I think that's borderline too, seems more like a stupid reaction than an intentional headshot.. Personally, I would be absolutely okay with giving a game or two for that as a warning, but if I was doing this stuff there would be a LOT more suspensions anyway
Principal point of contact was the head. I understand them pretty well, man. Of course, that's not really the point, because the DOPS doesn't care about the rules in handing out suspensions as much as they care about public perception, which is why injury plays such a huge role in these things.
For the record and according to my own personal standards as to what should be suspendable, I don't think that there should be a suspension because Burrows put himself in a vulnerable position by lunging for a puck and Niederreiter was not intentionally picking his head. I just think the whole "I see nothing wrong with this! Clean chest hit! Shoulder got him right in the sternum! He came back so he probably just embellished the head contact!" stuff is hilarious.
I'm confused. Are you saying Burrows was lunging for a puck? Burrows was dumping it in, not lunging for a puck.
I have to question your opinion on the situation if you are saying Burrows was lunging for a puck.
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.
It's actually hilarious how completely bias can change peoples' whole perception of reality. This is obviously a headshot. He nails the guy in the chin. The fact that he gets him in the chest as well at roughly the same time changes nothing, this is the kind of hit that leads to concussions.
It's Burrows, everyone hates him, and he returned to the play, so there won't be any supplemental discipline. I'm reading that his comment was that he needed to be more aware of his surroundings which also helped the NHL out. But if it was Teemu Selanne or some other beloved player on the other end and he stayed out for precautionary reasons people would be calling for Nino's head on a stake.
Well it's a good thing you're not biased!
Seriously, principal contact was the sternum, IMO. If you hit a guy and his head is down, you are almost certainly going to make contact with his head as well.
As for Burrows, I think he's a piece of crap and I wish I never had to hear of him again. That said, I thought the hit was Nino's shoulder to Burrows face, and as such, it's dirty.
I did enjoy how Garrison had to be the one to attack Nino, so Kassian goes after Heatley. Bieksa, in true Bieksa fashion, comes over after Heatley is laredy engaged and gives him a shot from behind. I wouldn't feel one bit sad if Bieksa fell down the stairs and broke his legs.
__________________
My thanks equals mod team endorsement of your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Jesus this site these days
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
He just seemed like a very nice person. I loved Squiggy.
I don't think that there should be a suspension with this hit. There is no indication that the head was being targeted and as others have said, if a player has their head down their head is going to get impacted. Like Smid's hit on Jackman last night. In that situation there is really no way to take Jackman out of the play without hitting his head.
After giving it a day and watching it a few more times, I really don't understand how anyone thinks the head was the principle point of contact.
That hit was clean, and while I'm trying to see how people think it's dirty, it's just so blatantly obvious that he connects with the chest first that I can't quite understand how people aren't seeing it.
The head was not the principal point of contact. In fact, 19Yzerman19 even admits as much.
Wait, what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19
Principal point of contact was the head.
It's right up there. It's exactly the opposite of what you said.
Quote:
Incidentally, rule 48 also demands that the head be targeted, which it clearly was not in this case.
This is where we agree:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19
For the record and according to my own personal standards as to what should be suspendable, I don't think that there should be a suspension because [...] Niederreiter was not intentionally picking his head.
That said I'm not sure that this is still the case. According to Elliotte Friedman this "targeting" requirement was removed before this season and the rule was changed to "a hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable". It's possible that NHL.com just hasn't updated it or that Elliotte was wrong but I was under the impression that this had changed. EDIT: Yup, according to google I'm remembering right, it was widely reported in September.
Still don't think it's relevant practically because the DOPS hasn't demonstrated that its decisions are based primarily on what the rule says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strombad
After giving it a day and watching it a few more times, I really don't understand how anyone thinks the head was the principle point of contact.
It took the brunt of the hit. I'm going by the first angle shown in the slow-mo gif. His head gets jolted pretty hard by Nino's shoulder.
Re: lunging for a puck, I am describing Burrows's extension in an attempt to retrieve Kassian's terrible drop pass, which altered his trajectory suddenly and caused him to stop short of the spot Nino was lining him up in. By doing so he put himself in a vulnerable position and therefore is partly to blame for getting hit the way he did.
In any event, determining the suspendability (or likely length of suspension) on the basis of what is written in the rules on what kinds of hits are bad hits is an exercise in hilarious naievete. I'll reiterate that if a star or beloved player had taken this hit and had decided to stay out for precautionary reasons a suspension would have ensued. In this case, it's pretty much a tamer version of James Kneel vs. Brad Marchand's head.
Last edited by 19Yzerman19; 03-27-2014 at 12:07 PM.
Re: lunging for a puck, I am describing Burrows's extension in an attempt to retrieve Kassian's terrible drop pass, which altered his trajectory suddenly and caused him to stop short of the spot Nino was lining him up in. By doing so he put himself in a vulnerable position and therefore is partly to blame for getting hit the way he did.
Burrows had time to pick up the puck, control the puck and correct his body position, then dump the puck in before he got hit. The lunge really has very little/nothing to do with the play.
If Burrows was hit while reaching for the puck I could see your comment being valid, but since that isn't true I think your assessment of the play is flawed.
It's right up there. It's exactly the opposite of what you said.
You also admitted that Neiderreiter made contact with Burrows' body at the same time. The fact that you contradicted yourself is immaterial to the fact that on some level, even you recognized that the head was neither targeted nor the principal point of contact. As such, it was not an illegal hit under rule 48. Hell, it wasn't even interference. The officials simply blew the call.
Here's some clarification for the rule, and why it's a clean hit:
Quote:
But the new wording also places more responsibility on the player receiving the hit. Referees are instructed to consider all circumstances of the incident, including "whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit."
Not all contact with the head results in a penalty. Referees must take into account whether "head contact on an otherwise legal body check was unavoidable."
The head in this case was not the main point of contact, 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.
Are you under the impression that "principal" means "first thing to get hit"?
Buy a dictionary, man.
Funny you should mention that, given you obviously read as far as the first entry of this and assumed the head is the "most important" part of the body, ergo...
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. 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.
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.
Last edited by 19Yzerman19; 03-27-2014 at 12:45 PM.
Red Wings fan since early 90's hence the username... Lived in Vancouver for years though, and cheered for them there except when they played each other (2002 Lidstrom goal remains a cherished memory).
Don't see how that affects my point about the definition of "principal", obviously. Just trying to discredit an opinion that runs contrary to the thread?
