Clean hit. Hockey play. Keep your head up. Move on

The game itself is very subjective due to the nature of it - but when you look at the rules in major junior hockey they don't give a rat's ass about bending down, reaching for a puck, tying your skate laces, looking for a quarter on the ice or whatever - you can't hit a guy in the head.

That's sort of where I struggle with the Grebenkin hit on Theodore. It's clearly a hit in the numbers and it's boarding - but what bugs me is that Theodore sees him coming, registers he's coming and turns to present the numbers anyway. In my day (when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and it was still flat) you protected yourself and had a responsibility to do so.

So the victim blaming is still something I'm not sure how to walk the line on . . .
- Monkeypunk

This is the solution IMO, remove the BS of a guy "putting himself in a vulnerable position" and if necessary put in a rule (or apply an existing one) to penalize players who intentionally do this.

The league sucks as calling players out for embellishment or doing the stupid thing to draw a penalty (unless your name is Michael Bunting).

Make head hits illegal and make (and enforce) the penalty for doing stupid poop to make yourself vulnerable just to draw a penalty stronger. If the player who is hit puts themselves in a vulnerable position without intent to draw a penalty (like Nurse on Sat night) then you don't penalize the guy who got rocked.

I don't see this as overly complicated an issue to fix but I'm sure I'm missing something the brain trust at the NHL factors in.

Clean hit. Hockey play. Keep your head up. Move on
- drexel

That's how I see it for the most part. Even the Reaves hit. poopty for Nurse his visor mashed his face and drew blood

The game itself is very subjective due to the nature of it - but when you look at the rules in major junior hockey they don't give a rat's ass about bending down, reaching for a puck, tying your skate laces, looking for a quarter on the ice or whatever - you can't hit a guy in the head.

That's sort of where I struggle with the Grebenkin hit on Theodore. It's clearly a hit in the numbers and it's boarding - but what bugs me is that Theodore sees him coming, registers he's coming and turns to present the numbers anyway. In my day (when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and it was still flat) you protected yourself and had a responsibility to do so.

So the victim blaming is still something I'm not sure how to walk the line on . . .
- Monkeypunk

isnt it natural sometimes to turn your back to "protect" yourself. or try to protect the puck.
if someone is coming at you, it doesnt feel right to turn and face them. if you are getting hit, you are then falling backwards

so turn and use your shoulder instead?

to me turning towards the boards to try and brace yourself and protect the puck feels like a more natural thing to do

So the refs on Saturday decided Reeves "attempted to or deliberately
injured his opponent with an illegal check to the head."? Hard to agree with that in my opinion, and you could also argue that sub clause 2 applies to Nurse's poor positioning.

And I'd like to know which of the 3 sub clauses the refs last night decided the hit on Knies falls under to warrant no penalty.


All this rule does is make it way too gray, which again is not surprising because the NHL is a joke.
- Cush29

This is not unclear. This is specifically what Reaves did:

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.
- Rule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head

. . and they would use this clause to excuse Whitecloud:

(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.

- Rule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head

Again, I am not saying this is right or the way it should be, but using the language of the rulebook, it's right there in front of us. They felt that Knies leaning forward (and not much) excused Whitecloud. It's absolute BS since the guy is 6'3 and with the lean as he skates forwards he is down maybe 4-5 inches? There's no reason that hit couldn't be delivered into the chest.

I also like to point out that Zdeno Chara - the largest man to ever play in the NHL - said that he could avoid making head contact with body checks if he wanted to. He knew where he was hitting and he didn't have a problem avoiding head contact. If Chara says that, everything the NHL has said since has been utter BS to excuse careless hits.

isnt it natural sometimes to turn your back to "protect" yourself. or try to protect the puck.
if someone is coming at you, it doesnt feel right to turn and face them. if you are getting hit, you are then falling backwards

so turn and use your shoulder instead?

to me turning towards the boards to try and brace yourself and protect the puck feels like a more natural thing to do
- senstroll

Yeah to your side, players do it all the time

Theadore turned completely and he paid for it

This is not unclear. This is specifically what Reaves did:




. . and they would use this clause to excuse Whitecloud:



Again, I am not saying this is right or the way it should be, but using the language of the rulebook, it's right there in front of us. They felt that Knies leaning forward (and not much) excused Whitecloud. It's absolute BS since the guy is 6'3 and with the lean as he skates forwards he is down maybe 4-5 inches? There's no reason that hit couldn't be delivered into the chest.

I also like to point out that Zdeno Chara - the largest man to ever play in the NHL - said that he could avoid making head contact with body checks if he wanted to. He knew where he was hitting and he didn't have a problem avoiding head contact. If Chara says that, everything the NHL has said since has been utter BS to excuse careless hits.
- Monkeypunk

If you are going to (frank) up and hit a guy in the head you deserve a 2 min penalty at the very least. If you go for a stick lift and miss and high stick a guy is it voided because a player tried to make a hockey play?

The fact the leafs went on the PK after that play is absurd.

At the very least it should be nice hit Whitecloud but you (frank)ed up and hit the guy in the head and knocked him out of the game. Go to the box and you deserved to get roughed up.

Clean hit. Hockey play. Keep your head up. Move on
- drexel

Nah. Whitecloud left his feet which meets the definition of charging.

Yeah Marner is a big baby who can't take heat

I have a friend who played with some players, some former leafs too and he told me some stories on how they treated people. Marner being a baby is nothing
- Santo_44

To be fair, it sounded like this was his 4th commercial shooting of the day and he was already checked out.

I also like to point out that Zdeno Chara - the largest man to ever play in the NHL - said that he could avoid making head contact with body checks if he wanted to. He knew where he was hitting and he didn't have a problem avoiding head contact. If Chara says that, everything the NHL has said since has been utter BS to excuse careless hits.
- Monkeypunk

Funny how it's never a problem in rugby.

So the refs on Saturday decided Reeves "attempted to or deliberately
injured his opponent with an illegal check to the head."? Hard to agree with that in my opinion, and you could also argue that sub clause 2 applies to Nurse's poor positioning.

And I'd like to know which of the 3 sub clauses the refs last night decided the hit on Knies falls under to warrant no penalty.


All this rule does is make it way too gray, which again is not surprising because the NHL is a joke.
- Cush29

This is exactly it.

It lists a number of factors that the refs can consider, but it doesn't actually lay out what the refs should do when considering those factors, or which factors should be given greater importance.

I've seen stills and slo Mos where it's the head as the point of contact...it's hard to say definitively
- systemtool

Everything Ive seen on the knies hit, its his chest and a super quick follow his face.
But that's only seen afterwards.
Either way, the point is, if they want to get rid of head shots....then live - in the moment it looks like a head shot. Should be a penalty.
Even though, I didnt mind the hit.
But again if the NHL is serious about getting rid of head shots, then call them all as penalties.

This is not unclear. This is specifically what Reaves did:




. . and they would use this clause to excuse Whitecloud:



Again, I am not saying this is right or the way it should be, but using the language of the rulebook, it's right there in front of us. They felt that Knies leaning forward (and not much) excused Whitecloud. It's absolute BS since the guy is 6'3 and with the lean as he skates forwards he is down maybe 4-5 inches? There's no reason that hit couldn't be delivered into the chest.

I also like to point out that Zdeno Chara - the largest man to ever play in the NHL - said that he could avoid making head contact with body checks if he wanted to. He knew where he was hitting and he didn't have a problem avoiding head contact. If Chara says that, everything the NHL has said since has been utter BS to excuse careless hits.
- Monkeypunk

I'm not saying what Reeves did doesn't meet the standard to be called a penalty the way the terrible word salad rule is written it does but it's a minor penalty for illegal hit to the head. What I find a bit perplexing is the officials determination that it was intentional by Reeves DESPITE Nurse putting himself in a vulnerable position.

Then last night the refs decide Whitecloud is exempt because Knies apparently put himself in a vulnerable position.

How can you see those 2 hits and if you focus on the actions of the player being hit not say Nurse actually put himself in a more vulnerable position?

And I don't see anything in the rule that says that the player being hit doing so is irrelevant if the refs decide the head shot was intent to injure but that seems to be exactly what happened on Saturday night.

It's a terribly written rule and the application of it is equally terrible & fraught with inconsistency.

New blurg

This is exactly it.

It lists a number of factors that the refs can consider, but it doesn't actually lay out what the refs should do when considering those factors, or which factors should be given greater importance.
- Atomic Wedgie[/quote]

Yep so the refs decide which consideration is more important TO THEM and you have to know player reputation then comes into play, the relationship a player has with a ref, if the guy who got rocked is a 'star player' or a 4th line scrub etc.

If Reeves was the guy who got drilled on Saturday night by Nurse do we think the 5 min major for a match penalty and a 5 game suspension would have been given to Nurse? I don't.

Funny how it's never a problem in rugby.
- Atomic Wedgie

No equipment in rugby, no false sense of security. No one charges head first, its usually shoulder to shoulder while making an effort to wrap your arms are the player, if not, then its an illegal hit. They are taught how to properly tackle, no one tries to spear anyone using their head....like NFL'ers do. In rugby their tackling skills are taught to not use their heads.

Funny how it's never a problem in rugby.
- Atomic Wedgie

People get concussed all the time in rugby.

In Woll we trust 💙
- mr.sir

You and I have been just about the only posters to believe in him this whole time

Yes, I am Morgan Rielly

I like that one.
- systemtool

That one does make me laugh. Love how he leans completely into the total airhead role.

In trying to be objective about it - the Reaves hit is, in my opinion, unquestionably worse and shouldn't be used as a comparison. The reason is that Reaves skates straight through Nurse's head. In this clip at the 12 second mark or so, there's a slower replay https://x.com/i/status/1858256853681213483 and you can see that Reaves not only connects directly and solely to the head but he has already skated halfway past Nurse's body before any body contact is made. It's a brutal and concussive hit and has always been a suspension.

I am a firm believer that the Whitecloud hit on Knies should also be a headshot and out of the game of hockey - it is in every other league considered a headshot - but in the NHL, run by oldschool thinking that has paid little to no attention to the ramifications of losing their court case on CTE, it isn't. My opinion is pointless though and this is how they see it: https://x.com/i/status/1859416084383780905 Whitecloud is allowed to make a hit there and he is engaged to do so. The NHL doesn't care about the feet leaving the ice _after_ contact nor do they typically care that a player propelled themselves upwards and into someone - unless it results in a severe injury or media backlash. Look at just about every hit that Jacob Trouba lays - predatory and to the head, and they are rarely penalized and never result in a suspension.

It's a problem that they continue to refuse to address - but when the next CTE settlement (which was only $20m last time - although they spent another $70m on lawyers) is $1b because they refuse to do nothing about it, maybe they'll make some new optical changes that are ill conceived and poorly executed.
- Monkeypunk

New blog?🤔

Just so we all are on the same page here, this if straight from the NHL rulebook:

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.
- Atomic Wedgie

Bro why watch NHL games if you can’t handle physicality???? Just watch SHL or some other soft league. Canadians are softer than churned butter

I don't care if the guy has his head up or down.

You can't hit a guy in the head anymore. It's franking simple.

Last night's hit could have been delivered to the chest. He chose to hit him in the head.
- Atomic Wedgie

Leaving his feet is what made it dirty to me.

And I'm all for hard hitting hockey. It was ALMOST a clean hit and Reaves hit was ALMOST a clean hit. Both should've been treated as ALMOSTs.

One shouldn't be treated as murder and the other one nothing at all.

(frank)ing NHL's consistency is junk.

Leaving his feet is what made it dirty to me.

And I'm all for hard hitting hockey. It was ALMOST a clean hit and Reaves hit was ALMOST a clean hit. Both should've been treated as ALMOSTs.

One shouldn't be treated as murder and the other one nothing at all.

(frank)ing NHL's consistency is junk.
- underhill14

Agree with this. There is something in the point made earlier, that the league tries to project the image of not favouring the Leafs. The bottom line is Vegas is a really dirty team, and the are the least penalized team in the NHL. The incredible lengths to which the NHL has gone to favour the Knights is blatant. No expansion, team ever received the helping hand that Vegas was granted.