Jake Voracek Fight

[radoran]

@radoran

Just saying he's not really making a point other than your best goal scorer missing 19 minutes, costing his team 2 goals, and risking injury over a clean hit. It's not like teams are going "oh my I better not hit Giroux or big bad Voracek is gonna get me".

Troodat.

"Oh, wow, I can't possibly hit Crosby or Malkin might be upset..."

[Polaris922]

Troodat.

"Oh, wow, I can't possibly hit Crosby or Malkin might be upset..."

Exactly!

[flyercanuck]

We've lost an awful lot of key players and captains in particular over the past 15 years due to so called "clean" hits.

I'm sick of technically "legal" hits being deemed "clean". They're doing it with the intention of injuring the other player in IMHO that makes the fight a legit option.

The hit on Giroux was legal, but it wasn't clean in my opinion. Any time you blind side a guy and you know he has no idea you're coming, you're playing a bit dirty IMHO. Which is fine with me... it really is... as long as there are consequences for that and Jake brought the consequences.

The refs can't throw you in the box or out of the game for a legal hit. Well they can and they have, but they don't do it all that often. If you want them to stop, your team has to take matters into their own hands. This was a clear concise message and I thought it was perfect. I just have no idea how Jake earned the extra 12 minutes.

Can you name ONE player, just one, who's stopped throwing hits because one resulted in a fight?

[brelic]

FWIW, here's Kerry Fraser's interpretation of the penalties to Voracek.

Is anyone else troubled by the fact that Fraser can't even spell Voracek right, even though the original question has it spelled properly??? He even calls him Jackob at one point. Sheesh.. they need a better proofreader.

Hey Kerry,

I love the column and look forward to it every day, and I was wondering if you could provide some insight on a call in Sunday's Flyers/Capitals game. A few minutes into the third period, Claude Giroux was hit (cleanly) by the Capitals' Steven Oleksy. It appears that Giroux's linemate Voracek skates over and gives Oleksy a slight crosscheck and presumably a few words, and Oleksy responds with a jab to Voracek's face. After that, it looks like Oleksy drops the gloves first and initiates the actual fight. At the end of it all, the referees gave both players five for fighting, but they tacked on 14 minutes of penalties (two for instigating, two for instigating with a visor and a 10 minute misconduct) for Voracek.

Perhaps my interpretation of this is colored a bit by the two players' histories and reputations - Oleksy is a career minor-leaguer who is no stranger to dropping the gloves while Voracek is a first-line player who had never been in a fight in a regular-season NHL game before tonight - but after watching the replay multiple times, it really does seem like while Voracek skates over, Oleksy initiates the actual fight.

With that in mind, I was wondering what might cause officials to give Voracek the extra 14 here, instead of either just giving five to each player, or perhaps giving Voracek an extra two (I know they can't just give a two-minute instigator, but surely they could give him two for roughing or cross-checking and call it a day). Anyway, I look forward to your interpretation!

Thanks,

Sean Janda

Sean:

Thank you for visiting C'mon Ref every day. While a Referee should always be aware of the personnel that are on the ice relative to their style of play and the "reputation" they might have established it is the specific act that must be ruled upon. I have seen many times when players have stepped outside of their usual role and come to the aid of their teammate as Jakub Vorachek did on Sunday.

There has always been a sensitivity issue when a star player is body checked by an opponent in any fashion. Clean body checks such as the one delivered by Steve Olesky on Claude Giroux often draw a member of the cavalry or in some cases a full scale mounted assault.

The language contained in the instigator rule (46.1) provides wide latitude for the Referees to differentiate between a mutually agreed upon fight and one where a player is often forced to defend himself against retribution for a previous incident in the game. (Distance travelled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident; obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season can be taken into account for the purpose of determining the instigator of an altercation.)

Sometimes a quick response by the player attacked to defend himself can result in his opponent receiving an instigator penalty as I believe we can point to in this case between Vorachek and Olesky. I'll explain at the end.

We should all agree that the open ice body check delivered by Steve Olesky was clean and fully within the rules. Play continued following the hit and the puck was well beyond Olesky's personal space. Jackob Vorachek skated a distance and purposely engaged Olesky from behind by shoving the Caps player in a cross-check motion. Steve Olesky, who as you suggest is no stranger to fisticuffs, felt the need to turn, drop his gloves and defend himself against Vorachek.

Once the fight spontaneously combusted it was appropriately determined by the Referee that Jakub Vorachek was guilty of instigating the altercation based on the distance he travelled with a menacing attitude or posture (cross-check) in retaliation/retribution for a previous incident in the game (legal body check on Giroux). The fight would not have taken place in that moment if Vorachek had not initiated and engaged Olesky in this manner.

Had some separation of space occurred following the cross-check and resulted in a time delay where the two players squared off it might have been deemed a mutually agreed upon fight with an extra minor penalty assessed to Vorachek for cross-checking.

Many times I have seen a player come to the aid of a teammate or initiate a fight in a much 'cagier' fashion without incurring an instigator penalty. Stu Grimson and Jim McKenzie come to mind as two of the best in this department. While they might have travelled a similar or even greater distance than Vorachek they were more discreet in their application of the rules of engagement. Players that slide alongside their opponent with synchronized motion and 'whisper' a more private invitation with perhaps a tap on the shin pad are less likely to incur an instigator penalty once a 'mutually agreed upon' fight results.

The fact that Steve Olesky immediately responded by dropping his gloves to defend himself once he was engaged by Jacub Vorachek from behind prevented the normal rules of engagement from being considered.

[mojo1917]

Is anyone else troubled by the fact that Fraser can't even spell Voracek right, even though the original question has it spelled properly???

he is a ref... so no i'm not surprised... probably needed the question asked to be written in 84 pt type and explained to him 10 times

I mean come on bre !

[brelic]

he is a ref... so no i'm not surprised... probably needed the question asked to be written in 84 pt type and explained to him 10 times

I mean come on bre !

LOL, I expect more from TSN!

[King Knut]

Short of a player stating to the press, "Well I was gonna hit him, but then I got my ass kicked last time, so I decided not to" you know full well this is impossible and makes no sense as a rhetorical argument because any time Giroux doesn't get hit from now on, neither one of us can say why that would have been.

The other flaw in your argument is that my initial thesis was that the Flyers simply haven't done ENOUGH of what Jake did on Sunday. So in watching the Flyers specifically I cannot name an instance or player who has stopped dangerous hits against Flyers due to a fight being the consequence, because it rarely if ever has happened in the last 15-20 years in Philadelphia.

Now what I can do is suggest that there is a laundry list of Flyers and former Flyers who have lost time due to dangerous hits that weren't deterred by their teammates. What I mean is that these guys were hit once or more, there was no deterrant, then they were hit again with more intensity and more dangerously and serious injuries resulted.

I also know that the league (aka referees/Shannahan or whoever) can't do anything to punish hits that are technically legal.

If you want to test our respective theories, the most valid experiment would be to have the team consistently do what Jake did for the next 15 years and see if the number of captains and other stars we lose due to concussions deminishes over that time. If the number of great Flyer careers cut short stays just as high as it has over the last 15 years, I'll go ahead and entertain your assertion. In the mean time, you simply don't have any evidence to back your stance up.

Can you name ONE player, just one, who's stopped throwing hits because one resulted in a fight?

[DaGreatGazoo]

This is why the players should not be allowed to police themselves

Cannot say how strongly I disagree with this statement..maybe I misunderstood your point, but the LAST thing I want is the NHL office taking more of a role interpreting intentions/hits/results etc....

[Polaris922]

@King Knut

I agree with @flyercanuck here... Voracek isn't scaring anybody. In fact, if I'm an agitator, I hit Giroux more now trying to draw Voracek into another nineteen minutes of box time. Even if its even up, I sit in the box as well as your best goal scorer this season.

Voracek didn't deter anything. In fact, he may have caused it to happen more often.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Polaris922

[CoachX]

@radoran

Just saying he's not really making a point other than your best goal scorer missing 19 minutes, costing his team 2 goals, and risking injury over a clean hit. It's not like teams are going "oh my I better not hit Giroux or big bad Voracek is gonna get me".

you are correct... no one will fear Vorack. However, if the opposition knows that someone is coming, maybe the next time it is a more formidible adversary. this is why teams get feared, not just players

[mojo1917]

I have to say i liked Jake's gumption,that's some team building going on right there, showing care and concern for one another, that's the kind of thing that goes a long way in your own locker room, In this season of growth, maybe that instance will be a point to look back on as a point where things started to come together for this group.

i liked it, don't want him doing it too often but, yeah Jake !

[flyercanuck]

@King Knut

I'm not just talking about the Flyers. I'm talking about any team in the league. I don't think a single fight after a hit has stopped anyone from throwing another hit. It's hockey.

Are guys really out there thinking "OK,I've got him lined up but I don't want so and so coming after me so I guess I'll give him a pass here"? I mean maybe a guy like Briere, Kessel, or Kaberle might think that. But they wouldn't hit (on purpose) in the first place. I just don't see it having an effect.

[jammer2]

@King Knut I dunno King, it's a vicious contact sport. When the puck is at your feet, you have a big bullseye target on you....that's the way it's always been, the way it always will be. Have your head on a swivel, it's your responiblity to anticipate the hit and protect yourself any way you can. I was more than ok with Oleksy's hit. BTW, anybody watched this Olesky kid, he's an excellent gritty d-man who really skates well. Love the kids game. He's signed for 2 more years after this year....at the vet minimum. Expect to see a lot of this kid, he's never coming out of the Caps line-up again.....what a rugged tough kid...wish he was a Flyer. Does the same thing as Schenn for millions less.....and he's much faster and tougher.

[B21]

Cannot say how strongly I disagree with this statement..maybe I misunderstood your point, but the LAST thing I want is the NHL office taking more of a role interpreting intentions/hits/results etc....

Well the NHL comment was tongue and cheek but I don't see how anyone can see how the players policing themselves is a good idea. McSorley? Bertuzzi?

Use this incident with Giroux and Voracek. Giroux gets nailed with a perfectly legal hit by Olesky yet Olesky has to answer to the "Players' Police Force" for his "infraction". So what...we are now trying to discourage legal hitting?

If you want to add the star player angle..."we don't want you hitting out star player legally"...does that mean only 3rd and 4th liners are allowed to be hit?

Almost as annoying as the fake fights are the fake displays of fake machismo after a player gets nailed with a big legal hit. Instead of these fakes displays of fake machismo how about getting back at the guy by drilling him with a big legal hit of your own? Hmm? If you don't get the chance in the same game then too bad. Take a number and get him with a big legal hit the next game.

On that note - why the hell does there have to be any payback at all for a big legal hit? If you want more hitting in the game then why are we even discussing what a team needs to do in order to discourage their guys...(gasp)...from getting hit?

(Sorry for the rant but this topic fires me up!)

Edited April 3, 2013 by B21

[B21]

@King Knut

I'm not just talking about the Flyers. I'm talking about any team in the league. I don't think a single fight after a hit has stopped anyone from throwing another hit. It's hockey.

Are guys really out there thinking "OK,I've got him lined up but I don't want so and so coming after me so I guess I'll give him a pass here"? I mean maybe a guy like Briere, Kessel, or Kaberle might think that. But they wouldn't hit (on purpose) in the first place. I just don't see it having an effect.

Extra agree.

[B21]

@King Knut

<< Unlike you, I am a huge fan of fights after clean hits. You fight a guy not because you're the referee and he broke the rules, you fight him because he did something you're interested in making people think twice about doing again. >>

So you want to keep hitting in the game (I'm assuming) but advocate practices to discourage legal hitting. So which is it? Not trying to be a pain but that's a pretty significant double standard.

<< The hit on Giroux was legal, but it wasn't clean in my opinion. Any time you blind side a guy and you know he has no idea you're coming, you're playing a bit dirty IMHO. Which is fine with me... it really is... as long as there are consequences for that and Jake brought the consequences. >>

It's is either legal/clean or illegal/dirty. Can't be both. Using the same rationale you just outlined, Mike Richards and Zac Rinaldo are dirty players. Both have a penchant for legally drilling unsuspecting players (David Booth ring a bell?).

[DaGreatGazoo]

Well the NHL comment was tongue and cheek but I don't see how anyone can see how the players policing themselves is a good idea. McSorley? Bertuzzi?

Use this incident with Giroux and Voracek. Giroux gets nailed with a perfectly legal hit by Olesky yet Olesky has to answer to the "Players' Police Force" for his "infraction". So what...we are now trying to discourage legal hitting?

If you want to add the star player angle..."we don't want you hitting out star player legally"...does that mean only 3rd and 4th liners are allowed to be hit?

Almost as annoying as the fake fights are the fake displays of fake machismo after a player gets nailed with a big legal hit. Instead of these fakes displays of fake machismo how about getting back at the guy by drilling him with a big legal hit of your own? Hmm? If you don't get the chance in the same game then too bad. Take a number and get him with a big legal hit the next game.

On that note - why the hell does there have to be any payback at all for a big legal hit? If you want more hitting in the game then why are we even discussing what a team needs to do in order to discourage their guys...(gasp)...from getting hit?

(Sorry for the rant but this topic fires me up!)

There are a lot of issues you address, many of which I tend to agree with....my point was there is no way I want more league involvement.

[DaGreatGazoo]

(David Booth ring a bell?)

We can play this game...Marc Savard ring a bell?

[OH1FlyersFan]

If not deterring future hits, if not scaring anyone per se, then at least causing hesitation by making somebody look over their should or think twice before acting. Just get inside somebody's head, even ever so slightly. Make them start to think. That's disruptive enough.

EDIT: Just for the record I did like a lot of what B21 said in his "rant" post, which I thought was one of the more well-stated cases made on this topic that I've read. I also tend to agree. But, like DGG said, the less league involvement the better. There is a role for self-policing in cases where the hit may have been questionable, illegal, or even a legal cheap shot to change momentum, or keep the game in bounds.

Edited April 3, 2013 by OH1FlyersFan

[B21]

We can play this game...Marc Savard ring a bell?

Of course. But I'm on record with that being a dirty hit that should have resulted in further discipline so that game doesn't work here.

[B21]

There are a lot of issues you address, many of which I tend to agree with....my point was there is no way I want more league involvement.

I can understand that argument but there aren't many other options. The league could certainly improve in that area but I still think they are the "best" man for the job.

[B21]

If not deterring future hits, if not scaring anyone per se, then at least causing hesitation by making somebody look over their should or think twice before acting. Just get inside somebody's head, even ever so slightly. Make them start to think. That's disruptive enough.

That's still "deterring/discouraging" the big hit if the end result is "thinking twice" or hesitating before acting.

If Giroux is skating across the blue line admiring his pass I don't want Crankshaft hesitating to make that big legal hit because he's not in the mood to fight Rosehill that day.

[DaGreatGazoo]

If Giroux is skating across the blue line admiring his pass I don't want Crankshaft hesitating to make that big legal hit because he's not in the mood to fight Rosehill that day.

But if it's Crosby that's about to be lit up by Rinaldo, don't you want him hesitating knowing he has to fight Derek Engelland 2 secs after laying him out? Even if the hit is "clean" by anyone's definition?

Not being a di*ck here, but if it's Giroux about the get whacked, I want that split second of doubt..it maybe enough to have the player protect himself.

[DaGreatGazoo]

Of course. But I'm on record with that being a dirty hit that should have resulted in further discipline so that game doesn't work here.

Quitter!

[B21]

But if it's Crosby that's about to be lit up by Rinaldo, don't you want him hesitating knowing he has to fight Derek Engelland 2 secs after laying him out? Even if the hit is "clean" by anyone's definition?

Not being a di*ck here, but if it's Giroux about the get whacked, I want that split second of doubt..it maybe enough to have the player protect himself.

1st - You're not being a d*ck at all.

2nd - I could be selfish and say "yes - I want Rinaldo to hesitate because Crosby is on my team" but that would be hypocritical. So no, if having to fight Engelland is the reason he hesitates I would be disappointed. (I don't think that would deter Rinaldo anyway but point taken.)

I don't think there should be any worries/hesitation/revenge/ramifications for any big legal hit whatsoever. Those hits should be ENcouraged. Not DIScouraged. That includes big legal hits on my guys.

As for protecting oneself, that's on the player for the most part. Crosby is one of if not the best in the NHL at avoiding those kinds of hits (huge knock on wood). Both of the hits that led to his concussion were from behind (Hedman and Steckel).