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.