Dubinsky cleared for head shot on Koivu?

[poetica]

Yeah, that's way more "body contact" than Edler had.

So, take a lesson, Edler! That's how you do it. You cut in front of a guy who doesn't see you coming, drive your shoulder directly into the guy's head, hit him hard enough to knock him unconscious, miss the rest of his body and it's a "legal check." See how easy it is?

Oh damn, forgot to mention the most important part: Change your jersey first.

[Plum]

The shoulder clearly hits straight into his head.

[elvis15]

Yeah, that's way more "body contact" than Edler had.

So, take a lesson, Edler! That's how you do it. You cut in front of a guy who doesn't see you coming, drive your shoulder directly into the guy's head, hit him hard enough to knock him unconscious, miss the rest of his body and it's a "legal check." See how easy it is?

Oh damn, forgot to mention the most important part: Change your jersey first.

Sarcasm aside, it certainly it is. The video shows that Dubinsky hits squarely through Koivu's chest as the hit continues, so I'm not sure where "miss the rest of his body" comes from. The head was also contacted but that's not the point as I explained above.

...

Again, if the hit is squarely through the body and the head is also contacted by an otherwise legal hit, the head contact alone doesn't make it illegal. If someone fails to hit squarely through the body, has the elbow out, jumps or charges into a player or hits late, then the hit is illegal.

In Edler's case (since DeNiro mentioned it) he failed to hit squarely through the body, causing his hit to be illegal. That's just an example of how you can't compare the two as outrage over a suspension versus non-suspension.

I'm reserving judgement on if that criteria is right or wrong, just pointing out that's what it actually is.

[PhillipBlunt]

Shanahan is a useless piece of crap. One day his horribly, lopsided decisions will cost a player their career, if not their life. And if that day comes, I hope the league is sued into oblivion.

[PhillipBlunt]

Sarcasm aside, it certainly it is. The video shows that Dubinsky hits squarely through Koivu's chest as the hit continues, so I'm not sure where "miss the rest of his body" comes from. The head was also contacted but that's not the point as I explained above.

I'm reserving judgement on if that criteria is right or wrong, just pointing out that's what it actually is.

Is your real name Brendan?

[Dr. Crossbar]

These decisions are getting more ridiculous by the week. This is making Shanahan look as incompetent as Bud Selig during MLB's steroid era.

[derr12]

Yes he hit his head, but the hitting player is hitting straight thru the body and his elbows are tucked at the point of contact. koivu had his head down and ran head first into dubinsky.

The only thing that pisses me off is this is EXACTLY the same hit as edlers on hurtl. Both were center of body hits where the head comes into contact because the player hit has his head down.

Either neither should be suspendable or both should be. I would prefer the former.

[THERETOOL]

this league has become like wrestling ... I hear jimmy hart helps to make some of these decisions with shanny

[poetica]

Sarcasm aside, it certainly it is. The video shows that Dubinsky hits squarely through Koivu's chest as the hit continues, so I'm not sure where "miss the rest of his body" comes from. The head was also contacted but that's not the point as I explained above.

I'm reserving judgement on if that criteria is right or wrong, just pointing out that's what it actually is.

No, it does not. Not only do the pics I showed above prove that the initial point of contact was Koivu's head, there wasn't anymore body contact as momentum pushed Koivu into Dubinsky than there was with Edler and Hertl.

If that wasn't enough body contact as the hit continued for Edler, it shouldn't be enough for Dubinsky, especially when you consider that Edler's hip was the part of his body thrust out the furthest as he tried to contact through the body, but Dubinsky was clearly leading with his shoulder and followed through (be it on purpose or with momentum) with his arm, helping push Koivu around and away from the contact.

If the criteria is the head being the principle point of contact then it should apply equally to Dubinsky (and everyone else in the league.) He certainly did more to pick the head than Edler did and did less to avoid it than Edler did. And if the DoPS said it was proof of a head hit that Hertl was turned sideways by the contact, then it should also be proof of a head hit that Koivu was spun around, especially when Koivu was knocked unconscious and Hertl wasn't even knocked off his feet!

[elvis15]

Is your real name Brendan?

Nope. The NHL has clearly set out the standard I mentioned, so I'm trying to judge their decisions objectively. Do you think this hit failed in any of those criteria causing it to be illegal?

Yes he hit his head, but the hitting player is hitting straight thru the body and his elbows are tucked at the point of contact. koivu had his head down and ran head first into dubinsky.

The only thing that pisses me off is this is EXACTLY the same hit as edlers on hurtl. Both were center of body hits where the head comes into contact because the player hit has his head down.

Either neither should be suspendable or both should be. I would prefer the former.

Except it's not 'EXACTLY' the same as Edler's. Edler did not hit squarely through the body. As I've said numerous times, that's what made Edler's hit illegal. Since Dubinsky doesn't have that issue with his hit, or any other aspect of it, it's legal.

Here's my stance: the NHL wants to take dangerous hits out of the game but not sanitize it from all physical contact. Whether or not the balance is right is another question but there will always be legal hits that result in injury, and even head contact, that don't require there to be a suspension.

[elvis15]

No, it does not. Not only do the pics I showed above prove that the initial point of contact was Koivu's head, there wasn't anymore body contact as momentum pushed Koivu into Dubinsky than there was with Edler and Hertl.

If that wasn't enough body contact as the hit continued for Edler, it shouldn't be enough for Dubinsky, especially when you consider that Edler's hip was the part of his body thrust out the furthest as he tried to contact through the body, but Dubinsky was clearly leading with his shoulder and followed through (be it on purpose or with momentum) with his arm, helping push Koivu around and away from the contact.

If the criteria is the head being the principle point of contact then it should apply equally to Dubinsky (and everyone else in the league.) He certainly did more to pick the head than Edler did and did less to avoid it than Edler did. And if the DoPS said it was proof of a head hit that Hertl was turned sideways by the contact, then it should also be proof of a head hit that Koivu was spun around, especially when Koivu was knocked unconscious and Hertl wasn't even knocked off his feet!

Your premise at the most basic is that neither of those hits are actually hits. Both 'hitters' are just holding their ground and 'the hittees' have simply run into them. I can see some reason for debate on the Edler hit but absolutely no reason to debate Dubinsky's intent on this one.

In the Edler case you're arguing it shouldn't be a suspension. In this case you're arguing it should at least because Edler's was. I don't know if you feel Dubinsky's hit should or shouldn't be on it's own merits.

I agree both hits have contact to the head, but where we disagree is what the rest of the contact is. Is the body contact incidental, is it through the center of the body, is it legal or not based on those answers? In your scenario for both, contact with the body is irrelevant to what else is happening, incidental. In my scenario it's the main factor in why these hits are different and why one head contact is illegal while another isn't since one isn't through the center and the other is.

Dubinsky clearly intends to follow through on the hit to the point where he makes contact with Koivu's body. Koivu's momentum does nothing to change that, nor does it change Dubinsky's trajectory for the hit. If you were to draw a line to match Dubinsky's trajectory, that would run straight through the middle of Koivu (although they aren't exactly heading straight toward each other), through the center of his body.

With the other aspects of the hit also legal, Dubinsky hitting squarely through Koivu's body made the head contact incidental. Edler, having all other aspects of his hit legal, was only made a suspendable hit to the head by him not hitting through that same line, since his trajectory wasn't anywhere near straight through the middle of Hertl. Edler hits at a different angle from Dubinsky, but the important part is that the line he takes doesn't connect with the center of Hertl's body where they make contact.

It's absolutely arguable that Dubinsky did more to pick the head and less to avoid it, but that's a small part of the point. The phrases I've been using have been consistent, squarely through the body, through the center, through the middle, contact to the head is incidental, the head can be also be contacted, etc. Dubinsky makes sure he hits squarely through the body and as such makes it a legal hit.

[poetica]

Your premise at the most basic is that neither of those hits are actually hits. Both 'hitters' are just holding their ground and 'the hittees' have simply run into them. I can see some reason for debate on the Edler hit but absolutely no reason to debate Dubinsky's intent on this one.

No. I never said anything of the kind for the Dubinsky hit. I simply noted that in both cases the body contact comes from the forward momentum of the person being hit, not an action by the person hitting. If you have video proof that Dubinsky actually initiated contact with anything other than Koivu's head I'd love to see it because I must have missed it. His action was to hit Koivu in the head and shoulders. All other body contact was not the result of a follow through on his part, but Koivu's own forward momentum. He shouldn't get credit for that if Edler didn't.

In the Edler case you're arguing it shouldn't be a suspension. In this case you're arguing it should at least because Edler's was. I don't know if you feel Dubinsky's hit should or shouldn't be on it's own merits.

You're complaining that I'm attempting to apply the same set of criteria to both? That's what we (and the NHL) are supposed to do! And it's exactly what you're claiming to do.

I agree both hits have contact to the head, but where we disagree is what the rest of the contact is. Is the body contact incidental, is it through the center of the body, is it legal or not based on those answers? In your scenario for both, contact with the body is irrelevant to what else is happening, incidental. In my scenario it's the main factor in why these hits are different and why one head contact is illegal while another isn't since one isn't through the center and the other is.

I argued (with photographic proof) that the body contact was almost identical. And you're argument is essentially "nuh uh!"

The head hit rule declares illegal any "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." This is where we differed on Edler's case, so I doubt we'll agree here but the reasons are the same. You are interjecting your own criteria and claiming they are the NHL's. They are not. The NHL's criteria, as very specifically noted in the rule have nothing to do with body contact after the head is contacted nor any imaginary center lines. Rather, the criteria are simple. Was the head the main point of contact and was it avoidable? Yes may be the answer for the first criteria in both hits, but the answer for the second criteria is only yes for Dubinksy and therefore he should have been suspended while Edler should not.

Additionally, watch the video again. Your imaginary center line theory doesn't even hold up. Both players were hit in essentially the same place and in both cases the hitter continued their forward momentum across the hittee's body.

Dubinsky clearly intends to follow through on the hit to the point where he makes contact with Koivu's body. Koivu's momentum does nothing to change that, nor does it change Dubinsky's trajectory for the hit. If you were to draw a line to match Dubinsky's trajectory, that would run straight through the middle of Koivu (although they aren't exactly heading straight toward each other), through the center of his body.

He does follow through...by raising his shoulder and then on the follow through the arm. But Dubinsky makes absolutely no effort whatsoever to make contact with the rest of the body. It's abundantly obvious to anyone willing to see it that the only reason there is contact with the rest of Koivu's body is the direct and sole result of Koivu's forward momentum.

With the other aspects of the hit also legal, Dubinsky hitting squarely through Koivu's body made the head contact incidental. Edler, having all other aspects of his hit legal, was only made a suspendable hit to the head by him not hitting through that same line, since his trajectory wasn't anywhere near straight through the middle of Hertl. Edler hits at a different angle from Dubinsky, but the important part is that the line he takes doesn't connect with the center of Hertl's body where they make contact.

That not only doesn't make sense, it's not the rule. Hitting the body after hitting the head doesn't make it legal if the head was avoidable, as it clearly was in this case. Also, "straight through the body" is bull in general because guess where humans keep our heads. But, it's especially a big steaming pile of bull crap in this case because I don't see any difference in the section of the body being contacted.

It's absolutely arguable that Dubinsky did more to pick the head and less to avoid it, but that's a small part of the point.

No, that IS the point. And you thinking it's only a "small part of the point" may be why you keep missing it.

[UFCanuck]

That was a clean hockey hit.

[canuck2xtreme]

-

Rather than posting things that add nothing to the actual discussion but needless personal attacks, maybe you could discuss things in a civil manner. If you can't, then don't bother taking part in the discussion. If his opinion differs from yours, it's still just his opinion.

[elvis15]

No. I never said anything of the kind for the Dubinsky hit. I simply noted that in both cases the body contact comes from the forward momentum of the person being hit, not an action by the person hitting. If you have video proof that Dubinsky actually initiated contact with anything other than Koivu's head I'd love to see it because I must have missed it. His action was to hit Koivu in the head and shoulders. All other body contact was not the result of a follow through on his part, but Koivu's own forward momentum. He shouldn't get credit for that if Edler didn't.

I'll restate: your explanation suggests there was no planned contact by Dubinsky other than the contact to the head. I'm suggesting Dubinsky is hitting Koivu squarely through the body where the head is also contacted (and even contacted first because Koivu isn't standing completely upright).

You're complaining that I'm attempting to apply the same set of criteria to both? That's what we (and the NHL) are supposed to do! And it's exactly what you're claiming to do.

Actually, no, I'm saying you're trying to change the criteria (or ignore the important criteria of squarely through the body) after a result different than what you expected in another case. I'm applying the exact same criteria and explaining them very clearly as to why they do or don't apply.

If you disagree with my points about the four main criteria I keep mentioning, that's one thing, but you haven't shown anything that proves otherwise and that's what the NHL is saying.

I argued (with photographic proof) that the body contact was almost identical. And you're argument is essentially "nuh uh!"

The head hit rule declares illegal any "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." This is where we differed on Edler's case, so I doubt we'll agree here but the reasons are the same. You are interjecting your own criteria and claiming they are the NHL's. They are not. The NHL's criteria, as very specifically noted in the rule have nothing to do with body contact after the head is contacted nor any imaginary center lines. Rather, the criteria are simple. Was the head the main point of contact and was it avoidable? Yes may be the answer for the first criteria in both hits, but the answer for the second criteria is only yes for Dubinksy and therefore he should have been suspended while Edler should not.

Additionally, watch the video again. Your imaginary center line theory doesn't even hold up. Both players were hit in essentially the same place and in both cases the hitter continued their forward momentum across the hittee's body.

Your photos only show the contact with the head. They don't show the contact with the body, which was markedly different in that Dubinsky follows through to center Koivu's body while Edler only clips the trailing half of Hertl's.

Edler's shoulder initially hits Hertl's head and then hits Hertl's back right shoulder as the only other point of contact. Edler's hip doesn't make any significant contact with the rest of Hertl's body apart from his right leg so even that's not squarely through the body.

Dubinsky does make contact initially with the head but is aiming for and makes contact with Koivu squarely through the center of his body. You can see by the video he hits him right in the crest as he follows through on the hit. And he does follow through, he doesn't just hit the head and stop so that any further contact is just the result of Koivu's momentum.

I'm not creating these criteria out of thin air. They are criteria that the NHL have used to further explain illegal/legal hits as I've already pointed out in the Kronwall/Voracek case. The NHL has clarified a few times that 'main point of contact' doesn't equal 'initial point of contact', but rather the area where the center/majority of the contact happens. That's where the rule covers head contact that is incidental to the body being the main point of contact, again as the NHL has explained themselves.

By the second criteria I think you're referencing 'avoidable', correct?

Dubinsky might have been able to get lower in order to contact the head less, but I don't think he could completely avoid head contact without switching to a hip check. The NHL has made it clear that if the player is hitting squarely through the body and the head is contacted by an otherwise legal hit, then the hit is legal overall.

Edler's one failing point is that he doesn't hit squarely through the body to make the head contact incidental. If he adjusts his line (the NHL noted this) to hit squarely through the body he likely doesn't even hit the head first, but could still make contact after first hitting Hertl's shoulder.

They might have both hit the head initially, but the line they are taking to make contact is completely different (Edler coming more across Hertl and staying fairly static while Dubinsky is coming more straight into Koivu after actively pushing off his rear leg). Their own momentum carries them into the body at different points because of that line, which is more important than the momentum of the player being hit.

He does follow through...by raising his shoulder and then on the follow through the arm. But Dubinsky makes absolutely no effort whatsoever to make contact with the rest of the body. It's abundantly obvious to anyone willing to see it that the only reason there is contact with the rest of Koivu's body is the direct and sole result of Koivu's forward momentum.

That first shot is a perfect example to show that Dubinsky's shoulder, arm and body are hitting Koivu squarely in the chest. You can even see it in the second photo. Both photos also show how Dubinsky has his weight forward and over his front leg. The video clarifies that by showing although he wasn't skating in a North/South line before the hit, him cutting/pushing off his rear leg to follow through on the hit with his full weight changes his momentum in that direction and through Koivu's body.

His arm is tucked in, so it's not an elbow, and his skates are on the ground, so it's not charging. He does push off with the arm and create space after the hit but that doesn't make it a chicken wing where he missed the body completely.

Saying only Koivu's momentum is responsible for the contact through the body ignores that Dubinsky is still moving forward after having pushed off his rear leg to make the hit.

That not only doesn't make sense, it's not the rule. Hitting the body after hitting the head doesn't make it legal if the head was avoidable, as it clearly was in this case. Also, "straight through the body" is bull in general because guess where humans keep our heads. But, it's especially a big steaming pile of bull crap in this case because I don't see any difference in the section of the body being contacted.

But that is the rule. The NHL has explained it that way for the past two years. What it sounds like you're suggesting is any hit where the head has contact being illegal. That's not the case and would rule out a large part of the contact in the NHL. They're willing to accept head contact may be incidental on an otherwise legal hit in order to avoid effectively ruling most contact out of the game.

Again, it's not whether or not the head was contacted first, but if it was the center/majority of the contact. That's what the NHL has clarified as the main point of contact. You're interpretation of the rule is not the same as the NHL's, and I think they've been fairly consistent in their interpretation and the center/majority of the contact in Dubinsky's case is through the body.

No, that IS the point. And you thinking it's only a "small part of the point" may be why you keep missing it.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that Dubinsky did do more to target and less to avoid, I think he did less to target at least than Edler. Avoiding can get pretty subjective, but since he hits squarely though the body he at least is attempting the body as the main point of contact. Edler had no chance at the body being the main point unless he adjusted his angle to hit more squarely through the body, and with head contact that's suspendable.

I understand where you're trying to draw parallels between these two hits, but the point I keep coming back to is Edler doesn't hit squarely through the body while Dubinsky does. They are different in that respect and it's why one is illegal and the other isn't.

[Hairy Kneel]

Shannahan should be fired..he's lost his objectivity.

[poetica]

Actually, no, I'm saying you're trying to change the criteria (or ignore the important criteria of squarely through the body) after a result different than what you expected in another case. I'm applying the exact same criteria and explaining them very clearly as to why they do or don't apply.

You keep saying that's a criteria, but that doesn't make it true. Where is that criteria in the head hit rule? If it's not specifically listed as a criteria in the rulebook, it is NOT a criteria.

I am judging both hits on the criteria that actually are listed and I very specifically and repeatedly said that I did not believe Edler should have been suspended because he did everything he could to avoid Hertl's head. And I do not believe that Dubinsky did everything he could to avoid Koivu's head and therefore should have been suspended. "Avoidable" is a criteria listed. "Squarely through the body" is not.

If you disagree with my points about the four main criteria I keep mentioning, that's one thing, but you haven't shown anything that proves otherwise and that's what the NHL is saying.

You haven't shown anything that proves what you're saying is true, nor have you even shown that your "four main criteria" are actually criteria because they are NOT listed in the head hit rule, whereas I have backed up my points with pics and specifically addressed the only 2 criteria listed in the head hit rule.

And, as I am sadly coming to realize, you may have complete faith in "what the NHL is saying" because you believe that they are consistent, basing their every decisions on well thought out and completely fair assessments of the hits themselves and absolutely no other outside factors but I do not share that blind faith. There is simply far too much inconsistency and subjectivity in their decisions.

Dubinsky does make contact initially with the head but is aiming for and makes contact with Koivu squarely through the center of his body. You can see by the video he hits him right in the crest as he follows through on the hit. And he does follow through, he doesn't just hit the head and stop so that any further contact is just the result of Koivu's momentum.

No, he does not.

Even with the crappy quality of the video I used to get the screen captures you can clearly see that the contact is with the head and shoulders and little if anything else. In fact, in every frame you can see at least a small amount of white ice in between their hips, proving there is not any more body contact. You can also see that Dubinsky clearly raises his shoulders and arms to target the head and any follow through on his part was with his arm, resulting in Koivu being spun around as he's pushed in that direction. You can clearly see Koivu's head bounce back as he was knocked unconscious and begins falling to the ice. It's only then that there is incidental contact between Dubinksy's arm and Koivu's shoulder as Dubinksy pushes the unconscious Koivu away with his arm.

But if you have photographic evidence of how Edler's contact was less in the center of the body than Dubinsky's was, please show it because then I'll maybe at least have a clue what you're on about because this looks pretty freaking dead on center to me! It also looks like Edler had as much (if not more) chest contact than Dubinsky did.

That first shot is a perfect example to show that Dubinsky's shoulder, arm and body are hitting Koivu squarely in the chest. You can even see it in the second photo. Both photos also show how Dubinsky has his weight forward and over his front leg. The video clarifies that by showing although he wasn't skating in a North/South line before the hit, him cutting/pushing off his rear leg to follow through on the hit with his full weight changes his momentum in that direction and through Koivu's body.

His arm is tucked in, so it's not an elbow, and his skates are on the ground, so it's not charging. He does push off with the arm and create space after the hit but that doesn't make it a chicken wing where he missed the body completely.

Saying only Koivu's momentum is responsible for the contact through the body ignores that Dubinsky is still moving forward after having pushed off his rear leg to make the hit.

Both of my previously posted shots show Dubinsky's shoulder is very clearly directly against Koivu's head. And he DOES push off with his arm after the hit, as I clearly showed above.

Also, I didn't ignore that Dubinsky is still moving FORWARD. I just remembered that someone will move in the direction their skates are pointed which would be across Koivu's body, not into it.

But that is the rule. The NHL has explained it that way for the past two years. What it sounds like you're suggesting is any hit where the head has contact being illegal. That's not the case and would rule out a large part of the contact in the NHL. They're willing to accept head contact may be incidental on an otherwise legal hit in order to avoid effectively ruling most contact out of the game.

Again, it's not whether or not the head was contacted first, but if it was the center/majority of the contact. That's what the NHL has clarified as the main point of contact. You're interpretation of the rule is not the same as the NHL's, and I think they've been fairly consistent in their interpretation and the center/majority of the contact in Dubinsky's case is through the body.

According to the head hit rule, any contact where the head is the main contact and was avoidable is illegal. I firmly believe it was the main point of contact in both cases. However, in Edler's case, it was not avoidable due to Hertl's refusal to protect himself despite foreknowledge of impending contact and Edler's low position, arms at his sides and hip thrust out. In Dubinsky's case, it was avoidable as he visibly raises his shoulder and arm not only in anticipation of the hit but as the hit continues.

And yes, I'm very aware that my interpretation is not the same as the NHL's. That's very clearly why I'm upset with these decisions.

[Dral]

what about it being a late hit ?

[elvis15]

Me saying it despite it not being specifically listed in the rule as noted doesn't make it not true. They say it quite frequently in the suspension videos (Edler's included, I know you've seen them so why I should repost them I'm not sure) and have remained consistent with those as determining factors in my opinion.

If you don't use those clarifying criteria then you can say both hits had the head as the main (initial) point of contact where contact to the head was avoidable.

For Edler, he avoids the head by actually playing the puck and making it not a hit but accidental contact. He could even play the puck and circle away from Hertl to be completely obvious it wasn't a hit. Or he could aim properly to hit Hertl and follow a line that goes through Hertl's shoulder/torso. Any of those would be attempts to avoid the head, where no movement at all (or very little, as he does move towards Hertl slightly) is at best apathetic by hoping Hertl doesn't continue the collision path they're both on.

For Dubinsky, the NHL's stance is that making sure to hit squarely through the body is a viable solution to illegal head contact, so he's already following their rules. He does have a similar option to Edler to come more from the side, and he also can choose to avoid contact as the most obvious way to not hit Koivu's head - but then we're moving toward a non-contact sport if that's the solution. Again as with Edler he could try and make sure his whole body is lower than Koivu's head, but that's only slightly more practical than it is in Edler's case.

I've questioned a number of the DPS' decisions on suspensions (or non-suspensions). The length of Kassian's suspension in the preseason compared to Kessel's, or many other suspensions that I feel were let off easy compared to 3 preseason and 5 regular season games. Weber not getting suspended for his wrestling move on Zetterberg. Keith's elbow on Daniel not being more harshly suspended.

I don't understand or agree with all their methodology to come to some of the conclusions they do. We've had plenty of discussions around the weight of intent and injury in suspensions, for instance. I certainly have opinions on where they could improve and particularly get more consistent.

I try and be fair though and make sure to take into account how suspensions might increase from year to year as there's more focus as well as judge each instance on the criteria I've seen the NHL use related to the current rules. I just don't see how the mistakes the NHL has made apply to these cases as I feel they were close to if not on the mark with the decisions on these calls.

You have your opinion on the hits (including the physics as well as the NHL's rules or criteria) and I have mine, and there are many arguable points based on our opinions (does Koivu make any effort to protect himself?). I prefer to argue based on known constants versus largely unknown variables when assessing each instance, but if you want to have a discussion on the overall effectiveness and correctness of the NHL's DPS then we might have a different discussion.

It's been an interesting discussion in the very least.

what about it being a late hit ?

I don't think anyone's suggesting it's late, going by the clock in the video (which includes the seconds in the tenths to help out) it looks like it's roughly half a second between Koivu playing the puck and the hit.

[stawns]

Shanaban continues to amaze! How is this not 5 games?

https://www.youtube....a_playerhanaban continues to amaze!

how is that even a 2 min penalty? keep your blooming head up