Niederreiter's hit on Burrows

[elvis15]

The thing is (guess I'm not done...but had to take a breather) - Edler was on that same path the whole time...going straight at the puck.

It isn't a yield or merge situation....Hertl's angling himself and crouching/reaching for the puck. He actually runs INTO Edler. Edler's right skate is turned as he goes in toward the boards and there was absolutely no veering off path.

Hogwash. BS. A crock. That's what it is.

Yup, whatever we think on either side of the fence, it might just be time to let this one go. poetica and I certainly haven't found a way to come to agreement since October, so no reason to think why we will now. All we're doing is getting worked up.

[Chalky]

Hey Elvis, regarding Edler on Hertl vs Kronwall on Voracek, I agree the point of contact is the only explanation, but I still think it's a weak explanation. In that hit Edler was trying to hit the body and Hertl was sandwiching himself to avoid unavoidable contact. I don't trash every call, but that one was not good.

[poetica]

...

But who says they don't? And that they aren't already utilizing people who specialize in sports science?

Do you have any proof that they do? I've never heard them say that they do, and that seems like the kind of thing they want to want to tell people about, especially in light of the current litigation.

As for your other reply, as politely as I can put this...

Despite your repeated replies to say the same thing over and over and now even saying that you're "making it as simple as possible" so that even I might understand, I've always understood your point of view. You just just fail to understand how I could possibly not share it.

[Honky Cat]

Niedereiter just got rocked pretty good against LA...he left he game... A little bit of karma perhaps?

[elvis15]

Do you have any proof that they do? I've never heard them say that they do, and that seems like the kind of thing they want to want to tell people about, especially in light of the current litigation.

As for your other reply, as politely as I can put this...

Despite your repeated replies to say the same thing over and over and now even saying that you're "making it as simple as possible" so that even I might understand, I've always understood your point of view. You just just fail to understand how I could possibly not share it.

I'm open to either possibility, yet you your posts suggest they haven't involved them at any point so I wanted to bring up the possibility since I don't think I've seen proof either way.

As for the rest, I see you repeatedly ignore one of the key points I and others have been saying when you try and support your point. That doesn't give me confidence you've understood - apart from maybe your recent posts noting you don't understand/agree with the part about squarely through the body. The rule in large part hinges on that so it makes sense you don't share the conclusions I and others have made.

I respect you though, even if we don't agree. We've had some good debates in the past and agreed often as well so let's leave it at that.

[elvis15]

Hey Elvis, regarding Edler on Hertl vs Kronwall on Voracek, I agree the point of contact is the only explanation, but I still think it's a weak explanation. In that hit Edler was trying to hit the body and Hertl was sandwiching himself to avoid unavoidable contact. I don't trash every call, but that one was not good.

Then you think the rule itself is weak, because that's a significant point in determining legal hits. While it matters what the player being hit is doing, it never absolves the hitter from making a clean hit to begin with. The part about moving just prior is the one point that could let someone off the hook for a suspension.

Again, a different discussion though to not like the rule as it is. Much different than discussing if the rule is being applied properly or not.

[poetica]

I'm open to either possibility, yet you your posts suggest they haven't involved them at any point so I wanted to bring up the possibility since I don't think I've seen proof either way.

As for the rest, I see you repeatedly ignore one of the key points I and others have been saying when you try and support your point. That doesn't give me confidence you've understood - apart from maybe your recent posts noting you don't understand/agree with the part about squarely through the body. The rule in large part hinges on that so it makes sense you don't share the conclusions I and others have made.

I respect you though, even if we don't agree. We've had some good debates in the past and agreed often as well so let's leave it at that.

Well, it's certainly a possibility that the NHL has experts but have just kept it on the DL because they're a shy, humble bunch far above tooting their own horns. And has kept them out of the GM meetings, where they would surely be mentioned by the media, rather than involving them in the making of the rules for the same reason. Of course, that has the same probability of being true as the Canucks winning the Stanley Cup this season. So, you know, fingers crossed!

And yes, I do understand your point. Did before. Do now. Again, just because I don't agree with your definition of "squarely through the body" doesn't mean I don't understand your point. And frankly, coming to such a childish conclusion is beneath someone of your obvious intelligence.

Fraser also disagrees with your assessment when it comes to the hit on Burrows, saying "Niederreiter slipped his body just off the center line of Burrows and continued to elevate his shoulder that made significant contact with the head of Alex Burrows." That does not mean he doesn't understand the fundamentals of your argument either. Disagreement is not the same thing as misunderstanding.

[poetica]

Was going to just edit my previous post, but this got a little long, so I decided to add it as a separate post....

While it may be hard to prove a negative, there is proof that the NHL ignores expert advice, especially in the form of a study released last year saying that Rule 48 had done absolutely nothing to lower the rate of concussions because the rule's "wording is too subjective and gives referees leeway not to enforce it."

According to the senior author, "Part of it's the way the rule's written. Part of it's the way the rule is enforced. Part of it's the penalties associated with the rule. And part of it is that concussions are also coming from other causes like fighting, that is still allowed." Furthermore, the TSN article notes: "The analysis also showed that the type of hits outlawed by the NHL rule weren't actually the major cause of concussions."

Being that this study came out before this season even started and no major changes have been made to the head hit rule since, that's pretty definitive proof that the NHL does not consider expert opinions when making or enforcing the rules regarding head hits.

[oldnews]

Was going to just edit my previous post, but this got a little long, so I decided to add it as a separate post....

While it may be hard to prove a negative, there is proof that the NHL ignores expert advice, especially in the form of a study released last year saying that Rule 48 had done absolutely nothing to lower the rate of concussions because the rule's "wording is too subjective and gives referees leeway not to enforce it."

According to the senior author, "Part of it's the way the rule's written. Part of it's the way the rule is enforced. Part of it's the penalties associated with the rule. And part of it is that concussions are also coming from other causes like fighting, that is still allowed." Furthermore, the TSN article notes: "The analysis also showed that the type of hits outlawed by the NHL rule weren't actually the major cause of concussions."

Being that this study came out before this season even started and no major changes have been made to the head hit rule since, that's pretty definitive proof that the NHL does not consider expert opinions when making or enforcing the rules regarding head hits.

take it with a grain of tinfoil, but imo this is much more convenient - more for game-management to work with.

[RUPERTKBD]

Seeing as we've beaten this proverbial horse to death, (a few times over, IMO) I thought maybe I'd try to put it to bed by answering stawns' question from a page ago:

Joe Juneau is a scientist (a rocket scientist, actually) who played hockey. And pretty damned well too...

...and you call yourself a teacher...

[elvis15]

Was going to just edit my previous post, but this got a little long, so I decided to add it as a separate post....

While it may be hard to prove a negative, there is proof that the NHL ignores expert advice, especially in the form of a study released last year saying that Rule 48 had done absolutely nothing to lower the rate of concussions because the rule's "wording is too subjective and gives referees leeway not to enforce it."

According to the senior author, "Part of it's the way the rule's written. Part of it's the way the rule is enforced. Part of it's the penalties associated with the rule. And part of it is that concussions are also coming from other causes like fighting, that is still allowed." Furthermore, the TSN article notes: "The analysis also showed that the type of hits outlawed by the NHL rule weren't actually the major cause of concussions."

Being that this study came out before this season even started and no major changes have been made to the head hit rule since, that's pretty definitive proof that the NHL does not consider expert opinions when making or enforcing the rules regarding head hits.

From the same article, just before the part you quoted:

The researchers estimated there were about 5.23 concussions per 100 games in the NHL regular season. Despite its stiffer rule, the OHL didn't have markedly different concussion rates, clocking 5.05 per 100 games in the regular season.

The analysis also showed that the type of hits outlawed by the NHL rule weren't actually the major cause of concussions.

About 28 per cent of interactions produced a concussion also generated a penalty call, said Cusimano. In that 28 per cent, the bulk of the penalties were for fighting. "And blindsiding, which was what the rule was initially was written about, was only 4.1 per cent of all those.... But four per cent of 28 per cent is a very small number."

"I wasn't totally surprised, but I was disappointed that we weren't able to show a difference," Cusimano said.

It's interesting to note the OHL doesn't have significantly lower concussion rates because of their no contact rule, and that hits called as a penalty on the ice had very little to do with the overall number of concussions. That's more a part of the separate conversation around how the rule could be better though.

But more of the article, with the part immediately after your quote:

The way the NHL rule is worded gives referees outs to avoid levying penalties for some of the hits, for instance in cases where players are deemed to have put themselves in a vulnerable position.

"So it's like his fault, because he put himself into a vulnerable position. And this highlights one of the major problems in sport and particularly in hockey these days. We victimize the victim even more, rather than looking at the game and the system and saying: 'What can we do to reduce these injuries?"' Cusimano said.

He suggested that if the league wants to get serious about protecting players, it has to raise the cost of concussion-inducing hits, both on the player who inflicts the injury, and on the team which sent him out to do it.

Weren't you advocating that Edler's hit wasn't a suspension because Hertl put himself in a vulnerable position? They certainly want that to be a reason for suspension, presumably regardless of if a full body check is executed or not. Longer suspensions around the hits that can (or maybe just do) cause concussions regardless of a player's vulnerability.

I still don't see how that proves the NHL didn't consult with experts.

If I asked an expert how to reduce concussions he'd say outlaw any contact with the head. Clearly the NHL was trying to remove illegal contact but they also wanted to allow for incidental contact that was part of a hockey play. That doesn't mean they didn't consult with anyone to get the rule as right as they could in it's current form.

[Chalky]

Then you think the rule itself is weak, because that's a significant point in determining legal hits. While it matters what the player being hit is doing, it never absolves the hitter from making a clean hit to begin with. The part about moving just prior is the one point that could let someone off the hook for a suspension.

Again, a different discussion though to not like the rule as it is. Much different than discussing if the rule is being applied properly or not.

I'm not arguing the rule and I agree there is difference between liking the rule and believing it is being applied properly. I am arguing the rule was not applied properly in the Edler/Hertl hit. The rule can not be applied universally and the actions of the player being hit, before the hit, needs to be factored in. In this case, Hertl, a rookie to the NHL, who may not have been prepared for what was coming, tried to avoid unavoidable contact. He bent over and created the situation where Edler (who had committed to hitting and not playing the puck) could not squarely hit his body and avoid the head. In any case, Edler still connected with the body and I believe Shanny got it wrong. I'm not promoting a conspiracy, I just think it was the wrong call. I also believe that Hertl being a rookie scoring machine affected the sympathies for him. It's not conspiracy, it's human nature. I'm not telling you you are wrong, I'm saying I don't agree with Shanny's decision based on the hockey legal jargon in rule 48.

[elvis15]

But that's just it, Edler could have hit much more squarely through the body - even if it would have been worse for Hertl in the end. Hertl didn't drop low just prior to the hit, he was low for a long time, and Edler doesn't have to completely avoid the head based on the current rule, so long as he makes a legal hit otherwise.

It seems to me your expecting that either any contact with the body in the Edler hit is good enough to avoid a suspension, or that the only way Edler could have made it legal is to not hit the head at all. There's a lot of legal hits in between those two statements you're excluding.

[Baggins]

Well, it's certainly a possibility that the NHL has experts but have just kept it on the DL because they're a shy, humble bunch far above tooting their own horns. And has kept them out of the GM meetings, where they would surely be mentioned by the media, rather than involving them in the making of the rules for the same reason. Of course, that has the same probability of being true as the Canucks winning the Stanley Cup this season. So, you know, fingers crossed!

And yes, I do understand your point. Did before. Do now. Again, just because I don't agree with your definition of "squarely through the body" doesn't mean I don't understand your point. And frankly, coming to such a childish conclusion is beneath someone of your obvious intelligence.

Fraser also disagrees with your assessment when it comes to the hit on Burrows, saying "Niederreiter slipped his body just off the center line of Burrows and continued to elevate his shoulder that made significant contact with the head of Alex Burrows." That does not mean he doesn't understand the fundamentals of your argument either. Disagreement is not the same thing as misunderstanding.

Actually Fraser is giving his opinion on how he feels the rule should be applied as opposed to whether or not the league ruled correctly according to the current application. He feels hits like this should be illegal and the rule should be interpreted differently.

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.

I've said several times I didn't like the hit. But I also don't like the idea of 82 games of all star hockey because players are afraid to throw a hit because any head contact at all results in a suspension. The way the league is applying the rule as it stands has been consistent. So it's either change the rule or accept these types of hits. Even when they happen to one of our players.

Should Daniel Sedin have been suspended....

[poetica]

It's interesting to note the OHL doesn't have significantly lower concussion rates because of their no contact rule, and that hits called as a penalty on the ice had very little to do with the overall number of concussions. That's more a part of the separate conversation around how the rule could be better though.

I agree, it is interesting that the OHL's stricter head check rules have not significantly lowered head injuries. (Though we should be clear that the OHL does not have a "no contact" rule, only a zero tolerance for contact with the head. That's a big difference!) But, as the project leader for the Canadian Sports Concussion Project was quoted in the article as saying, "Professional hockey is still a bad influence on the amateurs." What the NHL allows is taken as an example of how to play hockey right. Also, the stricter rules were not accompanied by significantly stronger punishments as the researchers are calling for, so it was really only a comparison between the current NHL rules and a slight change, both in terms of comparing the NHL to the OHL and in comparing the NHL's current concussion rates to those before they updated the head contact rule. If anything, it is merely proof that simply changing the rule without ensuring enforcement and having truly deterring punishments is ineffective.

But you're right, that is more a part of the separate discussion around how the rule could be changed. Which leads very nicely to my next point....

Weren't you advocating that Edler's hit wasn't a suspension because Hertl put himself in a vulnerable position? They certainly want that to be a reason for suspension, presumably regardless of if a full body check is executed or not. Longer suspensions around the hits that can (or maybe just do) cause concussions regardless of a player's vulnerablility.

Yes, I absolutely was arguing that because that is what the current rule says. And haven't you repeatedly argued that we have to go by the current rule, not what we want it to be?

I still don't see how that proves the NHL didn't consult with experts.

If I asked an expert how to reduce concussions he'd say outlaw any contact with the head. Clearly the NHL was trying to remove illegal contact but they also wanted to allow for incidental contact that was part of a hockey play. That doesn't mean they didn't consult with anyone to get the rule as right as they could in it's current form.

Again, if they're using experts it's one of their best kept secrets. And for what purpose? Because people might think they were behaving responsibly?

The fact is this study was done after their last attempts at changing the head contact rule and these researchers are experts who gave very specific recommendations and the NHL has taken exactly NONE of them despite having sufficient time to act on them. As I said in my previous message, that is pretty clear evidence the NHL does not consider expert opinions when making or enforcing the rules regarding head hits. Otherwise, as mentioned above, plays resulting in head injuries wouldn't be a penalty only 28% of the time and almost always only when a fight was involved.

[poetica]

Actually Fraser is giving his opinion on how he feels the rule should be applied as opposed to whether or not the league ruled correctly according to the current application. He feels hits like this should be illegal and the rule should be interpreted differently.

I've said several times I didn't like the hit. But I also don't like the idea of 82 games of all star hockey because players are afraid to throw a hit because any head contact at all results in a suspension. The way the league is applying the rule as it stands has been consistent. So it's either change the rule or accept these types of hits. Even when they happen to one of our players.

Should Daniel Sedin have been suspended....

[media removed ]

Fair enough. Maybe Fraser was also arguing for a more faithful interpretation from the NHL. However, he still disagreed with the NHL's claim that "NN hits squarely thru the body," saying things like, "The contact delivered off the center body line and to the head of Burrows." Being that "hitting squarely through the body" is a determining factor in the NHL's current application of the rule, Fraser disagrees not only with their interpretation in a broader sense but also with their assessment of the facts of this hit under their current application.

And yes, as much as I am loathe to agree with Chicago fans, they have a legitimate beef on that hit. Daniel clearly raised his shoulder to target the head. It doesn't make what Keith did okay though (despite what some of their fans have said.)

[elvis15]

...

Yes, I absolutely was arguing that because that is what the current rule says. And haven't you repeatedly argued that we have to go by the current rule, not what we want it to be?

...

But again that's not the current rule. The current rule involves vulnerability with the added factor of whether or not it was a full body check.

The experts are arguing that regardless of a full body check or not, a player in hit in the head while in a vulnerable position should result in a suspension or some sort of stiffer penalty. Currently, a player making a full body check can be excused from suspension if the head of a vulnerable player is contacted.

But the NHL hasn't taken the recommendations from that study because it would mean a no head contact rule. The NHL doesn't want that, but it certainly doesn't eliminate any possibility that they've taken other recommendations from experts around a rule that allows for incidental contact. No publicity of any experts I can immediately think of doesn't preclude that either.

Fair enough. Maybe Fraser was also arguing for a more faithful interpretation from the NHL. However, he still disagreed with the NHL's claim that "NN hits squarely thru the body," saying things like, "The contact delivered off the center body line and to the head of Burrows." Being that "hitting squarely through the body" is a determining factor in the NHL's current application of the rule, Fraser disagrees not only with their interpretation in a broader sense but also with their assessment of the facts of this hit under their current application.

And yes, as much as I am loathe to agree with Chicago fans, they have a legitimate beef on that hit. Daniel clearly raised his shoulder to target the head. It doesn't make what Keith did okay though (despite what some of their fans have said.)

But then how far off the center line do you have to be to no longer be considered squarely through the body? Those aren't necessarily equal things.

And here we are, back to arguing opinions on just how consistent the NHL is and the legality of hits resulting in head injuries.

We gotta stop doing this, poetica.

[poetica]

But again that's not the current rule. The current rule involves vulnerability with the added factor of whether or not it was a full body check.

The experts are arguing that regardless of a full body check or not, a player in hit in the head while in a vulnerable position should result in a suspension or some sort of stiffer penalty. Currently, a player making a full body check can be excused from suspension if the head of a vulnerable player is contacted.

Yes. And, AGAIN, I disagree with you about whether or not Edler hit Hertl (in as much as he did) with a full body check when other hits with nearly identical amount of contact have been declared as such by the NHL.

But the NHL hasn't taken the recommendations from that study because it would mean a no head contact rule. The NHL doesn't want that, but it certainly doesn't eliminate any possibility that they've taken other recommendations from experts around a rule that allows for incidental contact. No publicity of any experts I can immediately think of doesn't preclude that either.

And I already admitted there's a slim possibility that they have experts somewhere that they actually listen to and are just keeping it secret for reasons unknown. Or, maybe they have experts they didn't tell us about because they didn't listen to those experts either and don't want that to be made public. Either way, simply ignoring anything experts say because it's not what you wanted to hear isn't "consulting."

But then how far off the center line do you have to be to no longer be considered squarely through the body? Those aren't necessarily equal things.

If I could answer that I suspect I'd be a step up on the NHL because I don't think they have a specific measurement or any way to accurately apply it, leaving that determination instead to estimations based on varied camera angles which leaves for far more wiggle room for bias and inconsistency than you seem willing to admit.

We gotta stop doing this, poetica.

Agreement at last!!

[Chalky]

But that's just it, Edler could have hit much more squarely through the body - even if it would have been worse for Hertl in the end. Hertl didn't drop low just prior to the hit, he was low for a long time, and Edler doesn't have to completely avoid the head based on the current rule, so long as he makes a legal hit otherwise.

It seems to me your expecting that either any contact with the body in the Edler hit is good enough to avoid a suspension, or that the only way Edler could have made it legal is to not hit the head at all. There's a lot of legal hits in between those two statements you're excluding.

That's accurate in that he targeted the body and hit the body as well as the head. I "think" that Edler made every reasonable attempt to keep the contact light and Hertl's positioning should have been given consideration...I don't know that it wasn't. I don't suppose we're going to mesh on this one, I agree to disagree.

[elvis15]

I can't keep debating this, even if we disagreed to agree!