Suspension/Fine Jacob Trouba Fined $5k for High Sticking Trent Frederic

[Scott]

4 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

I agree with the bold and that’s a really good point. Remember this when there’s a hit in the playoffs later that is clean but toes the line…

How does the referee who's five feet away miss it completely? I recorded and watched it later on fast forwarding through some of it, did anybody ever notice it? 

Edited November 26, 2023 by jsrangers

[torontonyr]

Watching the Internet lose their minds in this is hilarious. In so many minds Trouba is Chris Simon

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, jsrangers said:

How does the referee who's five feet away miss it completely? I recorded and watched it later on fast forwarding through some of it, did anybody ever motion it? 

I don’t think so.

 

Listen… he’s a throwback player.

He plays with a style and approach that is not only dying… but the league is trying to kill.

Yet he has shown an ability to do it without it being as of yet egregious. 
 

And he’s also big and skilled. Skates well for a guy his size. Plus he doesn’t ever feel himself out of place.

 

He takes much heat for his contract vs production etc., but he’s a very good hockey player.

 

He’s aggressive and physical and he absolutely looks for chances to change a game with a hit or physical play. 
While he’s pretty much a clean player, yes… some of the things he’s done have been questionable if not over the line.

 

But I think he’s playing hockey.

And those things are part of hockey.

As much as we might remove them, they’re always going to be there.

 

He is getting to a point though that it has cost him the benefit of the doubt and he should rein it in.

 

 

 

[Br4d]

If he doesn't rein it in some the NHL will start doing that for him.

[Jdog99]

Think it was mostly accidental...but f' it...dirty? Good. Better than having to throw a helmet at the boards just to get your team to wake the f' up.

[Pete]

3 hours ago, Jdog99 said:

Think it was mostly accidental...but f' it...dirty? Good. Better than having to throw a helmet at the boards just to get your team to wake the f' up.

Are you even a real captain of you're not out there trying to kill people?!?

 

 

 

 

[RangersIn7]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

Are you even a real captain of you're not out there trying to kill people?!?

 

 

 

 

One of the most predatory hits I’ve ever seen.

 

 

[Pete]

29 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

One of the most predatory hits I’ve ever seen.

 

 

Yea. Those EMTs shouldn't have been allowed in the league afterwards. 

[BrooksBurner]

ok this is pretty funny even though it's incorrect about Trouba's approach

 

 

 

[Jdog99]

4 hours ago, Pete said:

Yea. Those EMTs shouldn't have been allowed in the league afterwards. 

 

They were just hardcore ranger fans...putting the finishing touches on mess's punishment

[Sharpshooter]

I don't disagree that Trouba may be dirty at times and all that. I still go back to the Tom Wilson incident where Dolan and the Rangers released that statement saying how disappointed they were in the league for how they went about their disciplinary action. They really didn't do themselves any favors with that. To those who think the league hates the Rangers, I usually point to that as fuel for that fire. I don't think they hate the Rangers per se, but they definitely do not like Dolan.

[Phil]

18 hours ago, Br4d said:

If he doesn't rein it in some the NHL will start doing that for him.

 

Will they? Let's play a game called count the game misconducts and/or suspensions. Odd how a player with such a "questionable track record" has no discernible track record of discipline. Kinda weird for a guy who's played 679 games in this league. Wanna know why? Because, just like Avery, he's not actually dirty. He's disliked. Those aren't the same thing.

 

Dirty is a synonym for illegal in the NHL in the same way that clean is a synonym for legal, and Trouba's hits are overwhelmingly LEGAL. That makes them clean. Because the RULES say they are. Don't like that? Don't agree with it? That's totally fine. That's your right. Just like it's my right to dismiss the idea that he's a dirty player as bunk every time it's posited.

 

Trouba is violent, and lots of folks don't like that. That's also OK. But until the NHL changes the rules around the type of violence he exerts by limiting the extent to which body-checking is allowed, or drawing a firmer line around head contact, what he's doing is clean and legal, because it's within the NHL's rules. It's why they amended Rule 48 to no longer only take into account principle point of contact (PPOC) being the head. They realized, rightly, that in a sport this free-flowing, and this physical, and sometimes this violent, head contact will be made because it's impossible not to barring dramatic changes to the type of physicality you allow (or if you allow it at all).

 

If NHL players want to do something about it, they're also welcome to. Because fighting is also not (yet) illegal. Best of luck there, as well.

 

In the meantime, I'm gonna be grinning that for once in what feels like an eternity, the Rangers have the big bad on their side, and they didn't have to wait for him to turn 35 to accomplish it, either.

[Pete]

16 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Will they? Let's play a game called count the game misconducts and/or suspensions. Odd how a player with such a "questionable track record" has no discernible track record of discipline. Kinda weird for a guy who's played 679 games in this league. Wanna know why? Because, just like Avery, he's not actually dirty. He's disliked. Those aren't the same thing.

 

Dirty is a synonym for illegal in the NHL in the same way that clean is a synonym for legal, and Trouba's hits are overwhelmingly LEGAL. That makes them clean. Because the RULES say they are. Don't like that? Don't agree with it? That's totally fine. That's your right. Just like it's my right to dismiss the idea that he's a dirty player as bunk every time it's posited.

 

Trouba is violent, and lots of folks don't like that. That's also OK. But until the NHL changes the rules around the type of violence he exerts by limiting the extent to which body-checking is allowed, or drawing a firmer line around head contact, what he's doing is clean and legal, because it's within the NHL's rules. It's why they amended Rule 48 to no longer only take into account principle point of contact (PPOC) being the head. They realized, rightly, that in a sport this free-flowing, and this physical, and sometimes this violent, head contact will be made because it's impossible not to barring dramatic changes to the type of physicality you allow (or if you allow it at all).

 

If NHL players want to do something about it, they're also welcome to. Because fighting is also not (yet) illegal. Best of luck there, as well.

 

In the meantime, I'm gonna be grinning that for once in what feels like an eternity, the Rangers have the big bad on their side, and they didn't have to wait for him to turn 35 to accomplish it, either.

I can show you a video that has no less than three flying elbows from Trouba. Luckily for the recipient, he missed.

 

Like I said before, he plays on the line, trying to argue that he's completely clean is as dishonest as arguing that he's completely dirty. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Pete

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

I can show you a video that has no less than three flying elbows from Trouba. Luckily for the recipient, he missed.

 

Like I said before, he plays on the line, trying to argue that he's completely clean is as dishonest as arguing that he's completely dirty. 

 

Flying elbows that miss aren't illegal either. "Attempted elbowing" isn't a thing.

 

And I'm not trying to argue for what you think I am. I'm trying to do away with this notion of "clean" versus "dirty," because they're subjective. All you need to do is read the comments anywhere on the internet after any hit and you'll learn that, shockingly, the fans of the victims team always think it's dirty, and the fans of the perpetrator's team always think it's clean. That's kinda how fandom works. Few have the objectivity to see the nuance. It's why I prefer "legal" and "illegal." Right now, today, Trouba's hits are predominantly legal. If you want to call him a dirty player, you're free to, but I'll continue to reject it on the premise that dirty players are routinely suspended or disciplined in some other fashion.

 

Trouba's been suspended exactly once for a head check by my count. He's been fined like... twice? Once for slashing, and then for this high-sticking affair. For a player with nearly 700 games played, that's not exactly a rap sheet indicative of a "dirty player." To suggest that, to me, reduces the meaning of that word to make it nearly meaningless.

[Pete]

15 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Flying elbows that miss aren't illegal either. "Attempted elbowing" isn't a thing.

 

You're right. He doesn't ever elbow anybody, it's just the ones that miss are the times he was throwing the elbow. That must be it. Give me a fucking break dude. 

 

Quote

And I'm not trying to argue for what you think I am. I'm trying to do away with this notion of "clean" versus "dirty," because they're subjective. All you need to do is read the comments anywhere on the internet after any hit and you'll learn that, shockingly, the fans of the victims team always think it's dirty, and the fans of the perpetrator's team always think it's clean. That's kinda how fandom works. Few have the objectivity to see the nuance. It's why I prefer "legal" and "illegal." Right now, today, Trouba's hits are predominantly legal. If you want to call him a dirty player, you're free to, but I'll continue to reject it on the premise that dirty players are routinely suspended or disciplined in some other fashion.

 

Trouba's been suspended exactly once for a head check by my count. He's been fined like... twice? Once for slashing, and then for this high-sticking affair. For a player with nearly 700 games played, that's not exactly a rap sheet indicative of a "dirty player." To suggest that, to me, reduces the meaning of that word to make it nearly meaningless.

So your argument is because the league didn't choose to take action, that his plays are clean? That's also ridiculous. The league doesn't always get it right.

 

My issue is half with the hits he delivers isn't whether they are legal by rulebook standards, my issue with him is that he is predatory and way too often takes advantage of players in compromised positions with no regard for head contact at all. There are times where you can blow a guy up, but you don't have to, and he always chooses to. Frankly I don't know how he can look anyone in the eye at an NHL PA meeting. 

 

My other half of the issue is the league itself, who claims to care about head injuries and players doing nothing of about the current state of their rules which leave a lot of gray area, hence the debate. 

 

One thing is for sure, you can't expect a majority of Ranger fans to be objective about it. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Pete

[Phil]

Just now, Pete said:

You're right. He doesn't ever elbow anybody, it's just the ones that miss are the times he was throwing the elbow. That must be it. Give me a fucking break dude.

 

Nope. Didn't say that either. You said you can show me evidence of him missing with his elbow. Those are your interpretations, for one, and not actually illegal, for two. That's what I said. I've seen the "chicken wing" hits, too, and when we were offlining about this, I told you that's about the extent to which I'd give this idea of him being dirty any credence. Those very specific instances are what I would classify as "sneaky dirty" — a term that I think better applies in this entire scenario because it's designed to address the "gray areas" his violence lives in.

 

Quote

So your argument is because the league didn't choose to take action, that his plays are clean? That's also ridiculous. The league doesn't always get it right.

 

My issue is half with the hits he delivers isn't whether they are legal by rulebook standards, my issue with him is that he is predatory and always takes advantage of players in compromised positions with no regard for head contact at all. There are times where you can blow a guy up, but you don't have to, and he always chooses to. Frankly I don't know how he can look anyone in the eye at an NHL PA meeting. 

 

My other half of the issue is the league itself, who claims to care about head injuries and players doing nothing of about the current state of their rules which leave a lot of gray area, hence the debate. 

 

One thing is for sure, you can't expect a majority of Ranger fans to be objective about it. 

 

Nope, my argument is that most of his hits are "clean" because it means the same thing as "legal" re: the NHL's rules. The league doesn't account for gray area the way you want them to. It's a binary. The play is either legal (clean) or illegal (dirty), and illegal plays are penalized to various extents, including supplemental discipline. That's why it's called supplemental.

 

The league absolutely doesn't always get it right. Execs are human. So are refs. They also get it wrong sometimes. But on the whole, they — refs and the league — get it right more than they get it wrong. Because they have a rule book that's quite explicit about what is and isn't allowed. It's actually been, at times, too specific, which is why the league has walked back some of its policies (like Rule 48).

 

Everything you're saying about blowing guys up when you don't have to is exactly what I'm talking about re: violence. To me, that's what you have issue with, not the hits themselves. Feel free to correct me, because I don't want to speak for you, but to me, your position on this begrudgingly agrees that the hits are mostly legal, but that you wish they weren't because of the physical cost on the victims. You see Trouba as a predator. I see him as someone playing within the rules of the league, albeit as close to the edge as possible (at times).

 

These are irreconcilable positions in my estimation until the league better clarifies its rules to reduce this type of violence. How you legislate against "you hit too hard" is beyond me, but I'm sure there's some convoluted way they can maybe chip away at it to slightly reduce how often this happens. I don't see wholesale change ever happening without the league reverting back to the language in Rule 48 originally where PPOC comes back into play, or head contact of any kind is strictly legislated against.

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Nope. Didn't say that either. You said you can show me evidence of him missing with his elbow. Those are your interpretations, for one, and not actually illegal, for two. That's what I said. I've seen the "chicken wing" hits, too, and when we were offlining about this, I told you that's about the extent to which I'd give this idea of him being dirty any credence. Those very specific instances are what I would classify as "sneaky dirty" — a term that I think better applies in this entire scenario because it's designed to address the "gray areas" his violence lives in.

 

 

Nope, my argument is that most of his hits are "clean" because it means the same thing as "legal" re: the NHL's rules. The league doesn't account for gray area the way you want them to. It's a binary. The play is either legal (clean) or illegal (dirty), and illegal plays are penalized to various extents, including supplemental discipline. That's why it's called supplemental.

 

The league absolutely doesn't always get it right. Execs are human. So are refs. They also get it wrong sometimes. But on the whole, they — refs and the league — get it right more than they get it wrong. Because they have a rule book that's quite explicit about what is and isn't allowed. It's actually been, at times, too specific, which is why the league has walked back some of its policies (like Rule 48).

 

Everything you're saying about blowing guys up when you don't have to is exactly what I'm talking about re: violence. To me, that's what you have issue with, not the hits themselves. Feel free to correct me, because I don't want to speak for you, but to me, your position on this begrudgingly agrees that the hits are mostly legal, but that you wish they weren't because of the physical cost on the victims. You see Trouba as a predator. I see him as someone playing within the rules of the league, albeit as close to the edge as possible (at times).

 

These are irreconcilable positions in my estimation until the league better clarifies its rules to reduce this type of violence. How you legislate against "you hit too hard" is beyond me, but I'm sure there's some convoluted way they can maybe chip away at it to slightly reduce how often this happens. I don't see wholesale change ever happening without the league reverting back to the language in Rule 48 originally where PPOC comes back into play, or head contact of any kind is strictly legislated against.

I offered to show video of him missing, because that's clear evidence throws them. There's no debate when there's no other player or contact in the frame.

 

And micro issue is some of his hits are illegal but the macro issue is that he has intent to injure on his mind all the time. It's not 1983 anymore. We know the cost of head injuries. The league pretends to care, but they don't follow through. 

 

I don't respect players who are out there trying to make vegetables because the other guy wears a different jersey. 

[Phil]

9 minutes ago, Pete said:

I offered to show video of him missing, because that's clear evidence throws them. There's no debate when there's no other player or contact in the frame.

 

And micro issue is some of his hits are illegal but the macro issue is that he has intent to injure on his mind all the time. It's not 1983 anymore. We know the cost of head injuries. The league pretends to care, but they don't follow through. 

 

I don't respect players who are out there trying to make vegetables because the other guy wears a different jersey. 

 

Right, but that's not getting rectified without rectifying the NHL's rules that expressly allow for this to happen.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Right, but that's not getting rectified without rectifying the NHL's rules that expressly allow for this to happen.

That's my point, so agreed.

 

In the meantime, you can say a hit is legal and I'll still say it's predatory and only a shitty person goes out there trying to hurt other people, legally or not. Some hits don't need to be made and the Nosek hit is just the latest example. This stick swing also shows no regard for the head. It's a pattern. 

[Phil]

Big surprise: I actually don't agree at all re: Nosek. I think that was a prime example of a player who deserves to be leveled. If you are skating toward the crease like he was, expect to get hit. That's drilled into players from a very young age. Expect to be hit always, but ESPECIALLY if you're anywhere near the net and have the puck.

 

The step-ups at the blue line and the cross-ice hits are, to me, the area you can probably make an argument no longer need to be in the game from a player safety perspective. There's enough distance from where those players are that you can design an argument that accounts for flow of the game and player safety.

 

The hits in close, no. Never. I'm never conceding that ground, either, because it fundamentally neuters defensemen and gives the league's forwards a universal pass to skate directly into the goalie. Hell, you could even argue that there's a player safety component to not allowing this by citing goalie concerns.

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, Phil said:

Big surprise: I actually don't agree at all re: Nosek. I think that was a prime example of a player who deserves to be leveled. If you are skating toward the crease like he was, expect to get hit. That's drilled into players from a very young age. Expect to be hit always, but ESPECIALLY if you're anywhere near the net and have the puck.

 

The step-ups at the blue line and the cross-ice hits are, to me, the area you can probably make an argument no longer need to be in the game from a player safety perspective. There's enough distance from where those players are that you can design an argument that accounts for flow of the game and player safety.

 

The hits in close, no. Never. I'm never conceding that ground, either, because it fundamentally neuters defensemen and gives the league's forwards a universal pass to skate directly into the goalie. Hell, you could even argue that there's a player safety component to not allowing this by citing goalie concerns.

You can take that player out of the play without completely blowing him up. Trouba consistently chooses to take advantage of prone players. 

[Phil]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

You can take that player out of the play without completely blowing him up. Trouba consistently chooses to take advantage of prone players. 

 

Can, sure, but to emphasize my point, I'm completely OK with that player in that play getting completely blown up. There has to be a significant price paid for anyone skating the puck directly into the most dangerous area of the ice. If there isn't, the game isn't the game anymore. Defenseman aren't defensemen. By taking that threat away, the game moves rapidly to football-level scores.

[Phil]

 

[phillyb]

Oh captain my captain. 

[Pete]

50 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Can, sure, but to emphasize my point, I'm completely OK with that player in that play getting completely blown up. There has to be a significant price paid for anyone skating the puck directly into the most dangerous area of the ice. If there isn't, the game isn't the game anymore. Defenseman aren't defensemen. By taking that threat away, the game moves rapidly to football-level scores.

It can be argued that he didn't even have the puck. It was in his skates and he clearly didn't know where it was.

 

You don't have to attempt to kill that player to take him out of the play.