Trouba had him lined up for a long time. He targeted the head, he hit the head, he KO'd the player. It would be different if it was a split second play and the head wasn't targeted. The hit tonight was an obvious head shot, on purpose. He saw a vulnerable player with his head down. He wasn't trying to hit the chest or shoulder or anything else. Head was down, he targeted the head.
If Trouba can't make the hit without hitting the head first (especially with all the time he took to line him up) then don't make the hit. Easy peasy.
Maybe that's what the rule should be, that's a different debate. But the rules as written permit this hit. It's legal.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Good hit. Hate on him all you want but Trouba was doing his job there.
The onus is on Timo Meier there to have far more awareness in that situation and to protect himself. Player like McDavid and Mackinnon attack those areas of the ice with speed on a shift to shift basis but have there head up while doing so.
You never want to see anybody hurt but that's a hockey play through and through.
Good hit. Hate on him all you want but Trouba was doing his job there.
The onus is on Timo Meier there to have far more awareness in that situation and to protect himself. Player like McDavid and Mackinnon attack those areas of the ice with speed on a shift to shift basis but have there head up while doing so.
You never want to see anybody hurt but that's a hockey play through and through.
The onus is also on Trouba not to take advantage of an unsuspecting player. Why doesn't Trouba have to have awareness? You might be right that it's a hockey play, but I think the argument is that it shouldn't be.
The Athletic article sums it up nicely to me. End of the day, the rule states that head contact is allowed if the hit is unavoidable. Was the hit unavoidable? Absolutely not. If we're going to fault Meier for not having enough awareness, equal blame needs to go to Trouba for the same.
The rules need to be more stringent to protect players in these positions. If you "never want to see anybody hurt" then the least the league could do is remove grey areas in the rules that cause guys to keep getting hurt. Trouba loves walking the line and goes over it plenty. The solution is to pull the line back.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
The onus is also on Trouba not to take advantage of an unsuspecting player. Why doesn't Trouba have to have awareness? You might be right that it's a hockey play, but I think the argument is that it shouldn't be.
The Athletic article sums it up nicely to me. End of the day, the rule states that head contact is allowed if the hit is unavoidable. Was the hit unavoidable? Absolutely not. If we're going to fault Meier for not having enough awareness, equal blame needs to go to Trouba for the same.
The rules need to be more stringent to protect players in these positions. If you "never want to see anybody hurt" then the least the league could do is remove grey areas in the rules that cause guys to keep getting hurt. Trouba loves walking the line and goes over it plenty. The solution is to pull the line back.
In fact, you can see Trouba loading up from quite a distance away.
End of the day, the rule states that head contact is allowed if the hit is unavoidable. Was the hit unavoidable? Absolutely not.
This is wrong.
Head contact is allowed if head contact is unavoidable in the process delivering an otherwise legal hit. The question is not whether the hit itself was unavoidable. If you hit a guy straight through the body, often times the head is inevitably going to be one of if not the main points of contact, and in those cases, it's deemed a legal hit to the head.
There is no requirement to avoid making any otherwise legal hit in order to prevent head contact.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The onus is also on Trouba not to take advantage of an unsuspecting player. Why doesn't Trouba have to have awareness? You might be right that it's a hockey play, but I think the argument is that it shouldn't be.
The Athletic article sums it up nicely to me. End of the day, the rule states that head contact is allowed if the hit is unavoidable. Was the hit unavoidable? Absolutely not. If we're going to fault Meier for not having enough awareness, equal blame needs to go to Trouba for the same.
The rules need to be more stringent to protect players in these positions. If you "never want to see anybody hurt" then the least the league could do is remove grey areas in the rules that cause guys to keep getting hurt. Trouba loves walking the line and goes over it plenty. The solution is to pull the line back.
Yeah, I mean I get that sometimes hitting the head is unavoidable if a player puts themselves in a prone position and the player making the hit doesn't have time to react, but Trouba seems to have a knack for finding players in prone positions and takes advantage of it. I don't consider that as unavoidable. It can't simply be just bad luck that it always happens with him.
Besides the hit last night, he was suspended in the past for targeting the head (Mark Stone). There were hits on Athanasiou, Khaira, Mackinnon, and Crosby that were right on the line as well. He seems to have mastered the "accidentally on purpose" angle.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
It's not accidentally on purpose, it's entirely on purpose. The hit on Stone is totally different- he completely picked Stone's head, there was no hit through the body. That's why he got suspended. That's exactly what the rule targets.
It's really not that complicated. You can always tell when the head is picked because it's a glancing blow that spins the person being hit around.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Head contact is allowed if head contact is unavoidable in the process delivering an otherwise legal hit. The question is not whether the hit itself was unavoidable. If you hit a guy straight through the body, often times the head is inevitably going to be one of if not the main points of contact, and in those cases, it's deemed a legal hit to the head.
There is no requirement to avoid making any otherwise legal hit in order to prevent head contact.
That's what I meant, says so in the article. To the bolded, I know, that's why I said there should be.
The point is that it's a grey area that needs to be removed.
Does it make sense that you can't purposefully target the head, but you CAN purposefully hit through the head if the player has his head down? Not really, right? It's a stupid rule.
Again, was the hit unavoidable? No. Therefore, was a hit to the head unavoidable? No. By adding ii to the rule, they add a grey area that allows guys to open up and check through the head anyone not paying attention or playing with their head down. That goes against the spirit of the rule and the reason it exists.
The disconnect here is that it's not a grey area - it's a deliberate choice to keep SOME hits to the head in the game, even though it's well understood that they can lead to concussions and other injuries. This is where the NHL decided to draw the line to deal with the people who say "you're trying to take hitting out of the game". When you understand the rule in that context, it's not stupid - you can hit a guy through the head if you're making a solid, full body hit at the same time - in other words, the head can be the main point of contact if you're nonetheless hitting through your opponent's body. You can't hit a guy in the head if you're simply picking the head.
Look at this video - half of the hits in the "these are allowed" section of the video involve a shoulder going right into a guy's jaw. Voracek's brains are sent straight through the top of his skull by Kronwall, as is the case with the next three hits. Yet as Shanahan repeatedly says at the end of the video when talking about (in contrast) the illegal checks to the head that get you suspended, the players who made those hits were required to make a full body check, and didn't do so. That's where the line is. This is literally by design - it's not a loophole. It's how the rule is intended to function.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Man, I feel like you could just read the article to understand what is being said here. The grey area being referred to is the area where hits are legal but dirty/dangerous/disrespectful. Where they're allowed by the book but go against the spirit of the rules they are allowed under the condition of.
It's not a legal grey area. They're legal hits. Should they be? No.
Man, I feel like you could just read the article to understand what is being said here. The grey area being referred to is the area where hits are legal but dirty/dangerous/disrespectful. Where they're allowed by the book but go against the spirit of the rules they are allowed under the condition of.
I'm not sure how I'm being unclear. I did read the article, and I understand the perspective of people who say the rules should be changed. But what you don't seem to be getting is that these hits do not go against the spirit of the rules. The spirit of the rules deliberately contemplated keeping this type of hit in the game.
Obviously you disagree with what the rules should be and where the line should be drawn but you simply don't seem to appreciate how intentional the choice to keep these hits legal has been to date.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Man, I feel like you could just read the article to understand what is being said here. The grey area being referred to is the area where hits are legal but dirty/dangerous/disrespectful. Where they're allowed by the book but go against the spirit of the rules they are allowed under the condition of.
It's not a legal grey area. They're legal hits. Should they be? No.
These hits barely exist anymore as it is. The only way to eliminate this is to get rid of hitting all together. Should it be a suspension everytime someone that's 6'3 hits someone that's 5'10?
The league is already soft as butter and I don't want to see hits to the head but we might as well just play 3 on 3 if this is what we're talking about.
The Following User Says Thank You to AFireInside For This Useful Post:
I'm not sure how I'm being unclear. I did read the article, and I understand the perspective of people who say the rules should be changed. But what you don't seem to be getting is that these hits do not go against the spirit of the rules. The spirit of the rules deliberately contemplated keeping this type of hit in the game.
Obviously you disagree with what the rules should be and where the line should be drawn but you simply don't seem to appreciate how intentional the choice to keep these hits legal has been to date.
I think you're just struggling to understand what "the spirit" of the rule is. I understand where the line was drawn, I understand it was intentional, and it's clear that line which was intentionally drawn goes against the spirit of why the rule was created in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFireInside
These hits barely exist anymore as it is. The only way to eliminate this is to get rid of hitting all together. Should it be a suspension everytime someone that's 6'3 hits someone that's 5'10?
The league is already soft as butter and I don't want to see hits to the head but we might as well just play 3 on 3 if this is what we're talking about.
If these hits barely exist anymore then I'm not sure how making them penalties would materially change your viewing experience.
All hits to the head should not be allowed and it should be on the player defending if the attacking player has his head down.
If the player has his head down and gets clipped with a stick, that's a cut-and-dry penalty so why not in this situation? NHL should do this to protect itself in the future.
