The difference is I have the video on my side
I suppose you won't accept the angle at 53-56 seconds either then, huh?
More of that same, you can't ignore one view and present another as conclusive proof. I'm considering the angles you like as well as the others, just noting you ignoring the others for obstructed view also rules out the ones you're parroting as 'proof'.
"it was a 2 min penalty" as in that is how it was called. But if you're talking "should" it be, then there are two things to consider.
First, how have these hits been called in the past/how does the rulebook read? And second, should it actually be called the way the rulebook reads/should the wording and rule be change?
We've seen no real standard. Look at the Edler hit, can any of you say he "should" have received 3 games for that incident? That's what I'm really driving at here, the double standard.
I have yet to hear what rule you're referring to and what you actually think it says. Feel free to reference that specifically, then you can speculate on how this was the same/similar to other hits and then whether or not it should change.
I can see similarities in hits that have been called that don't apply to this based on the standards the NHL have been using for a year or two. Phrases like "main point of contact", "squarely through the body" and "avoid/mitigate contact to the head" are used in the rule and the suspension videos.
Just so you don't think I'm not using specifics, Edler's hit was a suspension because the head was the main point of contact, he didn't hit squarely through the body and didn't attempt to avoid or mitigate contact to Hertl's head. Nielsen's hit on the other hand had the shoulder as the main point of contact, making it different right away, and although he didn't hit squarely through the body having him hit through the shoulder going forward can be seen as trying to avoid contact to the head.
Certainly, Nielsen having hit the body as the main point means any contact to the head is incidental (as I already mentioned and you ignored) so it's not suspendable under the hit to the head rule even if it is enough of an illegal hit to warrant a penalty. I'd be happier from a legal hit standpoint if Nielsen had hit squarely through the body rather than just the shoulder and forward, but it's not worse than the Edler hit, in fact the opposite.
Edited by elvis15, 25 October 2013 - 01:25 PM.