GDT - Canucks @ Devils, 7 PM, MSG+2

[devilsfan26]

4 hours ago, dmann422 said:

All Hall said was something along the lines of he heard what was said to the refs and he thought it didn't warrant the penalty. I am fine letting the ref have discretion I would just hope he is a bit thick skinned in a situation like that after a borderline missed call.

Fair enough, I'd say most refs do give a little more leeway in situations like that, which is why I assumed that whatever was said must have been bad enough to warrant another penalty.  Of course this isn't always the case and I'm sure we're never going to find out what was actually said so at the end of the day we are both just assuming here.

[mfitz804]

16 hours ago, Satans Hockey said:

 

I still disagree under the current state of the rules, but obviously I am happy it turned out this way. Looked like shoulder to the face to me. 

Not that it appeared intentional. It was the kind of good old fashioned hockey hit that I definitely miss. 99% of the time in today's game, you can skate around with your head down like that and nobody will touch you. 

[thecoffeecake]

1 hour ago, mfitz804 said:

I still disagree under the current state of the rules, but obviously I am happy it turned out this way. Looked like shoulder to the face to me. 

Not that it appeared intentional. It was the kind of good old fashioned hockey hit that I definitely miss. 99% of the time in today's game, you can skate around with your head down like that and nobody will touch you. 

They're going after targeting, not incidental contact with the head. Larsen had his head tucked down and got hit. Hall went through him, didn't go out of his way to target any specific part of the player, didn't leave his feet. Clean hit.

[mfitz804]

4 hours ago, thecoffeecake said:

They're going after targeting, not incidental contact with the head. Larsen had his head tucked down and got hit. Hall went through him, didn't go out of his way to target any specific part of the player, didn't leave his feet. Clean hit.

Rule 48.1 has been changed, the head does not have to be targeted anymore. 

"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 Taylor's case:

A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head - Yes, shoulder to the face

where the head was the main point of contact - Yes

and such contact to the head was avoidable - Yes; he had lined him up for a full three seconds at least before devastating him, coming at him from the front, while the guy's head was down; he was leading with his head. 

Based on the wording of the rule, I don't see how that's a legal hit. 

But don't get me wrong, I totally think it SHOULD be. 

 

[thecoffeecake]

7 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

Rule 48.1 has been changed, the head does not have to be targeted anymore. 

"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 Taylor's case:

A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head - Yes, shoulder to the face

where the head was the main point of contact - Yes

and such contact to the head was avoidable - Yes; he had lined him up for a full three seconds at least before devastating him, coming at him from the front, while the guy's head was down; he was leading with his head. 

Based on the wording of the rule, I don't see how that's a legal hit. 

But don't get me wrong, I totally think it SHOULD be. 

 

The head wasn't the main point of contact, and it was unavoidable. How is he supposed to know he is going to have his head tucked into his chest? Professionals who know a lot more about the rules than we do, and they decided it was legal, so it was legal.

[thecoffeecake]

On 12/7/2016 at 8:44 PM, devilsfan26 said:

The reffing was fine.  Zajac got knocked down but the injury happened because when he tried to pick himself back up his face hit the top of the boards.  That call can go either way since both players contributed to it.  The Hall hit had nothing to do with the refs "letting the game get out of hand."  What did the refs do to let the game get out of hand, not call one borderline hit?  Hall's hit was plain and simple a forechecker trying to get the puck from a defenseman who didn't bother to take a quick look and see if anyone was pressuring him.  I highly doubt Hall went in there planning on throwing a huge hit, it just became a huge hit by virtue of Larsen not knowing that a hit was coming.  As I explained above, you don't get an instigator penalty when there isn't a fight.  You can make a case for Chaput getting called for roughing, but not instigating unless they also call Chaput and Hall for fighting.

Him trying to pick himself back up doesn't make it not a penalty. He was kareeming into the boards because of an illegal hit, and had no way to not go into the boards. No one's first instinct is to keep their head down. He was hit in the numbers a few feet from the boards.Textbook boarding.

[Marshall]

14 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

Rule 48.1 has been changed, the head does not have to be targeted anymore. 

"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 Taylor's case:

A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head - Yes, shoulder to the face

where the head was the main point of contact - Yes

and such contact to the head was avoidable - Yes; he had lined him up for a full three seconds at least before devastating him, coming at him from the front, while the guy's head was down; he was leading with his head. 

Based on the wording of the rule, I don't see how that's a legal hit. 

But don't get me wrong, I totally think it SHOULD be. 

 

Three seconds before the hit Hall is above the dots, so I don't know about that. The "avoidable" part isn't applied this way - it's about if a player can deliver a full body check without hitting an opposing player in the head? If he can, then it's avoidable. Hall couldn't, at least not without going on his knees. 

[mfitz804]

5 hours ago, Marshall said:

Three seconds before the hit Hall is above the dots, so I don't know about that. The "avoidable" part isn't applied this way - it's about if a player can deliver a full body check without hitting an opposing player in the head? If he can, then it's avoidable. Hall couldn't, at least not without going on his knees. 

So "I had no choice but to deliver a savage check directly to his head" is a valid excuse? If the guy is leading with his head, you can't just drill him in the head and say it was unavoidable. 

[devilsfan26]

12 hours ago, thecoffeecake said:

Him trying to pick himself back up doesn't make it not a penalty. He was kareeming into the boards because of an illegal hit, and had no way to not go into the boards. No one's first instinct is to keep their head down. He was hit in the numbers a few feet from the boards.Textbook boarding.

If he didn't get injured, people wouldn't be calling it a dirty hit, and although his body was sliding towards the boards, the injury happened because he inadvertently put his face into the top of the boards when trying to get up.  If his face hits that spot because of the shove, then yes it is boarding, but that's not what happened which is why this call can go either way.

[Marshall]

On 12/9/2016 at 6:46 PM, mfitz804 said:

So "I had no choice but to deliver a savage check directly to his head" is a valid excuse? If the guy is leading with his head, you can't just drill him in the head and say it was unavoidable. 

That is how the rules are applied. I belive this is up to date even though it's from 2013.

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2013/9/9/4711518/nhl-rule-changes-rule-48-illegal-head-hit

 

Quote

Friedman writes that an "avoidable" hit will be determined based upon the following criteria:

First, 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.

Second, whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable.

Third, 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.

 

[thecoffeecake]

On 12/9/2016 at 1:07 PM, devilsfan26 said:

If he didn't get injured, people wouldn't be calling it a dirty hit, and although his body was sliding towards the boards, the injury happened because he inadvertently put his face into the top of the boards when trying to get up.  If his face hits that spot because of the shove, then yes it is boarding, but that's not what happened which is why this call can go either way.

If picking your head up after being boarded results in a broken nose, the hit broke your nose. It's not Zajac's fault because he tried to pick himself up while he was dangerously kareeming into the boards. He's not in that position if he isn't boarded.