Tanner Jeannot headshot on Brck Boeser, 5 and game. (upd: 3 game suspension)

[Filthy Dangles]

Bringing up old garbage BUT Matt Cooke absolutely picked Savard's head on the play that essentially ended Savards career. Should have been on par with the longest suspension ever. Didn't even get a penalty.

That one I definitely agree with you on, but that's an outlier/history. The game has changed a lot since and we really don't see anything like that these days, and people still use the terms when someone receives more 'typical' hits that go awry, like in this case.

I can't imagine people actually think TJ was 'trying' to hit BB in the head?

 

[EXTRAS]

Yah I'm a Canucks fan but don't think this particular hit is as bad as people are making it out to be. Give him a game or two to keep up the hit to head precedent but that's it.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

View attachment 927969
No, contact with the head does not make a hit illegal. Considering that most of the force of the hit went through Boeser’s body, the head was not the main point of contact. Maybe I am Einstein considering I appear to be the only one who read a rule book around here.

I think you should re-watch the video, pause it and slow it down a few times.

The large brunt/force of the hit seems to be delivered to Boesers head via TJ's shoulder. Boeser's head seriously torques and snaps back because of it. That would not happen if most the hit went through his chest.

And he made that hit to accomplish what? Finish a check on a guy @ center ice who already made a backpass to his defenseman to regroup. It's pejorative slurred on his part.

It's hard to imagine defending this hit as clean honestly.

 

[Golden_Jet]

That's exactly what makes it illegal

Yes , if head was primary point of contact

But if head contact is a result of check that drives threw body as well, then can be considered legal, assuming wasn’t an interference.

 

[Realm]

Poorly performed hit. I really doubt his intent was what ended up happening. That being said, if you make that kind of hit attempt, you better do it right or you need to pay the price.

 

[kanucks25]

Maybe a second late, but otherwise pretty clean. Head contact doesn’t make it illegal.

Sorry, this might be nitpicking but it grinds my gears when people say someone 'picked' or 'targeted' the head. That more than implies that TJ or any NHL player actually intends to drill someone in the head which I simply don't buy.

Am I wrong?

There's gotta be a better term.

People also still use the term 'principal point of contact' even though it was removed from the rulebook more than a decade ago.

View attachment 927969
No, contact with the head does not make a hit illegal. Considering that most of the force of the hit went through Boeser’s body, the head was not the main point of contact. Maybe I am Einstein considering I appear to be the only one who read a rule book around here.


Not sure what you were going for here, but you missed.

A hit that is not a blind side and not late that doesn't make the head the principal point of contact is clean, even if it causes a head injury.

A hit that is from the blind side and late and also includes head contact is dirty. In this case, Jeannot had no intentions of separating the player from the puck, he just decided that he saw a vulnerable player and he was going to follow through with the hit no matter what.

If he hit Boeser late and chest only it's a 2 minute interference penalty. But this was targeting the head on an unsuspecting player which should pretty much be treated like intent to injure (and even if the head wasn't the main point of contact, in this context it's still being targeted).

There was no value to this hit, no positive outcome, just a chance of head injury. You can argue that's predatory.

 

[Stephen]

It looked like Jeannot tucked his shoulder around Boeser avoiding a shoulder on shoulder just so he could accidentally tag him in the head. I think it was trying to come across as accidentally on purpose but just looked slimey.

 

[Koivu11]

 

[Three On Zero]

1 game higher than I thought, but still within reason.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

probably shouldn't be admiring your pass going east-west across the neutral zone but i think 5 and a game is probably the right call

it's a little late, a little high, a little not enough chest contact.. adds up to that

This doesn't even make sense. He made a backpass to his defenseman to regroup. So if anything, his eyes are looking back there for a potential return pass.

You can't really fault him for not expecting to be subject of a really, really stupid hit attempt on a nothing play.

With that logic, players need to have their heads on swivels pretty much 99% of the time.

 

[NeverForget06]

This is the type of hit that the NHL has been trying to stamp out of the game for a decade now. I am about the farthest thing you can be from a Canucks fan, but even with my bias against them this can't happen.

This is the kind of thing that lost Sid part of his career. NHL needs to protect it's stars.

Throw the book at this bum !

I would guess he'll get about 3 games though - should be 10

Would you look at that

 

[Statto]

Gets 3 games.

 

[chaser17]

3 games for being too tall is how I see this.

 

[Three On Zero]

3 games for being too tall is how I see this.

And an illegal check the head

 

[BigKing]

Hard sometimes when you're 44 years old and see a hit like this because my first thought was "didn't seem that bad". But I grew up on this being a clean hit and this is the stuff that they've been trying to legislate out of the game.

I don't believe he targeted the head: think he was just trying to put on a big hit. Still got a lot of body. You can't argue any of this though when it is blindside like this since "clean" blindside hits still lead to guys being KO'd and blindside hits are a big no-no for years now.

"Atta' Boy" before 2010. Suspension in 2024.

 

[Monsieur Miz]

Edit : Oops, the 3 games was already reported.

Anyway, first time offense so no surprise.

 

[Three On Zero]

Hard sometimes when you're 44 years old and see a hit like this because my first thought was "didn't seem that bad". But I grew up on this being a clean hit and this is the stuff that they've been trying to legislate out of the game.

I don't believe he targeted the head: think he was just trying to put on a big hit. Still got a lot of body. You can't argue any of this though when it is blindside like this since "clean" blindside hits still lead to guys being KO'd and blindside hits are a big no-no for years now.

"Atta' Boy" before 2010. Suspension in 2024.

He got more head than body. Primary point of contact was head with the body in the follow through

 

[zappa4ever]

///
With that logic, players need to have their heads on swivels pretty much 99% of the time.

change that to 100% of the time and I'd agree

 

[LemonSauceD]

3 games for being too tall is how I see this.

What? Theyre both 6’1 and 6’2.

 

[geebster]

View attachment 927969
No, contact with the head does not make a hit illegal. Considering that most of the force of the hit went through Boeser’s body, the head was not the main point of contact. Maybe I am Einstein considering I appear to be the only one who read a rule book around here.

Iono I think Einstein would both be able to read AND understand what they just read. Not only does the rule fully describe that hit, but it fulfills all 3 criteria below as well.

Was head contact avoidable? Yes. Was the head picked by poor timing? Yes it was late. Was the head picked by poor angle? Yes it was blind side. Was the head picked by unnecessary extension upwards? Heck yes. Was the victim in a position where a clean body check wasn't possible without head contact? Heck no. Did the victim change their position before or during the hit to make the head contact inevitable? No.

The only thing you can argue is what you think main point of contact means. The rule was changed in 2013 to no longer say principle point of contact and to no longer say targeted the head, instead saying main point and unavoidable. The reason for these changes was precisely to cover hits like these. First contact doesn't matter anymore, specific targeting doesn't matter anymore. If the 3 criteria listed are met it's not unavoidable and meets that standard. If significant contact is made with the head while meeting the standard for being avoidable it's illegal. If you are still confused go compare the two ways this rule has existed and go watch what the NHL says on headshot suspensions or go read or watch what people said when the rule was changed 10 years ago. It's quite clear.

He's getting a hearing and will get punished for an illegal check to the head. It will likely be shorter than it should be but the league has always been weak on punishment. When the video comes out from the NHL go watch it so you can learn how these things are interpreted.

 

[Three On Zero]

View attachment 927969
No, contact with the head does not make a hit illegal. Considering that most of the force of the hit went through Boeser’s body, the head was not the main point of contact. Maybe I am Einstein considering I appear to be the only one who read a rule book around here.


Not sure what you were going for here, but you missed.

Head was the main point of contact on this hit, not the body.

 

[BlueBull]

3 games for being too tall is how I see this.

>6'2"
>"Too Tall"

For Goaltending, that could be considered too short. What do you mean "Too Tall"?

 

[UnSandvich]

3 games is a bit of a joke, but that's Parros for you

 

[The Expert]

He concussed Zub earlier in the season.

Jeannot needs to stop playing like a POS.

 

[aylib]

About as expected