Nino Niederreiter questionable hit on Burrows

[stignasty]

NHL Player Safety ‏@NHLPlayerSafety (1 of 5) Niederreiter makes full body contact. While there is contact to head, refer to rule 48 points (i) & (ii).. pic.twitter.com/ta3lqfGDgi


(2 of 5) (i) In spite of some head contact, NN hits squarely thru the body. He does not "pick" the head.. pic.twitter.com/024CC92yyS

[strombad]

Originally Posted by stignasty

NHL Player Safety ‏@NHLPlayerSafety (1 of 5) Niederreiter makes full body contact. While there is contact to head, refer to rule 48 points (i) & (ii).. pic.twitter.com/ta3lqfGDgi


(2 of 5) (i) In spite of some head contact, NN hits squarely thru the body. He does not "pick" the head.. pic.twitter.com/024CC92yyS

As much as I respect your posts 19Yeezy, pretty hard to argue when the NHL player safety committee is saying the opposite thing you are.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by strombad

As much as I respect your posts 19Yeezy, pretty hard to argue when the NHL player safety committee is saying the opposite thing you are.

Haha really? It should be clear from my responses in this thread that I place very little weight on the pronouncements of the NHL's department of player safety. Whether they get it right in any particular case is a coin flip proposition... not necessarily because they're incompetent (although many rulings would suggest they're either that or just lazy), but because their priority isn't really player safety or rule enforcement, it's NHL brand image.

Looking at the responses on Twitter it would seem I'm not alone in my skepticism; although it's possible that those are all Canucks fans and therefore their opinions should be immediately dismissed regardless of content.

The funny thing here is that I agree with everyone that it wasn't suspendable, and have throughout... just for a different reason.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

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.

I love this. First you tell me to get statements from the DOPS to justify my argument. (And which stignasty has already done for me regarding this very incident). Then you argue that the action/inaction of the DOPS in regard to this incident is basically meaningless. Presumably because the DOPS itself disagrees with your assessment.

[strombad]

To be fair, the best thing you can do when a player gets hit hard is immediately take the opinions of the fans of both teams involved out of the equation.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Looking at the responses on Twitter it would seem I'm not alone in my skepticism; although it's possible that those are all Canucks fans and therefore their opinions should be immediately dismissed regardless of content.

There are many people who think, naively, that any contact involving the head should be penalized, even when the head is neither targeted nor the principal point of contact. The NHL, thankfully, does not follow such a rule.

[MelBridgeman]

clean hit...analyzing in slow mo distorts things

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I love this. First you tell me to get statements from the DOPS to justify my argument. (And which stignasty has already done for me regarding this very incident). Then you argue that the action/inaction of the DOPS in regard to this incident is basically meaningless. Presumably because the DOPS itself disagrees with your assessment.

Hah, Seriously dude, try harder.

I don't care what the DOPS says about whether a rule was met in a particular case because I don't believe that those statements are credible. The DOPS will use a reference to the rule to justify the decision they've come to independently. By way of example, whether or not a guy was carried off on the ice on a stretcher is incredibly important to whether a hit was suspendable for the DOPS - it is not relevant as far as the rulebook goes. Given the use they put the rulebook to as a justification for, rather than a basis for, their decisions, their pronouncements in any given case do not carry any weight with me.

However, I am asking you to get statements from the DOPS for the specific purpose of establishing how the NHL claims it interprets a rule. You say they interpret "principal" to mean "first thing to get hit" in a temporal sense - i.e. if hitter contacts body BEFORE head, or at the same time, clean hit. I am not aware that that is in fact how they claim it should be interpreted so I ask you for some statement supporting that claim.

These are very different things. It's like hearsay: I'm asking for evidence of what a person said not for the truth of the contents of said statement, but as evidence of belief.

I would say you're wrong, by the way, on the basis that they changed the wording in the rule from "principal point of contact" to "main point of contact", which is in line with the dictionary definition. So going back to your earlier posts, I don't think you understand the rule.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

There are many people who think, naively, that any contact involving the head should be penalized, even when the head is neither targeted nor the principal point of contact. The NHL, thankfully, does not follow such a rule.

Nor do I; I don't see what your point is.

[Coach]

Looks fine to me.

[ComixZone]

he hits him square in the front, no upward driving force to the head (although some contact is made, but it's not the initial point of contact)....that's just Burrows not paying attention.

You have to be aware on the ice.

[clancy]

Originally Posted by bcguy

You can see he raises his elbow too, just a blatant attempt at a head shot

That's funny how you see him raise his elbow. It is well after the hit. But I am sure you actually believe it. I have come to expect that from canucks fans.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

However, I am asking you to get statements from the DOPS for the specific purpose of establishing how the NHL claims it interprets a rule.

Bloody hell.

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=123678

Are you happy now? Or are you going to continue moving the goalposts?

You say they interpret "principal" to mean "first thing to get hit" in a temporal sense - i.e. if hitter contacts body BEFORE head, or at the same time, clean hit. I am not aware that that is in fact how they claim it should be interpreted so I ask you for some statement supporting that claim.

Brother... You said that dude. What I said is that, even if contact is made to the head, the league does not view a check where the contact is a full body hit to fall under the auspices of rule 48. But I am sure you will continue to selectively ignore Shanahan's explanations whenever they don't jive with your personal opinion.

[Flames89]

Too high for sure. Intent to hit head. No intent to kill.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Bloody hell. http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=123678
Are you happy now? Or are you going to continue moving the goalposts?

The goalposts are in the same place. I took you to mean, in your earlier post, that the NHL agrees with your interpretation - that is, they agree that "principal point of contact" has something to do with WHEN the head gets hit (i.e. whether the head is the first thing to get hit). I see absolutely nothing in that video that says anything about that. So you haven't provided me with what I asked for.

As a result, you are still wrong - "principal" has nothing to do with whether the body contact happens "at the same time", or "time" at all. Nor does the NHL say that that's how you SHOULD interpret it.

PS - That video is now obsolete given the change to rule 48.1, not that it really matters.

Brother... You said that dude. What I said is that, even if contact is made to the head, the league does not view a check where the contact is a full body hit to fall under the auspices of rule 48. But I am sure you will continue to selectively ignore Shanahan's explanations whenever they don't jive with your personal opinion.

First, yes, I will ignore Shanahan's explanations when they do not accord with what I can see happening on the ice. This isn't an occurrence that happens once in a blue moon - the pronouncements of the DOPS are often hilariously divorced from reality and frequently fail to demonstrate anything vaguely resembling rational thought. Again, this isn't necessarily because they just suck at their jobs (though they may), it's because what their job is is to administer discipline that furthers the goals of the NHL as a business.

Second, "where the contact is a full body hit", the head is not the main point of contact. Consequently I agree that in such circumstances, the rule isn't engaged. However, that is not what happened here. The body contact was not "full" in any sense, it was an east-west hit where the largest portion of the force applied to Burrows appears to be the shoulder contacting his head.

Third, this has nothing to do with what you were alleging earlier, which again, was that "principal" refers to time and whether the player's head was hit before the rest of him, in the context of rule 48.1 (as it stood prior to being changed this year). That isn't what "principal" means, and you haven't shown me that the NHL interprets it in a way that's inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term.

Fun debate though, even on a moot point like this.

[codynw]

http://www.nhlwheelofjustice.com/

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Second, "where the contact is a full body hit", the head is not the main point of contact. Consequently I agree that in such circumstances, the rule isn't engaged. However, that is not what happened here. The body contact was not "full" in any sense, it was an east-west hit where the largest portion of the force applied to Burrows appears to be the shoulder contacting his head.

Well your opinion right there is the reason you can't see eye to eye with DOPS on this one, or to Resolute.

From the video, it's clear to me that contact is initiated from the right side of the neck to the Canucks logo at the same time. Both players were skating in a North-South direction until the very moment of the hit, that's not considered an east-west hit. Largest portion of force is a very tough accusation to prove, and from just my viewing, I believe that the force was dispersed from the neck down to the Canucks logo fairly evenly.

I believe this because of 2 things. First, the body position Neiderreider is in immediately before and after the hit. His upper body stays in a upright stance, with no "jump" that would indicate an upward force of the shoulder. Second, his elbow comes up immediately after the hit, indicating to me that a substantial amount of force was directed through the arm, not shoulder, as he tried to push the arm in and up on Burrows.

[19Yzerman19]

1. My issue with Resolute isn't his conclusion but his interpretation of the rule, particularly given his earlier comments to the effect that it was me who didn't understand how it works (or rather worked, since we're pointlessly arguing over the old wording).

2. "it's clear to me that contact is initiated from the right side of the neck to the Canucks logo at the same time" - this is what I'm disagreeing with him about; I say this is irrelevant.

3. "Both players were skating in a North-South direction until the very moment of the hit" - this isn't what makes a hit north-south or east-west. Nino comes at him and hits him from the side. For a north-south hit (as well as a clear example of a head hit with full body contact), see Kronwall vs. Voracek.

4. He does not jump, but that's not necessary - the hit is delivered high, with Nino's shoulder contacting the head. Additionally, the elbow tells me nothing - that motion is common in both clean and dirty hits. People who don't know what they're talking about complain that this somehow makes a shoulder check into an elbow, i.e. Stevens on Lindros. Not so. But it also doesn't mean that force was generated through the arm. It's a secondary motion - you nail a guy, and then you push him with the arm to distance yourself from him. Doesn't take away from the initial force of impact on the shoulder.

5. If you look at that hit and say don't see substantial force applied to the head, I'm confused because looking at his head it seems like it got jolted but good. Maybe you just see it differently, though. That said, this isn't the source of the gap between the way I look at this and the way Resolute does.

[edn88]

I don't think that there is intent to hit the head, and the attempt is made to hit the body. Probably deserves a minor penalty, but no suspension. Same deal as the Smid hit... don't think Smid was trying to hit Jackman in the head, but Jackman made a dumb play allowing himself to be hit in the head.

Sort of like the high sticking penalty - no intent to hit someone in the face, but you get a penalty anyway (have to be in control)

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

2. "it's clear to me that contact is initiated from the right side of the neck to the Canucks logo at the same time" - this is what I'm disagreeing with him about; I say this is irrelevant.

Again, as your opinion of how the rule should be interpreted, that is fair. However, it does not represent how the NHL has interpreted rule 48. Not originally, not upon revision and not in its determination of what happened last night.

4. He does not jump, but that's not necessary - the hit is delivered high, with Nino's shoulder contacting the head.

The hit isn't high so much as Burrows leaves himself low and in a vulnerable position. Again, the NHL's position has never been contact with the head = violation of rule 48. The player putting himself in position to get hit carries a level of responsibility to protect himself. Couple that with the fact that the hit is primarily carried through Burrows' body, and this does not come close to the NHL's definition of an illegal hit to the head.

I do agree with you, however, on the point that the elbow coming out after the point of impact is meaningless.

[Hockey]

I don't see much difference in this hit and the Edler hit on Hertl that got Edler a 3 game suspension.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk