.

 

[IPostedWhat]

There is no penalty in the book for INTENT To Injure.

There are automatic suspensions however.

 

[IPostedWhat]

Major penalties are rare, and are only called for extremely reckless play or intent to injure. For the most part, major penalties are more dangerous versions of minor penalties.

Understanding Major Penalties in Ice Hockey | iSport.com

 

[mbhhofr]

They go by the rule book, not some other site trying to explain the game to people.

These are linked to the NHL Rule Book. Does it say Intent to injure or Attempt to injure?

Official Rules - Rule 21: Match Penalties - NHL.com - Rules

Official Rules - Rule 21: Match Penalties - NHL.com - Rules

 

[IPostedWhat]

Ok, this is in the rule book, and it does say Intent to injure:

40.2 Automatic Suspension – Category I - Any player who deliberately strikes an official and causes injury or who deliberately applies physical force in any manner against an official with intent to injure, or who in any manner attempts to injure an official shall be automatically suspended for not less than twenty (20) games. (For the purpose of the rule, “intent to injure” shall mean any physical force which a player or goalkeeper knew or should have known could reasonably be expected to cause injury.)

Official Rules - Rule 40: Physical Abuse of Officials - NHL.com - Rules

 

[mbhhofr]

Ok, this is in the rule book, and it does say Intent to injure:



Official Rules - Rule 40: Physical Abuse of Officials - NHL.com - Rules

I give you that, but it's in relation to an attack on an official, not on a player.

 

[IPostedWhat]

I give you that, but it's in relation to an attack on an official, not on a player.

I knew what you meant, I was just going by the fact that you said it was nowhere in the rule book.

I'm guilty of nitpicking on this one, sorry.

 

[beantownmaniac]

between these two plays?
YouTube - Derek Boogaard Spears Chris Neil Oct 2, 2010

YouTube - Alexandre Burrows/Marc Staal Incident (January 13 2011)

Boogaard was given a 5 min. major, pretty sure a game misconduct and suspended 2 or 3 games, which he deserved. Burrows besides getting NOTHING, drew a penalty on the play.

The first one the guy comes up from behind and slashes the guy in front in the nuts. The second one they were battling and the only real penalty I saw was the slash by the Rangers guy (pretty nasty one). He should have been fined

 

[beantownmaniac]

Burrows had the decency of looking Staal in the eye when he rattled his nuts.

/twas a missed call no doubt. shoulda been 2 each.

I missed that

Edit: Now I see it. I think it was the skating up from behind that got the first guy suspended. I think in the second video, he should have gotten at least a fine. JMO