[[Report] Mike Gillis Fired]

Well at least the new GM will come in with something Gillis didn't have. A prospect pool. Torts is the one that should be gone.

[(Speculation) Change coming today?]

turn on tsn. im sure they're bashing everything to do with Vancouver as per usual...

How is that different from the fans here?

[Jason Garrison potential buyout candidate]

Getting into this conversation late, but has anyone stated the stats for our Dman...They are as follows;

Hamhuis +13 (Even Strength) + 3 PPP = ................+16

Garrison -5 (ES) + 14 PPP +3 SHP =.......................+12

Tanev +12 (ES) + 1 SHP=........................................+13

Bieksa -5 (ES) + 8 PPP =..........................................+3

Stanton +2 (ES).........................................................+2

Edler -34 (ES) + 11 PPP...........................................-23

The other 4 Dmen were.............................................-11 collectively

I think this kinda sums up why some of you are wrong........3 solid dmen and you want to get rid of one.......bottom line he is a top 4 guy on this team in the worst case senerio, and truethfully an even match for Hamhuis and Tanev over the year( give or take a point!).................now lets talk about Edler, and Torts played him 23minutes 20 secs. per game.........what that tells me is, Edler sucks and Torts is an idiot! Numbers don't lie........oh yeah and not to forget Gillis.......with a NTC to boot!

Stop blaming Garrison........OP!

PK'ers already get a plus for short handed goals. For pp goals against they don't get a minus. The opposite is true for players on the pp. They do get a minus for goals against but don't get a plus for goals scored while on the pp.

[Jason Garrison potential buyout candidate]

offensive defencemen drive the play. they create the transition with quick and accurate breakout passes or by lugging the puck themselves. they are also skilled at setting up plays by finding passing lanes in the offensive zone.

offensive defencemen create offense. garrison is merely a passive trigger man.

How do you explain Ehrhoffs drop in production since leaving here to play behind Buffalo's top offensive players?

[Jason Garrison potential buyout candidate]

the problem with garrison's scoring is that it's a product of the team playing well, not a cause of it.

9 of garrison's 32 points came in a 10 game stretch in october. 13 more of them came in a 10 game stretch in november/december.

that means that in the other 56 games he's played, garrison has 10 points.

he's not a difference maker in the slightest, but he's paid like one and he occupies a roster spot that should be held by one.

D-men point totals tend to be assist driven. When the forwards aren't scoring the d-men aren't racking up assists. Since new years our forwards haven't been scoring and it only follows that the D isn't getting assists. Injuries to Daniel, Henrik, Burrows and Santorelli have had an effect on D production.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

Well, it's certainly a possibility that the NHL has experts but have just kept it on the DL because they're a shy, humble bunch far above tooting their own horns. And has kept them out of the GM meetings, where they would surely be mentioned by the media, rather than involving them in the making of the rules for the same reason. Of course, that has the same probability of being true as the Canucks winning the Stanley Cup this season. So, you know, fingers crossed!

And yes, I do understand your point. Did before. Do now. Again, just because I don't agree with your definition of "squarely through the body" doesn't mean I don't understand your point. And frankly, coming to such a childish conclusion is beneath someone of your obvious intelligence.

Fraser also disagrees with your assessment when it comes to the hit on Burrows, saying "Niederreiter slipped his body just off the center line of Burrows and continued to elevate his shoulder that made significant contact with the head of Alex Burrows." That does not mean he doesn't understand the fundamentals of your argument either. Disagreement is not the same thing as misunderstanding.

Actually Fraser is giving his opinion on how he feels the rule should be applied as opposed to whether or not the league ruled correctly according to the current application. He feels hits like this should be illegal and the rule should be interpreted differently.

For ongoing player safety this hit, and all similar in nature, need to be regarded as an illegal check to the head in violation of rule 48.2—on 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. That can only happen if those responsible for doling out punishment interpret the rule verbiage, "main point of contact" to mean "significant" contact to the head coupled with some/secondary contact with the body.

I've said several times I didn't like the hit. But I also don't like the idea of 82 games of all star hockey because players are afraid to throw a hit because any head contact at all results in a suspension. The way the league is applying the rule as it stands has been consistent. So it's either change the rule or accept these types of hits. Even when they happen to one of our players.

Should Daniel Sedin have been suspended....

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

1 - Hertl had the responsibility to make himself able to be legally hit.

2 - You're right. I have no clue what the NHL is thinking. But congrats on speaking condescension so you can.

1 - No he doesn't. Unless of course you want to take speed out of the game. Any player skating with speed will be leaning forward. That doesn't mean his head is fair game when hitting from the side. From the side the hitter can target the shoulder instead of the head. It still comes down to hitting into the core of the body. If the hit comes from the front, or an angle from the front, hitting into the core of the body is legal regardless of contact to the head. That's because avoiding the head is not possible in delivering a full body check. Coming from the side a slight direction change can make the shoulder the point of contact instead of the head. Meaning head contact is avoidable.

An example of a player putting himself at risk is a player ducking down or turning his back to a hit just prior to contact. Thus giving the hitter no chance to avoid delivering an illegal hit and the hitter is thus absolved of responsibility. The Getzlaf hit on Hamhuis a while back is an example of this. Getzlaf did everything right in the hit, as he coasted in, tucked his elbow in, and dropped his shoulder. But Hamhuis turned his back to the hit at the last moment. The result was Hamhuis was hit from behind spinning him into the glass with force and suffering a concussion. Of course most here were calling it a dirty hit and intent to injure. It was charging, boarding, a late hit, hitting from behind, and elbowing. In reality it was none of those. It was Hamhuis putting himself in a vulnerable position when about to be hit. That's where the player getting hit holds responsibility.

2 - Ok, no sense of humor. My bad.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

If they're saying that Nolan launched himself up into the "core of the body" (causing head and neck injuries in the process) but Edler's lowered body and hip thrust out was him picking the head rather than the body, then no I guess I don't have a clue what the NHL defines as "core of the body" since apparently it's a moving target.

Well at least as we agree you have no clue. Hey, we've managed to actually agree on something. Pop the champagne!

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

I wouldn't suggest you actually put your stick in front of you as you skate with speed into the boards. Rather, I'd suggest you do exactly what Edler did, pull your stick to the side, get body position and then go for the puck. It'll help prevent injury.

I've never in my life seen a player position the butt of his in his belly to take puck off the boards. But I've also never seen a player get a puck off the boards by drawing his stick back away from the boards and the puck. I have seen a player go directly at the boards sweep the puck away and turn his body for contact with the boards. No injury.

Edler makes no effort to play the puck at all. So he was either playing the hit or coasting along with no idea what he was doing there. Shanny even describes how Edler positioned himself to "deliver a hard legal hit". The problem comes in where the hit was delivered, targeting the head instead of through the core of the body.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

I did. And I still disagree. The only thing plain as can be to me is their inconsistency.

Are you saying you can't tell if a hit is into the core of the body or not? Their consistency is: hit core of body good, hit head and not core of body bad. They have been consistent in that application of the rule. There's no was it and accident or what was his intent. They don't care. It's black and white, core of the body or not.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

In Shanahans explanation he conviently forgets to mention the puck is right where Edler is skating to. Edler is entitled to go get the puck regardless if Hertl is bearing down on him.

Shannys explanation is that he did not move to hit Hertl square on and claims Edler waited to target the guy in the head. However, the fact is Edler is playing the puck , not Hertl. I am still galled that he somehow missed that.

It should never have been a suspension. In my opinion the worst decision Shanny rendered this year.

Edler gave up on the puck, slowed up and positioned his shoulder to deliver a hit. Go to the 1:05 mark (the above view) and you even see he draws his stick back and tucks his elbow in which is consistent with delivering shoulder check. If he was going for the puck as you claim. he would have reached forward with his stick not drawn it back further away from the puck. This alone makes it clear he was playing the hit as opposed to the puck.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

Just because the NHL has claimed that the other hits were "squarely through the body" doesn't make it true.

For the love of God, please watch the videos and actually listen to the explanations. It's as plain as can be.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

You want the players protected Deb? How about they play all 82 games in the All-star fashion: no hitting. Where's player protection with the hip check? The player flips out of control and can easily go head first into the ice. Do we need to take slapshots out of the game because they've caused numerous injuries? Players have also been severely cut by skates so maybe we need to have them play on dull rounded blades. Fighting also needs to be eliminated as they're wailing away at each others heads. We have the league leader for fighting majors on our team and I haven't seen you once speak out against intentional bare knuckle bashing to the skull in the name of player safety. Just how far does your concern for player safety go Deb? These points may seem ridiculous but they all do concern players safety and the injuries that do happen in the game as a result.

If you want blows the head eliminated you will take out all hits other than shoulder to shoulder. Even shoulder to shoulder would have to be limited to little more than a bump because a full speed hit could still result in head contact. You say you want hitting to be part of the game. So explain to me how you can deliver a hit to the front of a player who is leaning forward as he skates without any chance of the risk of contact with his head.

I still maintain they are consistent in their current application of the rule. If the hit is into the core of the body the hit is legal regardless of contact to the head. If the hit picks the head and isn't focused into the core of the body then the head itself is being targeted and results in suspension. Into the core of the body good, not into the core of the body bad. That's the consistency and it pretty black and white. It's not that difficult to determine whether or not the hit was into the core of the body or not. It's far more difficult to determine intentional or accidental.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

So the answer is that the NHL hasn't said anywhere that the person's forward momentum not being halted in a case where they are actually running into another person is a criteria for a head hit. Okay.

Just because the NHL has claimed that the other hits were "squarely through the body" doesn't make it true. That's the whole point of me and others saying they are being inconsistent, only making it sound consistent in their explanations.

You might want to watch those videos more carefully if you're seriously pointing to the fact that Hertl spins around and that causes him to travel slightly past the position of the hit unlike the other two. Of course Burrows and Koivu couldn't keep traveling in their original trajectory, they were knocked to the ice while Hertl was never knocked off his feet and was only temporarily out of control of his own movement.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I find it absolutely ridiculous to claim that the only person of these 3 examples to not target the head by purposefully raising his body position to ensure head contact is the one guilty of a head hit. And equally ridiculous to claim that Burrows and Koivu being violently spun from their head downwards and then thrown to the ice by the hit is somehow proof that they were hit "squarely through the body" but then to claim that Hertl being spun around before quickly regaining control of his own body and never even losing his footing is somehow proof that he was hit primarily in the head.

The way the league is enforcing the rule is not whether or not the head was contacted but how and why it's contacted. If a player is skating forward he will be also leaning forward. This means virtually any hit from the front, or any angle from front, will very likely result in contact with the head. They are allowing those hits. What they are not allowing is cutting straight across the front of a player and picking the head with little or none of the force directed to the core of the body. It's the difference between going for a full body check and simply targeting the head. The videos I've watched are consistent in this ruling. The three you've mentioned are consistent with this ruling. Anybody with an ounce of objectivity can see the difference between hitting into the core of the body and picking the head. They describe the difference quite well in the suspension videos even giving an explanation of what would have made the hits legal. I don't know how much more consistent they could possibly get than that.

I'll guess that it hasn't occurred you at all that the two who were knocked to the ice was the result of those hits being into the core of the body while the hit on Hertl wasn't. If you can't tell whether a hit is into the core of the body or not I really have to wonder what you've been watching. It sure hasn't been full contact hockey. Full impact into a persons body is pretty obvious. Yes, all three had contact to the head. Two had full on contact to the body and one didn't. One of these is not like the others and it's the one that got the suspension.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

Where did the NHL say that was a criteria for judging hits?

And I already pointed out, with photographic proof, that Hertl's forward momentum wasn't halted because it was the very thing driving him into the contact with Edler (as opposed to Edler actually directly causing the contact.) That's simple physics, not proof of a head hit. Proof of a head hit is the person being pushed away from the hit by the violent reaction of their head and the person doing the hitting unnecessarily raising their body position prior to the hit to target the head.

Did you watch the suspension videos I posted on the previous page and listen to the explanations? I'm guessing you didn't because there is a consistency to them. Every one of them refers to hitting into the core of the body as opposed to picking the head. Every one of them is in line with the Edler hit. Basically it's aiming for the head versus aiming for the body with the head getting in the way. The former is suspended, the latter is considered legal. I get that it seems like a contradiction as the head is struck either way. But it's currently how the head is struck that determines a suspension.

The fact Hertl spins off Edlers hit and continues in the direction he was already going indicates the hit wasn't into the core of the body.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

Save the sanctimony. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I'm not being objective. Nor does it justify your changing position. The NHL, not me, said that, "Hertl's reaction to this hit -- getting spun rather than getting driven into the direction Edler was travelling" was proof of a head hit. You can try to dance around that all you want, but it won't change their actual words.

And maybe you should check the videos again. Edler didn't actually "hit" Hertl, but rather took position in front of Hertl to allow Hertl's own forward momentum to propel him into Edler.

Notice that Edler is in front of Hertl. Notice that Edler is clearly moving forward, not into Hertl. Notice that Edler's shoulders are low and he is not leaning towards Hertl. Also notice that Hertl's hand is actually the first part of his body to make contact with Edler, who clearly has his hip thrust out to pick the lower part of his body to make a clean check.

Also, notice that Hertl's head is already turned sideways, showing that his head isn't moved by the contact with Edler.

Hertl continues his forward momentum not because Edler hit him in the head (which would have caused his head to change directions noticeable at the point of contact), but because he simply ran into Edler who was already in that position on the ice. And if you look very closely, you can very clearly see that the only reason Hertl spins at all is not head contact as the NHL contended, but because Edler's body is pushing the side of Hertl's body, including his shoulder and especially his right leg and the front part of his skate, towards the boards causing the spin.

Compare that to Niederreiter's hit on Burrows.

Notice that Niederreiter is leading with his shoulder and raising his arms through the hit, picking the head. Notice how Burrows' head immediately changes direction at the point of contact and that he is clearly being pushed away from the hit with his head at a faster rate than his shoulder, proving that the head was the principal point of contact. If spinning was going to be used as proof of a head hit, it should be for the hit on Burrows, not the hit on Hertl.

Compare both of those with the Dubinsky hit on Koivu (which knocked him unconscious!) for which Dubinsky was not given any supplementary discipline.

(I know this animation is crappy. You can see the full video here.)

Notice how Koivu's head clearly reacts to the contact immediately and that, like Burrows, his spin is clearly being directed by his head. Also like Niederreiter, you can see Dubinsky raising his shoulder before the hit and raising his arms during the hit. That is certainly more actively picking the head than anything Edler did on the Hertl hit.

In all 3 cases the person being hit got "spun rather than getting driven into the direction [the hitter] was traveling" and yet only 1 case resulted in a suspension and that was the only one where the person did not raise their body position immediately prior to the hit to target the head. That is neither fair nor consistent.

Two out of the three the person getting hit had their forward momentum halted. Indicating those two hits were into the core of the body. Can you guess which one wasn't into the core of the body? Does that not indicate "consistency" in how these hits are judged suspendable or not?

[Jason Garrison potential buyout candidate]

it would be nice if we had a man or 2 on D that other players were a little scared to go into the corners with , we got to have one of the softest group of D men in the league. that goes to this whole garrison point...hes 6'2" 210lbs .... hes on pace for 62 hits in a full 82 games....

Tanev currently has only 25 hits so far and he has 15 fewer points Garrison. Does he need to go as well? For perspective both Daniel (33) and Henrik (43) have out hit Tanev with a very similar number of games played. I don't see the Sedins out hitting a d-man as a positive.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

Toews was putting on the brakes and more crouched than Burr...Burr had just sent the puck off and was more upright. But fairly close...

They both involved launches, which is the part I don't like. Propels more in an upward motion. Sure, it's part of how you brace yourself in delivering a hit, but if it connects part of the hit to the head, then it's a problem.

Based on the lack of suspension to NN, I'd expect the same here.

Launching yourself off the ice prior to the hit is charging. Here's a video of a charging suspension.

Note that in the explanation the hit would have been legally delivered had he not launched himself off the ice. The positioning of Volchenkov (leaning forward) would have certainly resulted in contact to the head. This is where hitting into the core of the body makes head contact legal as the rules are currently enforced. Otherwise you'd have to eliminate head-on hits (pardon the pun) from the game and limit hitting to only shoulder to shoulder. But even shoulder to shoulder hits can result in head contact. Meaning players would be at risk of suspension for any hit they deliver.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

Which of your claims are you saying I'm missing the context for?

I know what the video said, but which exactly are you saying now? "The direction Hertl spun was evidence it was a head hit" or "Hertl was simply spun as opposed to having his direction change"?

I did watch the video of Burrows being hit and I clearly see that he is spun around and not driven in the direction Niederreiter was traveling but instead had his own directional travel stopped and his body simply spun around in place. It's particularly clear if you look at Burrow's left foot in the 2nd video clip on the first page. Given that that was the reasoning behind Edler's suspension, the fact that this hit did not result in a suspension is NOT consistent.

So are you saying that if a players spins after a hit the hitter should be suspended? There will be a boatload of suspensions.

"Direction" is a key point to the explanation. It's how Hertl spun BUT continued his forward direction after the hit that shows the contact wasn't into the core of the body. It's not that he simply spun. Had the hit been into the core of his body his forward momentum would have been all but stopped at the least and his body forced to move in the direction of the hit. That didn't happen.

Hitting the core of the body versus picking the head is consistent. Again, watch the videos on the previous page, listen carefully to the explanation, and compare them to the Edler hit. The hit on Burrows was into the core of the body and it wasn't a case, like those on the previous page, of simply picking the head. Do try to be objective.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

Deb, it doesn't matter what you want. They won't suspend a player who doesn't violate the rules as written and enforced because you don't like the play. They have been consistent in this regard. They haven't flip flopped at all about hitting into the core of the body as opposed to picking the head. You'd have to eliminate hits to the chest to eliminate contact to the head. One almost always leads to the other.

You can say all you want you don't want the Euro style and prefer the physical NHL game but you can't eliminate all contact to the head without changing to that Euro style. It's one or the other. You can't have both. Again, everything you posted in red there screams you want the Euro style.

Did you even watch the videos on the previous page? They seem pretty consistent to the Edler suspension to me. Plus the explanation of how to make each it a legal hit is consistent with the hit on Burrows.

Btw, in the Euro leagues players still get suspended for hits to the head. They all know they'll be suspended and it still happens. The door is never shut Deb. Suspensions would never occur if the door was truly closed.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

Umm....

Just because you highlight a single word does not erase all context.

You said, "He specifically said the direction Hertl spun was evidence it was a head hit." No, he did not. What the suspension video actually said was, "getting spun rather than getting driven into the direction Edler was travelling..." Notice that in your statement the word "direction" is relating to the spinning, but in the NHL's statement it was used in relation to the absence of being pushed in a specific direction, not the direction of the spinning. Those are completely different things.

Which I already explained. Not sure what it is you're not getting about it. It's all about the DIRECTION the player went after contact. Hertl was simply spun as opposed to having his direction change. That's evidence the hit was not into the core of the body and simply picked the head instead. You're focusing solely on the single word "spun" rather than the context of the entire sentence.

Watch the videos on the previous page with a little objectivity and you'll see that they are consistent with the Edler suspension.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

Because it isn't about protecting players, it's about covering their butts. Doing what they have to so they're not held accountable or responsible.

I don't buy that at all. There isn't an owner out there that wants to see his star players lost to concussion, or any other injury, and it's the owner that make the rules. What they're attempting to do is keep the physicality of the game and protect the players as much as possible. The hit on Burrows is proof you can't fully protect the players and retain the physical nature they want. It's simply impossible to have both. It really is an either/or situation. You'd have to eliminate all hits to the chest of a player to avoid head contact.

I'd be really curious to see a player poll on the question of removing head shots completely. Would the players themselves prefer the Euro type rule that greatly reduces hitting or if they think the way the NHL is currently enforcing head shots as sufficient.

You've mentioned several times about affecting the players lives. But they know full well the risks they're taking and are extremely well compensated for the profession they've chosen. Considerably more so than occupations where death and loss of limbs occur yearly.

The bottom line is this Deb: The way the rules are currently enforced the hit on Burrows was legal. Nobody is asking you to like the hit on Burrows. No fan likes that type of hit when it happens to one of their own. But you can't suspend a player for following those rules simply because it happened to one of your guys. So it's either advocate changing the rules or accept that type of hit as part of the game. Personally, I'd prefer to see the "big hit" remain in the game as opposed to the Euro style alternative.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

Weak Baggins. I didn't say that.

I said that you can't protect player's safety by trying to decipher after the fact. Because then the act's already been committed...you've allowed for it to. You've left that door open vs slamming it shut.

It's not going to matter much in the age of concussions when the ruling comes in after the fact...that protects no one. How can it? Answer that Baggins, don't use your BS one liners when you can't.

Direct answers to these points, or you're simply avoiding them because you don't have answers.

If head shots are "reviewed" to see if they're legal or not, isn't that already too late?

Deb, everything you are saying is pointing to you wanting a less physical league. You want a complete elimination of hits to the head. That's the Euro rules and the result of those rules is less hitting. That's the only way to get remotely close to what you want "before the fact". You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's one way OR the other.

Per the rules as they stand, the hit on Burrows was legal. Period. So you either want a player suspended contrary to the current rules or you're advocating a rule change. Which is it Deb? That's a pretty simple either/or question.

Unfortunately suspensions can't be handed out until the offense has occurred. Such is suspension life in any sport and suspensions occur in football, baseball, and basketball in the same manner: after the fact. After the fact video is reviewed to determine what occurred and a decision made according to the rules. Lacking the ability to punish players before the event happens, like the movie Minority Report, can you see any other way of doing it? Even if the rules were changed to no head contact at all it will still happen at times, just as it does in the Euro leagues, and punishment will come after the fact.

In summary: You will never slam that door shut. No matter what the rules there will be those who violate those rules whether intentionally, by accident, or heat of the moment. Punishment will always be after the fact.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

If your goal is to stop head shots, that is a suspension!

Kassian did not mean to hit Gagner's head either, but?

The goal isn't to stop contact to the head. The goal is to stop "picking" the head. There's a difference.

Kassians reckless use of his stick had nothing at all to do with a legal hockey play and is completely irrelevant to what constitutes a legal body check.

[Niederreiter's hit on Burrows]

It's not what I want, I want the league to figure it out. It's been ongoing for them and the fact that they have to keep promoting that they're doing more than others is a farce. You don't tell people, you show people.

YOU SAY the league has been consistent. Others, like me, disagree and your word isn't THE or FINAL word.

You'll see. I don't have to argue this with you. One day this game of cat and mouse the league is playing will crash down on them and someone will, once again, be seriously injured. And they'll have to scramble with their tail between their legs and they'll explain why they aren't to blame. How they're doing all they can to protect players.

If you're trying but it's still not effective in eliminating problems, you're not trying hard enough.

I like hitting. I want it to stay. But if you're reckless and you miss, just as with a stick, you should have to account for that. Doesn't matter that you didn't intend to - if you connect with the head, you're guilty not innocent. Despite how it happened.

So you want the Euro style. Start your petition Deb.