Toggle sidebar

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

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
PeE eL DuBoiS said:
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.
Click to expand...

I mean ya, no one is saying there was no head contact. There's always head contact on a hit like this.

It's just permitted head contact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClydeLee, geebster and qc14
PeE eL DuBoiS said:
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.
Click to expand...
So if the player with the puck just hunches over and keeps his head down he is free from being bodychecked and can just dipsy doodle around the ice?

Whitecloud's skate come off the ice after the hit. It is the momentum of following thru a big collision. He is directly in front of Knies. Knies just doesnt see him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukeofjive and geebster
PeE eL DuBoiS said:
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.
Click to expand...
You seem to think all hits to the head are illegal, which is not the case. Read the rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Hungus, dukeofjive and geebster
Feet leave the ice, principal point of contact is the head. Can't believe there wasn't even a 2 min let alone a review. I expect a suspension for that. Probably 1-2 games.
 
Enniskillen said:
All the usual Leafs haters crawled out, if the situation was reversed, they would be foaming at the mouth with rage and demanding Knies suspension.
Click to expand...
Such a trite comment. All this "woke" and "hater" crap ruins discussion. FANS of hockey can see a play and judge it without worrying if it hurts your feelings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukeofjive
rockwood said:
How is it that reaves does the same hit unintentionally and gets 5 minute major kicked from the game and 5 game suspension yet Vegas get nothing and instead put on a power play meanwhile the hit was worse and intentional and skates came off the ice bs
Click to expand...
are you Daft? its not anywhere even remotely close!! Reaves targeted the head Whitecloud hit body first. I hate the knights! i hate the knights
 
lol at anyone defending the hit because his feet were on the ground. He hit him in the head. Likely caused a concussion. Stupid play. Stupid analysis by anyone defending it.
 
Heldig said:
Such a trite comment. All this "woke" and "hater" crap ruins discussion. FANS of hockey can see a play and judge it without worrying if it hurts your feelings.
Click to expand...
Lol, using caps automatically requires mandatory DEI training.
 
Not the same hit as the Nurse hit, but still dirty. Not a blindside shot. Knies was bent over and did change head positions. Either way, the NHL is a joke when it comes to headshots.
 
ThrowDemTongs said:
View attachment 933444
Click to expand...
To me, that's a clean hit by the definition of the rulebook but it's not a hit I like to see (regarding possible injury) but you also can't be Knies skating head-down, deep crouch through the neutral zone.

Whitecloud's skates are clearly in contact with the ice. His elbow is tucked. His job here is to defend and separate player from puck via bodycheck contact, and he's going north-south here. IMO it's not Whitecloud's responsibility to hit him from a different angle if it's the less efficient and no less legal method. Knies is leading with his head.

Far too many posters as per usual in these topics not knowing that head hits are permissible, fully legal hits. Doesn't make the hits necessarily likeable, though.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mattb124, geebster and Shocker
Feet at the ice on the moment of the impact, straight from the front, head not the main point of contact, clean but massive hit.
 
geebster said:
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 play 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.
Click to expand...
I do agree with your last bit. The NHL pretends CTE isn't related but the NHLPA doesn't agree and created a committee. So if they went this route there's zero gray area.

The issue is there's a lot of gray area. The IIHF sees it more black and white, cut and dry. The NHL adopts this and there's no debate anymore.

LEAFANFORLIFE23 said:
Because the Refs tried to screw the Leafs tonight.

They failed
Click to expand...
Because refs deemed it a clean hit and then Benoit is tagged for roughing for 4mins. Seemed pretty self explanatory so there's no confusion, as simple as it could be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukeofjive and geebster
Don't like seeing those types of hits where the outcome is going to be a concussion like 90% of the time, but I don't think it was dirty in any way. He didn't leave his feet, he didn't elbow him, but he catches a ton of the heads which I hate to see. I'd be fine with the NHL adopting the IIHF hits to the head rule so this would actually be a penalty and maybe eliminate these types of plays that are taking years off guys careers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TIGERCOOL
Honour Over Glory said:
I do agree with your last bit. The NHL pretends CTE isn't related but the NHLPA doesn't agree and created a committee. So if they went this route there's zero gray area.

The issue is there's a lot of gray area. The IIHF sees it more black and white, cut and dry. The NHL adopts this and there's no debate anymore.


Because refs deemed it a clean hit and then Benoit is tagged for roughing for 4mins. Seemed pretty self explanatory so there's no confusion, as simple as it could be.
Click to expand...

It's the EXACT SAME HIT as Ryan Reaves
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: YukonCornelius, Golden_Jet, Bileur and 3 others
the only thing about this hit that looks questionable is whether or not his feet were on the ice. otherwise, he went square through the target with the elbow tucked on the puck carrier. that's allowed in hockey. nobody wants to see injuries, but it's not on whitecloud that knies was leaning forward with his head down. that's the reason his head was part of the contact, not because whitecloud was targeting it. if you want the rule to be that you can't hit someone because their head is down then the nhl isn't for you.

i haven't watched it super close but, as i said, the one potential issue here is leaving the feet. i don't know if he did or didn't have them on the ice at contact, but if they're off, then yes that part would make it a hit that probably gets him a game. it's absurd how many people always conclude that upward motion in open ice hits is to hit the head though...that's just admitting you have no idea what you're talking about. that's just a function of physics in making an open ice hit...to deliver an open ice hit, you have to meet the guy skating at you, a person skating backwards, by loading into your lower body and using that to launch into the hit. how the hell else are you going to deliver a hit without forward momentum. as long as your feet are on the ice at contact, it's legal. it's something that's not easy to get the timing right on, but it's not trying to hit someone's head when feet aren't on the ice, it's virtually always just the hit not being timed right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom