To me it looks like a fair amount of shoulder / chest contact which I found remarkable considering his head was so far down.
I think Trouba did a great job at trying to keep the hit as clean as possible while not holding back. Almost a hit that should be used as an example of what a good hockey hit is if a player is in that position.
I'm not sure I'd go that far, but despite my earlier criticism, I do agree that Trouba likely did try to keep it cleanish at the very least.
I'm more in the camp that these should be called more like highsticking, penalized even when there's clearly no malice.
So, this is a huge hit that happened earlier tonight.
The announcers are very sure that it's a bad hit. But is it really? Dal Colle has his head down and is looking for the puck in his feet. It's not a charge, it's not interference because the puck's there, and Trouba hits straight through him. The only reason why the head is involved is because he has it down - there's no way to hit the rest of Dal Colle without hitting his head first.
I want this type of hit to happen still. Am I wrong?
This hit isn't illegal but it should be (in my opinion). It's not malicious so probably warrants a minor penalty.
With our better understanding of head injuries the league probably needs to move towards something similar to minor hockey - any head contact is a penalty regardless of intent. And in this case if there is no way to avoid hitting the head then the check should not be made at all, there are other ways to get the puck (poke check for example), a body check is not necessary.
And yes I get it that hitting is part of the game. And yes people need to keep their head up but it isn't always going to happen and a player should not be penalized by injury for failure to do so.
So no, this hit does not warrant further action by the league as it was within the rules and was not malicious. But I do feel the league needs to change the rules around head contact.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lubicon For This Useful Post:
This is also the premise for those who sincerely believe that for the good of the players and to ensure the long-term viability and safety of professional hockey, these types of hits do need to be removed from the game. I don't know that I am necessarily one of those people, but I am greatly concerned about the issues surrounding hitting in the game today and in the future.
If you are as conflicted about head-hits like these as I am, then I think it makes sense to penalize them, even if they are unavoidable or not deliberate. I don't think there can be any grey-area where grey matter is concerned: if you make contact with another player's head, that should be a penalty every time.
I think there should be more onus put on the players who put themselves in the vulnerable position like that. The only issue with this hit is that Dal Colle took a hit to the head.
Trouba didn't appear to target the head, but the head was in the line of fire. I agree shots to the head are dangerous, but hockey is an inherently dangerous and physical sport.
Maybe open ice hits should be removed (penalized)?
Honestly Lubicon, and despite what you are trying to say, everything about your post is arguing the removal of body contact from hockey. Full stop.
Because if you take away the ability to throw a body check because someone who isn't aware of his surroundings makes a bad decision, you're punishing the wrong behaviour.
If we're going to make that hit an automatic penalty, then we need to start throwing idiots who skate with their heads down in the penalty box too. Because if you can't touch such a player, that is exactly how they are going to play.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
They've done what in football? If you mean outlawed any hits to the head, that's certainly not true except in some clearly defined situations.
It's even a penalty in the NFL to lead with your helmet as a ball carrier;
Quote:
The new rule says: "It is a foul if a player lowers his head to initiate and make contact with his helmet against an opponent." This rule, like the crown-of-the-helmet rule, could apply to a ball carrier who initiates a blow on a potential tackler, as well as to a defender making a hit
They are taking all head contact out of the sport because we know it's bad.
Honestly Lubicon, and despite what you are trying to say, everything about your post is arguing the removal of body contact from hockey. Full stop.
Because if you take away the ability to throw a body check because someone who isn't aware of his surroundings makes a bad decision, you're punishing the wrong behaviour.
If we're going to make that hit an automatic penalty, then we need to start throwing idiots who skate with their heads down in the penalty box too. Because if you can't touch such a player, that is exactly how they are going to play.
It's an automatic penalty for high sticking, whenever a guy makes contact. The onus is on the player with the stick not to make contact whether there is intent or not. This isn't much different. Will it reduce open ice hits? Maybe. Will it eliminate hits? Doubtful.
I have no problem with how this hit was ruled. I just suspect that the NHL will likely tweak/enforce the rule whereby it is almost automatic that a head shot will be a penalty. (With the exception if the guy moves his head in a manner that makes it impossible to avoid.) I believe that is the rule in minor hockey, and frankly may be the rule in the NHL now.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fighting Banana Slug For This Useful Post:
Hockey is a contact sport, so yes, when it comes to physical play and being hit, everyone that says the onus is on a player to keep their head up and protect themselves, is correct.
However, contact to the head can cause permanent damage. And the league wants to, and needs to, reduce the number of hits to the head. Not only for player safety, but also for their own liability. And if you want to accomplish that, you have to put the onus on the player making the hit to not hit the head.
Period. This isn't about a 'code'. It isn't about keeping your head up. It's about head trauma. And that will require different rules.
The only way to stop hits to the head is to put the onus on the person delivering the hit, not the person receiving it.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Hockey is a contact sport, so yes, when it comes to physical play and being hit, everyone that says the onus is on a player to keep their head up and protect themselves, is correct.
However, contact to the head can cause permanent damage. And the league wants to, and needs to, reduce the number of hits to the head. Not only for player safety, but also for their own liability. And if you want to accomplish that, you have to put the onus on the player making the hit to not hit the head.
Period. This isn't about a 'code'. It isn't about keeping your head up. It's about head trauma. And that will require different rules.
The only way to stop hits to the head is to put the onus on the person delivering the hit, not the person receiving it.
That's what you want the rule to be. And you're entitled to your opinion.
But the NHL took a long look at head injuries and decided some head contact was inevitable to keep the desirable level of contact in the game. As a result, hits like this are not penalized, as explained in the video I posted above.
And FWIW, it's my opinion that they struck the right balance.
It's an automatic penalty for high sticking, whenever a guy makes contact. The onus is on the player with the stick not to make contact whether there is intent or not. This isn't much different.
Yes, it is very different, because there is absolutely nothing you can do to avoid getting a stick in the face. It's entirely on the other player to control where their stick is. It's also not an automatic penalty - it's only a penalty when the stick makes contact above shoulder-height. If, for example, you lean over to swat at a puck and your face is at waist-level, and someone accidentally hits you with their stick, they will not get a penalty for that.
Of course, it almost never happens, because it's not that often that a guy has his face at waist level, while players often put themselves into vulnerable positions where they might get rocked.
It's really hard to hit guys as it is. If you make it so that any head contact is illegal, you are definitely legislating open ice hits out of the game, because there's just no way to know for sure that there won't be head contact when you commit to a hit.
I don't want Dal Colle to be immune to being hit in that situation. I don't want him to get a free pass to carry the puck out of the zone, unless someone can poke the puck off his stick, just because he's got his head down. That feels like the wrong outcome.
__________________ "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
That's what you want the rule to be. And you're entitled to your opinion.
But the NHL took a long look at head injuries and decided some head contact was inevitable to keep the desirable level of contact in the game. As a result, hits like this are not penalized, as explained in the video I posted above.
And FWIW, it's my opinion that they struck the right balance.
Not what I want at all. Just where I think they have to go (even though they haven't gotten there yet)
Yes, it is very different, because there is absolutely nothing you can do to avoid getting a stick in the face. It's entirely on the other player to control where their stick is. It's also not an automatic penalty - it's only a penalty when the stick makes contact above shoulder-height. If, for example, you lean over to swat at a puck and your face is at waist-level, and someone accidentally hits you with their stick, they will not get a penalty for that.
Also, if a player is hit with a high stick by a player who is in the process of following through on a shot, there won't be a penalty.
Even with high-sticking, there is still an expectation that players must anticipate situations and not put themselves in an area of danger.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
I've never played hockey so I have a really stupid question.
If Dal Colle doesnt look down to play the puck then what is he supposed to do? Just wave at it and skate by? Trouba would then pick up the puck and blast it.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Last edited by GirlySports; 02-27-2020 at 07:59 AM.
I've never played hockey so I have a really stupid question.
If Dal Colle doesnt look down to play the puck then what is he supposed to do? Just wave at it and skate by? Trouba would then pick up the puck and blast it.
But, you watch it right? You see players staring at their feet for prolonged periods often? When you do you get Marleau, Kassian, DalColle...
He doesn’t look up ice once in the clip shared above. This is also why people are rightly blaming Pageau, you don’t suicide pass a guy like that.
The Following User Says Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
It's really hard to hit guys as it is. If you make it so that any head contact is illegal, you are definitely legislating open ice hits out of the game, because there's just no way to know for sure that there won't be head contact when you commit to a hit.
I don't want Dal Colle to be immune to being hit in that situation. I don't want him to get a free pass to carry the puck out of the zone, unless someone can poke the puck off his stick, just because he's got his head down. That feels like the wrong outcome.
I see a small distinction between these two statements. On the first I would disagree and say that Dal Colle should be immune from a hit in this situation. The second statement is not the same and I'm not asking him to get a free pass to skate the puck out of the zone with his head down.
This hit occurred because the puck was in his feet and he was looking down to find it. He did not have control and thus was not a threat to carry it out of the zone until he did gain control. So in this situation my feeling is the hit is unnecessary and there were other options to take the puck away. If a guy clearly has control of the puck and is skating with his head down that is a different situation.
I don't know how you enforce it because I agree some players will take advantage and try to draw a penalty. It would also be tough for the ref to determine intent (to either draw a penalty or to hit the head) so maybe the solution is to review all head shot penalties (either real time or after the game) and take further action if necessary.
I don't know how you enforce it because I agree some players will take advantage and try to draw a penalty. It would also be tough for the ref to determine intent (to either draw a penalty or to hit the head) so maybe the solution is to review all head shot penalties (either real time or after the game) and take further action if necessary.
I don't think making these infractions discretionary is the answer. The referees already have to make way too many impressionistic decisions, and it's a mess (what even is "charging", anyways?).
I still think all head hits need to be penalised. "Intent" is impossible to determine.
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Honestly Lubicon, and despite what you are trying to say, everything about your post is arguing the removal of body contact from hockey. Full stop.
Because if you take away the ability to throw a body check because someone who isn't aware of his surroundings makes a bad decision, you're punishing the wrong behaviour.
If we're going to make that hit an automatic penalty, then we need to start throwing idiots who skate with their heads down in the penalty box too. Because if you can't touch such a player, that is exactly how they are going to play.
100% this, these players should know looking at your feet in open ice while the puck is there, should be a sign you are going to get nailed. This is taught from a young age, these guys should know better. Can't remove a hit like this from the league if they want body contact. I like body contact, I like those big hits, I loved it when Tkachuk nailed Kassian with a few borderline hits. Keep your head up and you wan't get run over. These guys know the consequences and know they could end up with chronic issues after they retire, but they also get paid millions of dollars to do so, they know the risk. Start a new league with no hitting if that is what these guys want. Until then, keep these hits in the game. Clean, hard body checks. No intent to injure.
__________________
"You're worried about the team not having enough heart. I'm worried about the team not having enough brains." HFOil fan, August 12th, 2020. E=NG
