Niederreiter's hit on Burrows

[Baggins]

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.

[elvis15]

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.

I don't think anything we do will help to eliminate head shots. But there are two ways to discuss it, which we can do. One is to figure out how and why the rulings are what they are, the other is to talk about where gaps and confusion could be improved.

I don't feel the same this this is overly complex or having too many options to give the NHL leeway to fudge there way into any decision they see fit. I think this is one of the better rules for being very concise with the factors involved and I and others have already noted we're at least happier with the consistency in rulings as a result. That sounds like progress over the other alternative to me.

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

I'm sure that's not what she wants, but I don't see how else it can go otherwise. There's no way to make the rule cut and dry apart from to say any and all head contact is illegal - but then the resulting penalty and any possible suspension will be too subjective for people's liking anyway.

Was that just a 2 min penalty, or was that a major, game misconduct and a 5 game suspension? Or is every head contact a minimum suspension? Is the condition of a player changing the position of their head just prior to a hit still a get out of jail free card?

There will always be ambiguity and the NHL won't be able to please everyone. It'll either be not enough because the league is letting someone from the opposition off the hook, or it's too much because the the league is penalizing one of our players.

I realize the more reasonable people on here aren't wildly varying but I can still see, in my opinion, people thinking two hits are the same when they actually have distinct points that are different and very important.

We aren't arguing they have it right - any more than Deb is saying she wants no hit hockey - just that for checks to the head they're being consistent based on the rule as it stands. The only way to make a clear distinction for a regular hit and a head hit is to reduce the strike zone, making it very hard to make a legal hit at the speed of NHL hockey so that hitting is greatly reduced for fear of making any contact to the head and getting a suspension.

[Baggins]

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.

[poetica]

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.

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.

[CowtownCanuck]

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.

Don Cherry made a cottage industry of what are no longer clean hits. Lining someone up in the trolly tracks isn't legal anymore either.

On top of that the league is hesitant call head shots. They have a responsibility to treat head contact seriously, therefore they ignore them or deny them to avoid having to react.

[Baggins]

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?

[spur1]

Head shot? Oh ya....Scott Stevens would be proud.

[-DLC-]

Don Cherry made a cottage industry of what are no longer clean hits. Lining someone up in the trolly tracks isn't legal anymore either.

On top of that the league is hesitant call head shots. They have a responsibility to treat head contact seriously, therefore they ignore them or deny them to avoid having to react.

They simply go through the motions to shirk any responsibility in a "hey, we took care of it" way. When, in fact, they're doing very little in the way of evenly distributing punishment or eliminating headshots completely from the game. They could if they wanted to, but they'd rather pick and choose and make examples of some as they've always done.

[poetica]

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?

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.

[Baggins]

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.

[Slegr]

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.

I'm sorry, but this is just NHL rhetoric. Forget the 'core' talk for a moment. Watch the videos again - Niederreiter totally lifts his body up, purposely targeting Burrows head at the last second. Edler just smoothly cuts across, and nearly by accident clips the head.

[poetica]

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.

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.

[elvis15]

Save the sanctimony. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I'm not being objective.

...

I think there's been a bit from both sides that isn't necessarily apparent from the other perspective.

But the Edler hit is one where you have the opinion that Edler doesn't do anything to instigate contact and actually hit Hertl. You can try and state your take on that hit as if it's fact, but it's a little ironic if you want to discount my facts as opinion.

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.

And just because you claim that the other hits weren't all squarely through the body doesn't make it true either. We (Baggins, myself and others) understand the point you're trying to make about raising into the hit or not and disagree. We also feel you're focusing on points (like the spin) that are being used as secondary explanations to try and make things clearer by both the NHL and us or misunderstanding points we're making (like that the player's momentum and force of the hit is illustrated partly by the spin but we aren't talking at all about if they fell as a result or not).

We're back to arguing different points as the reason why a hit is legal or illegal. I don't see a way around it.

I'm sorry, but this is just NHL rhetoric. Forget the 'core' talk for a moment. Watch the videos again - Niederreiter totally lifts his body up, purposely targeting Burrows head at the last second. Edler just smoothly cuts across, and nearly by accident clips the head.

Why should we forget the core talk when hitting squarely through the body is a significant part of the rule? It's your opinion that Nieds purposely targeted Burrows' head, since it's equally possible he was just extending into the hit - not unnecessarily as the rule states but as a part of a legal hit. People extend into hits legally all the time, Kerry Fraser even mentions this in his commentary on the hit, and the head can be contacted without making it illegal.

I like the 'nearly by accident' as well, since that means it was close to an accident but actually wasn't an accident. Edler clips the head and no other part of the body was the main point of contact (as determined by the squarely through the body part of the rule) since he also 'nearly by accident' clips the rear shoulder.

[Baggins]

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.

[spur1]

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.

Wrongly so.

[-DLC-]

The way the league is enforcing the rule is not whether or not the head was contacted but how and why it's contacted.

And this is why it isn't effective in protecting players. I know the game will sacrifice some physicality (no, not something I want...but, if "Player Safety" is truly trying to eliminate injury from headshots, there are no exceptions) but the concussions don't come based on how and why, they come because.

That's the point.

And it's the league's responsibility, as part of player safety, to not pick and choose if they truly want to do this. To take every head shot and suspend the players...the how and why can determine how long. But in issuing NOTHING to some, this isn't cutting it.

Give the ones that aren't "targeting" the head but still do manage to engage the head one game. It still sets a precedent and doesn't let guys off the hook - that's how the ruling should be applied. In giving nothing to some by way of explanation means they're not fully protecting against headshots. Some are still permitted and that's a problem. And give the clearcut shots that target the head significant suspensions. 20 games. Something ridiculous that will deter players from doing so.

But have the punishment clearly defined...every single contact to the head included. That's the only way to "protect against" anything. The NHL's declaration of making things clearer in 2011? Shouldn't have to. It's time to have things clearly written on the wall with a schedule that's based on severity, not "how and why".

We're not arguing that these are being fairly applied as per the rules in place. We're challenging the rules in place as inconsistent and, therefore, ineffective in the overall scope of things.

Read your own statement up there and then tell me if this truly protects all players from the risk of ongoing and prolonged injury associated with head shots. Or if it simply protects the league.

[elvis15]

And fair enough if you feel that way, Deb, but not really what we're arguing. The only way to go with that model though is take any hit that has contact to the head and make it illegal. No more extending into the hit with your legs or even bracing yourself in case it has the appearance of extending, no more hitting any player that has his head down, no more North/South hits or even generally from the front, and only a very small part of the body that can be hit in case a player adjusts their head even a little bit and you end up making contact with it in some way. And if someone targets a very small safe area for a hit they'd still have to worry that a situation could occur where the head of the player they're going after somehow snaps over and contacts them in some way.

You just can't keep the same amount of hitting in the game and still expect the players to adjust to more stringent head contact rules. The NHL would be handing out suspensions for accidental contact as well in this scenario, since otherwise they'd have to be making a judgement call again anyway.

[VanIsleNuckFan]

The only way we'll get the corruption out of the league office is if the union steps in and applies some serious pressure to get rid of Shannahan's garbage.

If you think it's Shanny pulling the strings, you've got to give your head a shake..

[-DLC-]

And fair enough if you feel that way, Deb, but not really what we're arguing. The only way to go with that model though is take any hit that has contact to the head and make it illegal. No more extending into the hit with your legs or even bracing yourself in case it has the appearance of extending, no more hitting any player that has his head down, no more North/South hits or even generally from the front, and only a very small part of the body that can be hit in case a player adjusts their head even a little bit and you end up making contact with it in some way. And if someone targets a very small safe area for a hit they'd still have to worry that a situation could occur where the head of the player they're going after somehow snaps over and contacts them in some way.

You just can't keep the same amount of hitting in the game and still expect the players to adjust to more stringent head contact rules. The NHL would be handing out suspensions for accidental contact as well in this scenario, since otherwise they'd have to be making a judgement call again anyway.

That's what I'm arguing.

And I've proposed how to address every hit to the head...anything less is ineffective in eliminating this problems.

I never asked to keep the same amount of hitting in to fairly apply this rule in an effective manner. I said it would have to be sacrificed to some degree as a zero tolerance is applied. Here's the thing...don't have rulings on the hits, have varying degrees of punishment...that's how you can address them all without having to throw the book at someone who inadvertently contacted the head through way of a body check.

[stawns]

That's what I'm arguing.

And I've proposed how to address every hit to the head...anything less is ineffective in eliminating this problems.

I never asked to keep the same amount of hitting in to fairly apply this rule in an effective manner. I said it would have to be sacrificed to some degree as a zero tolerance is applied. Here's the thing...don't have rulings on the hits, have varying degrees of punishment...that's how you can address them all without having to throw the book at someone who inadvertently contacted the head through way of a body check.

That's the thing \deb, there is no possible way to eliminate shots to the head, no matter how much punishment is doled out. It's the nature of a contact sport. Hits at that speed, with players that big and that skilled means that there will be checks that contact the head and consequently, head injuries. These players are well paid, they know the risks when they decide they want to play high level hockey.

That's not to say they shouldn't crack down on blatant shots where the head is targeted and is the sole point of impact, but there's nothing they can do to stop the incidental contact such as the \burrows or Toews hit, short of taking all contact out of the game.