Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
I don't understand why people keep saying this as if it is reasoning and justification for the hit.
Part of the move away from hits to the head, as initiated by the league, is to train players to better position themselves to avoid these types of hits. While the hit wasn't dirty or malicious, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that it wasn't the best course of action given the attention and concern that is being paid to concussions and head hits.
It is flat out wrong to suggest that it was, with 100% certainty, the best defensive move by Gio and that no other options were available. Some of the games best dmen over the years have not relied on this type of hit. Nik Lidstrom, Erik Karlsson, Dougie Hamilton, Scott Neidermeyer would have all handled the situation differently and I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't have been undressed and scored upon.
Nor do I think that the elimination of this type of hit means that hockey is forever ruined. It just means that to protect players' long term safety, some things that were previously deemed acceptable will need to be phased out of the game. It isn't even a matter of dirty or intentional, it is just a matter of safety.
|
The reasoning and justification is that it was a legal play aimed at separating the player from the puck.
Your suggestion something else may have worked is pure conjecture with the speed and positioning of the players. That was a high danger scoring chance from a highly skilled player and Gio neutralized it within the boundaries of the rules. The fact one of the primary referees was square to the play and didn't raise his arm speaks to that.
If Aho had his head up and was looking where he was going, you might have a point. But he wasn't and his having his head down, zero awareness of where he was going and changing the angle of his upper body away from Gio as he cut in all lead to the severity and angle bringing his head into contact.