Around the League- Season is almost here

[Reclamation Project]

A dirty hit by a dirty player is just that, a dirty hit by a dirty player. Don't defend the guy or try to justify it from some angle. Someone needs to elbow him.

 

[HookKing]

I think you're overthinking it. It's simple. Torres made contact with his shoulder to another players head. You can't make contact to others' head, intentional or not.

And you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[kingsfan28]

A dirty hit by a dirty player is just that, a dirty hit by a dirty player. Don't defend the guy or try to justify it from some angle. Someone needs to elbow him.

Listening to Torts today on the NHL Network he was almost trying to defend the hit, saying it's part of hockey and that the NHL is trying to take hitting out of the game. He also felt that the suspension was way too long, like Torres has never done something that reckless before.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Someone needs to learn the rules and realize that checking someone's head is illegal.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

And you have no idea what you are talking about.

The principal point of contact cannot be someone's head.

If that's wrong, please enlighten us.

 

[HookKing]

Someone needs to learn the rules and realize that checking someone's head is illegal.

And Someones need to read the rule.

 

[scryan]

And Someones need to read the rule.

Rule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – 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 is not permitted.
In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was
avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be
considered:
(i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the
opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor
timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the
body upward or outward.
(ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by
assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full
body check unavoidable.
(iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body
assessed.

So reading that... What are you trying to say HookKing? Or just cryptic "not uh"s?

If you are making a point, please do so. All you have done so far is bold another person quote who said intent is irrelevant. That is true according to the above rule. Intent is not a deciding factor, only if the hit could be avoided.

 

[HookKing]

The principal point of contact cannot be someone's head.

If that's wrong, please enlighten us.

That's not what the rule says. Its if it was the principal point of contact and avoidable.

You've been enlightened.

 

[HookKing]

Listening to Torts today on the NHL Network he was almost trying to defend the hit, saying it's part of hockey and that the NHL is trying to take hitting out of the game. He also felt that the suspension was way too long, like Torres has never done something that reckless before.

I haven't seen what he said but I get his point. That hit was borderline illegal/a brilliant play. That's why I hate the 41 games.

 

[scryan]

That's not what the rule says. Its if it was the principal point of contact and avoidable.

You've been enlightened.

And a player "admiring his pass" does not automatically make it avoidable

You've been enlightened.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And Someones need to read the rule.

Would that be you? Here's a helpful link:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=68557#rb_illegal_check_to_the_head

 

[scryan]

You know your wrong when you stop arguing the point, and start arguing the fact that HYORI didn't include the word avoidable.

I'll go ahead and spell you're wrong so you can shift the argument again.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

That's not what the rule says. Its if it was the principal point of contact and avoidable.

You've been enlightened.

So it took you several obscure posts to simply get back to your original issue of him admiring his pass? What was the point of that?

I disagree that it was avoidable. If I'm being old school, I'll say 'he got caught looking down,' but that doesn't mean it was avoidable like someone turning into the boards at the last minute when he sees someone coming, or a guy on his knees getting high-sticked. I mean, if you have no issue with a guy penetrating layers of opponents with a charge to someone's blind side, that's your thing, fine, but you have to understand why no one else here that's speaking up sees it that way.

 

[HookKing]

Would that be you? Here's a helpful link:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=68557#rb_illegal_check_to_the_head

A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted. However, in determining whether such a hit should have been permitted, the circumstances of the hit, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit or the head contact on an otherwise legal body check was avoidable, can be considered.

What part of that do you not understand?

 

[HookKing]

So it took you several obscure posts to simply get back to your original issue of him admiring his pass? What was the point of that?

I disagree that it was avoidable. If I'm being old school, I'll say 'he got caught looking down,' but that doesn't mean it was avoidable like someone turning into the boards at the last minute when he sees someone coming, or a guy on his knees getting high-sticked. I mean, if you have no issue with a guy penetrating layers of opponents with a charge to someone's blind side, that's your thing, fine, but you have to understand why no one else here that's speaking up sees it that way.

His head was down and moreover it was well in front of his body meaning the only way for RT to avoid his head was to not hit him at all. My point is the whole hit was borderline and 41 games is ridiculous.
If he threw an elbow yes, if he was charging (he glided in) then yes. If it was late (depends on when you start the count) then yes.

 

[scryan]

So it took you several obscure posts to simply get back to your original issue of him admiring his pass? What was the point of that?

I disagree that it was avoidable. If I'm being old school, I'll say 'he got caught looking down,' but that doesn't mean it was avoidable like someone turning into the boards at the last minute when he sees someone coming, or a guy on his knees getting high-sticked. I mean, if you have no issue with a guy penetrating layers of opponents with a charge to someone's blind side, that's your thing, fine, but you have to understand why no one else here that's speaking up sees it that way.

It doesn't even matter. Lets look at the rule again.

Rule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – 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 is not permitted.
In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was
avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be
considered:
(i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the
opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor
timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the
body upward or outward.
(ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by
assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full
body check unavoidable.
(iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body
assessed.

While (ii) DOES allow for consideration of a player putting himself in a vulneral position... This is just one example of things that "shall be considered".

This in no way means they will be the only consideration, or that they will be the determining factor.

The rulebook is giving examples for clarification. If it just said "circumstances will be considered", the first question would be "like what?". So they give examples. However its not going to be a 3 page list.

And AGAIN, considered, not THE deciding factor. Its not a "if one of the follow is true" type of thing. These are some examples of elements that are weighed against each other by the DOPS, then they make a decision.

His head was down and moreover it was well in front of his body meaning the only way for RT to avoid his head was to not hit him at all. My point is the whole hit was borderline and 41 games is ridiculous.
If he threw an elbow yes, if he was charging (he glided in) then yes. If it was late (depends on when you start the count) then yes.

If his head is "well in front of his body ", and RT comes from the side... Doesn't that mean RT has to hit well in front of his body to get the head and not the body as he did? If anything having the head far out in front would put it out of way of a check from the side through the body?

A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted. However, in determining whether such a hit should have been permitted, the circumstances of the hit, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit or the head contact on an otherwise legal body check was avoidable, can be considered.

What part of that do you not understand?

I do not understand 2 parts.

1.) where the player having his head far out in front of his body makes it less avoidable when coming from the side.
2.) where the fact that a vulnerable position CAN be considered makes it the only determining factor?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Torres traveled a good distance from his original start position to get to Silfverberg, well after the puck had left his stick, and made himself taller in order to make contact with his opponent's head.

If you can't see that, then I can't help you and any rationale is falling on deaf ears.

 

[Steve Zissou]

This thread is starting to make my head spin.

 

[Reclamation Project]

Torres traveled a good distance from his original start position to get to Silfverberg, well after the puck had left his stick, and made himself taller in order to make contact with his opponent's head.

If you can't see that, then I can't help you and any rationale is falling on deaf ears.

This thread is starting to make my head spin.

What part of that do you not understand?

 

[HookKing]

It doesn't even matter. Lets look at the rule again.


While (ii) DOES allow for consideration of a player putting himself in a vulneral position... This is just one example of things that "shall be considered".

This in no way means they will be the only consideration, or that they will be the determining factor.

The rulebook is giving examples for clarification. If it just said "circumstances will be considered", the first question would be "like what?". So they give examples. However its not going to be a 3 page list.

And AGAIN, considered, not THE deciding factor. Its not a "if one of the follow is true" type of thing. These are some examples of elements that are weighed against each other by the DOPS, then they make a decision.


If his head is "well in front of his body ", and RT comes from the side... Doesn't that mean RT has to hit well in front of his body to get the head and not the body as he did? If anything having the head far out in front would put it out of way of a check from the side through the body?

You do know that other posters are claiming any hit to the head is illegal, no? Not following your last paragraph.

 

[HookKing]

What part of that do you not understand?

The making himself taller part. Dude you are funny.

 

[scryan]

You do know that other posters are claiming any hit to the head is illegal, no? Not following your last paragraph.

I literally never once saw the phrase "any hit to the head is illegal"
Can you quote it for me?

The last paragraph.... HRM, here is ****** text art.


If the guy is standing his head is where his body is

[head]
[body] ----------->


^
|
|
|
|
[RT]
Where the arrows are direction of travel. Notice that hitting the body put him inline with the head.


HOWEVER, as you say, his head is far in front of his body

_________[head]
[body]


^
|
|
|
|
[RT]

Now that, as you say the head is out in front of the body... its LESS excusable... As hitting THROUGH the body as intended actually does not put you into the head at all.

Coming from the side, its easier not to hit the head if its not in the same path as the body.

 

[tsanuri]

I haven't seen what he said but I get his point. That hit was borderline illegal/a brilliant play. That's why I hate the 41 games.

You hate the 41 games for someone who has had dealings with player safety 10 times?
Sounds like you think he needed to kill someone first. He has done enough damage already and shouldn't be in the league.
You lose the benefit of the doubt after having done what he has done. I just don't understand why you don't get that. He has had his chance.

 

[kingsfan28]

I haven't seen what he said but I get his point. That hit was borderline illegal/a brilliant play. That's why I hate the 41 games.

?

It was more to do with the way he basically stalked him to make the hit. He had to skate through like 3 players from a long way away to make the hit, which was long after the puck was gone. Also, a blatant repeat offender, let me repeat that...blatant repeat offender.

 

[HookKing]

I think you're overthinking it. It's simple. Torres made contact with his shoulder to another players head. You can't make contact to others' head, intentional or not.

I literally never once saw the phrase "any hit to the head is illegal"
Can you quote it for me?

The last paragraph.... HRM, here is ****** text art.


If the guy is standing his head is where his body is

[head]
[body] ----------->


^
|
|
|
|
[RT]
Where the arrows are direction of travel. Notice that hitting the body put him inline with the head.


HOWEVER, as you say, his head is far in front of his body

_________[head]
[body]


^
|
|
|
|
[RT]

Now that, as you say the head is out in front of the body... its LESS excusable... As hitting THROUGH the body as intended actually does not put you into the head at all.

Coming from the side, its easier not to hit the head if its not in the same path as the body.

There, satisfied?