Zadorov hit to the head on Glendenning. Suspension or no?

[duckpuck]

Stay low like he was moments before the hit and not extend into the hit. I promise he didn't need to do anything other than brace for the hit for physics to do its job and have him come out on the giving and not receiving end of the hit.

This could be true as a matter of physics. But what difference does it make under the rule? He's entitled to throw a full force body check, just like every other player in the league. What you're saying is that because he's bigger than most players, he should let up (or be punished by a different standard when he doesn't). I strongly disagree with that.

 

[McFlyingV]

Look at the angle of Zadorov's upper body during contact. He's literally bending over at a 45 degree angle.

While I don't think this kind of hit should be legal, I'm pretty sure it still is due to Zadorov hitting through the center of mass and not "picking" the head.

Like I said, his positioning was great prior to the hit. Watch his knee angle as he extends up into the hit. If he doesn't extend he doesn't get head.

This could be true as a matter of physics. But what difference does it make under the rule? He's entitled to throw a full force body check, just like every other player in the league. What you're saying is that because he's bigger than most players, he should let up (or be punished by a different standard when he doesn't). I strongly disagree with that.

No player is entitled to throw a full force body check to a player's head as the initial and principle point of contact. If you can't avoid the head then correct I am saying you are not entitled to throw a full force body check on that player. Do we really think him extending into the hit was necessary to serve the purpose of a hit which is separating the puck carrier from the puck?

 

[duckpuck]

Like I said, his positioning was great prior to the hit. Watch his knee angle as he extends up into the hit. If he doesn't extend he doesn't get head.


No player is entitled to throw a full force body check to a player's head as the initial and principle point of contact. If you can't avoid the head then correct I am saying you are not entitled to throw a full force body check on that player. Do we really think him extending into the hit was necessary to serve the purpose of a hit which is separating the puck carrier from the puck?

Nice strawman you've constructed there. No one is saying a player is "entitled" to throw a full force hit to a player's head.

There is no evidence Zadorov targeted the head. The fact that he hit the head is not dispositive. I note you don't dispute that Glendening changed the angle at the very last minute. That is the most important fact here.

You are imposing a standard that you prefer, but is not in the rule - the "only hit as hard as the purpose of the hit", as you would define purpose (separating the puck). There are multiple legal purposes of hit, including wearing down an opponent or intimidating them. That is part of hockey and always has been (and within the rules) whether you acknowledge/like it or not.

 

[53or8]

Cause glendenning came back I'm guessing that it will only be one game and that's the rest of the series.
He's essentially getting the big man suspension.

 

[Spotty 2 Hotty]

Cause glendenning came back I'm guessing that it will only be one game and that's the rest of the series.
He's essentially getting the big man suspension.

Everyone keeps saying he "came back" as if he was out on the ice for another shift.

 

[McFlyingV]

Nice strawman you've constructed there. No one is saying a player is "entitled" to throw a full force hit to a player's head.

There is no evidence Zadorov targeted the head. The fact that he hit the head is not dispositive. I note you don't dispute that Glendening changed the angle at the very last minute. That is the most important fact here.

You are imposing a standard that you prefer, but is not in the rule - the "only hit as hard as the purpose of the hit", as you would define purpose (separating the puck). There are multiple legal purposes of hit, including wearing down an opponent or intimidating them. That is part of hockey and always has been (and within the rules) whether you acknowledge/like it or not.

No strawman was constructed. You said a player is entitled to throw as hard a body check as they want and I disputed that if in order to do that they put themselves in a position that results in head contact then they are not entitled. If Zadorov had not extended through his legs he would not have had as much force in his hit, but he would have avoided head contact. The second he adds that extra force by extending through his legs which changed the upcoming point of contact it is no longer a legal check because it caused initial and principle point of contact to the head.

Glendenning's head position (height wise) changed far less than the position of Zadorov's arm/shoulder (which he also began to extend right before contact).

I'm not imposing any standard that I prefer. The primary goal in hockey is to win by scoring more goals than the other team. Having the puck and not allowing the other team to have the puck increases your chances of this goal. Hitting a player with a puck's primary goal is to separate the puck from the player (sure, there are other secondary goals of being physical). None of this changes that Zadorov got away from the primary goal of a hit by trying to throw a big hit rather than a clean hit. Whether accidental or not he got head (with initial contact and with majority of the contact) as a result of trying to throw a bigger hit, and that is both a penalty and subject to supplemental discipline.

 

[duckpuck]

No strawman was constructed. You said a player is entitled to throw as hard a body check as they want and I disputed that if in order to do that they put themselves in a position that results in head contact then they are not entitled. If Zadorov had not extended through his legs he would not have had as much force in his hit, but he would have avoided head contact. The second he adds that extra force by extending through his legs which changed the upcoming point of contact it is no longer a legal check because it caused initial and principle point of contact to the head.

Glendenning's head position (height wise) changed far less than the position of Zadorov's arm/shoulder (which he also began to extend right before contact).

I'm not imposing any standard that I prefer. The primary goal in hockey is to win by scoring more goals than the other team. Having the puck and not allowing the other team to have the puck increases your chances of this goal. Hitting a player with a puck's primary goal is to separate the puck from the player (sure, there are other secondary goals of being physical). None of this changes that Zadorov got away from the primary goal of a hit by trying to throw a big hit rather than a clean hit. Whether accidental or not he got head (with initial contact and with majority of the contact) as a result of trying to throw a bigger hit, and that is both a penalty and subject to supplemental discipline.

You did construct a strawman, primarily because you mistakenly think that a hit "that results in head contact" is always illegal and always punishable. You wrote that twice above.

Yet you acknowledge that Glendening changed his position (not just head, but also body). Again, read the f'n rule - its right there. Hits to the head are not always illegal. We can disagree about how the rule should be applied to this hit. But the rule is what it is, yet you keep posting what you want the rule to be which is different.

 

[11Messier]

It has nothing to do with intent. He may or may not have intended to injure but he had full control to assure that contact to the ahead would not happen. This has more to do with respect of your fellow colleague rather than intent. If you were a player in the NHL, would you want guys in the league that make those kind of decisions. I am sure the players association want players in the league to have at least a little respect for each others safety. Seeing him run around last game, I feel Zadorov needs to learn to care a bit more or it's going to end up getting costly for him.

 

[McFlyingV]

You did construct a strawman, primarily because you mistakenly think that a hit "that results in head contact" is always illegal and always punishable. You wrote that twice above.

Yet you acknowledge that Glendening changed his position (not just head, but also body). Again, read the f'n rule - its right there. Hits to the head are not always illegal. We can disagree about how the rule should be applied to this hit. But the rule is what it is, yet you keep posting what you want the rule to be which is different.

No, I didn't actually. I said a hit that results in initial and primary contact with the head is always illegal and punishable (barring completely unavoidable circumstances). I'm well aware that incidental head contact can occur on the follow through or as a result of grazing/following through a shoulder. That wasn't the case here. Initial contact hit the head. Majority of the force of the hit went through the head.

Bolded the parts that in my opinion apply to why this hit was illegal contact 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.

To comment on:
ii) vulnerable position, sure, but not a position that made a full body check unavoidable.
iii) no change in his position really caused this head contact. He pulled up as he went to play the puck and glendenning's head was actually rising upwards as he got hit. He wasn't lowering his head to try and duck the check.

 

[duckpuck]

No, I didn't actually. I said a hit that results in initial and primary contact with the head is always illegal and punishable (barring completely unavoidable circumstances). I'm well aware that incidental head contact can occur on the follow through or as a result of grazing/following through a shoulder. That wasn't the case here. Initial contact hit the head. Majority of the force of the hit went through the head.

Bolded the parts that in my opinion apply to why this hit was illegal contact 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.

To comment on:
ii) vulnerable position, sure, but not a position that made a full body check unavoidable.
iii) no change in his position really caused this head contact. He pulled up as he went to play the puck and glendenning's head was actually rising upwards as he got hit. He wasn't lowering his head to try and duck the check.

Where does the rule say "completely unavoidable circumstances"? I'll wait.

 

[oobga]

1 game would not be surprising. Kind of a blindside hit and he ended up getting a lot of head with the initial contact. Could have easily been ignored the way this league operates, but since we know the league is looking at it, seems likely a game.

 

[amigo]

Z is always trying to throw clean hits but this time he caught head first it seem. He sits one game I guess.

 

[McFlyingV]

Where does the rule say "completely unavoidable circumstances"? I'll wait.

What are you even trying to argue? The rule states "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". Which was my reference to head contact potentially being legal if contact was completely unavoidable due to whatever circumstances. In this situation, contact with the head was not unavoidable, hence it was illegal.

 

[duckpuck]

What are you even trying to argue? The rule states "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". Which was my reference to head contact potentially being legal if contact was completely unavoidable due to whatever circumstances. In this situation, contact with the head was not unavoidable, hence it was illegal.

Man - read the post. I'm arguing - explicitly stating - that the standard in the rule is not completely unavoidable. Yet that is the standard you keep wanting to apply. And even the rule has explicit exception (parts (ii) and (iii)) which give examples of when "avoidable" head shots are not penalties.

 

[Spirits]

Clean hit. Love Big Z, miss him too.

 

[McFlyingV]

Man - read the post. I'm arguing - explicitly stating - that the standard in the rule is not completely unavoidable. Yet that is the standard you keep wanting to apply. And even the rule has explicit exception (parts (ii) and (iii)) which give examples of when "avoidable" head shots are not penalties.

Right, but rule i) explicitly states why it was an illegal check because he extended into the contact which otherwise could have mitigated or avoided head contact.

Rules ii) and iii) on this particular hit are debatable, but rule i) is not. I personally don't think Glendenning changed position near enough or close enough (in time) to contact to meet the criteria of when a hit to the head is unavoidable and hence legal.

 

[Spirits]

Now imagine that's Kaprizov or Gaudreau or McDavid and not Glendening.

We can't have these types of hits in the game, need to protect players...

This used to be a man's game.

 

[McFlyingV]

This used to be a man's game.

Don't worry men still play it. Men just don't have to meet the archaic criteria of being a "man" that they used to where causing and receiving brain damage was heralded as "manly".

 

[duckpuck]

Right, but rule i) explicitly states why it was an illegal check because he extended into the contact which otherwise could have mitigated or avoided head contact.

Rules ii) and iii) on this particular hit are debatable, but rule i) is not. I personally don't think Glendenning changed position near enough or close enough (in time) to contact to meet the criteria of when a hit to the head is unavoidable and hence legal.

You do recognize those are opinions, not fact? I think (i) is debatable and, even if its not, (ii) and (iii) apply. As I said, reasonable minds can disagree about the application of the rule. But you're not entitled to incorrectly state the rule (your "completely unavoidable" and "which otherwise could have mitigated or avoided head contact." standards are 100% made up by you) and you can't focus on (i) while ignoring (ii) and (iii).

I shared my opinion. I didn't say that it was 100% clear cut or indisputable (which oddly seems to be your position). Both players were moving at high speed and sometimes bad hits will result even if not illegal. I disagree -in my OPINION, Glendenning did change position at the very last second by moving to his left (i.e., changing his path, which changed the angle of the hit). It is right there on the tape.

 

[CaptainCrunch67]

If the hit earlier in the series on Guadreau was a minor, then this should be a minor. If the bench mark is nurse using his helmet as a missile getting one game then this should be a fine at best.

Until the NHL finds consistency then they can't throw darts at dartboards in the playoffs.

 

[McFlyingV]

You do recognize those are opinions, not fact? I think (i) is debatable and, even if its not, (ii) and (iii) apply. As I said, reasonable minds can disagree about the application of the rule. But you're not entitled to incorrectly state the rule (your "completely unavoidable" and "which otherwise could have mitigated or avoided head contact." standards are 100% made up by you) and you can't focus on (i) while ignoring (ii) and (iii).

I shared my opinion. I didn't say that it was 100% clear cut or indisputable (which oddly seems to be your position). Both players were moving at high speed and sometimes bad hits will result even if not illegal. I disagree -in my OPINION, Glendenning did change position at the very last second by moving to his left (i.e., changing his path, which changed the angle of the hit). It is right there on the tape.

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant when I said completely unavoidable. I was referencing situations like rule ii) and iii) where there isn't enough time to react to a player's position. My argument on that was Zadorov extending through the legs occurred after Glendenning had already changed position previously, and in my opinion that gave him more than adequate time to not do it when he realized Glendenning's position was changing, but he chose to because he was looking to throw a big hit.

I do realize these are opinions, but objectively its pretty hard to argue that for rule i) that Zadorov didn't extend his body into the hit. You can objectively measure that by looking at his positioning at 2 separate points before and during the contact.

The reason that ii) and iii) are much more subjective and debatable is because you are debating if there was enough time for Zadorov to recognize this and adjust his hit accordingly. I believe there was, and you believe there wasn't, that's fine.

 

[Spotty 2 Hotty]

No supplemental discipline.

Stars are a team of p***yes who don't do shit to respond.

 

[McFlyingV]

If the hit earlier in the series on Guadreau was a minor, then this should be a minor. If the bench mark is nurse using his helmet as a missile getting one game then this should be a fine at best.

Until the NHL finds consistency then they can't throw darts at dartboards in the playoffs.

How on earth is this the same as the Gaudreau minor? Replay's showed the hit on Gaudreau was a shoulder to shoulder hit with no head contact, but yet a checking to the head penalty was given. That penalty was a mistake just like the lack of a penalty on this play was a mistake.

 

[thaman8765678]

Wow the first time they have given a Flame a break.

 

[Kcb12345]

So next time a player headshots a guy, just make sure to claim you couldn't avoid it. Then you'll be fine

Zadorov was forced to make that hit by some invisible entity I suppose