Just Dead Wrong

Hard to believe four experienced NHL officials could get a call so wrong.

Did the misguided first period expulsion of defenceman Niklas Kronwall from Game 3 of the Western Conference final on Friday night between the Detroit Red Wings and Chicago Blackhawks decide the game? No, but it sure changed it, particularly since the Wings were already without star forward Pavel Datsyuk in a game won by the Hawks that ensured this year's Stanley Cup final will begin no earlier than June 5.

But in a playoff season in which the NHL has gotten so many calls wrong time after time, Kronwall's was arguably the worst miscarriage of justice outside the inexplicable non-suspension of Carolina forward Scott Walker for his goon sucker punch on Boston's Aaron Ward.

Who actually made the call? What was the explanation? The NHL needs to explain itself on this one. And apologize for screwing up so badly.

Kronwall, arguably the best hitter in the sport today, caught Chicago's Martin Havlat with a crushing blow just inside the Blackhawk blueline as Havlat tried to control a loose puck that was clearly in his skates.

Kronwall's elbow was down, and Havlat was knocked cold.

As Hockey Night in Canada pointed out so expertly with video evidence, neither referee put his hand up on the play to signal a penalty. Then, out of thin air, Kronwall was banished from the game with a five-minute interference major and game misconduct, a preposterous call.

The Wings killed it off and, after falling behind 3-0, fought back to force overtime before losing. Would Kronwall have made a difference there? Maybe, and having to play the entire game with five defencemen probably wore the Detroit blueliners down.

But there was just no need for the call. Even worse, clearly one of the on-ice officials simply made it up after seeing Havlat on the ice and deciding something illegal must have happened without actually seeing a foul. It wasn't even close to interference because Havlat was in possession of the puck, and so the play wasn't remotely like the late, blindside hit by Anaheim's Mike Brown on Detroit's Jiri Hudler in the previous round.

Sorry that Havlat got hurt, but hockey's a contact sport and Kronwall's hit was absolutely clean.

What a screwup by four officials who should be reprimanded for such an egregious error in a playoff game of that magnitude.

Comments

[GG]

Utter fiction, Damien. You can't look at the replay and honestly say that Havlat ever had 'control of the puck.' The game misconduct was exactly the right call under the 'intent to injure' guidelines.

[Chris Moltisano]

Intent to injure? Huh? Its hockey. Its a tough game. The reason all us posters can't play in the NHL is because we'd end up like Havlat. On the ice seeing stars. Havlat should know to have his head up. If he doesn't he won't be in the NHL much longer. But these whiners saying how it was a bad hit and that he was trying to hurt Havlat? Its HOCKEY people! What are you trying to turn it into? The freakin' Ice Capades? Whats next? Sponge sticks and nerf puck? Give me a break. Its Havlats' fault for getting hit. Case closed.

[Deryck H]

All, I have learned from reading Mr. Cox's articles that you shouldn't assume he has really watched closely what he writes about. Take a look at the youtube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqanH27U338. Bottom line is that Havlat didn't touch the puck (the puck went through his skates and he didn't touch it all), if you haven't touched the puck you can't have possession of the puck, therefore at best it was interference. At the big point of impact he clearly has his feet off the ice.

Question for you Damien, if a player passes the puck to someone and the player that was to receive the pass misses the pass and doesn't touch the puck, should an opposing player be allowed to crank the guy who missed the pass (even though he didn't touch the puck). Your analysis above indicates that the hit would be good, as he attempted to play the puck and would be considered as having possession of the puck. That doesn't make sense to me, as there was no possession. But I guess that fact is just nonsense.

[Tero]

You are right they didn't make the call until they saw him unconcious with his eyes open. He looked dead, the ref's made the call because they don't want to be the ones who didn't penalize on play when someone may be seriously injured. The right call for the right reasons.

[John]

I have to disagree Damien. I just watched the clip again on TSN. At the time of the hit, it appears Kronwall has his right foot off of the ice, and follows through with is left hand in contact with Havlat's head.

You are right that Havlat had control of the puck, and so was legal for the hit. But, that hit was a headshot, plain and simple. Headshots are as big of a problem as fighting.

That being said, the officials weren't even looking, and so shouldn't have made the call. I have nothing but sympathy for Havlat; I hate to see anyone get hurt.

My conlusion:
1. Havlat should have had his head up.
2. Kronwall made a dirty hit.
3. The referees made a call that they had no business making.
How about that? Everyone was wrong...

[B. M.]

Perfectly executed hockey hit. Havlat did have the puck, it was clearly in between his skates on the replay. A player does not have to have 'control' of the puck in order to be hit, just possession.

Secondly, HNIC's replay clearly showed Havlat was looking towards the middle of the ice to locate an outlet man....hockey 101 when receiving the puck along the boards.

Kronwall did not leave his feet, nor raise his elbow. He caught a player with his head down & it was a thing of beauty. Gotta love hockey. Unfortunately, we've reached a point with too many bloggers and talking heads screaming everytime a player falls on the ice. Your sucking the life out of the game, having never learned it's culture.

Mr. Cox - your analysis was bang on.

[Whitfit]

Fair play if you should be keeping your head up, but in those instances, that happen in tenths of a second, where a player is confused (where is the puck? is it under me?) the consequences shouldn't be impunity for dangerous, career threatening, health damaging hits. I find that preposterous. It is an intent to injure, and the hitting player has to be a little bit more responsible.

[Drew B.]

Hey Damien, I think you need to take a look at the replay again. Sure the puck is in Havlat's skates so you can make the argument he was in control of it, but my issue is in the way Kronwall hit him. If you watch it closely, you can see that neither of Kronwall's skates are touching the ice when he makes contact and that his shoulder is perfectly lined up with Havlat's head. I would have called it a charge, but the intent to injure certainly was there. It's too bad because Kronwall is a good player and generally an exceptionally clean - and devastating - hitter, he just got a little overzealous. I don't know that he deserves any suspension, especially in light of what Scott "Sucker Punch" Walker got away with, but deliberately setting out to injure a player on the other team needs to be penalized.

[UCrackMeUp]

Why are so many people having trouble understanding Damien's "interesting" perspective on this? He wants the Red Wings to win so he can proudly proclaim that the team with the fewest fighting majors in the NHL has won the cup.

He has no option but to blame the officials when the Wings hit a road bump.

[Robert Swift]

Any one who thinks Kronwall wasn't intending to injure Havlat better give THEIR head a shake. That's one of the reasons that guy is playing in the NHL! All you folks who like to see the so called big hits like this better enjoy it well you can 'cause the end is now in sight for such conduct. The end will finally come when somebody dies from a hockey hit like this. With the game being played much faster and by much bigger players like Kronwall, we won't have to wait long!

[mightydude]

Damien: I think it's rather kind of you to call the Kronwall/Havlat incident a "screw-up," as if the officials just plain missed it. It's more complicated than that. It's indicative of the chaos NHL officiating is in now. The refs don't know what's legal or not anymore. We live in an age when minor penalties are called for invisible incidental contact but injury-producing hits are let go. That said, I thought Kronwall's hit was perfectly legal, unfortunate for Havlat and the Hawks, but perfectly legal and actually a thunderous playoff statement. When confused calls like Kronwall's game misconduct are made, who can blame the players for not having a clear idea of what's legal and what's not? The ultimate result seems headed towards removing bodychecking from hockey. I don't think the game is better today than it was ten years ago, twenty years ago, or thirty years ago. If the trend continues, we'll have soccer on ice full of breakaways, penalty shots, and shootouts, yes, even in the playoffs.

[max power]

Seriously did you watch the Walker-Ward incident ? If you didn't see it you tube it and watch Ward throw a vicious elbow to the face of the Canes forward , he had to know a retaliation was coming! I first thought it was a cheapshot but after watching the whole play ..well he was trying to get a suspension using his face as bate.The same with the Brashear hit at first I thought it was late but funny when you see the whole play it was actually a clean play he just caught him on his toes and unprotected.

[Paul]

@ Nerdyrob,

Come on - a five game suspension with for a legal hit? This is not an over 40 no checking, no slapshot league this is the conference finals of the NHL playoffs. Kronwall does not hit with the intent to injure but he does hit with the intent of providing momentum swings. A big hit like this can be just as effective in turning the momentum as a goal. I can't even fathom a coach would say "don't hit him so hard, just stop his momentum." Havlat made the mistake by having his head down - every hockey player knows not to do this. I am sorry to see him injured but it was his mistake that put him in a vulnerable position. Bottom line here is Detroit got homered on that call. Not saying it affected the outcome but it was clearly the incorrect call and absolutely not worthy of a suspension.

[Hard Hockey]

Kronwall is obviously a very physical force for the Red Wings, but this is hockey - teams require a physical force for a number of reasons. I'm sure Havlat will be more reluctant to touch the puck and move anywhere with his head down, if he manages to come back into the series, and other Chicago players will be aware it can happen to them too if they choose to carry the puck. It's a mental advantage, and an important component of the game.

Should the NHL choose to begin outlawing hard hits, with that kind of subjective power to the refs they might as well eliminate body contact all together, and with so many teams struggling to generate revenue (and during a recession no less), I'm sure the idea will be a smashing hit (no pun).

[Steve Grogan]

Semantics here, me thinks:

Moving in the same direction as the puck while straddling it, without having touched it is not 'in control of'.

Kronwall may not have led with it, but there's a full forearm/elbow follow through into Havlat's head. Watch the replay.

If the puck had been on his stick and the hit was all shoulder, then it would have just been vicious, but legal.

[neilt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lHzheFGxJQ

Take another look Damien.

Havlat never touches the puck (if this is a new definition of possession - being near the puck - then we're going to have to reassess how possession is determined during a delayed penalty).

Furthermore, Kronwall most certainly leaves his feet (if only just a litte), and the hit is directly to the head (and he follows through with his forearm).

I think this brings up two crucial points:

1) Our understanding of head trauma has advanced greatly in even the last 5 years. We now know that even one injury like this can set in motion a chain of events that culminates in a fatal dementia 10 or 20 years down the road. While we may long for the days of the Scott Stevens hits, we now know how dangerous those hits are to the mental health of the players. So while a hit of this magnitude may not be illegal, it should be. (don't get me wrong - shoulder to shoulder is fine, shoulder to head is not)

2) At some point this becomes a health and safety issue for the union. If the union is going to behave like a...you know...union, they're going to have to take steps to protect the safety of its members. Hits to the head are going to have to be addressed (and yes, part of this will be to address Don Cherry's favourite straw man - the hard elbow/shoulder pads)

Lastly, I have to agree with Ed Hussman above - your take on this is surprising.

[Steve]

I find it amusing that the one time Kronwall doesn't leave his feet on one of his hits he gets a game misconduct. Kronwall's hits are almost always illegal (a charge/leaving his feet) but he escapes the call(twice in the Anaheim series). This time its as text book as it gets and he gets tossed. There is just no consistency in NHL officiating or supplementary disciple.

[fenderbass57]

The call in this case was wrong but it's about time that they took Kronwall off the ice. At least 75% of the time he leaves his skates to make a hit!!!

[James Archibald]

It was a hit to the head. I don't care if you do it legally or not. With today's equipment, the speed of the game and size of the players it has to be called. We should respect these atheletes enough to protect thme from hits to the head at all costs.

[Colin]

I have to agree with Damien on this one. havlat looked up before he put his head down and should have prepared himself for the hit. it might have been intent to injure, but you have to look at the context of the game. detroit was down 2-0, and kronwall was looking for a momentum shifter. as a winger, you gotta have your head up and prepare for a hit along the boards. it's a shame havlat was hurt, but to me, that was a clean hit, with no elbow.

[Lord Moyne]

Technically it was interference. I'm not a huge fan of the rule since I think you can be in control of the puck without necessarily touching it. However, the rule is clear.

On the other hand, nowhere in the rule book does it say that a 5 minute major should be imposed. An interference an only render in a minor penalty. Period.

[m d'ailleurs]

I thought it was an awesome hit-clean and sporting . Havlat played the puck, head down , good night.No penalty. Now you're going to retro actively penalize the Devils for all the crushing blows Stevens dealt

[CC]

It was a great hit......if he had procession of the puck. Unfortunately he didn't so it was interference, the call was correct. Debate all you want, spend hours in the rule looking for the definition of possession, it doesn't say puck in feet equals possession. If this was a Bantam or midget game the fans would swarm the refs if the call wasn't made.

[Jerrod]

Too funny! He tried to play the puck with his skates and whiffed. Put his head down just before impact. Kronwall didn't leave his feet until after he had made contact, led with the shoulder and not the elbow, and yet there are still people running around with their fingers in their ears unwilling to admit they are 100% wrong.

[Lord Moyne]

And since when does an INTERFERENCE render in 5 min + game misconduct??? Rules are as clear on this as on the definition of interference. "...a minor penalty should be imposed."