Niederreiter's hit on Burrows

[-DLC-]

I don't like using 'initial', unless to state that's not involved in determining a check to the head. 'Principle' or 'primary' even can be subjective. The term in the rule is 'main point of contact' to specify where the majority contact was made - regardless of what was contacted first.

The head can be hit initially before any other contact and have it still be legal as long as the contact is squarely through the body and not involving a charge, elbow or late hit.

It's also easy to see how many fans don't properly understand the rulings and jump to the conclusion of bias, inconsistency and tin foil hats. This still isn't suspendable or even a fine if the contact is considered squarely through the body.

In your rush to defend your post, you've jumped to a conclusion yourself: I don't find the NHL infallible. I find them consistent when they rule on checks to the head since the latest rule was implemented. My point is if people properly understood the rule, there would be much less confusion and we could focus on where they actually are inconsistent.

Thanks. There's a fine line between being informative and annoying, so hopefully I helped a few people understand the rule.

Ah, so you're talking the Hansen example. Well you have no further to look than the elbowing rule, which is what I think they used in that case. I disagreed with that call, but there's no question Hansen's elbow hits Hossa's head. That's where you start talking about subjectivity though, and if they feel he was trying to elbow him rather than it just being incidental contact.

I can understand the argument there, but with the rule much more clearly defined because of all the attention it's gotten in the last decade it is much less subjective. Does Nieds hit Burrows squarely in the chest as the main point of contact? Yes. Does he do anything else illegal (is it late, charging or elbowing)? No. Then any contact to the head is incidental.

And then I think he should have gotten less because his stick rode up rather than directly contacting Gagner in the jaw. It was reckless, so I understand a suspension, but I didn't think it was that serious apart from the result. It's an example of another rule that's not as strictly laid out though and can have more subjectivity around intent or other factors.

No need to quote the rest, but please show me where in the rule that the head being the first point of contact is a determining factor in whether or not it's legal.

I don't honestly know that/if you're qualified to educate the rest of us...what are your qualifications in that? I'd say that, like the rest of us, you have opinions (only). That's kind of what's annoying...is some are trying to come from a place of superiority or greater knowledge. I don't buy it.

FTR, I believe it was called roughing (not elbowing) and this part:

The injury knocked Hossa out of the game after he had already scored two goals (as taken from the NHL report on the ruling)

was brought up in the explanation. How, on Earth, is this relevant? So in other words "you took an offensive threat" out of the game? It's bizarre, really. That's how the league reported this suspension. Do we care that he scored? Should that bring more sympathy? Extra weight in deciding?

"He showed up at his Mother's for dinner". That's how much it matters to me. May as well tell me "he ate pizza before the game". I don't give a rat's behind that he scored...what does that matter in applying discipline?

And it's not that we don't UNDERSTAND the ruling, it's that we don't accept it. We challenge it. So that's the point you're missing.

As long as they tinker around with this "head shot" stuff and allow for it to happen IF (blahblahblah), they're playing with fire. They're not adequately addressing it, they're finding excuses for it.

They don't want to eliminate it...they just don't want to be responsible for it. Covering their butts, that's all.

[bluesman60]

There seems to be an ongoing referee vendetta against Burrows. I have been watching closely since the Auger event and the league appears to have not put this behind them. That said, knowing the type of standup guy that Burrows is, I have no doubt in my mind that Auger did threaten to get him that night. Burrows has obviously tried very hard to let it be water under the bridge but the refs have not.

It would be great if the league would serve notice that it is not in the interest of the league to continue this but it appears that they want this perpetuated.

I wonder if Burrows would still be a marked man if he was playing for the Boston Bruins?

Yes Neiderreiter should be suspended for at least 2 games but I won't hold my breath.

[Chronic.Canuck]

Baloney. Niederreiter deserved at least 2 games.

[Ride the red Pony]

why should he let Burrows off the hook on that play if he can make a legal, hard hit on the play? That's what hockey has been about from day 1.......that's why people love it, it's not a game anyone can play, let alone excel at.

As I said in an earlier post, the hit from behind suspensions can be a bit mind boggling, especially when you can clearly see players putting themselves in bad situations to draw penalties. However, it's not the same kind of situation as the NN it and can't be compared, in my opinion.

Burrows got caught looking at the puck and got rocked, it happens

I couldn't agree more, even after Johnny Toews got rocked by Mitchell and finally made it to the bench, he told the guys he got caught with his head down, and was more angry with himself than he was with Mitchell.

Take a number and catch the guy on the next shift with an even harder albeit clean hit. I am surprised that Burr couldn't see him coming in his peripherial though.

[oldnews]

No need to quote the rest, but please show me where in the rule that the head being the first point of contact is a determining factor in whether or not it's legal.

I'm interested to hear your take on this aspect of the Edler/Hertl vs NN?Burrows hits, being one of the folks attempting to be objective and look at this in somewhat of a third party perspective.

A key point in Shanahan's decision to suspend Edler is this:

"getting spun rather than getting driven into the direction Edler was travelling"

My take is that it's pretty obvious that the result of the NN hit was to spin Burrows, which according to Shanahan would suggest that contact to the head was primary - the rest (debatable how much impact there was to the body) imo is incidental at best.

[Nucks780]

Check out Kerry Frasers take on this hit. He is bang on.
also Milbury is an idiot.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=447522#YourCallTop

The league should hire Fraser in place of Shanny.

[Baggins]

The Hansen disciplinary video is on the previous page Deb. There's no mention of how many goals Hossa scored.

You can choose not to accept the rules as written all you want but as long as they are following those rules regarding suspensions they are not in the wrong. So until that rule is changed they are in the right whether you like it or not.

[Goal:thecup]

why should he let Burrows off the hook on that play if he can make a legal, hard hit on the play? That's what hockey has been about from day 1.......that's why people love it, it's not a game anyone can play, let alone excel at.

As I said in an earlier post, the hit from behind suspensions can be a bit mind boggling, especially when you can clearly see players putting themselves in bad situations to draw penalties. However, it's not the same kind of situation as the NN it and can't be compared, in my opinion.

Burrows got caught looking at the puck and got rocked, it happens

With all due respect, the question was not "what is hockey about", it was, "did not the avoid the vulnerable player argument BS used against Kassian, for example, apply to NN"?

[Gurn]

Want to change things?

I suggest going to all the other teams fan forums and getting input, links, vids and pics of all the strange decisions rendered by the DPS. The Canucks are not the only fans that are confused by the inconsistency. There must be dozens of hits that might/should have been fines or suspensions.

Get all the evidence possible and then go to bat for your beliefs. Only as a united front of many, many teams will change be possible.

[-DLC-]

I think the top photo even verifies more that the hit was center of the body and the push up and into the check from NN's outside skate forces his body up Burrs to the point of the head, the brunt of the the force into Burrs body.

Wow, you're really reaching for this. His outside skate forces his body up to Burr's head. Huh?

[-DLC-]

The Hansen disciplinary video is on the previous page Deb. There's no mention of how many goals Hossa scored.

You can choose not to accept the rules as written all you want but as long as they are following those rules regarding suspensions they are not in the wrong. So until that rule is changed they are in the right whether you like it or not.

I got it from the site. Well that gives me a little hope because it was definitely a "what?" moment.

I don't accept the rules as written. They're bogus and subjective and the clowns deciding have friends and contacts in the league which sort of compromises things.

They are not in the right...these "rules" are decided based on human assessment and decision. It's not black and white, to they're not right be way of default. I think they're wrong.

I don't accept because "someone says so".

[5minutesinthebox]

I think the top photo even verifies more that the hit was center of the body and the push up and into the check from NN's outside skate forces his body up Burrs to the point of the head, the brunt of the the force into Burrs body.

But the head was still the first point of contact. And NN rising up to add force to the hit only solidifies that it was. If he hit his body first Burrows body would have moved first. The 2nd photo clearly shows the only thing being contacted intially is the head.

[TimberWolf]

In your rush to defend your post, you've jumped to a conclusion yourself: I don't find the NHL infallible. I find them consistent when they rule on checks to the head since the latest rule was implemented. My point is if people properly understood the rule, there would be much less confusion and we could focus on where they actually are inconsistent.

How about the opinion of someone more qualified than either of us to explain how a rule works?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=447522#YourCallTop

"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"

and a little further in:

"I doubt very much we would even be talking about this play if Nino Niederreiter had maintained a lowered and flexed posture from the setup and approach through contact of his intended hit on Alexandre Burrows. Like most players however, Neiderrreiter made the dangerous decision to increase velocity through the hit by straightening with an upward drive of his legs and shoulder cap that had no other place to connect than the head area of his opponent."

[5minutesinthebox]

I couldn't agree more, even after Johnny Toews got rocked by Mitchell and finally made it to the bench, he told the guys he got caught with his head down, and was more angry with himself than he was with Mitchell.

Take a number and catch the guy on the next shift with an even harder albeit clean hit. I am surprised that Burr couldn't see him coming in his peripherial thoug

Completely different as Toews head was never contacted. Mitchell got all body, just as Nino COULD have done, but he didnt.

[Ride the red Pony]

Wow, you're really reaching for this. His outside skate forces his body up to Burr's head. Huh?

I think the push from his outside skate and into the body forces NN's body and shoulder to move into an upward position towards the head as he finishes the check.

My apologies Deb if it seems as though I am reaching, but this is how I am seeing the hit. I do appreciate how you are viewing it and have watched it over and over to see if I am missing something.

Love your passion as always Deb.

[Goal:thecup]

The videos (as opposed to the stills) clearly show the head moving before the body.

(And the helmet, good thing Burr put those springs in there, just about got some Shanny Discipline handed out there with no chance of getting concussed or re-injuring his jaw.)

Yeah, smash to the head, head goes flying, helmet lifts off head, player is spun around from the head-first impact, but...

It is Burrows and a Canuck and there's nothing wrong with that; line 'em up and knock 'em down.

Player Safety = ??

[Ronaldoescobar]

 

I thought it was a clean hit and clearly the league agrees. Nino didn't jump or use his elbow. He's just a big dude who happened to catch a leaning burrows. If burrows doesn't change his angle, it's a clean hit to the chest. At some point the player getting hit has to take some responsibility otherwise we might as well just ban hitting in hockey.

 

Tell that to Horton... Always taught to keep your head up and not admire your passes but the NHL took that responsibility away as soon as they suspended Rome..

Nice try tho

[Baggins]

I'm interested to hear your take on this aspect of the Edler/Hertl vs NN?Burrows hits, being one of the folks attempting to be objective and look at this in somewhat of a third party perspective.

A key point in Shanahan's decision to suspend Edler is this:

"getting spun rather than getting driven into the direction Edler was travelling"

My take is that it's pretty obvious that the result of the NN hit was to spin Burrows, which according to Shanahan would suggest that contact to the head was primary - the rest (debatable how much impact there was to the body) imo is incidental at best.

Yes, but Burrows forward motion was stopped and he was sent spinning in the direction of the hit. Hertl spun in the direction he was already going. It actually shows the difference in impact to the body.

[Ride the red Pony]

Completely different as Toews head was never contacted. Mitchell got all body, just as Nino COULD have done, but he didnt.

You're right, I wasn't trying to compare the 2 hits, but more the idea that you need to be aware, especially when coming through the neutral zone.

[Hockey Fever]

Any hit to the head whether it be by shoulder, elbow, etc, is supposed to be a suspendable offense. Or has everyone forgot That? Typical NHL B.S!