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

[Golden_Jet]

So Walsh wants IHHF rules for headshots.

 

[Hockeylife2018]

I don't buy for a second that the NHLPA would accept outlawing any head contact. They have made abundantly clear that they care no more about head trauma than does the league.

As per the current rules, he is. If we outlaw any contact with the head, he'd be eligible to be hit from the side, but not the front.

If he skates 2 feet front the board it would be called boarding...I think I'm onto something here!

 

[Commander Clueless]

I mean, Walsh ain't exactly wrong IMO.

The NHL deems that clean...fine I guess. But I don't think that's a good idea.

It's certainly an exciting hit, I'll give you that. I love a good hit. But if we're actually concerned with player safety, that seems like a high risk hit.

And yes I know contact sports are in general dangerous and you can never get away from that (and it's part of what makes the sport exciting), but there are levels. Stricter headshot rules may be in order?

And yes my opinion is no doubt clouded a little by how upset I am at losing Knies

And yes, I agree Knies should protect himself better.

I dunno. Feel free to disagree.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

So Walsh wants IHHF rules for headshots.

he represents players, why wouldn't he?

 

[John Mandalorian]

Whitecloud is exploding upwards when he hits Knies in the chin. He doesn’t jump, but he’s early in exploding through the hit and that contributes to this being a head shot.

The obvious difference between this and the Reaves hit is that Reaves hits Nurse’s head as the principal point of contact and gets very little body. Whitecloud catches Knies completely square. Contact can start with the head if the player is hitting the body, which is the case here. This is a clean hit.

If the DoPS is going to look at this, it will be for the early upwards motion leading to the head contact. The DoPS are clowns and they are absolutely biased against us, that’s not just a meme, but a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

Principal point of contact does/should not mean initial point of contact. If you launch yourself toward the head and hit a shoulder along the way, the shoulder isn’t the principal point of contact when the trajectory is all about the head.

 

[Golden_Jet]

he represents players, why wouldn't he?

That’s assuming NHL players would like IHHF rules. I think if you ask them, they’d prefer NHL rules.

 

[geebster]

Principal point of contact does/should not mean initial point of contact. If you launch yourself toward the head and hit a shoulder along the way, the shoulder isn’t the principal point of contact when the trajectory is all about the head.

Not just you, but several people have made this mistake. The word "principle" was removed from the rule ten years ago precisely because it can be read as initial or first point of contact. The reason it now says main point of contact is to make it clearer it's more about where the hit is aimed and where most of the force goes. The wording around the hit "targeting the head" was also removed and now it's just about whether it's avoidable or not.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

That’s assuming NHL players would like IHHF rules. I think if you ask them, they’d prefer NHL rules.

sure. if you ever find a source showing, in an anonymous survey, that these players employees want to run a greater risk at head injury, CTE, depression, suicide, etc., for the same pay, let us know.

 

[TakeTheBody]

Leaf fan here, so maybe a slight bias. First off the refs missed a lot that game. One of our guys boarded a Vegas guy early that went uncalled. The hit on Knies wasn't like the Reaves hit at all. Knies needs to keep his head up, BUT ( you knew it was coming) if you're protecting head shots no matter what ( and you should) this was a penalty. I felt he left his feet. Suspension? Not sure. I put a lot of this on the refs though. They let lots of crap go. When that happens some nights you get what you pay for. Hope Knies is back soon, that kid is a BEAST!!! Pay him now Leafs, save money. You waited on Willy, that wasn't smart. Cost you( us).

 

[Romang67]

he represents players, why wouldn't he?

The NHLPA consists of a lot of players who dole out headshots and are then promptly represented by the union when they appeal their suspensions. They are culpable in growing a culture of ignoring head trauma.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

The NHLPA consists of a lot of players who dole out headshots and are then promptly represented by the union when they appeal their suspensions. They are culpable in growing a culture of ignoring head trauma.

nah

 

[John Mandalorian]

Not just you, but several people have made this mistake. The word "principle" wad removed from the rule ten years ago precisely because it can be read as initial or first point of contact. The reason it now says main point of contact is to make it clearer it's more about where the hit is aimed and where most of the force goes. The wording around the hit "targeting the head" was also removed and now it's just about whether it's avoidable or not.

Respectfully, if you’re correct, there’s little to no justification for how this play was called. It’s extremely difficult to defend this call if applying what you’re saying.

 

[geebster]

Respectfully, if you’re correct, there’s little to no justification for how this play was called. It’s extremely difficult to defend this call if applying what you’re saying.

I posted a super long reason going line by line in the rule earlier in this thread giving my take on why it's legal. I think it's easy to argue head is main point of contact but 2 of the 3 provisions for what constitutes avoidable are not met at all really. So it's a legal check to the head, which I personally don't like being a thing. Trouba etc have had a lot of those and I'd rather all checks with significant head contact be at least a 2 min minor (like the IIHF). But that's just how the rule is written. Has to be both main point and avoidable

 

[John Mandalorian]

I posted a super long reason going line by line in the rule earlier in this thread giving my take on why it's legal. I think it's easy to argue head is main point of contact but 2 of the 3 provisions for what constitutes avoidable are not met at all really. So it's a legal check to the head, which I personally don't like being a thing. Trouba etc have had a lot of those and I'd rather all checks with significant head contact be at least a 2 min minor (like the IIHF). But that's just how the rule is written. Has to be both main point and avoidable

Leaving your feet = avoidable. Main point kind of dovetails into launch angles.

 

[KingJoffrey]

Iihf rules = boring game without a single hit in the game. Players and teams won't want worse product that will result less revenue.

Walsh is a hack.