You do realize that Simone Biles would have a hard time outscoring the mental gymnastics you are performing in order to try and discredit him.
Just admit you want to see guys get rocked, and you don't care if they hits are late.
The problem with accusations of this nature is that they are substanceless. I could say the exact same thing back to you, and it wouldn't be more true or more false. You say mental gymnastics, I say simple argument you can't comprehend. Who is right? There are no merits to debate.
Why the strawman? Whenever you say "just admit it..." you're basically saying "strawman incoming..."
What about I do that back to you? Just admit it. "You just want there to be no contact in the game." No, your arguments haven't supported that stance. It's just that I'm intellectually dishonest and want to group you with an ideology that is easy for me to condemn.
If you actually read my posts since the first page, I'm defending the status quo, where the rule is that a hit with .6 seconds of contact is deemed a legal hit.
The guy you think is so logical has really said nothing meaningful at all. He quotes Dryden, Stewart, and then a CBS Blog. Dryden believes that "finishing your check" is any late hit, even if within the .6 second window, and he says quite openly he wants to go back to the days where hockey was played between short and light people. Let's accept for a moment his causal claim, which I think is dubious. He clearly wants all late hits out of hockey.
Stewart (I think i got the name right, the ref), says that if you have an angle, your hit is legal. He never once decries the existing rules.
The CBS article EXPLICITLY says the current rules are sufficient, which would allow all legal checks within .6 seconds of the release of the puck.
So none of the articles he references are saying the same thing, despite all using the same term, which they each agree is bad but define differently. Its not apparent that two of his sources are at all against the lexis of the current NHL rules, and he doesn't even know that because he self-proclaimed doesn't watch the NHL so he actually had no idea what the rules were.
I get the sense that he came down into this forum for one purpose. To do a moral deed and say "late and dangerous hits are bad." Well no shit. I find myself close to the center of the debate on this, which you can tell if you read my earliest posts in this thread. However, no one here has said "late hits are awesome! Let's have more of that!" The rules do not support that. The modern enforcement of the game does not dictate that. Some of the clips, if you go back to page 2, that he posts are from over 15 years ago, only the Franzen hits happened in the last 5 years, and most of those plays were penalized. Again, he doesn't know that. But you should, if you are a Blues fan.
So let's go back to the topic of the thread. This rule is NOT the first rule to rule that a late hit is a penalty. We have that already. This rule says that there is NOT a .6 second window for players to react to the changing possession of the puck.
If you came to this forum thinking to argue that late hits, broadly speaking, should be illegal, then please stop, because that discussion has already been had and the rules in place say it is in fact illegal
The best example I can think of to illustrate this is Nielsen v Preap, which I won't go into in detail. But it's about whether or not the government has a finite period of time to detain you if you commit a crime as an unlawful alien. What you are trying to argue is "can the government detain such people", but that's already been decided and they decided yes, what the actual case is about is "is there a time frame within which the government has to do so." So debating the former is pointless, until the former comes up for debate, which is not the point of Nielsen v Preap and not the point of this thread in this discussion.
