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.