So, did Frans Nielsen's headshot on Kesler even get a look?

[thema]

Barely even a penalty IMHO but certainly a dive and massive embellishment on Kesler's part. Get used to it folks; as his abilities become weaker he will be resorting to this kind of nonsense more and more often and if I am one of the legion of Canuck fans who think the league is out to get us (which I am not) then I am furious with Kesler because his antics (and others like them) are a primary reason that we don't get a lot of calls. Burr has cleaned up his act somewhat and Lappy is ( mercifully) gone but Kes and, to a lesser extent Lou are still at it, feigning injuries and making the refs look bad. Watch Kesler get creamed by a truly dirty hit and the refs just laugh at him. The boy cries wolf far too often.

[Xanlet]

Haha oh buddy.

Using big words doesn't make you right.

Wait.... you don't actually think any of those were "big words", do you?

oh buddy indeed

[Go Faulk Yourself]

I don't see where people coin this as a hit to the head? You can clearly see it's shoulder to shoulder check from one angle. The other one is misleading cause it views Nielsen going in front of Kesler after making contact/his check and going for the puck.

Pretty sure Kesler dove too.

[elvis15]

I wasn't "ignoring" any angle, simply pointing out there are better angles. In my opinion, all of the angles either show, or suggest, that Nielsen's principle point of contact was Kesler's head.

You said the main angle actually obstructed the view of the contact to make it look like there wasn't any hit to the head so you weren't looking at them. But I'm glad you made a detailed post to fully explain your logic after being pressed to do so.

EDIT: this post:

You mean the shoulder you can't actually see because Nielsen is in the way from that angle? Yeah, I think the one where you can actually see where the contact is made would be the preferable one.

You're saying your angle is preferred but the other angle is useless because it's obstructed when both are obstructed to a degree with your preferred one being more so in my opinion.

That is simply an inaccurate and nonfactual assessment of the situation.

Once again, how is that the case? I'm not going to bother asking again, since you still haven't shown me (or anyone else) any reason why your opinion is more factual than Baggins' or my own.

[tas]

kesler is the boy who cried wolf. even if he finally grew some balls and started playing honest like a man, it's too late. one day he'll get absolutely destroyed and nobody will come running.

[Xanlet]

Hmm, I wouldn't mind seeing it from a different angle, but it still looks to me like he misses Kesler's shoulder and just gets his head

You said the main angle actually obstructed the view of the contact to make it look like there wasn't any hit to the head so you weren't looking at them. But I'm glad you made a detailed post to fully explain your logic after being pressed to do so.

EDIT: this post:

You're saying your angle is preferred but the other angle is useless because it's obstructed when both are obstructed to a degree with your preferred one being more so in my opinion.

Once again, how is that the case? I'm not going to bother asking again, since you still haven't shown me (or anyone else) any reason why your opinion is more factual than Baggins' or my own.

Oh dear, it seems you're being a bit dishonest in your portrayal of my point. I never said that angle made it look like a hit to the shoulder, I said I would like to see another angle. In fact I explicitly said it does indicate a hit to the head, just not conclusively from that angle.

[TimberWolf]

Not suspendable but also was not a dive.

kesler is the boy who cried wolf. even if he finally grew some balls and started playing honest like a man, it's too late. one day he'll get absolutely destroyed and nobody will come running.

I don't like diving but to claim that Kesler is not tough is asinine.

[TimberWolf]

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'.

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.

Isn't there already two threads you are trying to argue against Edler in. Do we need a third?

[elvis15]

Isn't there already two threads you are trying to argue against Edler in. Do we need a third?

I'd say no, but only because we didn't really need this thread period. I didn't bring it up anyway.

The post I was responding to:

...

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 can say Edler should have been suspended. He asked, I answered.

I can also say Nielsen shouldn't be suspended for this in comparison since it isn't a hit to the head. Fair enough?

[Xanlet]

I didn't bring it up, but people keep thinking it's relevant in every other thread on here so I'll respond if it's a part of the thread topic.

Are you implying it isn't relevant? It is one of the most recent, most controversial suspensions of the day, and in my opinion, a further example of the double standard held by the NHL

[thaji]

I'd hate to see you as a lawyer.

That view's not very conclusive at all - in fact it obscures the point of contact and the other views counter the evidence you're presenting.

Kinda like the shoulder and head you can't see even worse because Nielsen's in the way from your angle. Keep reaching.

Oh sure, I was just noting Kesler didn't have much forewarning of Nielsen coming in for the hit. It was definitely awkward for Kesler and could have been worse.

For everyone disagreeing, remember this: it's not whether or not the head was contacted but rather that the head was the main point of contact. Since the shoulder was the main point of contact, any contact with the head was incidental. That means the higher percentage and timing of the contact both were to the shoulder rather than to the head, and the contact to the head is very much in question if it happened at all.

You keep saying the shoulder is the principal point of contact yet replays from both angles show otherwise. The front angle to me in more conclusive but even if we use your preferred side angle you can tell Nielsen doesn't make contact with Kesler's shoulder.

Go frame by frame between 0:11 & 0:13. If you freeze at 0:12 you can clearly that Nielsen is a step ahead of Kesler. In fact you can see Kesler's right shoulder patch all the way down to half the number on the side of the arm, right before he gets hit. If what you claim to be shoulder to shoulder hit Kesler's shoulder wouldn't be visible since it would be blocked entirely by Nielsen.

if you truly believe it was a shoulder hit first show me a instance in the replay where you believe the contact happened.

[Herberts Vasiljevs]

Are you guys retarded? Kesler didn't even get hit in the head.

[Stelar]

kesler is the boy who cried wolf. even if he finally grew some balls and started playing honest like a man, it's too late. one day he'll get absolutely destroyed and nobody will come running.

This

[Batmania]

out of a

I'm sure it was looked at but looking at it from all angles we have I can't see a reason to go past that.

If one takes parts out to look at specifically I can understand why people think it may suggest the point of contact was the head but there's really nothing that shows it clearly. There's more to suggest the principle point was the shoulder.

[5Fivehole0]

http://vansunsportsb...se-kesler-dove/

That article is garbage, pure garbage.

[Tortorella's Rant]

If that's a reviewable hit, this league is in serious trouble.

Edler's was and Hertl ran into him.

[elvis15]

You keep saying the shoulder is the principal point of contact yet replays from both angles show otherwise. The front angle to me in more conclusive but even if we use your preferred side angle you can tell Nielsen doesn't make contact with Kesler's shoulder.

Go frame by frame between 0:11 & 0:13. If you freeze at 0:12 you can clearly that Nielsen is a step ahead of Kesler. In fact you can see Kesler's right shoulder patch all the way down to half the number on the side of the arm, right before he gets hit. If what you claim to be shoulder to shoulder hit Kesler's shoulder wouldn't be visible since it would be blocked entirely by Nielsen.

if you truly believe it was a shoulder hit first show me a instance in the replay where you believe the contact happened.

You saying it shows otherwise doesn't prove that it actually does. I say (as do others) it's fairly obvious he hits shoulder first and any other contact is incidental.

I'm not saying Nielsen's shoulder hit Kesler's shoulder, just using the term shoulder to shoulder to mean a side by side hit where the upper bodies of both players come into contact. Nielsen is coming from behind at a faster speed and ends up in front of Kesler (I haven't said he didn't) but since he's still moving forward and Kesler's shoulder (you can see the top, not his arm) is not angled away from his head, Nielsen has to hit the shoulder to even get to the head.

We're getting into physics, which isn't really necessary since we can just view what's happening in the video.

If you want to make a different argument that as well as the body to body contact, Nielsen also hits Kesler with his elbow afterwards, then maybe he does since he shrugs his left shoulder and his elbow comes up. It's not much though, and that's the only possible thing I could find additional fault with.

Even then it's arguable that he makes any contact at all with his elbow since Kesler's already spinning into the boards from the initial hit. The view from 0:46-0:53 shows that quite clearly in my opinion where Nielsen side swipes Kesler body to body when Kesler was actually turning slightly back up ice into the play.

Actually that view gives a better idea of the space between Nielsen's shoulder and Kesler's head, where when viewed straight on (the views before and after in the video) those two things appear in line. That depth apparent from the side angle highlights how hard it would have been for Nielsen's shoulder to make contact to Kesler's head when his side was already making contact on Kesler's shoulder.

Again, the point here is about the rule pertaining to hits to the head (feel free to correct me if you're looking at another one). Based on that, is the head the main point of contact? No, the shoulder is, and there's no need to look at the other criteria since they all stem from that initial point.

It's still not a great hit, but it's not suspension worthy like you're making it out to be.

[pianoman13]

People keep saying the word blindisde, and that word does not exist in the rule book anymore! There can be clean `blindside` hits, and dirty `blindside`hits. Same as there can be clean hits from the front, and dirty hits from the front. Blindside doesnt mean a thing! And im sure they did look at it, they look at about 10 times as many hits than there are suspensions, going by the numbers from a video I saw. I honestly even from a Canucks homer point of view think that deserves a suspension. Penalty Yes. Suspension No. If anyone is complaining about the league or calling them out over it, then to me thats a bit rediculous I`m sorry lol. Sometimes there can be valid arguments made for some suspensions and non suspensions, but really, this one is not a suspensions.

[Xanlet]

People keep saying the word blindisde, and that word does not exist in the rule book anymore! There can be clean `blindside` hits, and dirty `blindside`hits. Same as there can be clean hits from the front, and dirty hits from the front. Blindside doesnt mean a thing! And im sure they did look at it, they look at about 10 times as many hits than there are suspensions, going by the numbers from a video I saw. I honestly even from a Canucks homer point of view think that deserves a suspension. Penalty Yes. Suspension No. If anyone is complaining about the league or calling them out over it, then to me thats a bit rediculous I`m sorry lol. Sometimes there can be valid arguments made for some suspensions and non suspensions, but really, this one is not a suspensions.

I think you're confusing the issue slightly. Should it be a suspendable offense? maybe not. Should they have suspended him based on the reading of the rule and the precedent they have set so far this season? Yes

[Psycho_Path]

Are you implying it isn't relevant? It is one of the most recent, most controversial suspensions of the day, and in my opinion, a further example of the double standard held by the NHL

He prefers to ignore all screenshots/footage/whatever showing that he's wrong and not comment on that.