Quote:
Originally Posted by ripTDR
You don't understand his post
|
Quite possible given he seems to be talking about an incident other than the one the rest of us are....
However that hit does not come close to falling under rule 48. The head was not the principal point of contact. In fact, 19Yzerman19 even admits as much. He seems to think that the fact that the contact was made up pretty much the entire length of Burrows' body shouldn't matter. That is valid as an opinion of what the rules
should be, of course, but it is not an accurate reflection of how the NHL defines head shots.
Incidentally, rule 48 also demands that the head be targeted, which it clearly was not in this case.
The rest was just ironic ranting about perception, given he is allowing his own perceptions to bias his judgment of what actually transpired in that hit.