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.

 

[HabsAddict]

I did a thorough engineering analysis on Whiteclouds hit and it appears that he reached escape velocity from gravitational pull .5 seconds before hitting Knies head.

Had Knies removed his head, it's likely that Whitecloud could indeed reached a white cloud.

Of course if Reaves happens to also reach escape velocity on Eichel head, possible ending his career, then it's fair and proportinal application of physics.

The NHL is a clown show...

 

[Seras]

It’s only confusing if you don’t understand that not all contact to the head is illegal.

It's not confusing at all, he was hit in the head with an elbow, but not the same head that was hit the other night when a game misconduct was called, this time it was a clean hit to the head.

Not the least bit confusing

Knies should know better than to skate hunched over and then lowering himself right before contact. The most you could argue is that Whitecloud had time to realize how vulnerable Knies was.

Hey I much prefer players target the head and punish these dumb players for not keeping their head up, just be consistent and allow head shots for all.

 

[Golden_Jet]

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.

Sure when you find NHL players that want to play IHHF rules let us know.
As we do know they complain a lot of IHHF rules.

We are currently using NHL rules not IHHF rules, so the players haven’t asked for a change yet. I’ll make sure you know though when the NHL competition committee recommends a change to the players and the BOG.

 

[Angler]

People comparing this to the Reeves hit are delusional. It was a perfectly timed check. Knies can clearly see the hit coming, skates directly into Whitecloud and doesn't do anything to protect himself. With that said, I hope he's okay.

 

[Oddbob]

This should be a suspension. But to be fair, Reaves is a known dirty ass who doesn't even play hockey, he just skates around looking to injure people so that is why he did and should get suspended 5 games. Reaves should get 20 game suspensions when he does it, as it is very clearly intentional from him at this point.

 

[Bileur]

Yes because that is how you are taught to check. Arms tucked in, bend at the knees and extend into the hit.

A nice little NHL clip from Brendan Shanahan. Legal hits start at 1:38

Good video.

Pretty clear that the Whitecloud hit is similar to the legal portion of the video while the Reaves hit is similar to the illegal portion.

 

[57special]

We all know what Walsh is really saying. " Contact with any of my clients should result in a penalty and suspension. "

 

[Leafs87]

The official rule has so many grey areas. If you can argue there was no way to avoid the head there, I think you can on many others. For the record, I am not referring to Nurse/Reaves, just in general. Unfortunate outcome for Knies, but it is what it is.

 

[Mattb124]

Here this should help you

https://media.nhl.com/site/asset/public/ext/2023-24/2023-24Rulebook.pdf

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.

After watching the NHL’s video in #366, I had to laugh at how your condescending posts aged like milk.

 

[Maple Leaf]

NHL will be a no contact sport in the future once the research comes out they are done