Toggle sidebar

Whitecloud hit on Knies | Knies did not return to the game.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I hate this hit and think it's avoidable and damaging to these guys brains.

But this is the exact hit Trouba has dished out like 10 times in the last 5 years and never been suspended for.

Reading the thread before I saw the hit, it was gonna be clear a front to front, north-south hit. And it sure is. I know the league changed the language to not say east-west anymore but they still punish on this manner. This hit is not like the Reeves hit which was a east-west coming from the side hit. This hit won't be punished, the dops time and time again says these are fine and legal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YukonCornelius
Craig Button said:
yes it is.

he wasn't suspended because it was interference.
He got the suspension because of the severity of the hit and that they felt it is was predatory.
That's the point
Click to expand...
There has to be something illegal about a hit in order for it to be suspendable.

“Predatory” and “severe” are not criteria to determine whether a hit is legal. They’re like enhancements once you’ve decided the hit is illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: definedMF
Craig Button said:
Here this should help you


Rule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head
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.
48.2 Minor Penalty – For violation of this rule, a minor penalty shall be
assessed.
48.3 Major Penalty – There is no provision for a major penalty for this rule
48.4 Game Misconduct Penalty – There is no provision for a game
misconduct for this rule.
48.5 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match
penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately
injured his opponent with an illegal check to the head.
If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by
the Commissioner at his discretion.
Click to expand...
You are the poster child for the point I made - but kudos to you for at least knowing where to locate the rule you don't understand.

When a hit comes from north-south contact, it is almost impossible for the head to be the "main" point of contact, That would essentially require the hitter to fly through the air parallel at head level. It is entirely legal to make head contact when the hit is through the center of the body as Whitecloud did (that is outlined in 48.1 (i) in the very rule you posted).

On Reaves hit, he came in at a 90-degree angle to Nurse, which makes it pretty easy to make contact with the head while making minimal contact with the body - making the head the "main" point of contact (the hit did not warrant the 48.1 (i) or any other exception, so section48.5 in the rule you posted could be applied).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Hungus, nbwingsfan, Tryamw and 5 others
Craig Button said:
lol

read the rule book man.

you are only embarrassing yourself here

Click to expand...
The word predatory isn’t in the rulebook at all and severity determines the level of the penalty (ie minor, double minor, major). Penalties are specific actions like making the head the main point of contact on a check or smacking someone in the face with a stick. Ever hear a ref say “2 minutes for being predatory”?
 
1000062600.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: zoA, Incognito, definedMF and 2 others
I don't think that's clean.

But the Reaves hit was worse. Not comparable.

Should have been a penalty but, then again, Grebenkin got away with a hit from behind. Refs really let this one get out of control.

I just hope Knies is okay. He's on fire this season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VivaLasVegas
Bgav said:
How is anyone saying it’s clean, he clearly jumps into the hit
Click to expand...

When contact is made his feet are still on the ice.

People should just look at the rule... a hit to the head has to be both avoidable and the head has to be the main point of contact. EVEN if people grant the head is the main point of contact, the avoidable part has multiple criteria that all must be considered.

1. was the player PICKING the head as their target by either having a poor angle of attack (nope), poor timing (nope), or unnecessary upward or outward extension (he does rise up and leaves his feet after contact)

Mostly a no, it wasnt late, wasnt blind side, no arm extension. Only could argue he rose up into the hit but at contact he was not any higher than normal standing height.

2. Was the person being hit in a vulnerable position where a clean hit that would otherwise hit body would make head contact? (this has to be a no to be fulfilled)

Absolutely yes. Knies is leaning forward so any standard clean body check to his front is going to make contact with his head unless the hitter is significantly shorter than he is.

3. Did the person getting hit significantly change their body position going into the hit to make themselves vulnerable?

Nope, Knies was already low for a while and didnt lower his head as the hit happened.

So the only criteria that totally fulfils the "avoidable" provision is the third one, as Knies didnt change body position into the hit in a way that put himself in danger. Criteria 1 is very much a maybe. Every player is eligible to being hit with a clean hit. If they arent approached late or from a blind side or there isnt body extension that is done to specifically make head contact, its not a dirty hit. Criteria 2 is not met at all for being avoidable.

I would not interpret it as an illegal check to the head by the letter of the law. It COULD be interpreted as one if you are pretty charitable with the first criteria. The wording after 2014 was changed to remove the word "targeting". It used to be a hit where principle contact was head and it targeted the head. By that rule this absolutely isnt illegal since this isnt targeting. Now the rule is main point of contact (doesnt have to be first, has to be where majority impact is) is the head and is avoidable.

So a very charitable reading of the rule would make it a MAYBE, but it isnt anything like Reaves or Jeannot. In no world does it meet all criteria for being avoidable either. Maybe a minor penalty, but a major or suspension wouldnt make sense here. Since he didnt get a minor, if it looks like theres going to be a real injury then maybe a game could be argued, but I wouldnt go further than a fine myself (and only because a minor penalty wasnt assessed).

I personally wish this type of hit WAS against the rules though, that they moved towards an IIHF style "any head contact is an illegal hit" but I am a medical professional so I am biased.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tryamw, noncents, Bgav and 3 others
geebster said:
I personally wish this type of hit WAS against the rules though, that they moved towards an IIHF style "any head contact is an illegal hit" but I am a medical professional so I am biased.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this, it's a much more detailed explanation of what I was writing up.

Feel like it's been pretty clear for a while now that refs will only call majors (and DoPS will only suspend) when the head is the only point of contact and there's absolutely no mitigating factors whatsoever (turning at the last second, big guy hitting smaller guy, etc.). They will look for any excuse not to call the major/suspend and Whitecloud gets just enough of the body and Knies is leaning down just enough that they have an out. This is how Trouba has avoided suspension despite putting at least 10 guys out for significant chunks of time. I don't like it and think it's dangerous, but it's not inconsistent.

This is just like goalie interference to me where we're getting close to the point where people saying "I just want consistency" or "spin the DoPS wheel" are almost being purposefully obtuse. There is consistency, it's just in a way that no one likes
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tryamw, noncents, geebster and 2 others
It's a hit to the head. It's not even debatable when you see the still images with space between players gone. Maybe not intentional, since Knies is hunched a bit, but it's hard to credit unfortunate circumstances when buddy is jumping off the ice.

If you do not think this is a hit to the head, based on trolling or bias, then you are precisely the prototypical hfboards poster you like to laugh about.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: ClarkSittler, Rude Dog and 1989
Albz said:
This was a clean hit, we are at a point where these players aren't keeping their heads up anymore because they feel safe they won't get hit because of how the league has become so soft.... you can see kniies look up than puts his head down and boom....
Click to expand...
This. Can you imagine how many points Lindros would've had in this league? 200+.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom