Because the NHL never makes mistakes. Look if hitting a guy who actually misses the puck while reaching for it is a suspension (again when head is not contacted), then make that a rule. Player hits opposing player who doesn’t have possession of the puck, suspension incoming.
Barkov lost a foot race for the puck. This wasn't a puck battle. Again these were things that Hagel had a perfect angle to see unfold if he was watching the play rather than Barkov. Like I told the other poster, the NHL has told you why the two players are different. Most pundits agree. You are on an island.
Game happening in real time. It wasn’t clear as day he missed it. Barkov was slightly ahead of McDonagh, who reached his stick out and made contact first (again saw that when they showed the replay). The NHL is saying after watching in slow motion one situation the guy touched the puck and the other didn’t. Fine, that’s an explanation for interference call. Not suspension - if that’s the case, it should be the rule and not discretionary, which discretion should also apply to the player’s defense as to why they made the decision they did. The island I’m on is where the game has been for pretty much its entire history (including more recent crackdowns on player safety). I’ve seen suspensions when head is point of contact, which isn’t the case here.
Its a suspension because barkov never touched the puck. What hagel thought is irrelevant. You have been told why, you just refuse to understand it. You are being willfully ignorant at this point.
Then it should be a hard cut rule (not mentioned as discretionary) that if you hit a player without the puck, expect a suspension. The rule book, however, does not state that. It should be obvious why the Hagel situation wasn’t expected because the league hasn’t called it as such previously.
Only on HFBoards are there fans who think a player can be blindsided by someone approaching from directly in front of them. But you are correct, something is being ignored.
This difference is exactly the explanation. Players who have not touched the puck are not eligible to be checked. I am sorry you don’t understand how that is relevant, but fortunately the NHL does.
Please post the rule book where it states a major interference penalty is an automatic suspension, since that is the rationale for why Hagel was suspended. And now it should become the norm for suspensions handed out for hitting a player without the puck but that hasn’t been the case (I can’t recall a guy being suspended for the same hit previously- Zegras got suspended but his point of contact was Rasmussen’s head).
I am saying that Barkov was not eligible to be checked. I thought that was obvious, But then again I find most of what occurred was predictable and easily understood, yet here we are.
Guentzel was eligible to be checked. Tkachuk’s hit was textbook other than the refs felt it was just outside the time window. If it was a fraction of a second earlier, it wouldn’t have even been a penalty. Barkov was NEVER eligible to be checked. That is the major difference. Secondarily, Tkachuk didn’t make any head contact unlike Hagel.
Again the rule book then needs to clearly state if a player hits another player who didn’t contact the puck it’s a suspension, no questions asked.
Guentzel was watching the pass that just left his stick, Barkov never had the puck
You are obviously unwilling to accept anything the league or anyone else states as to the very obvious reasons why the two hits were treated differently. You should probably just go back to the basement and feed your mom’s cats.
