Reaction to the Kronwall hit on Havlat

Posted by David Minuk in General NHL,Illegal Curve News on May 23, 2009 — 9 Comments

From Abel to Yzerman we get this picture and the pertinent facts.

Not surprisingly reaction has been mixed from both sides.

Joel Quenneville’s response to hit:

It was a dangerous hit when you haven’t touched the puck, so it was a hard hit and a dangerous hit when you haven’t touched the puck.

Mike Babcock’s response to hit:

Bottom Line is the puck came around the wall, Havlat had it in-between his legs, Kronwall didn’t leave his feet, did it on the follow through, he just finished the check. He hit the guy fair and square.

Niklas Kronwall’s response to hit:

It was a fair hit, a good hit. I’ve made plays like that before. The puck was between (Havlat’s) skates. I didn’t leave my feet. It was a clean hit. I’d do the same thing again.

Brian Campbell’s response to hit:

I thought it was gutless all around. I thought he jumped. Marty didn’t have the puck. His forearm came up high. He’s done it hundreds of time in the League, and it seems like nothing ever happens. He could have easily come in and used his shoulder and hit him with the side, and it would have been fine. But instead he comes up and explodes with his fist and his forearms and jumps. I just don’t understand it. We’ve talked about it, and eventually we’ve got to clamp down. These guys got to pay for it — guys that are taking shots to the head. It’s unacceptable and it’s not like it’s the first time it’s happened with that guy. There’s no need for it in this game.

Henrik Zetterberg’s response to hit:

It was a clean hit. I was on the ice and it was a clean hit.

Mike Milbury’s response to hit:

This is not a penalty. Shoulder — bang! — check with a guy’s head down. This is a thing of beauty. If you don’t like it, change the channel.

My gut reaction to the hit was that it wasn’t dirty. If you watch it in full speed I just think that it was a quick hit that Havlat wasn’t ready for.

I thought the bigger problem was the post hit reaction. I understand wanting to defend a teammate after you think he’s taken a dirty hit but at the same time you need to consider what additional damage you can do to that same teammate who is lying prostrate on the ground.

When Todd Bertuzzi suckered Steve Moore from behind and then drove his head into the ice, I’m sure that is where the majority of the damage came from, but how much trauma was caused by the added weight of Andrei Nikolishin?

Similarly, with Havlat on the ground, you have no idea what sort of injury he has sustained so when Dustin Byfuglien (I think) throws Kronwall’s 189 pounds back onto Havlat, who knows what sort of additional damage you could cause him.

And while Quenneville was less than pleased with the hit, and despite Havlat not practicing today, Quenneville expects Havlat to play on Sunday in Game 4.

From NHL.com we get this poll:

Was Niklas Kronwall’s hit on Martin Havlat a good hit?

Yes:

58.20 %

No:

29.37 %

Not sure:

12.43

Update: Here is a good video from TSN which shows other Kronwall hits. Guy’s a beast:

So what do IC readers think? Clean check or dirty hit?

hbomb

keep your head up Havlat….that was a hard, clean hit!
http://www.illegalcurve.com Richard

Agreed. There is nothing wrong with the hit. Havlat has to have his head up, especially when Kronwall is on the ice, as he is a known big hitter.
breakaway

I’ve seen another angle where it appears that Kronwall is clear off his feet so its a tough call as to whether or not it was dirty or clean.
Calihockey

Clean hit.
dinodangles10

if they continue to give out suspensions like the one givin to kronwall, they will ultimately delete hitting in hockey because everyone will be to scared to hit upon risking a suspensioin. its ridiculous!
Slapshot

Hockey is a fast game and you have to make fast decisions. Kronwall saw a chance to hit Havlat and he took it. Clean hit.
VicF

This one’s easy. At the time Kronwall planned the hit, Havlat did not have the puck (because he never had the puck). He assumed Havlat would have the puck when the hit was to be delivered. He assumed wrong. Because Havlat didn’t have the puck at the time of the hit, it’s interference. Clear as day. You do the crime, you do the time.
ladders11

I think it was clean. I agree that it was a timing play, and that’s why I totally rule out the idea that it was ‘dirty’. Kronwall expected Havlat to have the puck, (and some say he did, some say he didn’t) and made his hit. If you think he didn’t have it, then maybe it’s 2 minutes… but 5 minutes and a game misconduct?

I also agree that Byfuglien looks like the idiot here. If you want to protect your teammate don’t throw another man on top of him when he’s knocked-out.
Missourimike

I thought it was a relatively clean hit until I noticed that would have me agreeing with Milbury that blowhard and that makes me question my sanity. However even Mike gets it right every once in awhile.

VicF’s point is well made but I think that Havlat could have had the puck which is probably what Kronwall was thinking as he made the decision to make the hit.