This was a fantastic piece David, as was Ralph's. The NHL is far too content to let its players, especially its stars, get beaten up and injured. There's no question in my mind they need to do more to protect the players.
But I still don't think this should have been a suspension. I wrote and deleted a longer explanation, but my view is basically, if Heiskanen hadn't been injured, or if Stone had been the one injured would anyone be talking about a suspension? I don't think so.
I'm not even sure clipping would have been the correct penalty call. The rulebook states, "An illegal “low hit” is a check that is delivered by a player who may or may not have both skates on the ice, with his sole intent to check the opponent in the area of his knees" and Stone is clearly reaching for a poke check, which is an obvious difference between this play and all the examples of clipping I've seen.
Maybe all bodily contact at or below the knees should be an automatic clipping penalty. I think I'd be in favor of that because this was a reckless play by Stone, for both himself and Heiskanen.
I'm tired of hockey/rules "analysts" as part of a broadcast. They almost never disagree with the way anything is called, regardless. They have no intestinal fortitude or integrity.
Stone's play was reckless. I understand what I think the play he was trying to make was, but, his angle to make that play was cut off by Hintz (mostly by positioning, and definitely by the tap to the skate), and that should have been enough for Stone to realize the play was, at best, a lost effort. However, he made the decision to dive into the legs of Heiskanen and put himself at risk for getting a skate across the spine and/or injuring Miro, (which of course was the outcome). The officials gave the NHL an out by assessing only the tripping call on Stone, which is an egregious misapplication of the rulebook as it is, and the NHL let it go.
You have to wonder how this would have been treated if it happened to Cale Makar or, this year's darling, Erik Werenski. God forbid it happen to MacKinnon or McDavid...
I have no idea what it will take before the league decides they need to protect their players, who are the product that they profit off of...
Sadly, I think someone is going to have to die on the ice from a head or neck injury before they realize the necessity.
Very good article and it should be the take of every serious hockey fan. You covered everyone of my points from that night. I have always abdicated for the player that does the injuring to be off as long as the injured.
Many thoughtful and challenging points made here, so thank you for that. It's an area where my views may be evolving in real time. As a Stars fan who has an unpopular take here, I don't expect people to appreciate what I'm about to say. But I also don't see many fans saying what I feel, and this topic feels like it lacks nuanced opinions like a lot of hot issues, so I'm going to leave my thoughts here anyway and take my beatings.
First, thoughts on this play and Stone, the least important part of this conversation, but technical details that might be relevant: my problem with suspending Stone for this play particularly, is that he has plausible deniability. I think everyone can agree that there are small set of possibilities that actually happened here:
1) Stone was trying to draw a call for being tripped and went for a dive, causing the collision and injury (in which case, the play is suspension worthy, 3 games would be my choice)
[a variant of this is Stone trying to make a play to break up the puck with a poke check or something, still reckless and suspension worthy, but admittedly not as bad as diving, since diving is also fraudulent along with reckless]
2) Stone was actually tripped and lost his balance on skates, and had virtually no control over what followed (in this case, the cause of would actually be Hintz)
3) Stone was trying to injure or does not care about injuring guys, and is wholly in bad faith
I don't think it's #3 and would say that is the least likely... I actually don't think it's #2, either, but I do admit that it is a real possibility that #2 is actually the truth. I think I'd give it a little higher than 50% that it's #1. The problem is I have no way of proving it one way or another. The last thing I want to do is suspend a guy because he was tripped and fell into another guy's knee. So even if he was suspended, I feel like he'd have a really good case to appeal.
I've never been a fan of making an example of players to make a point. It's not typically the most fair way to accomplish the goal, as punishments to specific individuals are unevenly distributed depending on timing/circumstance/injury result - a sort of sacrifice made to the group. In this case, I think the goal can still be accomplished without having to make examples out of individuals.
To the greater issues with the league: tighten up the rules and establish what is okay and what is not, then enforce evenly. We need consistency and clarity in the rules and punishments for these types of things. That's been part of the reason why the league has been so bad on these unhealthy plays, and you have to wonder if they even have enough staff to review all plays in each game, because they either conveniently miss a ton or are incompetent. We have very little predictability in what the league is going to do in response to a play on any given night. If everything else that's obviously wrong gets fixed, and you still have issues, then I'd be more open to make an example of out of guys as a last resort.
The league wants the game to be this way. They could easily issue punishments that would immediately stop this crap from happening, but they don’t. I’ve long felt that that the first time a guy delivers any kind of headshot (intentional or not), it should be a 41-game suspension. Second time, 82 games. Third time, expelled from the league. I guarantee guys would immediately learn how to control themselves. It the league won’t, so they don’t. And fans who cry that it’s too harsh, well, I’ve never enjoyed seeing a guy take a headshot. I do enjoy watching the best players in the world do their thing, and I’d like for them to keep doing it as long as possible.
Intentional or not dangerous plays should have consequences. I'm still anxiously awaiting news hoping for just a strain. As bad as it looked it could have been much worse.
That’s a sad list of players you mentioned… that many many more exist in the shadows, makes it even sadder. For what? As you say, to play a game.
The question is, who is protecting the players?
Not “The league”… (Hadn’t heard the Dangle quite, good one!) a group of owners, who mostly do not have a superstar player on their team. So, collectively, they do not want the rules enforced protecting stars on other teams. Wild West rules mean to them, “hey that increases our chances of winning with ave talent.
Not the refs, who call the game they are told to…
As PDB showed, not the coaches… they encourage “finish your checks”, “wear him down”. Never “take him out”, god forbid… Ever watch a game, and notice hearing players bashing into the boards, way way behind the play, but not seeing it because the camera has followed the puck out if the zone? That’s what “finishing you check” is. Refs never call it because “it didn’t effect the play”. But a heavy check just happened, at speed, nowhere close to where the puck is now!
So, McDavid has to use his stick to escape a player who is literally tackling him, grabbing him, tripping him, for what -30 seconds without a call??? Because the refs (2 of them) didn’t want to disrupt the play?
Neanderthal old school hockey results… Gordie had his elbows… Messier made his space by separating opponents from their teeth, with his stick, ruthlessly… and big men are hired to protect their teammates, from players like Stone, who play over the line… and get away with it.
Totally agree. I even hear many fans in my section encourage and love the violence. I just don't get it with the downside losing players like Miro and many who are the best in the league even if they are on the opposing team. It's great to see players like McDavid do what he does.
I think it's possible for the league to clean it up and still have the acceptable versions of the violence in the game. If you think about it, sports are basically like friendly versions of war. They are tapping into similar emotions and psychology. It explains why you might see precise opposite conclusions being drawn on a Vegas hockey board, for instance.
My first take on Twitter was “WTF Mark Stone?” I posted before Roope’s stick entered the conversation, but the sentiment still stands. WTF Mark Stone? He made the kind of “play” (flop? poke check?) that was only going to have one outcome - plowing into a player’s knee. So he’s either a dirty player or an idiot. I’m willing to lean into the latter.
Thanks for this take David! As someone who never played hockey and is looking to learn more about the sport, some things make no sense. Plenty of fans out east love Rempe for how he plays and it is crazy that a player that seems to lack skills to play in the league is able to take a shot at Miro with little consequence. I could go on and on with stuff like why penalties are not called in the 3rd period or why the playoffs are different, but we all know this is how it is. I think you say this sometimes, "if you do not call the penalty, that in itself is impacting the result". Also, why is Jackson even on the broadcast if he can't offer anything?
Didn't Rempe get 8 games for that hit? I know there are others who understandably believe that wasn't enough, but I'm not sure that 10% of the season is "liittle consequence", and it's not like the league won't increase the suspension if he repeats his transgressions.
As for fans liking him, I think it is mostly a difference in taste. A lot of hockey fans love the physicality of the game as much as they love the skill. My guess is that your "average fan" (as opposed to folks hanging out on a hockey substack) are a lot more into the energy, checking and fighting aspects of the game more than the X's and O's.
At the end of the day, it's the league that has to fix the issues by addressing its own inconsistency and fog of war when it comes to what is allowed and what's not.
Mark Stone is an idiot and it's dismaying how the league hasn't even called for a hearing or reviewed this and come back with anything. Does Vegas get preferential treatment? NHL certainly wants to keep Foley and VGK happy. Is it time to start kicking asses and taking names to get some respect on the ice? I would bet that Benn called out Stone to fight, and that chickenshit declined.....
This was a fantastic piece David, as was Ralph's. The NHL is far too content to let its players, especially its stars, get beaten up and injured. There's no question in my mind they need to do more to protect the players.
But I still don't think this should have been a suspension. I wrote and deleted a longer explanation, but my view is basically, if Heiskanen hadn't been injured, or if Stone had been the one injured would anyone be talking about a suspension? I don't think so.
I'm not even sure clipping would have been the correct penalty call. The rulebook states, "An illegal “low hit” is a check that is delivered by a player who may or may not have both skates on the ice, with his sole intent to check the opponent in the area of his knees" and Stone is clearly reaching for a poke check, which is an obvious difference between this play and all the examples of clipping I've seen.
Maybe all bodily contact at or below the knees should be an automatic clipping penalty. I think I'd be in favor of that because this was a reckless play by Stone, for both himself and Heiskanen.
I'm tired of hockey/rules "analysts" as part of a broadcast. They almost never disagree with the way anything is called, regardless. They have no intestinal fortitude or integrity.
Stone's play was reckless. I understand what I think the play he was trying to make was, but, his angle to make that play was cut off by Hintz (mostly by positioning, and definitely by the tap to the skate), and that should have been enough for Stone to realize the play was, at best, a lost effort. However, he made the decision to dive into the legs of Heiskanen and put himself at risk for getting a skate across the spine and/or injuring Miro, (which of course was the outcome). The officials gave the NHL an out by assessing only the tripping call on Stone, which is an egregious misapplication of the rulebook as it is, and the NHL let it go.
You have to wonder how this would have been treated if it happened to Cale Makar or, this year's darling, Erik Werenski. God forbid it happen to MacKinnon or McDavid...
I have no idea what it will take before the league decides they need to protect their players, who are the product that they profit off of...
Sadly, I think someone is going to have to die on the ice from a head or neck injury before they realize the necessity.
Very good article and it should be the take of every serious hockey fan. You covered everyone of my points from that night. I have always abdicated for the player that does the injuring to be off as long as the injured.
Many thoughtful and challenging points made here, so thank you for that. It's an area where my views may be evolving in real time. As a Stars fan who has an unpopular take here, I don't expect people to appreciate what I'm about to say. But I also don't see many fans saying what I feel, and this topic feels like it lacks nuanced opinions like a lot of hot issues, so I'm going to leave my thoughts here anyway and take my beatings.
First, thoughts on this play and Stone, the least important part of this conversation, but technical details that might be relevant: my problem with suspending Stone for this play particularly, is that he has plausible deniability. I think everyone can agree that there are small set of possibilities that actually happened here:
1) Stone was trying to draw a call for being tripped and went for a dive, causing the collision and injury (in which case, the play is suspension worthy, 3 games would be my choice)
[a variant of this is Stone trying to make a play to break up the puck with a poke check or something, still reckless and suspension worthy, but admittedly not as bad as diving, since diving is also fraudulent along with reckless]
2) Stone was actually tripped and lost his balance on skates, and had virtually no control over what followed (in this case, the cause of would actually be Hintz)
3) Stone was trying to injure or does not care about injuring guys, and is wholly in bad faith
I don't think it's #3 and would say that is the least likely... I actually don't think it's #2, either, but I do admit that it is a real possibility that #2 is actually the truth. I think I'd give it a little higher than 50% that it's #1. The problem is I have no way of proving it one way or another. The last thing I want to do is suspend a guy because he was tripped and fell into another guy's knee. So even if he was suspended, I feel like he'd have a really good case to appeal.
I've never been a fan of making an example of players to make a point. It's not typically the most fair way to accomplish the goal, as punishments to specific individuals are unevenly distributed depending on timing/circumstance/injury result - a sort of sacrifice made to the group. In this case, I think the goal can still be accomplished without having to make examples out of individuals.
To the greater issues with the league: tighten up the rules and establish what is okay and what is not, then enforce evenly. We need consistency and clarity in the rules and punishments for these types of things. That's been part of the reason why the league has been so bad on these unhealthy plays, and you have to wonder if they even have enough staff to review all plays in each game, because they either conveniently miss a ton or are incompetent. We have very little predictability in what the league is going to do in response to a play on any given night. If everything else that's obviously wrong gets fixed, and you still have issues, then I'd be more open to make an example of out of guys as a last resort.
The league wants the game to be this way. They could easily issue punishments that would immediately stop this crap from happening, but they don’t. I’ve long felt that that the first time a guy delivers any kind of headshot (intentional or not), it should be a 41-game suspension. Second time, 82 games. Third time, expelled from the league. I guarantee guys would immediately learn how to control themselves. It the league won’t, so they don’t. And fans who cry that it’s too harsh, well, I’ve never enjoyed seeing a guy take a headshot. I do enjoy watching the best players in the world do their thing, and I’d like for them to keep doing it as long as possible.
The carelessness of the play is what got me...maybe "reckless" is a better word. I'm with Dangle..."best sport, worst league".
Intentional or not dangerous plays should have consequences. I'm still anxiously awaiting news hoping for just a strain. As bad as it looked it could have been much worse.
I stand by my conclusion that he injured Miro diving to try and draw a call on Hintz.
That’s a sad list of players you mentioned… that many many more exist in the shadows, makes it even sadder. For what? As you say, to play a game.
The question is, who is protecting the players?
Not “The league”… (Hadn’t heard the Dangle quite, good one!) a group of owners, who mostly do not have a superstar player on their team. So, collectively, they do not want the rules enforced protecting stars on other teams. Wild West rules mean to them, “hey that increases our chances of winning with ave talent.
Not the refs, who call the game they are told to…
As PDB showed, not the coaches… they encourage “finish your checks”, “wear him down”. Never “take him out”, god forbid… Ever watch a game, and notice hearing players bashing into the boards, way way behind the play, but not seeing it because the camera has followed the puck out if the zone? That’s what “finishing you check” is. Refs never call it because “it didn’t effect the play”. But a heavy check just happened, at speed, nowhere close to where the puck is now!
So, McDavid has to use his stick to escape a player who is literally tackling him, grabbing him, tripping him, for what -30 seconds without a call??? Because the refs (2 of them) didn’t want to disrupt the play?
Neanderthal old school hockey results… Gordie had his elbows… Messier made his space by separating opponents from their teeth, with his stick, ruthlessly… and big men are hired to protect their teammates, from players like Stone, who play over the line… and get away with it.
Totally agree. I even hear many fans in my section encourage and love the violence. I just don't get it with the downside losing players like Miro and many who are the best in the league even if they are on the opposing team. It's great to see players like McDavid do what he does.
I think it's possible for the league to clean it up and still have the acceptable versions of the violence in the game. If you think about it, sports are basically like friendly versions of war. They are tapping into similar emotions and psychology. It explains why you might see precise opposite conclusions being drawn on a Vegas hockey board, for instance.
My first take on Twitter was “WTF Mark Stone?” I posted before Roope’s stick entered the conversation, but the sentiment still stands. WTF Mark Stone? He made the kind of “play” (flop? poke check?) that was only going to have one outcome - plowing into a player’s knee. So he’s either a dirty player or an idiot. I’m willing to lean into the latter.
THIS WAS A FREEKIN GREAT PIECE
Thanks for this take David! As someone who never played hockey and is looking to learn more about the sport, some things make no sense. Plenty of fans out east love Rempe for how he plays and it is crazy that a player that seems to lack skills to play in the league is able to take a shot at Miro with little consequence. I could go on and on with stuff like why penalties are not called in the 3rd period or why the playoffs are different, but we all know this is how it is. I think you say this sometimes, "if you do not call the penalty, that in itself is impacting the result". Also, why is Jackson even on the broadcast if he can't offer anything?
Didn't Rempe get 8 games for that hit? I know there are others who understandably believe that wasn't enough, but I'm not sure that 10% of the season is "liittle consequence", and it's not like the league won't increase the suspension if he repeats his transgressions.
As for fans liking him, I think it is mostly a difference in taste. A lot of hockey fans love the physicality of the game as much as they love the skill. My guess is that your "average fan" (as opposed to folks hanging out on a hockey substack) are a lot more into the energy, checking and fighting aspects of the game more than the X's and O's.
At the end of the day, it's the league that has to fix the issues by addressing its own inconsistency and fog of war when it comes to what is allowed and what's not.
Mark Stone is an idiot and it's dismaying how the league hasn't even called for a hearing or reviewed this and come back with anything. Does Vegas get preferential treatment? NHL certainly wants to keep Foley and VGK happy. Is it time to start kicking asses and taking names to get some respect on the ice? I would bet that Benn called out Stone to fight, and that chickenshit declined.....
The proof of what happened was Stone watching replays while on the bench
LAUGHING!