Um, intent to injure???? What the hell are those pussy footing Californians smoking.

Posted by moore00 from the Ohio State University on 02/21/09 at 08:55 AM ET

Nothing wrong with that hit

Posted by BigSensFan on 02/21/09 at 09:28 AM ET

Better video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcivkD7cH1g

Posted by Mogen_david on 02/21/09 at 10:06 AM ET

Oh come on… intent to injure? Really? Marleau crouched over to try and avoid the hit, and lined his own head up with Gauthier’s elbow.

If you look at Gauthier’s body language, he tucks the elbow in, bends the knees slightly, keeps his feet on the ground, and puts the shoulder forward. That’s a standard, clean, hard body check.

I’m all for getting hits to the head out of the game. And usually, if you’re talking about a guy like Gauthier with a spotty history of dirty hits, I would say fine him and/or suspend him for even a borderline hit like this. But his body language shows everything you look for in a player throwing a good body check, with no intent to injure at all.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 02/21/09 at 10:47 AM ET

Clean hit.
Don’t forget that tough hitting is essential to the game of hockey. 
Without hitting, we might as well watch soccer.

Posted by w2j2 on 02/21/09 at 10:51 AM ET

The SJ announcers were going so overboard during the game too, carrying on about Gauthier and Armstrong’s hits. Easy to pile on Gauthier given his history, as Nathan mentions, but jeez, let’s not make every hit into the boards - especially the ones where the “victims” decide to turn away from the player - a capital offense.

Btw, assuming the article was written by the ex-Shark, ex-Senator Jamie Baker, he’s a SoCal transplant from Ottawa just like me so he has no warm weather excuses haha. We played hockey together as kids in the “Borden Farm” league many years back…

Posted by shazam88 from California on 02/21/09 at 12:16 PM ET

It looked like a headshot to me, but I’m biased. The Armstrong hit looked far worse though, IMO

Posted by Matt from San Jose on 02/21/09 at 01:38 PM ET

Wow. The fact that any of you claim that was a clean hit. Wow. He went after Marleau in the head. That’s all that matters. I’m sorry, but how can you hit a guy with an elbow to the head and all of you be like oh yea that’s clean.

Posted by tim95030 on 02/21/09 at 02:17 PM ET

Tim,
It wasn’t a nice hit - that’s not what has been written. We are commenting on intent - or lack thereof - and a need for perspective. Sometimes crap happens, and for a guy like Gauthier, there’s pretty much going to be strict liability. He hits someone in the head, he’s gone based on reputation and history alone. I don’t believe that he was trying to connect to the head for one minute; he was just trying to get his shoulder up and put Marleau into the boards hard, but that’s my opinion.

Posted by shazam88 from California on 02/21/09 at 02:28 PM ET

I wish the league was this consistent in making sure that everybody with a “history” and everybody who doesn’t remains in control of their bodies when they commit to hitting their opponents.  Gauthier has a strong history of head-shots, high elbows, and charges, and if he makes an attempt to hit somebody high, he’s going to the box and is probably going to be suspended.  I’m fine with that. 

These guys aren’t beer-leaguers--professional athletes have to control their body movements at a very refined level--and they need to use that level of control to ensure that they play hard, physical hockey while respecting each other.

Posted by George James Malik from South Lyon, MI on 02/21/09 at 03:30 PM ET

It looked like a headshot to me, but I’m biased.

It’s undoubtedly a hit to the head, but if you watch the replay a few times over from all angles, you see Marleau bends his knees significantly, like he was trying to duck the hit, but really just ducked his head down into the hit. Gauthier’s feet stay solid on the ice, and they are about the same height, and Gauthier’s elbow is tucked IN to his body, not flying outward… so tell me, do you really think it was “intent to injure”?

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 02/21/09 at 03:32 PM ET

TORONTO (February 21, 2009)—Los Angeles Kings defenseman Denis Gauthier has been suspended for two games, without pay, as a result of an incident during NHL Game #870, Feb. 19 against the San Jose Sharks, the National Hockey League announced.
<a>http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=410390</a>

Posted by Mogen_david on 02/21/09 at 03:33 PM ET

I think it was a good hit and I’m a huge Marleau and sharks fan.  However, when the puck is in front of both of you and your eyes don’t even look at or go for the puck and you go for the hit, that’s boarding. 

Marleau’s head may have gone down but that’s because he was trying to stop.  If Gauthier had gone for the puck like he was supposed to, then this entire episode would never have happened in the first place.  If you think that Marleau was trying to get hit in the head, you obviously know nothing about his character…

Posted by Matt Fry from Winnipeg on 02/21/09 at 04:15 PM ET

Clean hit? What are you guys smokin? He didn’t go for the puck, you see in the replay that he saw a guy in a vulnerable position and went for his head. Dirty player, dirty hit. Period

Posted by Dylan from San Jose on 02/21/09 at 06:03 PM ET

Two things to keep in mind:
1) This hit was on a pending icing call

2) Watch Gauthier’s eyes.  They’re on Marleau’s head the whole time.  The video may not show it as well but CSN Bay Area replayed the hit last night and you could definitely see him target Marleau’s head.  If that’s not intent, I don’t know what is

Posted by Matt from San Jose on 02/22/09 at 01:33 PM ET

Jamie explains his reasoning further:

The NHL
The NHL did a good job by suspending Denis Gauthier for two games. I think looking at his hit on Marleau using two different circumstances explains why the NHL made the right decision.

Dump-In
If the puck had been dumped in Gauthier would not be receiving a suspension. He probably would have still gotten the 2-minute boarding penalty but nothing more. My take on that situation would have been Marleau putting himself in a vulnerable position to get hit. You can’t go fishing for the puck if you are about to get hit.

The problem is, it wasn’t a dump in and it was an icing situation. If Gauthier touches the puck, the faceoff is in San Jose’s end. If Marleau touches the puck, the play continues.

Icing Play
Let’s look at it this way. If one player played the body and the other player was just going to play the puck in 50% of icing opportunities, I think even I would consider coming out of retirement because of all the injuries.

Gauthier got suspended because he had absolutely zero intention of playing the puck on an icing call and it he elbowed Marleau in the head. It was a dangerous play, there was intent to injure and thankfully Marleau (who wasn’t expecting a hit) was not injured. The question begs; why would Gauthier not try and play the puck, because if he touches it first there is a faceoff in the Sharks end and the San Jose players have to stay on the ice? The intent was based on the fact he didn’t play the puck on an icing call and hit a vulnerable Marleau who was playing the puck.

Add to the fact it was a head shot and Gauthier is a repeat offender, the 2 game suspension was the right decision.
http://boards.sjsharks.com/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=1&showentry=213

Posted by Mogen_david on 02/22/09 at 03:13 PM ET

Where is it written you can’t play the body without first making an attempt to play the puck? That’s the cleanest hit I’ve ever seen Gauthier throw, and certainly not suspendable.

Then again, if it was up to me, Gauthier would still be suspended for his dirty hit from last month.

Posted by steve on 02/22/09 at 03:47 PM ET

The second change comes to Rule 81.1. The new icing rule reads that: “Any contact between opposing players while pursuing the puck on an icing must be for the sole purpose of playing the puck and not for eliminating the opponent from playing the puck. Unnecessary or dangerous contact could result in penalties being assessed to the offending player.”

http://www2.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/ne...9c-adb3ef4f0b8f

Posted by Mogen_david on 02/22/09 at 04:42 PM ET

The link’s broken. Is that new this year?

Posted by steve on 02/22/09 at 07:44 PM ET

http://www2.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/sports/story.html?id=f067cde3-b937-4cd7-8a9c-adb3ef4f0b8f

I’ll try that again.  and add TSN. Yep it came in with the change with the change in face-off location and dinking with goalie equipment.  Many view it as a response to Foster.  A compromise between no touch icing and the race for the puck.

Posted by Mogen_david on 02/22/09 at 08:02 PM ET