Yeah I was reading about that just now.
Gotta love the lawyer/cavemen that run this league.
I'd seriously like to see the study results. It would be interesting to see if in Daly's context the "boards" literally mean the dasherboards only, or include the glass. I assume it includes glass. I imagine the number of board/glass-head contacts are easily 50-100x higher than ice-head contacts, which would allow the board-head contacts to be sorted and binned further, to dasherboard contacts, glass contacts, etc., and likewise binned to include orientation of the head on impact, estimated speed at impact, etc.
I saw the Crosby incident as it happened while watching and have no opinion as to whether Crosby should have been removed from the game temporarily or permanently (both the collision itself and Crosby afterwards didn't look good).
But I'm most surprised (saddened, actually) for NHL to claim player removal couldn't be mandated. The inference in Daly's statement is removal was possible / optional, just couldn't be mandated. I don't know if he (Daly) intended for his remarks to be interpretted that way. I hope, for the players' sake, Daly was not implying a player can't be evaluated (period) if his head contacts the boards - only if his head contacts the ice.
edit: reading the protocol JimBob linked, I agree with JimBob's interpretation. It's clear the NHL is not mandated to evaluate Crosby in that situation, but nothing prevents them from doing so.
