Bounces R Way
Registered User
fans have gotten so soft
Not every hit that involves head contact is a penalty. In fact most of them aren't.
Not every hit that involves head contact is a penalty. In fact most of them aren't.
Head contact was avoidable. Not as bad as the Reaves hit. Should have been a major penalty, no suspensionDidn't catch his take
What the difference between Reaves' hit and this one?fans have gotten so soft
Not every hit that involves head contact is a penalty. In fact most of them aren't.
I could see the refs calling it a major, minor, or as they did, because I don't think they have a clear rule.Head contact was avoidable. Not as bad as the Reaves hit. Should have been a major penalty, no suspension
Post the hit, maybe
If I’m a ref, if it’s a hit like that where a penalty is warranted, I’d call one at least for game management. If this becomes a circus or someone else gets hurt, that’s on the officiating crew for not cooling the temperature of the game down by calling oneI could see the refs calling it a major, minor, or as they did, because I don't think they have a clear rule.
It's on the league, is my point. They need to have a clear standard for these reviews. And I think it was at least a minor.If I’m a ref, if it’s a hit like that where a penalty is warranted, I’d call one at least for game management. If this becomes a circus or someone else gets hurt, that’s on the officiating crew for not cooling the temperature of the game down by calling one
Needs to be a consistent standard. A month from now, that hit could be a major and a 2 game suspensionIt's on the league, is my point. They need to have a clear standard for these reviews. And I think it was at least a minor.
What the difference between Reaves' hit and this one?
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 or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact.
It’s really an NHL policy quagmire…policy 1.0 says favour Leafs at all times, but the notwithstanding clause, policy 1.0(1) says favour Vegas at all times.NHL is so biased towards the Leafs.
Looks like feet leave the ice after contact.Cosentino and Colby both said he didn’t leave his feet lol
I loved that they did that.Leafs should’ve came out in support of the Rangers a couple years back when they released that statement about Paros. Only chance for meaningful change was to get behind that.
So knies’ body elevated him? LolLooks like feet leave the ice after contact.
Whitecloud as well got Knies sideface/chin while jumping. But I agree, we need more of these types of hits. Which is why the Reaves penalty and suspension was soft. Why call something like that when Nurse was floating, head down and was lacking spatial awareness? It sets a precedent that discourages physical play.Reaves got nothing but Nurse's chin coming North South across a player travelling East West. I don't think it was overly malicious and personally thought 5 games was a bit much but he totally missed center mass and picked the head. Being old big and clumsy will do that to ya.
This one Whitecloud hits Knies center mass. Is it hard and violent? Yes it is. That's still one of the big draws of the NHL.
The head was not picked here, and Whitecloud attempted and succeeded to hit squarely through the opponent's body.