Niederreiter's hit on Burrows

[elvis15]

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?

To the point that people are saying it is, I think they're not quite realistic on how much focus he has. I have no issue with much of the attention he gets in general. He's an agitating player, lots of talking, lots of action around and after the whistles. He's going to get attention based on that. Whether or not he gets more than similar players is maybe a question you should do some research on if you feel it's unwarranted. Not sure what it has to do with this hit though.

I've stated several times in this thread I think the NHL is fairly consistent when it comes to checks to the head - not so much on other suspensions. Nieds' hit falls within the rules the NHL has currently, so even if Nieds could have done more to make sure and avoid any contact with Burrows' head it's not required for a hit to be legal. If the rule was different and required that then you could make a case, but I haven't seen anyone prove to me that avoidance alone is important enough to overrule main point of contact, or that this was a case where he should have done more.

EDIT: had to rephrase to make things a bit clearer.

[Goal:thecup]

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.

Thanks. I'm out.

[poetica]

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.

....

Actually, it wasn't my opinion to quote Fraser's own words to represent his opinion. His clearly stated opinion is no one's opinion but his. I was simply pointing out that you had either misremembered or otherwise (unintentionally I assume) misrepresented what he actually said.

I understand that you feel your opinion is based on what the head hit rule specifically says, but what you fail to recognize is that so do I and so do others. Just because our interpretation differs from yours does not mean yours is somehow more valid than anyone else's, or vice versa.

While you choose to focus on the "squarely through the body" portion (which we obviously disagree on), I am looking at the larger "avoidable" issue, particularly the part where it specifically says the head may not be "'picked' as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward." While Burrows did not change his body position before the hit, Niederreiter did and as a result of his "unnecessary extension of the body upward" the hit ended up involving the head when it would not have otherwise. To me, that makes the head contact clearly avoidable and therefore a violation of the rule.

I also have a huge problem with the HNL saying, "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." but then not considering that as proof of the head being the main point of contact on other hits. If it was reaffirming proof in one case, why is it so easily ignored in so many others? Having to ignore the NHL's own reasoning for one suspension in order to make it appear they are consistently applying the rule only proves their inconsistency.

But you're certainly as entitled to your opinion as anyone else. So agree to disagree (yet again) it'll have to be.

[elvis15]

Actually, it wasn't my opinion to quote Fraser's own words to represent his opinion. His clearly stated opinion is no one's opinion but his. I was simply pointing out that you had either misremembered or otherwise (unintentionally I assume) misrepresented what he actually said.

I understand that you feel your opinion is based on what the head hit rule specifically says, but what you fail to recognize is that so do I and so do others. Just because our interpretation differs from yours does not mean yours is somehow more valid than anyone else's, or vice versa.

While you choose to focus on the "squarely through the body" portion (which we obviously disagree on), I am looking at the larger "avoidable" issue, particularly the part where it specifically says the head may not be "'picked' as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward." While Burrows did not change his body position before the hit, Niederreiter did and as a result of his "unnecessary extension of the body upward" the hit ended up involving the head when it would not have otherwise. To me, that makes the head contact clearly avoidable and therefore a violation of the rule.

I also have a huge problem with the HNL saying, "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." but then not considering that as proof of the head being the main point of contact on other hits. If it was reaffirming proof in one case, why is it so easily ignored in so many others? Having to ignore the NHL's own reasoning for one suspension in order to make it appear they are consistently applying the rule only proves their inconsistency.

But you're certainly as entitled to your opinion as anyone else. So agree to disagree (yet again) it'll have to be.

Works for me, and I'll stick to my point that people are using only part of the rule that is directly connected to the part I'm talking about where both have to occur to make the hit illegal. The avoidable issue isn't larger, it's 50% of the rule with the other 50% being the main point of contact at the head. If one condition in that rule isn't met then the hit isn't an illegal check to the head.

I touched on unnecessary extension as well and it's much more subjective for what constitutes 'unnecessary' compared to squarely through the body. If any movement is unnecessary then no player could explode into the hit upwards or outwards. Any contact at all if they did that (or were deemed to do so) would result in an illegal check to the head in that case, not just more significant contact like this.

We'll agree to disagree though, as I can see where a number of people are finding confusion but I just don't see it myself.

[Baggins]

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.

He specifically said the direction Hertl spun was evidence it was a head hit. The fact Hertl wasn't moved in the direction of the hit showed the hit wasn't into the core of the body. Burrows spun, but he went in the direction of the hit, which is evidence the hit was into the core of the body.

[Crabcakes]

Am I blind? All I can see is one guy hitting another guy in the head with his shoulder. And the guy getting hit didn't look like he saw the other guy coming.

IMHO, trying to figure out intent is a fools game. You can't read peoples minds. If you ask them what their intent was, and they think they are guilty, they are going to lie.

Whether Burrows has a reputation or not is irrelevant. Whether Burrows is injured or not is irrelevant. Whether Nido has a reputation or not is irrelevant (except in terms of how long he should be suspended). 1st offence 3 games, 2nd offense 5 games, 3rd offense 10 games etc.

Where the league fails is trying to determine intent. Who cares what he tried to do, he nailed Burrows in the head! It's just like high sticking (guilt wise). One player might try to lift another's stick and hit him in the face. It's still high sticking even if it's an accident. Everybody accepts this. They should try to be objective, dispassionate and consistent.....this will lead to credibility.

In the mean time, the league looks like fools and the refs look like they are making up the rules.

[Baggins]

Am I blind? All I can see is one guy hitting another guy in the head with his shoulder. And the guy getting hit didn't look like he saw the other guy coming.

IMHO, trying to figure out intent is a fools game. You can't read peoples minds. If you ask them what their intent was, and they think they are guilty, they are going to lie.

Whether Burrows has a reputation or not is irrelevant. Whether Burrows is injured or not is irrelevant. Whether Nido has a reputation or not is irrelevant (except in terms of how long he should be suspended). 1st offence 3 games, 2nd offense 5 games, 3rd offense 10 games etc.

Where the league fails is trying to determine intent. Who cares what he tried to do, he nailed Burrows in the head! It's just like high sticking (guilt wise). One player might try to lift another's stick and hit him in the face. It's still high sticking even if it's an accident. Everybody accepts this. They should try to be objective, dispassionate and consistent.....this will lead to credibility.

In the mean time, the league looks like fools and the refs look like they are making up the rules.

Maybe read through the thread. The rules regarding head shots is explained over and over again. The ruling has nothing to do with Burrows or his reputation. It has everything to do with the hit being delivered into the core of the body. As long as the hit is into the core of the body, contact with the head is considered incidental.

The bold part is something many Canuck fans could use a heaping dose of regarding league rulings. Instead of the automatic if it happens to a Canuck it's illegal and if a Canuck does it it's clean.

[Baggins]

Englland 5 game suspension...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG5OFqmGgfk

Grabner 2 game suspension

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLRGxlKEGt8

Cowen 2 game suspension

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT2EKXrax0Y&list=UUaxPcdPvw93ohaD7CHr_UZA

Clarkson suspended 2 games

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igJomfZxIE8

Note the very specific wording: This is not a full body check in which contact to the head was unavoidable. All four of these are like the Edler suspension. Consistent. The hit on Burrows was into the core of the body, or a full body check, where contact to the head was unavoidable in the delivery.

[Slegr]

The problem is that these calls and decisions are so subjective. They can be argued either way. Sadly, it seems like the Canucks get the short end of the stick on too many decisions.

[thema]

Maybe the fact that Burrows sold it HARD, then played dead, then left the game looking like he'd been seriously hurt only to return hale and hearty only minutes later (for the second game in a row no less) was a factor in the non-suspension. The hit itself was borderline at worst.

[thema]

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?

Burrows has made his bed a long time ago and now he has to sleep in it. Even now, when he hasn't been diving or embellishing anywhere near as much as he used to he will get cut no slack by the officials if he embellishes a hit which he sure seems to have done here. I think it can be agreed by most people here if Burrows got a broken jaw out of this hit Nino would have probably got a fine or a game or two. As the old saying goes you can't fight City Hall.

[Baggins]

The problem is that these calls and decisions are so subjective. They can be argued either way. Sadly, it seems like the Canucks get the short end of the stick on too many decisions.

Not really. Watch all four of the videos of suspensions I posted and listen to the explanation. All of them are in line with the Edler suspension. The hit on Burrows was into the core of the body making it a legal hit.

The only alternative to allowing this type of hit is to take the Euro stance of no contact to the head at all. Which of course means the NHL becoming far less physical just like the Euro leagues. Do you want a less physical game or do you like the big hits?

[RUPERTKBD]

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 don't think that Burrows is "targeted", but he is a player with a reputation and is well-known for calling out an NHL referee in the media.

I think it's safer to say that Alex Burrows does not and will not ever get the benefit of the doubt from the league or it's officials.

As to the hit itself, I have to say that I agree with the interpretation of the rules as Elvis and Baggins are putting forward, however I disagree that the hit was squarely through the body. We can debate that point until the cows come home, but I doubt that any of us will be changing our minds.

IMHO, this is exactly the kind of hit that the league should be trying to eliminate if they're as serious as they claim about addressing the concussion issue in the NHL. It was a blindside hit and I believe the head was the main point of contact.

I for one, will be an interested observer in about 10 years, when NHL players file a class action suit with the NHL for not dealing with head shots, even though they knew there was an issue with concussions and claimed to be doing something about it. I think we just might be watching this video again....

[Tearloch7]

Semantics are wonderful .. no?

[poetica]

He specifically said the direction Hertl spun was evidence it was a head hit. The fact Hertl wasn't moved in the direction of the hit showed the hit wasn't into the core of the body. Burrows spun, but he went in the direction of the hit, which is evidence the hit was into the core of the body.

Not true. The direct quote from the suspension video (as quoted from TSN story, but you can hear it yourself in the video) is, "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." They did NOT say that the direction of being spun was the important factor, only that being spun around rather than be driven into a specific direction was proof that the head was the main point of contact.

[elvis15]

While I don't have all the quotes in front of me, and I've spent far too much time discussing these types of hits as is to go look at them all again, but I'll say this: I think Baggins is trying to say the fact that Hertl spun but continued travelling in the same direction he was prior to the hit, compared to Burrows spinning but losing his forward momentum due to contact with Nieds, shows that in the very least less contact was made with Hertl through the body to change his momentum than with Burrows.

The NHL quote you just provided aligns with that, where it notes Hertl doesn't get driven in the direction Edler was going where he would have if Edler had hit squarely through the body.

[-DLC-]

So do you think, in the overall goal that is to eliminate head shots, this dissection will help in that?

I don't, which is my point.

If we have to take a magnifying glass, get a compass in place and do all these other things in deciding, it leaves too many options TO headhunt and then pass it off as something different. To present it in a way that it can be viewed as something else?

That won't help the league. You may be right but the league, in allowing for these ridiculous "explanations" (I tend to call them excuses) makes it a pick and choose thing. And, as long as that's the case, it won't deter as much as a zero tolerance would.

The league is just finding ways to bend the rules for some, that's all. The lip service isn't matching the overall application of the rules. As long as some are let off the hook, it's unfair and an unlevel playing field. Someone else will be seriously hurt and the league should/could be doing more to prevent it. But they keep playing with fire.

[poetica]

Exactly, Deb.

The NHL just changes the language to explain why practically identical hits are suspension worthy one day and legal the next for no apparent reason. Hit a guy's shoulder today while contacting his head and causing no injury? Suspension! Hit a guy's shoulder tomorrow while contacting his head and causing head and neck injuries? Legal check "squarely through the body."

Not until they have a clear cut rule that doesn't leave it so open to interpretation, allowing too much room for bias and ignorance, will we ever see any actual reduction in head injuries. Hockey will always be physical and dangerous, but their flip flopping on the rules make it far more so than it needs to be.

[-DLC-]

Imagine if, when pulled over for running a stop sign, the cop accepted "well, the wind was blowing and my window was open so hair was in my eyes and my foot didn't MEAN to hit the gas, I was trying to hit the brake but I hiccuped and my favourite song came on the radio which distracted me because it told me it was HAMMER TIME, so. Cop doesn't care. You ran a red - ticket.

That's how you get people to know what the rule is - you don't waver or have ever changing boundaries.

I find it especially amusing that these guys have been appointed anything to do with "safety". When you're keeping people safe, you don't knowingly expose them to unnecessary risk. Sure - a contact sport that involves hitting, etc. has allowances but, if head shots are being eliminated it should be ANY headshot. No exceptions. Or it's ineffective and subjective, which is totally unfair.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

The fact that players and coaches have no idea where the line is speaks volumes. If you need a lawyer or a public relations agent to decode what the league is saying, then there basically aren't any rules.