November 8th, 2012 at 3:36 PM ^
That's NOT a good hit or a good hockey play. Trouba got a game misconduct for it and it shouldn't be celebrated. He left his feet and made contact with the head. That's exactly the type of hit that hockey is trying to eliminate.
If he makes that play with a little more control and hits the guy square in the chest or shoulder? Awesome. As it is, when a player gets legitimately kicked out of a game for something he did, that's not a good play.
November 8th, 2012 at 3:45 PM ^
I agree with your overall assessment about what kind of play this is, but it didn't look to me like Trouba left his feet. One quickly comes off the ice after contact, but the other looks firmly grounded, at least from this not so great resolution/angle. I'm looking at it frozen early in the 5s mark, and while it's hard to tell, I don't see him leaving his feet until after the hit (which I talk about in the comment below).
November 8th, 2012 at 3:48 PM ^
I agree with your assessment below. It's not so much that he "jumped" into the hit, but that he went in so out of control, going for a "killshot", and had trouble with his balance after (whether both feet came totally off the ice or not) which is enough for me to say this hit was not smart.
If he went in with better control and shoulder-to-chest hit the guy, this is perfect. JMFJ was this way as a freshman too. Often went for the bigger hit/splashier play than the smart, controlled, awesome play. He'll learn. Trouba is definitely gonna be a good one.
November 8th, 2012 at 3:46 PM ^
I watched the slow mo replay in the link, and I disagree that he jumped into the hit...ie left his feet. He did make contact to the head, and I agree with the punishment, but I also think that it was mostly due to the height difference between the two, especially with the skater progressing with his head down.
Overall, I agree with the punishment and the call, but I don't think that was any malicious intent the went above making a hockey play...especially from a young player
November 8th, 2012 at 3:49 PM ^
Watch the video again and you'll see he never leaves his feet nor does he launch at the guy. In fact he is doing a balancing on his right skate immediately after the hit. The only reason his other skate left the ice was because of his momentum carrying him forward. Was it high, yes but also look at how much Trouba is bent over when he goes for the hit to try and get as low as possible to avoid the head. I am totally for hockey cracking down on head shots but sometimes things like this happened because of height difference and the position guys are in as they skate.
As a reference from the NHL (not completely analogous but close), please tell how Trouba's "head" shot is any different than the hit Kronwall had on Voracek this past March? Kronwall got no penalty nor was he fined after the fact. Even me, a rabid Flyers fan, can see that Jake made a mistake by steaming ahead at his own peril with his head down. Voracek even said it was his own fault after the game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QtipTlOscg
November 8th, 2012 at 3:54 PM ^
The difference lies in the rulebook. Excerpt from Section 8, NCAA Ice Hokey Rulebook:
The committee reminds coaches and players that the responsibility remains with the player making the hit to avoid contact with the head and neck area of an opposing player.
Entire NHL Rule 48:
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted. However, in determining whether such a hit should have been permitted, the circumstances of the hit, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit or the head contact on an otherwise legal body check was avoidable, can be considered.
November 8th, 2012 at 3:59 PM ^
I should have realized that the NCAA would have a more stringent rule since it usually is more restrictive than the NHL (and for good reason being an amateur sport).
With that said, I can't WAIT to see the kid play in person tomorrow night! First game at Yost since 09 and pumped to see the results of the renovation!
November 9th, 2012 at 1:36 AM ^
I don't know what your parameters are for "a good hit" or a "good hockey play" but whatever definition you're using seems to come straight out of the Gary Bettman version of hockey. Plain and simple Trouba drove his shoulder through the body of a guy stretching out to control a puck he'd lost.
Nobody wants to see somebody get injured or hurt, but the reason hockey is not soccer (outside of the ice) is the contact and players that don't whine about it.
The fact is, the opposing player had his head down and was reaching for the puck because it was too far out in front of him; by doing so he left himself exposed to punishment and Trouba delivered it, beautifully. You can try to give all sorts of excuses for the brutality of the hit, but the real onus lies with the guy that left himself exposed. Is it Scott Stevens' fault Lindros was looking at his laces coming through neutral ice?
At a certain point it's up to the player to keep his head up. You're taught that from day one in hockey. Thankfully, if you forget there are guys like Trouba and Kronwall that are more than happy to remind you.
November 8th, 2012 at 3:42 PM ^
My honest attempt at unbiased referee conclusion: this wasn't that tough of a call, at least for the initial contact to the head. In the NCAA, the onus is on the player giving the hit to avoid contact to the head, even due to a size differential or a player skating with their head down.
Whatever you want to say about Trouba's intention, it's obvious that he didn't make much effort to avoid Seckel's head, and therefore put himself in a position to have a contact to the head penalty called. Now that we're past the arm going up, there are two factors I'd consider as far as a game misconduct compared to a game disqualification:
- Seckel was skating with his head down. Whatever the onus is, he put himself in a vulnerable position and that made the hit worse than it needed to be, and that's not on Trouba (this would be a point for game misconduct).
- Trouba absolutely sells out to deliver this hit, and doesn't appear to have given the puck a thought. After contact is made, Trouba loses his stick and goes flying, which to me just screams "went for a killshot". Not being on the ice, I'm not sure I want to speculate on this, but it looked to me like Trouba was staring right at Seckel's head, which the linesman was certainly in a position to see (points for game disqualification).
I don't think either of these calls is wrong, but if it was me wearing the bands I probably would have given the game disqualification, especially if my linesman had anything to say about where Trouba was looking in the second preceding the hit.
November 8th, 2012 at 3:58 PM ^
November 8th, 2012 at 4:23 PM ^
He's 18 and it's probably how he's always played.
November 8th, 2012 at 5:03 PM ^
I always have a tough time intrepreting these midline body hits with regards to the NHL and NCAA rulebook. Reminds me somewhat of the Kronwall hit on Voracek from last year, where you have an offensive player with his head down, and the other player gets him right in the midline. The big difference in the two hits is the principle point of contact... Kronwall does a good job of using his entire side or back, in escense a full body check... Trouba in this case clearly leads with the shoulder with principal contact being the head. The angle of the hit is also what does Trouba in... as he could have easily gone shoulder to shoulder.
I would have loved to see Trouba do one of two things on this play:
- The Lidstrom: He has the angle on the player, come in and deliver a mild hit angling the offensive player to the boards while continuing to play the puck... peel off with the puck and make a quick transition pass up ice.
- The Konstantinov: drop that ass and send the offensive player flying with an old school hip check.
November 8th, 2012 at 4:01 PM ^
Are gonna love this kid!
Steckel was so bent over it's hard to make a hit without contacting his head.
Easy for a goalie to cast aspersions at a hard hitting d-man (just jerking your chain, Ben)
November 8th, 2012 at 4:05 PM ^
But dammit if major penalties don't suck when you're a goalie.
November 8th, 2012 at 4:17 PM ^
This hit was pretty clean. Hes much taller than the kid he hit, of course hes gonna hit him high. To me this is a great CLEAN hit.
November 8th, 2012 at 4:36 PM ^
Under the NCAA rulebook, it doesn't matter if Trouba is ten feet taller than the guy he hit, he's still obligated to avoid contact with the head, which he pretty clearly didn't do.
November 8th, 2012 at 4:48 PM ^
First I've seen the video, and I have to agree with the call. We'll see if Trouba can restrain himself to legal big hits. He's far too important right now to be taking majors, let alone getting DQs.
November 8th, 2012 at 4:49 PM ^
but the NCAA is stricter. Konstantinov made a living out of coiling like a spring to deliver a devastating hit without leaving his feet. I am looking forward to seeing Trouba in the NHL after exhausting all eligibility for the Wolverines.
November 8th, 2012 at 5:19 PM ^
i love the hit.. the only reason why it was to the head was because of size difference.
November 8th, 2012 at 5:43 PM ^
Uh, yeah, that and because he targeted the head with his shoulder.
November 8th, 2012 at 6:32 PM ^
and in this day and age, can hardly blame the ref, that was pretty vicious whether 'legal' or not.
November 8th, 2012 at 7:27 PM ^
The NCAA rule is the problem. It basically allows players(esp shorter ones) to skate through the neutral zone with their head down and bent over; thus making it virtually impossible for anyone to knock them off the puck with any type of hit because the first contact will most likely be the head, drawing a penalty. Sets a bad precedent
November 8th, 2012 at 8:43 PM ^
There's no reason to hit a guy that hard when there are plenty of other options available. You don't have to pile drive somebody to get the puck away from them, even if they are taller. A good defensive player knows this, and should act as such. If the kid's head is down, it's that much easier to take the puck away.
November 9th, 2012 at 12:23 AM ^
...the reason to hit a guy that hard is that the next time down the ice he'll dump it into the zone instead of trying to carry it through center ice and make a play. It also will cause everyone on the other team to think twice about what they're doing when Trouba is on the ice, thus giving Michigan more opportunity to gain easy turnovers.
November 9th, 2012 at 8:29 AM ^
If you stall him or take the puck away a couple times at the blue line, it'll have the exact same effect. Nobody wants to deal with turnovers or offsides calls. The idea is to remove the puck from the offensive player, not his helmet and skates. A solid defender will make it 'feel' like there isn't any other good option but to dump in anyway.
November 9th, 2012 at 8:37 AM ^
Corey - I think I understand what you're getting at with the stalling or angling, but I have to disagree that it has the exact same effect. People play totally different around Kronwall than they did around Lidstrom. Lidstrom was the best in the world, but what Kronwall is able to do changes the entire context of the game and he does it clean. They really are different things and causes your opponent to alter their style of play much more than non physical contact.
November 9th, 2012 at 9:20 AM ^
There isn't a forward or coach in the world that would rather face Lidstrom than Kronwall. I think that speaks a lot to what matters in a hockey game.
As far as the purpose of checking, it's literally defined as contact designed to separate the opponent from the puck. Do you want to hit as hard as possible to achieve that end? Sure. When you're not playing the puck (like Trouba in this example) you open yourself up to penalty calls and don't have much room to complain: it's a basic tenant of hockey.
November 9th, 2012 at 9:57 AM ^
Essentially what Justin said. I never said "don't hit," just take away the puck. You're allowed to hit a guy, and the rules protect that. Let's be real, though: with the equipment/pads players have had available to them in the past couple decades, the only way you'll actually make somebody "think twice" (cause any level of pain) like that is to hit them incorrectly or really, really hard. Yes, many teams are willing to have guys who can do that and risk taking the penalty, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get the penalties they've been called for.
For the record, I am in full support of knocking a guy flat on his ass with the right technique when he has his head down. Unfortunately sometimes those guys are short little buggers(tough to hit on open ice), and you have to get by with frustrating the hell out of them with position play, and maybe help them get well-acquainted with the boards when you have the chance.
btw - Just so you're aware, it's not me negging your comments. I totally see where you're coming from, but I don't agree with it. I'm all for Jacob (Jake?) teeing that guy up like a cement truck on Mythbusters as long as he does it cleanly. That comparison didn't make any sense.. I just liked seeing the cement truck blow up.
November 9th, 2012 at 10:00 AM ^
I will agree with Justin that Trouba's purpose was not to play the puck and that maybe by rulebook definition that's wrong, but as a defenseman I have always heard - you take the man, your partner gets the puck. That's the case if you're skating backwards, angling a guy, or whatever else. Is it great to do both? Sure, but the primary responsibility of the D man in a 1 on 1 is to stop/slow the attacker enough so that your backcheckers can catch up to help. You'll notice in the video he puck drifts harmlessly to the stick of the other Michigan player and he has full posession of it to transition back up ice.
And Ben - not sure how Trouba's supposed to throw a hip check while skating forward at full speed. Are you suggesting he lead with his lower body, or do you mean a real hip check where he's skating backward and whips his lower body into the guy? I'm all for not scrambling the guy's brain, but I don't know that a hip check is possible there.
November 9th, 2012 at 10:57 AM ^
Above I try to describe what I believe the officials looked at* and one of the problems with this hit is Trouba's inability to control his stick or body after making contact. If everything else remains the same but Trouba manages to get a second hand on his stick and make even a halfhearted attempt to play the puck, I'd bet he gets a game misconduct and not a disqualification (it has to be one or the other after the contact to the head). When I see him completely lose control over his stick and body, though, that's an easy indicator that his intention is to flatten Seckel, not gain possession of the puck, and that's a big part of what got him the harsher penalty.
*For the record I'm an experienced on-ice official, although I've never done any officiating in the NCAA ranks. I'm basing anything I've said off of thought processes taught and lessons learned at lower levels (from a lot of NCAA, ECHL, NHL guys), mainly in USA Hockey.
November 9th, 2012 at 11:25 AM ^
Glad you are bringing your officiating perspective to the debate. I have to admit from the ref's vantage he probably does look a little out of control. I'm curious about what you mentioned in reference to playing the puck because it has been brought up multiple times. Is there part of the rule book that says you have to play the puck when you hit a guy? To me it seems hard (and contradictory) to do both at the same time and the rules you block quoted above didn't seem to mention it.
November 9th, 2012 at 12:24 PM ^
The NCAA rules don't seem to have that explicitly written in the book (and the NCAA and NHL online casebooks suck), but it's the philosophical basis of any physical foul, where a non reckless attempt to play the puck will rarely be a penalty. Also, by "playing the puck", I don't mean to say that you need a puck on the stick and gain possession and control. An example that works well is one you mentioned above: when Kronwall Kronwall'd Voracek. If you watch the hit and pay attention to Kronwall immediately after delivering the check, he's looking around for the puck with his stick on the ice. Had he run through Voracek like Trouba did here and lost control of himself in the same way, that's probably a roughing penalty (going by the NHL rulebook). Instead, he hit Voracek, attempted to play the puck, and it was a clean play in the NHL.
If you're talking about playing anything regulated by USA Hockey (all youth and junior levels, and almost all organized adult leagues), you can see in the rulebook where each physical foul is written explicitly in the context of whether the play was a legitimate effort to secure the puck, or was a play designed to intimidate/injure/insertotherbadthinghere.
November 9th, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^
I concur with that reasoning. He looked out of control after he got tied up in the guy at the end of the hit, but I think that might have just been the result of the guy collapsing around his feet and tripping Trouba. Still, I love the fact that the guy is on our team. I'm sure this won't be the last one of these he dishes out and we'll see if he's more Kronwall or just looking to kill people...
November 9th, 2012 at 5:33 AM ^
sorry guys, it's all great right up until the main contact is with the opponents head, and the rest of that should make you cringe. with what we know about damage to the brain on things like that nobody should be celebrating that one. love big hits, tried to do as many as i could in my (short) time playing for michigan, but that is a scary hit to a kid that is much smaller and laid on the ice with his body basically twitching spastically. bad ju-ju.
November 9th, 2012 at 8:31 AM ^
Quiver - your sentiments are well reasoned and I totally agree that nobody wants the results, but since you've played at a high level what play should Trouba have made instead? As somebody who also played in college (Club while at Michigan), and more specifically as a defenseman, I don't see why Trouba should change his style of play because the guy is smaller or left himself vulnerable.
I keep getting negged, so perhaps people are thinking that I just want blood, but I was responding specifically to JeepInBen's first comment where he said it wasn't "good" or a "hockey play" and a 2nd comment that suggested a poke check is all the same as a devestating open ice hit.
The way I saw it Trouba wasn't targeting, he kept his elbows down and when he's already had the guy lined up while coming across the zone to make a play, how does he suddenly change his instincts at the end to make it safer? Serious question - if the kid is fine and pops up and skates off the ice is everything OK with the hit?
November 9th, 2012 at 8:39 AM ^
Hip check destroys this kid without potentially scrambling his brain. Win-Win.
November 9th, 2012 at 10:24 AM ^
November 9th, 2012 at 10:56 AM ^
Don, I think you nailed it. I just don't like where the game is headed. Player safety is of the utmost importance, but with sport comes risk and I don't think the game is nearly as exciting when you eliminate the opportunity for plays like that. The whole hockey model is a mess - instead of worrying about the catastrophic play and keeping kids from hitting until far later in the game (now Bantam), they should allow contact from the beginning when kids can learn to deal with it safely and be taugh proper technique so they know enough not to come through center ice with their head down.
November 9th, 2012 at 11:15 AM ^
November 9th, 2012 at 4:01 PM ^
Going for the huge hits is also something that dampens down a bit when you're hitting from a young age. I remember going to Canada as pee-wees when they were allowed to hit as mites; a ton of our guys were looking to kill a player while the Canadians were making a lot more good, smart (and no less hard) hits, even at twelve years old.
November 9th, 2012 at 4:57 PM ^
Yet USA hockey always seems like they want to up the age to bantam. It just doesn't make sense to me. It breeds a culture of big hits that injure/take defensemen out of the play on forwards with their heads down in vulnerable positions.
Instead of teaching good hockey sense it turns into, hey stop hitting people hard. Really unfortunate the way hockey seems to be going.
November 9th, 2012 at 5:09 PM ^
Nine of the provences are now 11+, with Quebec mirroring the US. This is the study they're using to justify moving the age up further, which basically says that 11-12 year olds are a lot more likely to be injured or concussed in a checking league. What I'd like to see is a study comparing Bantam injuries/concussions in this same Alberta/Quebec group, and I'd bet you see less in Alberta (younger checking).
November 9th, 2012 at 5:29 PM ^
November 9th, 2012 at 6:09 PM ^
Yes, USA Hockey moved the checking age to Bantam. But they are also encouraging more contact at the younger levels. They request that peewee coaches keep checking instruction in their practices... where kids generally have greater respect for teammates. Also, the online coaching modules and clinics for the younger kids (squirt/mite) are very clear about teaching proper body contact while playing the puck. Kids are getting better checking/contact instruction at younger ages now... much better then when I was a kid in the 80s/90s.
Now, obviously a lot of this depends on the refs calling the game, but I can tell you've I've noticed a difference in my sons squirt travel games the past two years. Most refs are letting body contact go when the kids are taking good angles, keeping their stick down on the ice and simply trying to seperate the player from the puck.
As Lidstrom showed us for 20+ years, the old gameplan of "1st player takes the body, 2nd takes the puck" is not the best strategy. Throwing a big hit that takes you and the other player out of the play is a wash. Throwing a balanced hit, where you can quickly transition up ice while the opposing player is taken out, gives you a man advantage.
November 9th, 2012 at 6:22 PM ^
Just to add to that, it's a big point of emphasis in the Level 1 and 2 seminars for referees. Teaching the difference between "contact" and "checking" is one of the more important things to teach young/new referees.
I wasn't aware about the guidelines for pee wee practices, that's actually a pretty cool idea.
November 9th, 2012 at 2:22 PM ^
He never left his feet, the only reason he hit him so high is because of the size difference. If you look at how low Trouba was moving right before he hit the guy, he was zeroed in on putting him in the dirt. Great hit, can't wait to see more of this young man.
November 9th, 2012 at 2:22 PM ^
He never left his feet, the only reason he hit him so high is because of the size difference. If you look at how low Trouba was moving right before he hit the guy, he was zeroed in on putting him in the dirt. Great hit, can't wait to see more of this young man.