I’m not a fan of either team.  In fact - I’m pulling for the underdog (Chicago) in this series.  That said - this looked like a good, solid hockey play to me.  I don’t understand the penalty/misconduct.  Are hard hits that result in injuries going to equate to game misconducts and/or suspensions in today’s NHL?

Posted by sinbin from Maine on 05/22/09 at 08:39 PM ET

Every hit is critcized every game.  It has become the norm for coaches to complain to the media after every game.  It is becoming a joke.  Calling it interference is a head scratcher but the only thing one could argue about is that Kronwall left his feet slightly...something this guy regularly does.  I am sure we will hear all the Wings fans complaining which is ironic considering they thought the Hudler hit was dirty.

Posted by Mr. Nasty on 05/22/09 at 08:58 PM ET

Mr. Nasty -

Considering the Hudler hit didn’t involve the puck being there, and Havlat got hit while in possession of the puck, I don’t see any similarities whatsoever.

It’s really bad though when Eddie Olczyk (who is anti-WIng goign back to his Hawk and Leaf playing days) is calling the hit clean, and Englblom and Jones are doing the same between periods.

That Kronwall hit would have been let slide if it was any other team not wearing a winged wheel though.  And people wonder why Wing fans scream “CONSPIRACY”.  My god, things like this don’t help…

Posted by Primis on 05/22/09 at 09:04 PM ET

This is the type of officiating inconsistency that drives me bananas...that was niether charging, interference nor an elbow.  Just ridiculous

Posted by Crusty Old MSgt from 17 miles east of Pikes Peak on 05/22/09 at 09:10 PM ET

Havlat didn’t actually have possession… it was in his feet, but he didn’t “have” it.  We would have to debate the definition of possession perhaps, but I didn’t see him with the puck in his possession.  I wasn’t sure of the hit but once I saw the replay I was convinced he lept at Havlat.  He was obviously going in there to do as much damage as possible - some would argue that is the point of checking… sure it is.

The commentators on CBC were all saying it was a clean hit also, I disagree.  There is no doubt he left his feet.  If the Hudler hit was dirty, then so was this.  In fact I think there was much more intent with this hit, considering the effort to leave the feet and all.

The only problem I have is with the call, I would prefer an “Attempt to Injure” 5 min penalty rather than the lame-sounding Interference Major… Hope Havlat is okay, he seems to break often and easy.

In the end it is questionable perhaps, but I would rather see that called than not called.  We need hard hits, but not that.

Posted by WingMan from QC on 05/22/09 at 09:21 PM ET

Jeeze, what Byfuglien did after the play was worse than what Kronwall did. Plus look at all those Hawks congregate over there trying to even the score meanwhile, Havlat is getting hit in the face with sticks, and getting players pushed on hi m.

Posted by RJ from Cbus on 05/22/09 at 09:43 PM ET

any penalty on that hit is a joke.
He never left his feet, either.

Posted by Karina on 05/22/09 at 09:52 PM ET

Yeah, Kronny really jumped... during the hit. It seems it was just to maximize the impact, not a crazy jump in Havlat’s direction.

It may be a penalty, but not a misconduct.

Posted by Guilherme from Brazil on 05/22/09 at 10:10 PM ET

Hav-flat has a glass heel the size of his entire body.

Mr. Nasty. Show us where he left his feet. Do it.

Posted by mrfluffy from Cincy on 05/22/09 at 10:12 PM ET

Clean but HARD, legal hockey hit.  Game Misconduct was complete BS.  The puck was there and Havlat tried to play it and whiffed.  Kronvall didn’t LEAP and leave the ice......his skates came off the ice AFTER contact was made.

If you can’t take clean hard hockey tyhen don;t watch it.

Posted by Wings_Fan_In_KC on 05/22/09 at 10:12 PM ET

Kronwall’s left skate was on the ice when physical contact with Havlat was made. It’s tough to get a super-slow-motion replay of it, but if you watch it frame-by-frame, Kronwall’s left skate was on the ice. The retarded screenshot by Empty Netters is from just after the hit.

Posted by Muero from Ohio on 05/22/09 at 10:13 PM ET

Havlat very obviously didn’t control the puck, but I don’t think it’s fair to demand that an opponent discern possession to a strict degree. I think that if the puck is right there, you can’t call it interference, at least in a situation like this one where the player being hit is clearly part of the play. Okay, if a guy is standing there and doesn’t know that the puck is coming up from behind him, that’s interference, but Havlat was making a play at a puck at his feet. He’s hit-able and that’s not interference.

Talking about charging or hitting the head of a defenseless player has alot more to it in this case.

Posted by false_cause from DC on 05/22/09 at 10:13 PM ET

In the end it is questionable perhaps, but I would rather see that called than not called.  We need hard hits, but not that.

No offense bro, but I’d rather see all the stupid crap after the whistle called than that.  I’m not convinced he left his feet, it looks like he was on the ice or meerly inches off as he made contact and simply road up Havlat.  I can’t pretend to know what Kronwall’s intension was, other than to seperate the man from the puck.  I think that’s a clean hit with unfortunate consiquences.  I do hope Havlat is OK.

Posted by Crusty Old MSgt from 17 miles east of Pikes Peak on 05/22/09 at 10:14 PM ET

Kronners only left his feet AFTER impact. If you’re gonna say he left his feet you might as well just say Havlat did the same. Obviously when 400 lbs of professional hockey player collide they’re not going to stay glued to the ground in their ballet positions.

Also, Dustin ByF-UGLYien showed the most disregard for an injured teammate I’ve ever seen in professional sports.

Posted by Danielle from P-Town on 05/22/09 at 10:14 PM ET

Okay, first thing is first. I am a Wings fan. And after the Hudler/Brown thing, I said it was NOT a suspendable hit. You can go back and find my comments on numerous posts. I thought the refs did a great job calling Brown for the major penalty and misconduct/ejection.

That said, I also feel the refs made a fair call giving Kronwall the major with a misconduct/ejection. While I don’t necessarily think it was interference (the puck was right in Havlat’s feet), the hit did land on Havlat’s head.

With that said, it was clearly not a malicious elbow—just like Brown’s hit on Hudler was not a malicious elbow. Just like Brown’s hit on Hudler, it was a clean shoulder check. Unfortunately, it hit Havlat’s head. And given that players’ heads must be protected, I support the ref in his decision to call this as a major penalty and assess a misconduct/ejection, even if on a technicality “interference” didn’t seem to be the correct call (roughing would’ve felt more appropriate).

Additionally, it was clearly not a charge—Kronwall’s feet do not leave the ice until right after impact, which is the norm, if you consult real physics and the laws of momentum (as opposed to Chris Pronger’s brand of “fizzix").

So, in a rare instance these days, I’m a guy supporting the job the officials did on this call—the key here is that the NHL has NO RIGHT to suspend or fine Kronwall, as Mike Brown was not suspended or fined for a nearly identical hit earlier in the playoffs. Not to mention the far dirtier hits in the Pens/Canes series during games one and two that have gone unpunished (or relatively lightly punished).

I certainly hope Havlat is okay, just from a personal health standpoint… it doesn’t look like he’s playing hockey the rest of this season… unless he’s crazy and wants to risk his life playing with a significant head injury. Hopefully he and the Hawks have learned something from the Natasha Richardson episode and will make sure he is without a doubt 100% healthy before letting him set foot back on the ice.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 05/22/09 at 10:28 PM ET

Moment of impact.

Posted by moocat on 05/22/09 at 10:36 PM ET

whether it was legal or not isn’t why they called the penalty. He was out cold with his eyes wide open. He looked dead. No referee is going to go down as the guy who didn’t call a penalty when someone is paralyzed or dies. It was a call to cover their rear ends in case it turned out bad. I would have done the same thing.

Posted by tero from tacoma on 05/22/09 at 10:40 PM ET

And just to clear up the lies EN are spreading, here’s the hit at the point of impact.

Link in case the direct image doesn’t work:

Direct image:

Just to clarify/restate my position—I still understand why the call was made. It WAS a hit to the head, which is dangerous. But it was a shoulder, not an elbow, and roughing would’ve been a more appropriate call considering a hair was the only thing that separated Havlat and the puck. And clearly, at the point of contact, Kronwall’s skates are both on the ice—not charging.

So, I give the refs credit for making a tough call on a hit that, even though clean by the laws of the game, was still dangerous and right to the head. But Kronwall does NOT deserve a suspension, considering the hit was clean according to the rules, and that previous, similar hits (such as Brown on Hudler) went unsuspended.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 05/22/09 at 10:45 PM ET

Nathan -

You and I both know the league is going to suspend Kronwall.  Admit it, you know it.

There’s a seperate set fo rule for Wings and the rest of the league.  What’s suspendable for a Detroit player isn’t for any other player.  We knwo this because as you said, we have a hit last round to fall back on.

They will suspend Kronwall and call it “head-hunting”, though those same people were telling Jiri Hudler he should have “kept his head up” even though the puck had left 2 seconds earlier.

I’m still waiting on the justification for a Game Miscounduct for INTERFERENCE.  Not only was it a bogus call, but their choice of penalty makes it even wackier and seem even more like the refs had no clue what they were doing or calling…

Posted by Primis on 05/22/09 at 10:48 PM ET

The double-standard of the NHL is breathtaking

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste. Marie on 05/22/09 at 10:50 PM ET

Sorry Primis. As a Wing fanatic, I’ll buy into the conspiracy theories more than I probably should, but I’m not buying this one. The league has no remotely sensible reason to suspend Kronwall here, especially after not suspending Brown, and also after not suspending Walker, not suspending Bayda, and not suspending Cooke.

In regards to the justification for giving game misconducts/ejections for interference… I agree that the semantics on this hit are off. Roughing probably would’ve been a more appropriate call, as the puck was right at Havlat’s feet, so clearly it wasn’t interference. The five minutes and misconduct/ejection are for the hit to the head. And again, even though it was not an elbow, and was “clean” by all current standards, I don’t personally have a problem with the league calling major penalties for hits to the head.

The Brown hit on Hudler was the exact same as this, with the exception that interference was semantically the correct call, as the puck wasn’t near Hudler when Brown threw the check.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 05/22/09 at 10:59 PM ET

The league has no remotely sensible reason to suspend Kronwall here, especially after not suspending Brown, and also after not suspending Walker, not suspending Bayda, and not suspending Cooke.

That’s *precisely* why I feel they’ll manage to get it wrong though.  They always seem to.

And by the way, there was one difference between Hudler and Havlat:  Hudler didn’t have the puck near him, he’d passed it away and the hit came seconds later.  Everyone forgets that.

In this case, the puck was right there and it was right on the play.

Posted by Primis on 05/22/09 at 11:06 PM ET

43.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

That’s from the rulebook. So, just to further prevent people from believing EN’s lies, let’s examine what this means. EN tries to claim in their comments, clearly after they’ve seen the video I screenshot above, that shows Kronwall’s feet do NOT leave the ice until AFTER the contact, that the rule doesn’t say it matters when the player leaves the ice.

Wrong.

The key word in the above quote from the rulebook—into.

I hate to nitpick, but that’s a VERY important word. The word “into” typically defines an act that occurs at a point of entry, a beginning, a start. Not a finish. “Out of” describes the end. “Into” implies that the jump must begin prior to contact being made.

Look, it’s not even really a debate as to whether or not it was charging. The visual evidence, after screen-capping it and reviewing it, definitely shows it was 100% not a charge. Hopefully the writers at EN will see this post, and just admit they were wrong, and that their bitterness from last year’s Cup finals clouded their judgment.

And by the way, there was one difference between Hudler and Havlat:  Hudler didn’t have the puck near him, he’d passed it away and the hit came seconds later.  Everyone forgets that.

Did you read my post? I don’t forget that. I acknowledge that. My point was that calling Kronwall for “interference” is a semantics issue. Yes, Brown was truly guilty of interference—but the real reason both Brown and Kronwall got majors and misconducts is because they hit guys in the head. And again, both players hit guys in the head, “cleanly,” with their shoulders, not elbows, and didn’t jump INTO their hits.

So, the difference here is that Brown’s hit was truly interference. But that’s splitting hairs when you analyze the real reason.

And Kronwall probably won’t be suspended, not just because precedent in these playoffs says he won’t, and not just because it’s obvious he doesn’t deserve it—read the rulebook entry for interference—there’s nothing there that would allow supplementary discipline for this particular play, even if you read the rules and regulations surrounding players receiving major penalties.

The rub is that all game misconducts are subject to review by the league. I am not sure if this means the league can use supplementary discipline, or if it means that the misconduct is reviewed by the league, and then the full fine associated with a misconduct is levied upon the player if the league determines the misconduct was correct. Even if a misconduct allows supplementary discipline, it’s a pretty obscure point in the grand scheme of things, given the evidence I lay out above that points to Kronwall NOT being suspended.

One last thing to mention—interference is NOT one of the penalties that results in an automatic misconduct in the event of an injury as a result of the play. So, the misconduct was at the referees’ discretion. Given that it was based on discretion and not a hard-and-fast rule, and given that discretion matches that of the Brown hit, that went unsuspended, I just don’t see how Kronwall could be suspended.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 05/22/09 at 11:30 PM ET

That was a clean hit nothing wrong with it. hey wings fans who hits harder kronwall or stuart?

Posted by Oilers Rock from Edmonton, Alberta on 05/22/09 at 11:47 PM ET

If it had been a charging call, I could understand as Kronner has a reputation of leaving his feet. It would have been the wrong call in this instance, but I could at least have understood it given the speed of the game and chalked up to a reputation call. I fail though to understand how interference comes into play and I don’t think I can recall ever seeing an interference major before. I hope Havlat is ok.

As for a suspension, objectively I can’t see it. It was a very hard and agressive hit, but a legal hit. Though given the ineptitude of the league, I don’t know if that even matters to them and I won’t be suprised if they do suspend him. Irreguardless, that was one hell of a Scott Stevens/Vladdy like hit. Too bad those types of hits seem to be looked down upon by the league.

Posted by UMFan from Colorado on 05/23/09 at 12:31 AM ET

@nathan -

I can understand you arguing that Kronwall didn’t jump into Havlat, and that therefore it’s not charging in that respect.

But the rule, which you’ve cited yourself, says “or charges an opponent in any manner.”

That’s pretty vague, so I don’t think there’s any way that you can say that “the visual evidence, after screen-capping it and reviewing it, definitely shows it was 100% not a charge.” Frankly, I don’t think you can say anything with absolute certainty. I haven’t even seen a camera angle that shows whether Kronwall took more than 3 strides into the hit.

I’m not saying it definitely was charging. But it could be. I agree with pretty much everything else you’ve said, for the record.

Primis… are you joking? What reason could the league possibly have for wanting to screw over only the wings? Seriously?

Posted by Bryan on 05/23/09 at 12:35 AM ET

I don’t think I can recall ever seeing an interference major before.

You must have the an abnormally functioning memory. See Brown’s hit on Hudler in the second round. It wasn’t very long ago.

Posted by Muero from Ohio on 05/23/09 at 01:02 AM ET

You must have the an abnormally functioning memory. See Brown’s hit on Hudler in the second round. It wasn’t very long ago.

Brown wasn’t given a major penalty for that hit. It was a 2 minute penalty and a game misconduct.

Posted by UMFan from Colorado on 05/23/09 at 01:22 AM ET

IMO, this was a blown call.

This hit is no different from the one Stuart laid out RJ Umburger with in the first round at Columbus.  Umburger had his head down trying to gain control of a puck off the boards, just like Havlat did, and picked the wrong defenseman to do that against.  There was no call and there was no suspension.  Both were clean, head-on-collision shoulder checks that unfortunately ended with contact to the head. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhRU8fAb1lU

There were plenty of similar hits last year too; Kronwall broke Malone’s nose in the finals last year with another open ice shoulder check. 

Nathan, I’ll agree with any action the NHL takes to reduce head injuries, but I don’t think that’s way Kronwall got called.  My understanding of the rules is that they go after elbows, sticks, late hits, and fists to the head, but let incidental contact in a hit like this go. 

Brown got called because he steamrolled a guy that was nowhere near the puck (and, whatever the case, it did look like he lead with his elbow, and that didn’t help his cause).  That’s a clearcut case of interference. I think that it’s much more likely that the ref didn’t see the puck clearly and gave Kronwall and interference penalty for interference, than that Kronwall got an interference penalty for something that the NHL doesn’t go after.  (Or maybe its just another example of crappy, inconsistent officiating and all the other stuff should have been called too)

The refs did act like they owed the wings calls in the second though.

Posted by UMcastaway from the too much sunshine state on 05/23/09 at 02:40 AM ET

Probably one of the cleaner hits I’ve seen from this guy...still I don’t think there’s room in this supposed “new league” for a guy who takes liberties with guys near the boards with their heads down.  The Wings are a clean team and don’t need to have punishing checking to win (nor do they need Holmstrom in front of the goalie every single power play but I won’t get into that).  But if I were the hawks I’d be more worried about that selfish idiot Kane, Khabibulin crumbling before everyone’s eyes game after game, and trying to do something about the moving picks that Detroit places every shift in every zone.

Posted by stoneman from Vegas on 05/23/09 at 05:25 AM ET

That was a clean hit nothing wrong with it. hey wings fans who hits harder kronwall or stuart?

Posted by Oilers Rock from Edmonton, Alberta on 05/23/09 at 12:47 AM ET

Good question.  They both hit hard - but I think Stuart is more likely to hit along the boards, and Kronwall is more likely to make an open-ice hit.  I don’t know which one is more difficult for the hittee as opposed to the hitter. 

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/23/09 at 06:10 AM ET

If it was charging, then why wasn’t Kronwall penalized for charging? Neither of the refs raised their hand to signal a penalty at ANY TIME—not even after the play. Obviously, they didn’t see it as a charge. They were clearly judging the play based on the results—Havlat helpless on the ice—not on the play itself.

They settled on interference, which was technically correct since Havlat never actually touched the puck. But to call interference in a situation like that, with the puck bouncing around Havlat’s feet and stick, is ludicrous.

Posted by jvwalt on 05/23/09 at 06:25 AM ET

hey wings fans who hits harder kronwall or stuart?

It’s hard to say since neither of them are allowed to hit anymore without being called for some bullsh!t penalty.

Posted by WingsFanInBeanLand from Earth. on 05/23/09 at 06:25 AM ET

Havlat never touched the puck, hence not in possession of the puck according to the rules. Vicinity of the puck is not enough to nail someone with a hit, though I’m sure that a few go uncalled in most games. Therefore the technical inteference call, though it was probably penalized as a charging major causing injury to either face or head (43.5 in the rulebook). The latter injury part is an automatic game misconduct.

Personally, I’m fine with the call. Complete disregard for opponents health by Kronwall. I don’t care if it looks good on TV, it’s a good (eventual) call by the officials. If they were to add head shots to the rulebook as suggested by the NHLPA there wouldn’t be that many discretionary calls. But who really cares about player safety. Certainly not media and “fans”.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 05/23/09 at 06:37 AM ET

Poor Havlat.  He pulls a groin muscle stepping off a curb, and now gets rocked.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/23/09 at 06:41 AM ET

NHL hockey is a dangerous game.

Both Hudler and Havlat were at fault for not having their heads up.

In fact, Zetterberg is quoted as saying that just before the Kronwall hit, the Hawk bench was yelling to their man “Heads Up!”

There is no way Kronwall did anything wrong, nor can he stop his hit at the last split -second because Havlat did not look up in time.

Posted by w2j2 on 05/23/09 at 07:03 AM ET

Leino is another guy who needs to do a better job keeping his head up.

Posted by w2j2 on 05/23/09 at 07:05 AM ET

Brown wasn’t given a major penalty for that hit. It was a 2 minute penalty and a game misconduct.

You stupid piece of shit. Do you always just make stuff up without checking your facts and hope no one notices?

On May 1, 2009, in the first game of the Western Conference semifinals, Mike Brown was given a 5-minute major penalty for interference of Jiri Hudler. Brown also received a 10-minute game misconduct. Both penalties occured at 11:29 of the first period. Brown’s 5-minute major was served by Cory Perry.

Don’t call me a liar without checking your facts, *#$%@&.

Posted by Muero from Ohio on 05/23/09 at 07:47 AM ET

The fact that the hittee had his head down is not a mitigating circumstance for the hitter. If it is, I would like to see the actual rulebook entry stating that. It’s a good idea to keep your head up from a general health perspective, but that’s about it.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 05/23/09 at 08:27 AM ET

hey wings fans who hits harder kronwall or stuart?

Kronwall throw’s bigger, harder, more spectacular hits, but they are fewer and farther between. Stuart has consistently throttled guys every shift since he came to Detroit. He’ll wear ‘em down and get ‘em playing apprehensive… ripens ‘em up for Kronner.

I can understand you arguing that Kronwall didn’t jump into Havlat, and that therefore it’s not charging in that respect.

But the rule, which you’ve cited yourself, says “or charges an opponent in any manner.”

Understood, but you have read the rest of the rule to see what they mean by that. In the following paragraphs of the rulebook, the “charge/charges” is defined as:

“Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner.”

In the video above, near the end, there is a high-angle shot. You can see in this shot that Kronwall is waiting at the blue line. When the puck comes to Havlat, he steps up over the blue line, and throws the check. Generally, the “distance traveled” in relation to charging is what is meant when you hear people talk about the number of strides a player took directly into the hit. Kronwall takes one stride to get over to the wall, and then lays the hit on Havlat.

Admittedly, I can’t argue that the rulebook sets in stone the fact that “distance traveled” does or does not equate to what Kronwall did. But based on how that “distance traveled” has been interpreted when calling charging for as long as I can remember, this is not a charge.

So, I disagree, but I think your point is fair, I will not dismiss it.

Nathan, I’ll agree with any action the NHL takes to reduce head injuries, but I don’t think that’s way Kronwall got called.  My understanding of the rules is that they go after elbows, sticks, late hits, and fists to the head, but let incidental contact in a hit like this go.

Fair point. I guess I should clarify my position—I don’t have a PROBLEM with them calling this type of hit the way they did, given it can be a way to dissuade guys from hitting other guys in the head while they’re in dangerously vulnerable positions. And I don’t have a problem with it given the way they called the penalty on Mike Brown.

I guess I just disagree with you in that I do feel the refs in both cases called the Brown and Kronwall hits they way they did because there was undoubted contact the head, even if it was incidental. I don’t see any other reason than the contact to the head and subsequent injuries that the refs would’ve called both situations the way they did.

In regards to the Stuart/Umberger hit—remember, Umberger had full control of the puck, looked up and saw Stuart, and STILL put his head back down and kept skating forward. That kind of boggles the mind. It’s like driving your car into a wall at 45mph, knowing full well what’s going to happen. Anyway, I think that’s the key difference in that hit and the Brown/Kronwall hits.

Therefore the technical inteference call, though it was probably penalized as a charging major causing injury to either face or head (43.5 in the rulebook). The latter injury part is an automatic game misconduct.

Personally, I’m fine with the call. Complete disregard for opponents health by Kronwall. I don’t care if it looks good on TV, it’s a good (eventual) call by the officials. If they were to add head shots to the rulebook as suggested by the NHLPA there wouldn’t be that many discretionary calls. But who really cares about player safety. Certainly not media and “fans”.

Good points, but let me clarify what you’re saying about the penalties. It does seem to me that they might have penalized the interference call AS charging, but by the rulebook, interference is NOT a penalty that comes with an automatic misconduct if an injury occurs. So, given that they still put interference on the scoresheet, even after having time to correct it, that tells me the refs were making their call on discretion, not a hard-and-fast rule.

And as a Wings fan, they might have been protecting Kronwall from suspension, as a charging call with an automatic major and misconduct explicitly calls for supplementary discipline, while an interference major does not.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 05/23/09 at 08:34 AM ET

Good points, but let me clarify what you’re saying about the penalties. It does seem to me that they might have penalized the interference call AS charging, but by the rulebook, interference is NOT a penalty that comes with an automatic misconduct if an injury occurs.

Actually, under rule 56 concerning interference there are provisions for an automatic misconduct in the case of injury. I missed those myself.

56.4 Major Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence, to a player or goalkeeper guilty of interfering with an opponent (see 56.5).

56.5 Game Misconduct Penalty – When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

The officials didn’t make anything up.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 05/23/09 at 09:58 AM ET

QUESTION:

IF the play had been exactly the same EXCEPT that Havlet got up and skated away, would there have been a basis to call Kronwall for any penalties?

Posted by stonehands-78 from the beginning ... a WingsFan, on 05/23/09 at 10:08 AM ET

2nd Question:

AND would there in fact have been any penalties called on that basis?

Posted by stonehands-78 from the beginning ... a WingsFan, on 05/23/09 at 10:10 AM ET

Duncan Keith should’ve been called for his extracurricular stuff that went on after the perfectly legal hit.
Also, Havlat should’ve kept his head up. He did at first, he saw Kronwall coming, Havlat then started following the puck. Watch again.

Posted by auxlepli on 05/23/09 at 11:31 AM ET

You people are f’n stupid.  That was a legal hit.  Get over yerselves.  Leave hockey alone.  Go back to yer shacks and turn on the NFL or Nascar to get yer ‘violence fix’ (and lets face it, most Americans watch hockey for the ‘violence factor, and that’s it).  If you don’t like our game, eff off.  But don’t think you can pansify this game at every turn.  Do you see hockey fans trying to change the NFL or MLB?  Bloody hell, you people have a hissy fit when a batter gets struck by a baseball.

I’m absolutely sick of referees using the Jumbotron or some guy lying on the ice to justify calling a penalty when there wasn’t an illegal play.  Simply because most of the 18000 ‘new’ fans are screaming bloody murder?  I’ve refereed hockey for many years.  It is far worse to make the wrong call knowing that the call is wrong and moving forward with it than just going with yer instinct and defending the non-call you made at the time.

I really do think this is somewhat a product of the NHL’s insistence to institute a two-referee system without building a proper ‘farm system’ for refs and slowly weeding out the older guys.  Putting a rookie like Walkom in charge was a joke from the start.  The guy is a Bettman patsie.  Do you really think yer standard hockey people willingly bypassed people like Van Hellemond, Fraser, Koharski, Gregson & Schick to choose Stephen Walkom?  No, Bettman drew up his post-lockout plan and Walkom was already pre-selected.

This league is turning into a f’n joke.  Get rid of Bettman.  Get rid of ‘non-hockey people’ trying to change our game from the National Hockey League to the No Hit League.

Posted by Prince George on 05/23/09 at 11:45 AM ET

This keeps getting compared to the Brown hit on Hudler but I think that’s a mistake. IIRC, Hudler has gotten rid of the puck long before Brown hit him, thus giving Brown time to avoid interfering with him. In this case the puck is close enough to Havlat to make him fair game to be checked. The check was clean (no elbows, no jumping into him). Scott Stevens made a career about of punishing fools the same way Kronwall punished Havlat. Hockey is a violent game, if you don’t like watching a sport where there’s a chance someone can be run over, go watch baseball.

That said, I do have to agree with /gag/ Don Cherry. The league needs to mandate that the outside of players equipment be equipped with more padding instead of a very hard shell. Such an arrangement allows hockey players and fans to have the best of both worlds: bone shaking body checks, and less risk of career ending head injuries.

In the end, though, it is the players responsibility to protect himself, and Havlat didn’t do that. He violated an axiom of hockey, and he paid a severe price for that.

To the twatwaffles at EN: just because he hits like a train doesn’t mean Kronwall’s dirty. If you had two brain cells to rub together you’d realize that.

Posted by wingsfanindenver on 05/23/09 at 01:23 PM ET

That said, I also feel the refs made a fair call giving Kronwall the major with a misconduct/ejection.

No, it’s possibly a fair call if it is made during the play.  CBC showed a wide shot of the play, with both refs and both linesmen in it, and nobody called it.  Not a single hand went up during the play, so they obviously didn’t think it was an illegal hit in real time.  The call way only made AFTER the scrum.

Whether it should have been called a penalty is irrelevant because it wasn’t called initially.  The fact that he was given a penalty, a major penalty at that, AND a game misconduct is bullshit.

Posted by Garth on 05/23/09 at 01:34 PM ET

Does anyone really want to complain over this?  It was borderline, sure- But given how Kronwall’s other illegal hits have been ignored.... nay, celebrated, how can you say one word?

Posted by Dan from Ann Arbor, MI on 05/23/09 at 02:41 PM ET

fanindenver: I think plenty of those people can use their two brains cells, do a quick youtube search, and see plenty of cases of kronwall playing likes he’s in a mosh pit.

Posted by Dan from Ann Arbor, MI on 05/23/09 at 02:46 PM ET

I got no real problem with the hit and thought the refs handled it pretty good, if that sounds contridictory in hockey a lot of differant thing are taken into account, reputation, players involved etc.
It reminded me of the Brashear hit in the caps-ranger series, betts had just got rid of the puck and Brashear layed him out with a forearm and shoulder same as kromwell, because of his reputation, 6 games.
The ref was not sure what happeded I do not think, but he knows the Hawks Lady Byng candidate and leading scorer is laying there looking like he is half dead, and was creamed by a guy with a head hunting rep. He has to get him out of the game, or it is going to be in danger of getting way out of control, ( if Bufflin had layed out Linstrom the same way in Detroit would be a comparable situation), the only way to get him out of the game is give him the 5 minute penalty. Good thing is the hit had no effect on the game, Detroit came back, had complete control of the game and lost.
As far as the players involved, usually there are some guys on teams that are kind of imune to these type hit, Linstrom for example, I got no problem if Kromwell wants to do that as long as he relizes the Hawks are not going to look at it like it was a hit on Eagar or Bolen. The hawks are probably very happy he was not suspended, and I am sure are eager to let kromwell know what they think of his choice of targets for his big hits come sunday!

Posted by Scott Hamilton from Virginia Beach Virginia on 05/24/09 at 12:55 AM ET