Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Except, of course, that is not what the NHL interprets it to mean. So yes, per NHL rules and precedent, a hit like this where contact is made across the body is not an illegal hit to the head, even if contact to the head results.
|
I'm not sure what you're saying here - are you saying that the NHL doesn't interpret the word "principal" to mean what it means in english? I.e. it means something different in the NHL rule book than it does in the dictionary? If so, I'd ask you to support that with some statement of the DOPS.
Now, when I watch that .gif or video, I see a hit that largely hits the player in the head, causing it his head to jolt violently. Body contact is also made, but given the angle, he doesn't hit him directly in the body. As a result, the head is the main point of contact.
This however does not clear up what you were saying earlier - i.e., that by saying the body was hit roughly contemporaneously with the head, I had somehow admitted that the head was not the principal point of contact. So can you clarify that further?
Quote:
|
The principal point of contact was the body, and given the league won't even review this incident, it appears they agree with our assessment.
|
Again, taking the DOPS's decision to review or not to review a hit as an indication as to whether it was in compliance with the letter of the law is hilariously naive. It's become fairly obvious over the course of time that any reference to the rule itself is
ex post facto justification for whatever ruling the league feels is necessary in a given case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strombad
The head in this case was not the main point of contact
|
Don't agree with that, based on the replay.
Quote:
|
and it can be argued that the contact made to the head was due to Burrows having his head down in a vulnerable position, creating danger on what otherwise would have been a clean hit. Even Burrows admitted as much.
|
Do agree with this.