Niederreiter's hit on Burrows

[chrisbanks]

And you seem to be missing the point that similar/lesser hits HAVE received discipline. The inconsistency is the issue.

yaeh there is a consistency issue but 2 wrongs dont make a right... just because they got it wrong in the past doesnt mean they should continue to get it wrong and maybe they have learned and got it right...

[Monty]

Like everyone, viewed the hit from all angles. Chest was targeted. Some contact with the head, which definitely was not the primary or intended focus of the hit. No games is the right call.

[Batmania]

clean hit... always has been , the problem is the selective hearing most of you people have and poor understanding of the rules..... and of course being completely biased..

Were you pauser/y2kcanucks?

[5minutesinthebox]

highlight the fact that im not a complete homer with blind rage against the league..... the league has said time and time again full body checks with head contact is still allowed.... nino goes right through burrows and doesnt pick his head ... shanny and the league have always said there is no way to eliminate head contact witht hese types of hits but they can eliminate the intentional head shots where the head and only the head is targeted..... does this his look like he only hit him in the head?? or raised his pad level?? or left his feet? or came from across the ice taking more than 3 strides to hit him???? he goes right through burrows between his shoulders and yes nailed him in the head but if you didnt have selective hearing you wouldve heard from the league that is still allowed with these types of hits.... but i guess me and 95% of the hockey world is wrong and just the homer canuck fans are right... that makes the most sense right...

http://forum.canucks.com/gallery/image/3280-nino-hit-burr/

http://forum.canucks.com/gallery/image/3279-nino-hit-burr-3/

Is that a fact? This is photographic proof you are wrong. If Nino hits body, how is it that the only part of Burrows that moves from frame to frame is his head?

[elvis15]

No need for me to reply to each individually, here's one post covering all the replies in the earlier pages.

Surprise, surprise. Elvis15 is back again showing his inconsistencies similar to the league. This is without a doubt suspension worthy, especially if Edler's hit earlier in the season was. There was nothing "incidental" about this hit. It deserves a suspension. But, even by that rule elvis15 loves to post, if this doesn't deserve a suspension, neither did Edler's hit. Try a little consistency.

Feel free to show how that rule proves this should be a suspension, not to mention how I'm being inconsistent in my statements regarding checks to the head and suspensions. I've asked before on the second part and never gotten a satisfactory answer.

Well if you watch that slow-mo video Burrows body position doesn't significantly change. So he didn't put himself in a vulnerable position at that unavoidable last moment, he was in it when he was targeted. If anything he raises his head slightly at the last moment. Niederreiter on the other hand straightens his body upwards putting his shoulder more in line with Burrows head. He also leans into the hit and pushes upwards. I think the hit would have been much worse had Burrows not started straightening up. His head would have taken even more of the impact. To me the head was targeted.

You're absolutely correct that parts (ii) and (iii) don't factor in at all in this hit.What does factor in though is part (i). Nieds hits squarely through the body and without any other part of the hit being illegal then the head contact is incidental. You go over this later as well though.

There was no charging (skates don't the ice prior to the hit, or really at all actually), elbowing (his arm only extends after the initial contact) lateness (Burrows had just played the puck). Nieds didn't pick the head as the majority contact was with the center of the body. His timing and angle were good, and he only extends a little bit, standing up slightly coming into the hit.

there's plenty wrong with the hit according to the rule book.

Care to elaborate, referencing the rule you think it violated and how?

I think a lot of you defending this hit don't see where others are coming from. When Rome got the biggest suspension in finals history for a late but otherwise clean hit and then Edler get suspended for hitting a guy coming in so low he was smelling the ice you can understand why they expect a suspension here.

Regardless of intent or damage Burr was hit in the head and like the Hertl hit that is a suspension or fine (a fine would have been enough IMO) Now if that sort of thing wasn't suspendable before then I would just say "good hit" but it seems that it's suspendable only some times. Based on what criteria?

The Rome hit was illegal because it was late. The suspension was extremely long on it's own, never mind considering it was the SCF. If you want to argue that was unfair, go ahead, but it doesn't relate to the rule as it currently stands.

The Edler hit was illegal because he didn't hit squarely through the body and made contact with the head. If he makes contact with the head but hits Hertl through the center of his body mass, it's a legal hit with incidental head contact.

I can't restate this enough: people are trying to equate all head contact with illegal hits and suspensions. You can hit someone in the head as incidental contact so long as the rest of the hit is legal.

I'd posted the check to the head criteria earlier in this thread (and others), so use that if you have any doubts and it really does clear up a fair amount of the confusion.

It's not about the initial point of contact. It's about the principle point which in my opinion is his head. There have been many cases where it's shoulder on shoulder, but the player making the hit has his shoulder slide up to the other guys head. To me, both angles look like they are head shots (initial + principle) and the follow through makes it look like a body-check afterward.

I've also read other people saying that Burrows was reaching, was low or put himself in a vulnerable position? For anyone who thinks that, you can not be any more wrong as Burrows is clearly in a upright position as he is hit. You can even see niederreiters right skate push off the ice for that extra height

Either way, the league letting this go basically says, "Headshots are OK Now"

The principle point of contact is the body. That's where the majority of contact is because Nieds hits him square in the chest - even if his shoulder also contacts Burrows' head. As you say it's not about the initial point of contact, where the head may or may not take the very first touch, but so long as the main point of contact (the exact phrase used in the rule) isn't the head then the hit could be legal.

The is saying, and has said many times, incidental head contact is ok.

Actually I was surprised so I started searching for head shots that resulted in suspensions. What I found is Elvis and stawns are right. Each of the recent suspensions were direct hits to the head where the body is skimmed at most or missed completely. That was consistent in the six I just watched. The hit on Burrows was into the core of the body with contact to the head. Thus because the hit is into the core of the body the head isn't the principal target.

Now I don't like the hit and see I it as a cheap shot. Cheap shots to me as intent to injure. There's a reason it's called a "cheap" shot. But the suspended head hits I watched were consistent in why they were defined as head shots and none were the same as the hit on Burrows. So as much as I don't like the hit, by definition it is legal.

Here's a link that shows more angles of the hit:

http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2014-03-26/nino-niederreiter-hit-alex-burrows-elbow-illegal-check-gif-video-minnesota-wild-vancouver-canucks

Absolutely. I'm not saying it'll catch all cases or that I like it, but for the most the NHL has been very consistent in following the rule as it's laid out. People are still trying to argue about blindside hits (which have been removed from the language of the rule due to the confusion it caused) or that just because there is contact with the head it's an automatic suspension. There can be incidental contact, and many people are overlooking that when they wonder why some plays are suspensions and others aren't.

[stawns]

I would highlight that you don't come on here to express a different point of view, which would be fine.

You come on here to insult Canuck players, Canuck fans, and to incite by always taking a contrarian view underscored by rudeness and jabs at the body of posters on this board. You are only looking for a reaction not debate.

That, to me, is a troll.

I believe that was a hockey hit, he didn't target the head, he didn't bring his arms up (only on the follow through which is impossible not to do) and he didn't leave his feet. I'm not sure what else fans want form this league? Do we want a European skill style game, or do we like a traditional North American, physical brand of hockey? You can't have both, in my opinion.

[theminister]

yaeh there is a consistency issue but 2 wrongs dont make a right... just because they got it wrong in the past doesnt mean they should continue to get it wrong and maybe they have learned and got it right...

Then you misunderstand the purpose of the Player Safety Committee.

It is to set a benchmark so that players can know what is and what is not acceptable. To change the definitions would require a league wide memorandum admitting that there was an incorrect call in the past.

These rulings are meant to be used as examples and precedents. If the precedent is abrogated then the initial punishment was unjust and should be overturned. They don't do that so they don't admit to mistakes.

This is selective enforcement. This isn't homeriam. It wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

[Goal:thecup]

highlight the fact that im not a complete homer with blind rage against the league..... the league has said time and time again full body checks with head contact is still allowed.... nino goes right through burrows and doesnt pick his head ... shanny and the league have always said there is no way to eliminate head contact witht hese types of hits but they can eliminate the intentional head shots where the head and only the head is targeted..... does this his look like he only hit him in the head?? or raised his pad level?? or left his feet? or came from across the ice taking more than 3 strides to hit him???? he goes right through burrows between his shoulders and yes nailed him in the head but if you didnt have selective hearing you wouldve heard from the league that is still allowed with these types of hits.... but i guess me and 95% of the hockey world is wrong and just the homer canuck fans are right... that makes the most sense right...

I admit I am a complete homer (whatever that truly means).

I have followed the Canucks since before they were even in the NHL.

This bias against the Canucks goes back a long way.

And it is not just the Canucks, by the way; ask Nordiques fans what they thought of the refereeing in 1994 playoffs - the league skewered Quebec even worse than Vancouver that year.

And in 2011, ask Tampa fans what they thought of the angelic Bruins who did not take a penalty against the best power play in the league - wasn't this the only playoffs without a penalty?

Blind rage though, I think you and BS are blind here.

"doesn't pick his head"? Say what?!! How blind can you be? Even Shanny said he picked the head but that he didn't have to adjust to do so.

"the head and only the head"? Are you making this stuff up?

I think the league said something that is more appropriate to this incident about trying to avoid the head when a player was in a vulnerable position.

"me and 95% of the hockey world is wrong"? Ok, you got me troll, I wasted my time on your bait.

You and 95% of the hockey world is right.

[theminister]

I believe that was a hockey hit, he didn't target the head, he didn't bring his arms up (only on the follow through which is impossible not to do) and he didn't leave his feet. I'm not sure what else fans want form this league? Do we want a European skill style game, or do we like a traditional North American, physical brand of hockey? You can't have both, in my opinion.

I wasn't commenting on the hit itself there, stawns.

I was commenting on the poster's choice of verbiage and attitude.

Feel free to disagree but don't do it while insulting the vast spectrum of the board's users.

[UFCanuck]

Edler's hit on Hertl was a full body hit.

It only contacted Hertl's head because Hertl was bending forward.

3 games for Edler.

Shanahan suspends players based on more than just the video and more than just repeat offenders.

[5minutesinthebox]

http://forum.canucks.com/gallery/image/3280-nino-hit-burr/

http://forum.canucks.com/gallery/image/3279-nino-hit-burr-3/

[theminister]

Player Safety Ruling on the Edler hit:

Edler does not hit Hertl squarely.He cuts across the front of Hertl, making the head the main point of contact. Although Hertl is leaning forward, the position of his head does not materially change immediately prior to, or simultaneous with the hit that significantly contributes to this head contact. Aside from his helmet popping up into the air, Hertl's reaction to this hit — getting spun rather than getting driven into the direction Edler was travelling — reaffirms our view that his head is the main point of contact.

How is this not relevant to the hit last night?

[chrisbanks]

Were you pauser/y2kcanucks?

nope

[stawns]

I wasn't commenting on the hit itself there, stawns.

I was commenting on the poster's choice of verbiage and attitude.

Feel free to disagree but don't do it while insulting the vast spectrum of the board's users.

I think that should apply to most of the people who are jumping all over anyone who doesn't blindly side with everything Canucks. I don't see many of the people who take the opposing view doing anything but making an objective case.......and are then called out as a "troll" by people ramped up with emotion, merely for having a viewpoint that doesn't drink the "everyone is against the Canucks" koolaid.

I like discussion, I like people to have opposing viewpoints because that's what discussion is. What I don't like is being called a troll by other posters because I don't share their point of view, and am not afraid to say so......not because my poor feelings are hurt, but because it derails almost every good discussion going on this board.

[stawns]

Edler's hit on Hertl was a full body hit.

It only contacted Hertl's head because Hertl was bending forward.

3 games for Edler.

Shanahan suspends players based on more than just the video and more than just repeat offenders.

does anyone have the edler hit on video or gif? I seem to remember it came right from the side and that he veered into him at the last second.

[theminister]

I think that should apply to most of the people who are jumping all over anyone who doesn't blindly side with everything Canucks. I don't see many of the people who take the opposing view doing anything but making an objective case.......and are then called out as a "troll" by people ramped up with emotion, merely for having a viewpoint that doesn't drink the "everyone is against the Canucks" koolaid.I like discussion, I like people to have opposing viewpoints because that's what discussion is. What I don't like is being called a troll by other posters and mod because I don't share their point of view, and am not afraid to say so......not because my poor feelings are hurt, but because it derails almost every good discussion going on this board.

Go back and read his initial post.

Understand that trolling isn't about having a different viewpoint.

[Dogbyte]

I think that should apply to most of the people who are jumping all over anyone who doesn't blindly side with everything Canucks. I don't see many of the people who take the opposing view doing anything but making an objective case.......and are then called out as a "troll" by people ramped up with emotion, merely for having a viewpoint that doesn't drink the "everyone is against the Canucks" koolaid.

I like discussion, I like people to have opposing viewpoints because that's what discussion is. What I don't like is being called a troll by other posters and mod because I don't share their point of view, and am not afraid to say so......not because my poor feelings are hurt, but because it derails almost every good discussion going on this board.

You we're getting called out yesterday, gettting called a troll, etc., for having valid questions and comments just because you weren't screaming and yelling and crying about the injustice. It was really sad to see. Your points were well thought out and objective but because you didn't join the mob everyone wanted to lynch you.

Sometimes you can't have a reasonable conversation on this board. If it's about reffing, Burrows, Bieksa, GM MG, or the like you are not allowed to be critical in any fashion ... unwritten board rules. Oh yeah, every comment must be phrased as if the Canucks have won the SC 15 times in a row. They are the best, always have been the best, do not question that ... don't you dare.

[Baggins]

The way they show the angle that works for them and then explains based on that? Absolute manipulation and BS. So transparent and utterly disappointing. You can't fool all the hockey fans all the time. Some of us see right through how they slant things to make their case. Pathetic. Over it. WWENHL. I won't ever count on fairness or even winning....just along for the ride now.

You do have to look at each angle Deb. Just as they do in reviewing a goal. One angle can be clearer than another what happened. You could say the exact same thing on your opinion: You're only choosing the angle that works for you, and you're slanting things to make your case.

There's no doubt Burrows was hit in the chest as well.

"Niederreiter makes full body contact. While there is contact to head, refer to rule 48 points (i) & (ii). In spite of some head contact, NN hits squarely thru the body. He does not "pick" the head as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension upward or outward. We believe that some head contact on this otherwise full bodycheck was unavoidable. The reverse angle shows this most clearly."

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/no-suspension-to-nino-niederreiter-for-headshot-on-canucks--alex-burrows-193315339.html

[-DLC-]

yaeh there is a consistency issue but 2 wrongs dont make a right... just because they got it wrong in the past doesnt mean they should continue to get it wrong and maybe they have learned and got it right...

Oh boy, where to begin. You're jumbling stuff up and throwing red herrings in here.

"Two wrongs don't make a right".

Two wrongs are wrong. That's more suitable. There are consistency issues and because they've got it wrong in the past and continue to do so, people are upset over it. If they weren't calling similar plays and suspending players for much less (batting a puck out of the air), then there'd be no issue. The issue is that one fairly innocent play will have someone sit 3-5 games while a head shot by way of disguise gets nothing. Justified by the "Safety" team.

[whcanuck]

I feel like this whole "hockey hit" vs "non hockey hit" or "point of contact" business is way too subjective. Whether or not Niederreiter meant to hit Burrows in the head is irrelevant, he still hit him in the head, and it's not like Burrows was hunched over. That was a check to the head in my opinion. He was probably only gonna get 1-2 games tops, and I'm not suggesting the league is out to get the Canucks, but the fact that it's Burrows does make me wonder a little bit. Would it be the same result if Pavel Datsyuk or Jeff Carter was hit that way? Or Jonathan Toews or Sidney Crosby? Who knows I guess. No suspension, nothing we can do about it I guess besides move on.