Niederreiter's hit on Burrows

[coastal1]

Niederreiter did it to a Canuck. He won't get anything.

Pathetic double standard.

It's obvious Bettman hates the Canucks. That's why you're not following them anymore I am sure.

[Baggins]

isn't that what I was pointing out by mentioning the Daddy Campbell factor?

if it wasn't the Bruins it wouldn't have been applied

It was a late hit that caused injury. A late hit is illegal. That's a suspension. Rome wasn't suspended for a head hit. he was suspended for a late hit. Why is it so tough to understand the difference between "late" and "head"?.

[CowtownCanuck]

It was a late hit that caused injury. A late hit is illegal. That's a suspension. Rome wasn't suspended for a head hit. he was suspended for a late hit. Why is it so tough to understand the difference between "late" and "head"?.

Normally the difference between late hit and head hit is that the league, in light of the NFL, must take head hits seriously. As a result the NHL is forced to ignore the majority of head shots or intent to injur or they would have to suspend more players.

[CanuckleHorse]

And failing the franchises that are not in the inner circle.

Seriously, if you had a franchise and the franchisor treated you as they do the Canucks, wouldn't you sue?

Financially at least there are significant damages on the table.

C'mon Gillis, you took on the league before and won; please find a way to crack these (expletive deleted) racketeers.

(Maybe that's it: RICO!)This all day your right on the money it has to stop im sick to my stomach with all the bs the league and refs put this team through all we want is a fair playing field thats all.

The purpose of the referees is to protect the players. Fail.

All franchises should have an equal opportunity to win the Championship. Fail.

All players should receive an unbiased and fair treatment from the Gestapo of Player Safety. Fail.

Etc.

[CowtownCanuck]

so was this, everyone on CDC was talking about how great a hit it was. Torres was not suspended for this either, everyone is talking double standards but the biggest one is the one we have when one of our guys gets hit like this

I think even Canucks fans were confused by the NHL pulling "designated hitting zone" out of their @$$.

That hit should have been suspended, but is not at all comparible to the one on Burrows. Niderieder's hit was still a head shot, targeted or not, it should have been reviewed by the league. Too often the "unintentional" shoulder to the head in a "clean hot" causes injuries and concussions. Look back to Stevens on Lindros or so many others

[JohnScott]

"To summarize: This was a headshot, as the initial contact was made towards Burrows' head. Also, there was intent to injure on the play, but no apparent injury was sustained. The Department of Player Safety has suspended Alex Burrows for embellishment, and is sending Nino Niederreiter with two of his friends to the Bahamas!

Enjoy dining and drinks on the beach, or at the six onsite restaurants, all included when you relax at Sandals resort! But when it comes to making memories, this BRP Sea-Doo Spark should help you do so! Congratulations, Nino!"

- Brendan Shanahan

[AnotherCanucksFan]

Complete bull$hit decision. Embarrassing that the League's dislike of Burrows is so strong that they are letting it endanger players. The lack of a suspension is basically saying, go on a head hunt and if it's a Canuck then go for it!

Shanahan should quit. He was a great player, but now he's just Bettman's puppet.

[Chivas]

Totally Obvious HeadShot. I haven't had much faith in the Ref's since Burrows called one out, but Shanahan's call takes the cake. The whole League is starting to suck. I've played and followed Hockey closely for Sixty years, and I've never seen such blatant miss calls, and decisions. Ref's can hide behind a number of factors, like the action being so quick its easy to to get a call wrong, but Shanahan gets to make his decision after seeing it in super slow motion. Total BS.

[elvis15]

The problem is is where Ninos shoulder is when he contacts Burrows. It is at his head and not at his body, making it the first and prinicipal point of contact, the fact that the body contacts after should be irrelevant. All that body check did was mask the head shot.

When nino first lines up Burrows he is in the perfect position to legally check him from a semi crouched position, but as he gets closer and stands up, moving the point of contact from should to chest to should to head.

That's the problem in your view, but that's not a problem using the criteria in the actual rule. If you want to debate if the rule is a good one or not you can, but based on the current rule it doesn't matter if contact is made to the head if the main point of contact is squarely through the body - even if the head contact is first. And to be extra clear, the main point of contact refers to where the majority of contact was centered.

I get that you're the self anointed authority and feel the need to reply to every single post with an opinion that doesn't agree with yours for no reason other than to say, "I already told you how you were wrong," but your opinion isn't worth anymore than anyone else's.

I disagreed with the Edler suspension and I disagree with this non-suspension call. The rule says head contact has to be avoidable. Hertl knew contact was coming and choose to leave himself in a vulnerable position that made clean contact impossible. Burrows didn't do anything to make himself vulnerable while Niederreiter, seeing Burrows' body position, choose to raise his own body directly before the hit, causing the head contact which would have been avoidable had he simply maintained his previous body positioning. You can disagree all you want, but I still see blatant inconsistency is how they decide what is or isn't "avoidable."

But then I'm not just posting my opinion. I'm posting the rule and showing how the hit conforms to that rule. People who are posting saying it should be a suspension on the sole basis of there being head contact are posting their opinion because that doesn't correspond to any current NHL rule.

And while he does come up into the hit, it doesn't affect him hitting squarely through the body. The head contact is incidental as a result.

We can certainly disagree with our opinions on the consistency of suspensions and what is avoidable.

Couldn't disagree more - it's both relevant, and "the spin" - a fact you apparently recognize - could easily be subject to attempts to finesse an explanation in the Hertl hit, as you are here.

The fact the head shot spun Hertl was evidently very relevant to the Edler/Hertl decision - and as I said, it's easy to cherry pick a still from the Edler hit showing he also 'hits' Hertl's entire left arm - the point was that the principal contact was to the head. Whether Edler was required to yield his path to that puck is another matter - as Hertl did not in fact have possession of the puck - he was arguably recklessly pursuing a lose puck - in other words - one that is up for grabs.

So there's either an error in that decision, or an error in this one - and in either event - that's pretty much the point angering many fans here - the relatively obvious inconsistency.

Ignore the spin explanations then and focus on the wording in the actual rule. Apart from any contact with the head, where did Edler hit Hertl on the body and where did Nieds hit Burrows?

And actually the spin was used to reinforce the point that Edler didn't hit Hertl through the center of the body, but rather only on the back shoulder. Burrows does still spin away from the contact, but Nieds clearly hits him through the chest.

So Burr's to blame on this one?

Figures.

That's certainly not what I'm saying, and I don't think any of the main posters talking about it being a legal hit are saying that either - at least that I've seen.

I know you're intelligent based on your other posts, and I don't disagree about having a discussion related to overall consistency, but that's not the discussion we're having (or at least not the one I've been focused on). What I'm saying is here is the rule (fact) and here is where the hit actually matches that rule and what the NHL has said about this and other similar hits. If you want to call that opinion because I'm just a poster on CDC and not an NHL official, I can't really argue that.

What I will argue is the point I made that you highlighted. I've made numerous posts trying to help people who think this is illegal because the head was either A. contacted at all, or B. contacted first. The rule specifically states incidental head contact is allowed and it never uses the word initial point of contact when describing illegal checks to the head. If you feel it does, I'd be happy to see what phrase you're using to dispute my statement.

I've certainly continued past that factual statement with my own judgement that people are reacting emotionally based on an incorrect understanding of the rule. Simple as that.

Whatever the call is on the ice, the suspension can be for a different reason. The NHL certainly wasn't going to suspend Nieds for interference, it would have been for a check to the head if anything. The NHL certainly has said plenty of times they don't want to prevent all contact to the head. The only way they could do that would mean significant changes to how the game is played, or accepting that hockey plays could be suspendable.

Just to clarify, are you challenging the rule around checks to the head, or just this individual ruling? Those are different things, and completely change my response.

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.

That's certainly a more succinct way to say it than I did.

[elvis15]

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."

But Fraser isn't explaining the rule, he's explaining how he thinks it should be altered to better cover these kinds of hits. I've said nothing about whether or not the rule should change, only that the rule as is covers this as a legal hit.

I agree with Fraser that if Nieds had just been lower we wouldn't have been talking about this hit. But since we are, and "most players" hit this way (and "most players" aren't being constantly suspended for it), we might as well understand why it's legal. I always tried to hit low and come up through the body when I played, and I hate that players often come in now with gloves and sticks up, but contact with the head can and will happen. It just doesn't have to automatically make the hit illegal in every case.

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!

Uh, no, not every hit involving the head is suspendable, nor illegal. If you have a rule that says that please feel free to post it.

Why do people keep comparing the two hits. Naslund was reaching. Burrows was upright and had just flipped the puck into the zone.

Then why do people keep comparing the Edler/Hertl hit? Hertl was reaching as well, so there's one specific thing different than the Nieds/Burrows hit so I guess they shouldn't bring it up. For that matter, why compare the Hansen/Hossa hit, or the Kassian/Gagner high stick, which are completely different plays?

Not needing to do something, like driving with the legs upward through a hit, doesn't make it illegal.

Again, I have no issue with debating if the rule is good enough, or if other suspensions not related to checks to the head were fair, but I do believe this hit and others related to it (falling under checks to the head) have been ruled on pretty consistently and correctly based on the actual wording of the rule.

[Hairy Kneel]

If Gillis had the cohones he'd appeal the crap out of this call by Shamaham

[BenDrinkin]

Going straight for the head, knowing full well Burr already had a broken jaw. Someone should have sucker punched that ass hat, immediately after. Not a Bertuzzi sucker punch, but something.

The NHL is a laughing stock, and they pick and choose who they want to protect. Mickey Mouse league.

[BenDrinkin]

I think even Canucks fans were confused by the NHL pulling "designated hitting zone" out of their @$$.

That hit should have been suspended, but is not at all comparible to the one on Burrows. Niderieder's hit was still a head shot, targeted or not, it should have been reviewed by the league. Too often the "unintentional" shoulder to the head in a "clean hot" causes injuries and concussions. Look back to Stevens on Lindros or so many others

The NHL is so slow to deal with change that I think hits to the head were legal then, weren't they? Such a embarrassing league, my goodness.

[Tearloch7]

If Gillis had the cohones he'd appeal the crap out of this call by Shamaham

Excuse me, but how do you know what is going on behind the scenes? .. maybe the Aquillini's sent Buttman a horses head for breakfast? ... or "Cojoneless Mike" ripped Shanny a new rectum via Skype using a blowup Bertuzzi doll to demonstrate? .. none of us has a clue about what has taken place behind the scenes, so lets stop using every incident as an excuse to 'rip' MG .. it takes away from any possible credibility the MG haters have when they spew their vitriol so willy-nilly .. and it gets so stale after awhile .. a short while.

[poetica]

...

But then I'm not just posting my opinion. I'm posting the rule and showing how the hit conforms to that rule. People who are posting saying it should be a suspension on the sole basis of there being head contact are posting their opinion because that doesn't correspond to any current NHL rule.

And while he does come up into the hit, it doesn't affect him hitting squarely through the body. The head contact is incidental as a result.

We can certainly disagree with our opinions on the consistency of suspensions and what is avoidable.

Ignore the spin explanations then and focus on the wording in the actual rule. Apart from any contact with the head, where did Edler hit Hertl on the body and where did Nieds hit Burrows?

...

Yes, actually you are posting your opinion of what the rule means and how it is and should be enforced. That's the truth you fail to recognize in your quest to make yourself the "authority" charged with telling us all why we're wrong rather than simply just posting your own opinion. Just because you want to pretend it's more, doesn't make it true.

In reality, Oldnews had an excellent point that you just dismissed because it doesn't help you, but you don't get to ignore the NHL's own words of "proof" to justify one "head shot" suspension because the exact same "proof" was flagrantly ignored in other non-suspension hits. That's the whole point. They very specifically said that the fact that Hertl spun around proved it was a head hit, and yet have not suspended multiple hits since then that very clearly made the person being hit, including Burrows, spin around. The NHL is one who said that movement of the person's being hit's body PROVED that the head was the primary point of contact. It is their interpretation of the rule that has changed and resulted in their inconsistency. Just because they make explanations that sound like they're applying the rule evenly doesn't make it true. And that's what you fail to realize.

[poetica]

But Fraser isn't explaining the rule, he's explaining how he thinks it should be altered to better cover these kinds of hits. I've said nothing about whether or not the rule should change, only that the rule as is covers this as a legal hit.

...

Not true. Fraser very clearly said that he thinks the hit on Burrows violated the rule as it exists today for the exact same reason others, myself included, have said -- that "contact with the head was avoidable."

Or, in his own words, "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 is not calling for a change in the rule, only for a more faithful enforcement of it as it stands.

He even very specifically disagrees with your (and the NHL's) assessment that the contact was delivered "squarely through the body," saying, "The contact delivered off the center body line and to the head of Burrows resulted in a helicopter freefall for the Vancouver Canuck player."

He then goes on to explain how, "Rule 48.1 (i) (ii) (iii) provides lots of 'reasons' to determine whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable." He, like others, points out how Burrows did not change his body position just prior to the hit while Niederreiter did. He concludes, "If the rule verbiage doesn't qualify hits of this nature as a 'head pick,' at the very least it needs to be acknowledged that significant contact resulted from an illegal hit to the head in an ongoing effort to hold players accountable." Clearly, he agrees that the rule already covers this hit and needs to be enforced as such. Disagree if you want, but don't misrepresent what he said.

[Goal:thecup]

Not true. Fraser very clearly said that he thinks the hit on Burrows violated the rule as it exists today for the exact same reason others, myself included, have said -- that "contact with the head was avoidable."

Or, in his own words, "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 is not calling for a change in the rule, only for a more faithful enforcement of it as it stands.

He even very specifically disagrees with your (and the NHL's) assessment that the contact was delivered "squarely through the body," saying, "The contact delivered off the center body line and to the head of Burrows resulted in a helicopter freefall for the Vancouver Canuck player."

He then goes on to explain how, "Rule 48.1 (i) (ii) (iii) provides lots of 'reasons' to determine whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable." He, like others, points out how Burrows did not change his body position just prior to the hit while Niederreiter did. He concludes, "If the rule verbiage doesn't qualify hits of this nature as a 'head pick,' at the very least it needs to be acknowledged that significant contact resulted from an illegal hit to the head in an ongoing effort to hold players accountable." Clearly, he agrees that the rule already covers this hit and needs to be enforced as such. Disagree if you want, but don't misrepresent what he said.

Thank you poetica!

This is the way that I saw it too. The offender could have avoided the head (still don't know why Elvis has not answered on this but has on almost everything else). And this centre of contact or whatever it is, is clearly explained by Fraser, and you can see in the stills that Burrows body is angled and the hit is off-centre and slipping further so. (You can also clearly see the head disappearing into the stratosphere before there is any other contact.)

I am also unclear on the efficacy of a system of rules that changes with any which way the wind blows, applies differently to different teams/players/situations, and acts without any equity or apparent avenue of appeal. (Rant: These cabalists are above everybody and making decisions with serious affects with no apparent aptitude, training, guidelines, or review and quite possibly with their own unfair agenda.)

This is not a slur or an attack on you Elvis. As I said earlier I really appreciate the great content you add to the forum and you are one of my absolute favorites here. Just curious why you haven't addressed the "avoidance" question. Also a little befuddled, as you are coming across as somewhat of an apologist for this abhorrent bundle of seemingly-biased judgements. Do you really believe that they are correctly and consistantly interpreting a definitive set of rules with independence and equity?

[coyotecanuck]

I would like Elvis and Stawns to riddle me one answer to one question; do you feel Burrows has a target on him in the eyes of the refs, and if so, why hasn't the league done anything about it? Okay that's 2 questions.

I watch a lot of hockey, played a lot of hockey, and I have never seen open season on one player like there is on Burrows.

So, to the so-called voices of reason on CDC, what say you on Burrows treatment in general?

[elvis15]

Not true. Fraser very clearly said that he thinks the hit on Burrows violated the rule as it exists today for the exact same reason others, myself included, have said -- that "contact with the head was avoidable."

Or, in his own words, "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 is not calling for a change in the rule, only for a more faithful enforcement of it as it stands.

He even very specifically disagrees with your (and the NHL's) assessment that the contact was delivered "squarely through the body," saying, "The contact delivered off the center body line and to the head of Burrows resulted in a helicopter freefall for the Vancouver Canuck player."

He then goes on to explain how, "Rule 48.1 (i) (ii) (iii) provides lots of 'reasons' to determine whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable." He, like others, points out how Burrows did not change his body position just prior to the hit while Niederreiter did. He concludes, "If the rule verbiage doesn't qualify hits of this nature as a 'head pick,' at the very least it needs to be acknowledged that significant contact resulted from an illegal hit to the head in an ongoing effort to hold players accountable." Clearly, he agrees that the rule already covers this hit and needs to be enforced as such. Disagree if you want, but don't misrepresent what he said.

We'll have to agree to disagree again or we'll be at it all day.

I'm posting opinion as well, but I'm certainly using the very wording from the rule to explain reasons why the hit is legal in the NHL's eyes. The spinning in old news' post for instance was used as a secondary explanation on top of the information matching the rule. If me stating the actual words from the rule are opinion, then you posting the actual words from the Fraser quote (which seems to me to be Fraser's opinion that the rule should include more than it currently does and that the wording could allow for it) is in the same boat.

Thank you poetica!

This is the way that I saw it too. The offender could have avoided the head (still don't know why Elvis has not answered on this but has on almost everything else). And this centre of contact or whatever it is, is clearly explained by Fraser, and you can see in the stills that Burrows body is angled and the hit is off-centre and slipping further so. (You can also clearly see the head disappearing into the stratosphere before there is any other contact.)

I am also unclear on the efficacy of a system of rules that changes with any which way the wind blows, applies differently to different teams/players/situations, and acts without any equity or apparent avenue of appeal. (Rant: These cabalists are above everybody and making decisions with serious affects with no apparent aptitude, training, guidelines, or review and quite possibly with their own unfair agenda.)

This is not a slur or an attack on you Elvis. As I said earlier I really appreciate the great content you add to the forum and you are one of my absolute favorites here. Just curious why you haven't addressed the "avoidance" question. Also a little befuddled, as you are coming across as somewhat of an apologist for this abhorrent bundle of seemingly-biased judgements. Do you really believe that they are correctly and consistantly interpreting a definitive set of rules with independence and equity?

For the avoidance rule I'll refer right back to the rule again. Look at the exact wording in the first part:

"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 is not permitted."

I've been referring to the main point of contact part of the rule frequently, but it's worth restating with the avoidance question still being part of the confusion. I agree avoidance is a part of the hitter's responsibility, but if they make the main point of contact something other than the head then one of the two required conditions in that statement hasn't happened to make it an illegal hit.

A player can make the main point of contact something other than the head by hitting squarely through the body which is noted in part (i). Parts (ii) and (iii) refer to the opponent which would be Burrows in this case, not Nieds. I can see where the "unnecessary extension of the body upward" could come into play here, but you expect some movement like that in a hit and there's not enough movement in my opinion (and obviously in the NHL's) for it to make the hit illegal. Think something more like charging where the player leaves his feet.

I do understand the argument Fraser is making that hits like this could be included in the rule, but they haven't been to date. That's definitely an opinion worth exploring although it's not really a part of the discussion I've been having against why this should have been a suspendable hit and how the NHL is inconsistent around checks to the head.

I would like Elvis and Stawns to riddle me one answer to one question; do you feel Burrows has a target on him in the eyes of the refs, and if so, why hasn't the league done anything about it? Okay that's 2 questions.

I watch a lot of hockey, played a lot of hockey, and I have never seen open season on one player like there is on Burrows.

So, to the so-called voices of reason on CDC, what say you on Burrows treatment in general?

I'd agree Burrows does get looked at closely by the refs and the league, but I can't answer the second part. That actually depends on whether or not I think it's unwarranted, but that's quite debatable. I certainly don't think it's a massive conspiracy and certainly if I think this is a legal hit based on the current rule then I don't know why it would factor into any conspiracy anyway.

[coyotecanuck]

We'll have to agree to disagree again or we'll be at it all day.

I'm posting opinion as well, but I'm certainly using the very wording from the rule to explain reasons why the hit is legal in the NHL's eyes. The spinning in old news' post for instance was used as a secondary explanation on top of the information matching the rule. If me stating the actual words from the rule are opinion, then you posting the actual words from the Fraser quote (which seems to me to be Fraser's opinion that the rule should include more than it currently does and that the wording could allow for it) is in the same boat.

For the avoidance rule I'll refer right back to the rule again. Look at the exact wording in the first part:

"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 is not permitted."

I've been referring to the main point of contact part of the rule frequently, but it's worth restating with the avoidance question still being part of the confusion. I agree avoidance is a part of the hitter's responsibility, but if they make the main point of contact something other than the head then one of the two required conditions in that statement hasn't happened to make it an illegal hit.

A player can make the main point of contact something other than the head by hitting squarely through the body which is noted in part (i). Parts (ii) and (iii) refer to the opponent which would be Burrows in this case, not Nieds. I can see where the "unnecessary extension of the body upward" could come into play here, but you expect some movement like that in a hit and there's not enough movement in my opinion (and obviously in the NHL's) for it to make the hit illegal. Think something more like charging where the player leaves his feet.

I do understand the argument Fraser is making that hits like this could be included in the rule, but they haven't been to date. That's definitely an opinion worth exploring although it's not really a part of the discussion I've been having against why this should have been a suspendable hit and how the NHL is inconsistent around checks to the head.

I'd agree Burrows does get looked at closely by the refs and the league, but I can't answer the second part. That actually depends on whether or not I think it's unwarranted, but that's quite debatable. I certainly don't think it's a massive conspiracy and certainly if I think this is a legal hit based on the current rule then I don't know why it would factor into any conspiracy anyway.

A few more questions if I may...

So do you think it's unwarranted? That is the extra attention Burrows gets?

Do you think the head shot rule is administered the same in all cases to all players?

Lastly was NN's contact to the head avoidable? Did he have to finish the check the way he did to separate Burrows from the puck?