Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Report] Alex Burrows suspended 3 games


-Vintage Canuck-

What do you think of the Alex Burrows suspension?  

336 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I am guessing Ference gets 1 game.

This will underline the leagues historical dislike of the Canucks and the lack of consistency.

For the record, I believe Burrows should have been suspended, but only for 1 game. There was no injury on the play. The league has let other players away with murder.

What annoys me is the NHL's historical evidence of treating Vancouver differently due to Roger Neilson in '82 and Burrows whistle blowing. You would think the NHLs 3rd largest revenue generator could get a fair shake....oh wait unfortunately our market is saturated and does not offer the NHL any further growth opportunity - unlike NYC, SoCal, Dallas etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this a few pages back. This is unprecedented as far as I know and it goes against the CBA. Dumb move on the DOPS to admit that they were considering the player's history, when according to the rules it should be irrelevant. I take that as an admission on their part that part of the suspension was the name on the jersey.

People keep confusing repeat offender status, which weighs much more heavily in a suspension hearing, and history in general, which has been considered in a lot of other cases not just this one. Take off the homer glasses people, there's nothing that nefarious here even if we can argue the length of the suspension.

...

Fines are a part of a players discipline history. Fines are mentioned in each of these videos, just as it was in Burrows discipline video.

^ This.

Yeah thats pretty weak crap to be pulling up to form a suspention. Going to have to watch other players suspentions to see if their whole Nhl history is brought up.

Baggins put it together pretty well already for you. No need to wait for a new suspension. But the 4 fines aren't the reason he got suspended, he got suspended because it was a late hit with contact to the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And on that bolded part we will continue to disagree. Strenuously.

...

Yup, and I noted as much myself as well. We can agree to let that discussion lie rather than try to rehash it again.

...

As for this suspension, at least we can agree to some degree. I don't believe Emelin was stopping in order to pass the puck but only began stopping once the puck was off his stick, perhaps as others have suggested in order to avoid the hit. As a result, I believe his actions directly resulted in the head contact. However, Burrows had time to avoid hitting what he should have had time to realize was an ineligible player. And, while I don't believe Burrows "launched himself upward" I do remain uncomfortable with players pushing up in a hit as it will inevitably target the head. (Unfortunately, the NHL doesn't agree as we've seen that very action be deemed legal more times than I count. I disagreed with them then and it would be hypocritical of me to change my stance now.) As such, the greater onus was on Burrows and therefore he has to take responsibility for the outcome of the hit, even if the head contact was an unknown consequence. For me, that's very different than the Edler suspension for the hit on Hertl.

...

That's a start down a slippery slope that ends in the same type of argument used in rape culture, that a woman asked for it. That's an extreme statement, sure, but if Emelin moved his head into the path of the hit rather than away from it, I'd agree with you. In this case though, raising his head and moving it and his upper body backward after being in a dangerous position is the opposite of that. It's very different in that regard from the Edler/Hertl hit, even if Hertl was in that position before the hit (but let's not go down that path again!).

I didn't like the 'launched upward' comment that much either, it seemed incidental to the illegal parts of the hit. If he was leaving his feet prior to the hit or he started high and raised his shoulder or elbow to get higher still, then absolutely. There will always be incidental contact until that's removed completely though, as you say.

...

As you remember all too well I'm sure, on that one we continue to disagree as I believe Edler did everything he was responsible for by keeping his body position low, staying out in front of Hertl so he could easily see contact was imminent, and keeping his arms down. Hertl, on the other hand, deliberately and knowingly left his head in a vulnerable position and that, according to the NHL rules, is supposed to negate any suspension for head contact. In short, Burrows did something that, though not suspension worthy on its own, would have been illegal even without the head contact while Edler did not. For me, that's the difference. If a player does something illegal, they have to take responsibility for the outcome, even if it's not entirely their fault. But, I don't believe players should be suspended for delivering a legal hit that results in head contact only because the other player made a willful and informed choice to leave their head in a vulnerable position. (I'm not trying to reopen our debate into the Edler suspension, as I remember all too well your stance. I'm simply trying to explain the difference in my thinking on these 2 suspensions.)

Fair enough, and my stance hasn't changed there either.

Well if you can explain to us how a player can skate with any amount of speed without leaning forward exposing the head I'm willing to listen. The league has been consistent on these calls. If you come from the side you have to hit into in the shoulder. If you come from an angle in front or directly from the front contact with the head is incidental to hitting into the body. Elder came from the side missing the shoulder and hitting the head. That's an illegal hit and a suspension. The hit on Burrows the player came in on an angle making contact to his head incidental to hitting into his body. The explanation in the suspension videos are pretty clear. The onus is on the hitter to make sure his hit is legal. Shanny even explained in the Edler video what he needed to do to make the hit a legal one. Which was consistent with his explanation in other head shot suspensions. You're simply applying your own standard (the target is responsible) as opposed to what the league is applying (the hitter is responsible).

I'd even say one should hit through the torso in that case, not just the shoulder. If one aims at just the shoulder of a person bent over in a race for the puck, passing or whatever, then there's always the risk of them standing up and missing the body. This hit by Burrows is a pretty good example of that.

The key is if you target the largest, most central mass of the body you can (hence the 'squarely through the body' rule on illegal checks to the head) then you'll reduce any risk of having to adjust to avoid making an illegal hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...And I don't see it as being a suspension(Gryba hit more vicious, no suspension).

That's your opinion, but it doesn't mesh at all with the rulebook around headshots or late hits. And no where is there a criteria that a hit should be suspendable just because it's vicious or more violent than another.

That is EXACTLY the point. When it happens to Canucks suspensions NEVER happen. In fact hits such as this occur all the time - without suspensions. Why is it we are always having to call out the league for bias? Because it is always Canucks who are being slapped with ridiculous suspensions while others get away with everything and anything??

And this "homerism" idiocy is baffling. It it really so difficult for you to see the blatant bias coming from the league here? Why is it always open season on the Sedins, and why is it every time a Canuck dishes out a hit he is it risk for suspension?

This is the point where you should step in with examples of late hits where the body wasn't squarely contacted and resulted in headshots on Canucks players that didn't result in suspensions from the NHL. The general refrain of "the league hates us!" is all well and good to say, but without providing anything to substantiate it then it becomes homerism, or at least a very limited perspective on what actually happens in the same situations with other teams.

I don't have access to movie editing programs, nor the money to invest in them. (Unlike with Mythbusters, I wouldn't get paid big bucks to reverse engineer information that the NHL already has readily available that they could so easily share but for some reason don't.) And, even if I did try to determine that information myself, I don't have access to all of the unedited angles that the NHL does and that means more often than not I wouldn't be able to make an accurate determination of the exact fraction of a second the puck leaves a player's stick and the exact fraction of a second contact is made. As such, how would I know that what I determined, based on the available video(s) I had, is consistent with what the NHL decided were the timer beginning and end markers? Even tiny inconsistencies between my and the NHL's decisions on when a puck left the stick and when initial contact was made could easily result in skewed data, making it impossible to know if the NHL was being consistent by their standards and that is what's at question.

Not every Dick and Jane needs to validate the findings like we're a group of rebel-led Government watchdogs. There are plenty of people that check those things (bloggers, journalists, fans with editing experience) so if the eye test seems to align then I'm pretty happy to accept it.

If they were being sticklers about a tenth of a second or less above the threshold, then I'm sure we'd see lots of analysis, this one wasn't really near the threshold though.

Clarification's a good thing though, and there are people out there willing to do a deep dive into the NHL's ruling on hits like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..

Here's the quote on the Gudus hit:

“When determining whether contact with an opponent’s head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit shall be considered.” Here, Upshall assumed a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full-body check unavoidable. Also, contact was in immediate aftermath of Gudas playing puck.”

The league didn't say he deserved a penalty, that was Kerry Fraser's opinion on that play. And as I've said repeatedly, when hitting from the front head contact becomes incidental to hitting into the body. Neither Burrows nor Edlers hits were from the front into the targets body. Both were from the side making the head the primary point of contact. I'll say it again, the league has been quite consistent on these types of hits.

Come from the side missing the shoulder and hit the head is a suspension. From the side you must target the shoulder. Come from the front, whether directly or from an angle, and head contact isn't illegal as you're throwing a full body check where head contact is unavoidable. That's the consistency. It's not whether or not head contact was made, it's whether or not a body check can be made without contact to the head. From a side approach it can be avoided by targeting the shoulder despite the player leaning forward.

I side with poetica on the Gudas hit, which I hadn't seen until now. Upshall is in about the same position leading up to the hit as when it happens and doesn't move that much to lower his head into the contact. That's fine, as it lines up with section (ii) about a player putting himself in a vulnerable position like the NHL quoted.

But then it falls on Gudas to make a legal hit. Gudas pushes out his shoulder and arm before making contact (it's fine if he does it after) and his angle carries him past the center of Upshall, so he doesn't really hit squarely through the body either. The only thing that saves him is he did play the puck, but even then.

I would have suspended that play, but this is a new DoPS so this might be their way of interpreting the rules.

But, we're back on the Edler hit I see. :sadno: I'll stay out of that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a start down a slippery slope that ends in the same type of argument used in rape culture, that a woman asked for it. That's an extreme statement, sure, but if Emelin moved his head into the path of the hit rather than away from it, I'd agree with you. In this case though, raising his head and moving it and his upper body backward after being in a dangerous position is the opposite of that. It's very different in that regard from the Edler/Hertl hit, even if Hertl was in that position before the hit (but let's not go down that path again!).

Absolutely not. In fact, I find that an an incredibly inappropriate and inaccurate parallel to make!

You seem to be confusing my discussion of the physics of the hit with assigning blame, despite the fact that I very clearly said I agree Burrows deserved a suspension for the hit and why. The NHL's rulebook has long held that a player leaving himself in a vulnerable position or changing his body position are relevant factors to be considered. As such, a far more appropriate parallel to make would have been traffic accidents, where the actions of both drivers are considered in determining who is ultimately more at fault in a situation ruled by physics. It really shouldn't need to be said that a crime in which one person acts against another without their consent isn't even close the same thing!

We may disagree on disciplinary matters more times than not but I don't believe you to be a bad or heartless person. As such, I am going to assume that making such a statement was just a simple foot in mouth mistake we're all prone to from time to time.

Not every Dick and Jane needs to validate the findings like we're a group of rebel-led Government watchdogs. There are plenty of people that check those things (bloggers, journalists, fans with editing experience) so if the eye test seems to align then I'm pretty happy to accept it.

If they were being sticklers about a tenth of a second or less above the threshold, then I'm sure we'd see lots of analysis, this one wasn't really near the threshold though.

Clarification's a good thing though, and there are people out there willing to do a deep dive into the NHL's ruling on hits like this.

It would be nice to know that reporters are actually doing something like that. Sadly, I don't have much more faith in reporters than I do in the NHL. More often than not they do next to no actual investigation and instead prefer to simply repeat what they're told, with the occasional opinion pulled out of their rear end for good measure. Even still, if someone is checking the timing of hits I'd LOVE to know about it. (Come on some video nerd! Start an NHL hit timing blog and I'll be a regular. ... Yep, I'm a nerd lover. LOL)

Still, it's ultimately up to the NHL to reach out to fans and this is one way they could do so easily. Timing is pretty much the closest thing they have to a purely objective measurement when it comes to discipline and it would be a very easy way to for them to demonstrate consistency and foster a greater level of trust among fans. But unfortunately, rather than taking that simple opportunity, they instead choose to obscure what their standards even are. We've heard that "late" is anything past 0.6 second but since it's not listed in the rulebook there's no real way to be sure if that is the current standard or if it changes at any time. Likewise, the rulebook doesn't detail how lateness can or should be used in terms of discipline. How much should lateness increase the length of a suspension? At what point does a hit warrant a suspension for lateness alone? At what point does "late" become "very late" and warrant a lengthier suspension?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't bother me one bit. I hope this new regime really considers player safety rather than the team the guy plays for. As I see it, this is basically the Steve Moore elbow (on Naslund) called correctly. Imagine if Burrows received nothing, and some hammerhead sought out vigilante justice.

The league has stepped in, and made the right call... even though it sucks for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, the unnecessary snarkiness in strong in this one! :rolleyes:

No, I'd like them to establish a standard that acknowledges all aspects of their own rules and abide by it consistently. I don't believe they have. Disagree with my opinion? Well, get used to life's little disappointments.

Edler didn't hit the shoulder because he never targeted the shoulder. The NHL said he should have, but he didn't. He approached from the front, which they said he shouldn't have done. And if he's leaning forward it's slightly in his effort to match Hertl's lowered body position. He is NOT, however, knowingly leaving his head in a vulnerable position. See the difference?

One of us is certainly confused about the hit. It's just not me.

How exactly is this Edler coming at him from the side?

edlerhertl_armanni.gif

Answer: It's not. Here's a screen capture from the suspension video showing the angled approach rather than hitting him in the front of his body that the NHL said Edler should have taken:

edlerhertl3_zps32d584f8.jpg

Remember when you said, "If you want all head shots taken out the only hitting allowed would be directly from the side shoulder to shoulder and hip checks from the front. You'd be reducing the hitting in the game and going Euro hockey." Did you really mean to address that to the NHL? Because apparently they believed the only legal way for Edler to hit Hertl there was to approach from the side and hit him shoulder to shoulder.

Why would I have to? The rule book says players shouldn't be suspended if a player being hit left themselves in a vulnerable position. It does not say, "unless he was skating really fast."

Yep, like I said before about the head hit rule... Now, do you have a dispute for the fact that Hertl left himself in a nearly identical posture?

On the second part, you're correct. I miswrote. I should have said that the NHL said the hit "meritted warning." If he didn't do anything wrong, why did he deserve a warning?

Always amusing to see people defending the NHL's consistency proving to be such a wonderful example of it themselves. LOL

Watch the Edler video again. Edler does not hit "into the body" he cuts across front front. Edler skates straight across parallel to the red line as Hertl skates up ice on an angle towards the boards. How is that not coming from the side? This is consistent with the leagues head shot rules.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51p2eiTMuf4

As to a player being in a vulnerable position negating a suspension, it only applies to a player changing position thus putting himself in a bad position without the hitter having time to avoid the hit. It doesn't apply to a player who was already in a vulnerable position when the hitter targets him. Here's an example...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22EP61dkwVU

Hamhuis turns his back just prior to the hit putting himself in a vulnerable position. The difference is being in a vulnerable position already and putting yourself in a vulnerable position just prior to contact. The former doesn't negate the hitters responsibility while the latter does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch the Edler video again. Edler does not hit "into the body" he cuts across front front. Edler skates straight across parallel to the red line as Hertl skates up ice on an angle towards the boards. How is that not coming from the side? This is consistent with the leagues head shot rules.

Perhaps we disagree on the meaning of "coming from the side." Here's how I see it:

Edler gets to the position on the ice where the collision will take place before Hertl. He has every legal right to that position on the ice and did not violate a rule by simply continuing to skate in the lane he had been occupying for a while even if it crossed Hertl's lane. Likewise, Hertl had the right to his lane and to continue his trajectory even if it crossed Edler's lane. When they both reached the same spot, Hertl's forward momentum carried him into Edler, who was already legally occupying that space.

cropped_EdlerHertl.gif

As you can clearly see in this video of the hit, Hertl is leaning forward in a vulnerable position NOT because he is skating fast but because he is lunging forward for the puck, which he does manage to contact with his stick immediately prior to a hit. Reaching out for a puck is not a valid reason for leaving yourself in a vulnerable position when you know contact with another player is imminent. And Hertl's decision to do so is not a valid reason to suspend Edler.

According to the NHL, the only reason this hit was suspendable comes down to one factor: Edler pulled his stick back shortly before the hit rather than reaching for the puck. Had he gone for the puck, apparently they would have considered this merely a collision. But, based on that single factor, the NHL deemed it a hit for which Edler took full and complete responsibility. Okay, fair enough. I agree that at some point Edler decided to go for the contact rather than the puck. (We just don't know exactly when that decision was made...) However, Edler did everything he was supposed to do to make an attempt at a legal body check: He kept his body position low, his arms down, and he did not lean towards Hertl in a way that would target the head. Hertl, on the other hand, knowingly left himself in a vulnerable position because he wanted to gain possession of the puck before Edler could separate him from it. He literally ran straight into Edler head first. And for that Edler was suspended, despite the fact that the head hit rule said a player leaving himself in a vulnerable position was a factor the NHL must consider when determining if head contact was avoidable. And that is why his suspension remains a big steaming pile of fly covered, still warm BS.

As to a player being in a vulnerable position negating a suspension, it only applies to a player changing position thus putting himself in a bad position without the hitter having time to avoid the hit. It doesn't apply to a player who was already in a vulnerable position when the hitter targets him. Here's an example...

Thank you for posting an example to illustrate your point as it helped me to better understand why we are disagreeing on the head hit rule. You are correct in your assessment of the example you provided based on the head hit rule as it existed at that time. However, you seem to have failed to realize that the head hit rule has been altered significantly since then in an effort to better address the issue of head injuries as well as to assign greater responsibilities for the person being hit that did not exist before.

Due to the size of my images I won't post them all directly, but below are links to screen captures of the head hit rule from the official rule book for the past 4 years plus the current season. I also included a link to the official rule book PDF for each year if you want to look at it yourself.

10/11 rule book [PDF]: screen capture of head hit rule

11/12 rule book [PDF]: screen capture of head hit rule *major change to rule from previous year*

12/13 rule book [PDF]: screen capture of head hit rule *major change to rule from previous year*

13/14 rule book [PDF]: screen capture of head hit rule

And here is the head hit rule from the 14/15 rule book [PDF]:

headhitrule1.jpg

headhitrule2.jpg

Notice that any restriction on time is limited to item (iii) and therefore the time restriction listed in (iii) does not apply to the "vulnerable position" consideration, which is item (ii). Additionally, if the time restriction did apply there would not be a need for 2 separate items at all as item (iii) would cover all circumstances. There only are 2 separate items because they are not the same thing. One deals with material changes in a limited time frame and the other deals with the greater concept of "vulnerable position" as an entirely separate consideration.

I hope that clears up the confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will never eliminate the problem your way imo...they're trying to do it, and failing miserably. So they need to enforce it every single time with consistency. A game for first time offenders. Second offense - 3 games. Third - 6. Fourth: 12+

As it is now, it's an absolutely random deal, ranging from a blind eye to the book being thrown at some. They look more at who it is than the other details as far as I'm concerned. That has no place in it, unless it is a repeat offender.

The kicker in the CFL is different....these guys on ice are trying to hit one another, it isn't a one off deal whereby someone clips the kicker. They're allowed to hit one another.

It's ok...I can take the teasing. I just have my game face on atm. :)

They're not actually trying to eliminate contact to the head completely, just reduce it as much as possible without taking hitting out of the game. They're trying to eliminate targeting the head when there's another option in delivering a hit. If you approach from the side you have to target the shoulder not the head. If from the front or an angle from the front hitting into the body makes head contact virtually unavoidable and thus legal. These suspension videos have been quite consistent in this application.

Head shot isn't as cut and dry as Quoted's roughing the kicker rule. Roughing the kicker lacks all the variables that apply to the NHL's head shot rule. We could go to the Euro standard of no contact to head but that would greatly reduce the hitting in the game. Everybody leans forward when skating and that means you wouldn't be able to hit a player from the front at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 games is BS. It wasn't a hard hit, it was a simply finished check, hockey 101. A little high? maybe, but he didnt drive upward and in slow motion every hit looks late. going 100 kilometers a minute during game play it isn't late at all. furthermore burrows hasnt been suspended. he's been fined but not in the last 180 days or w/e the CBA outlines for repeat offenders. More prime examples of the leauge hating on the nucks. Man do we ever get crapped on. I'm sure the suspension Ference wont get for the Kassian hit is only going to add proof to our claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we disagree on the meaning of "coming from the side." Here's how I see it:

Edler gets to the position on the ice where the collision will take place before Hertl. He has every legal right to that position on the ice and did not violate a rule by simply continuing to skate in the lane he had been occupying for a while even if it crossed Hertl's lane. Likewise, Hertl had the right to his lane and to continue his trajectory even if it crossed Edler's lane. When they both reached the same spot, Hertl's forward momentum carried him into Edler, who was already legally occupying that space.

cropped_EdlerHertl.gif

As you can clearly see in this video of the hit, Hertl is leaning forward in a vulnerable position NOT because he is skating fast but because he is lunging forward for the puck, which he does manage to contact with his stick immediately prior to a hit. Reaching out for a puck is not a valid reason for leaving yourself in a vulnerable position when you know contact with another player is imminent. And Hertl's decision to do so is not a valid reason to suspend Edler.

According to the NHL, the only reason this hit was suspendable comes down to one factor: Edler pulled his stick back shortly before the hit rather than reaching for the puck. Had he gone for the puck, apparently they would have considered this merely a collision. But, based on that single factor, the NHL deemed it a hit for which Edler took full and complete responsibility. Okay, fair enough. I agree that at some point Edler decided to go for the contact rather than the puck. (We just don't know exactly when that decision was made...) However, Edler did everything he was supposed to do to make an attempt at a legal body check: He kept his body position low, his arms down, and he did not lean towards Hertl in a way that would target the head. Hertl, on the other hand, knowingly left himself in a vulnerable position because he wanted to gain possession of the puck before Edler could separate him from it. He literally ran straight into Edler head first. And for that Edler was suspended, despite the fact that the head hit rule said a player leaving himself in a vulnerable position was a factor the NHL must consider when determining if head contact was avoidable. And that is why his suspension remains a big steaming pile of fly covered, still warm BS.

Thank you for posting an example to illustrate your point as it helped me to better understand why we are disagreeing on the head hit rule. You are correct in your assessment of the example you provided based on the head hit rule as it existed at that time. However, you seem to have failed to realize that the head hit rule has been altered significantly since then in an effort to better address the issue of head injuries as well as to assign greater responsibilities for the person being hit that did not exist before.

Due to the size of my images I won't post them all directly, but below are links to screen captures of the head hit rule from the official rule book for the past 4 years plus the current season. I also included a link to the official rule book PDF for each year if you want to look at it yourself.

10/11 rule book [PDF]: screen capture of head hit rule

11/12 rule book [PDF]: screen capture of head hit rule *major change to rule from previous year*

12/13 rule book [PDF]: screen capture of head hit rule *major change to rule from previous year*

13/14 rule book [PDF]: screen capture of head hit rule

And here is the head hit rule from the 14/15 rule book [PDF]:

headhitrule1.jpg

headhitrule2.jpg

Notice that any restriction on time is limited to item (iii) and therefore the time restriction listed in (iii) does not apply to the "vulnerable position" consideration, which is item (ii). Additionally, if the time restriction did apply there would not be a need for 2 separate items at all as item (iii) would cover all circumstances. There only are 2 separate items because they are not the same thing. One deals with material changes in a limited time frame and the other deals with the greater concept of "vulnerable position" as an entirely separate consideration.

I hope that clears up the confusion.

We'll simply have to disagree on the Elder hit. He did not hit into the body as the rule states and continues his path towards the boards. A pretty good indicator he wasn't hitting into the body. This is consistent with cutting across the front of a player picking the head. In the majority of these plays there is contact to the body because of the targets own forward momentum but it's secondary to hitting the head. The league got that call right imo. It was Hertl's fault for leaning forward the entire time in yours. I somehow doubt you'd feel the same way if that same hit was on a Canuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll simply have to disagree on the Elder hit. He did not hit into the body as the rule states and continues his path towards the boards. A pretty good indicator he wasn't hitting into the body. This is consistent with cutting across the front of a player picking the head. In the majority of these plays there is contact to the body because of the targets own forward momentum but it's secondary to hitting the head. The league got that call right imo. It was Hertl's fault for leaning forward the entire time in yours. I somehow doubt you'd feel the same way if that same hit was on a Canuck.

Don't make assumptions about what I would feel based on nothing more than your own disagreement with my opinion. If I were simply going with whatever worked in favor of any particular Canuck I wouldn't have agreed with Burrows' suspension...

And it's not my opinion that Hertl had a responsibility to not leave his head in a vulnerable position. It's what the NHL's own rule book said they must consider as a major contributing factor for head contact. They didn't even make an attempt to discount it in their suspension video. They simply ignored it and they had no right to do so given that Edler was very clearly NOT targeting the head and that head contact could have easily been avoided as the principal point of contact had Hertl simply not been leaning so far forward.

edlerhertlpointofcontact_line.jpg

Plus, I disagree with the assumption that Hertl's fraction of a second contact with the puck absolves him from the hit just in general. They were both pursuing the puck, he knew contact was coming and he knowingly ran into Elder at a spot Edler already legally occupied. Why would Edler be more to blame simply because he wasn't the dumbie who lead into a hit with his head? Elder did his part to make the contact legal. Hertl did not, therefore Edler should not have been suspended.

So, yes, we'll just have to continue to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely not. In fact, I find that an an incredibly inappropriate and inaccurate parallel to make!

You seem to be confusing my discussion of the physics of the hit with assigning blame, despite the fact that I very clearly said I agree Burrows deserved a suspension for the hit and why. The NHL's rulebook has long held that a player leaving himself in a vulnerable position or changing his body position are relevant factors to be considered. As such, a far more appropriate parallel to make would have been traffic accidents, where the actions of both drivers are considered in determining who is ultimately more at fault in a situation ruled by physics. It really shouldn't need to be said that a crime in which one person acts against another without their consent isn't even close the same thing!

We may disagree on disciplinary matters more times than not but I don't believe you to be a bad or heartless person. As such, I am going to assume that making such a statement was just a simple foot in mouth mistake we're all prone to from time to time.

...

I certainly didn't say they were one for one only that the logic behind the arguments are similar (if at the other end of the spectrum from each other, hence this being the top of the slope, and this being the bottom) where you're saying the actions of one person resulted in a bad outcome. If only Emelin hadn't stood up (and out of a vulnerable position) he wouldn't have been hit in the head. But that's forgetting that it's the actions of Burrows continuing the hit well after the puck was gone and not hitting squarely through the body that caused this to be late and illegal contact to the head.

I'm not confusing anything here I don't think, and the vulnerable position argument has nothing to do with excluding a player from having to follow the other criteria for a legal hit as I mentioned. What that covers is if a player is bent in such a way that an otherwise legal hit (squarely through the body, not late, not charging, etc.) will have unavoidable head contact, then that contact is incidental.

In the case of the Burrows hit, that's why any movement Emelin makes - even if it means Burrows misses where he intended to hit and contacts the head instead - is irrelevant so long as it doesn't fall under the 3rd section of the rule. Emelin was bent over in a vulnerable position and attempts to correct that, and his movement is to straighten up, not put his head further in harms way.

That leaves Burrows needing to make sure he hits Emelin legally. He doesn't, with the hit being both late and not squarely through the body. It doesn't matter if Burrows would have hit through the shoulder (which Edler should have done, if Hertl had stood up as Emelin did Edler would have missed him completely and had Hertl in on his own) had Emelin stayed bent over, it matters if Burrows did hit him squarely, especially after he saw Emelin pass the puck and straighten up.

...

It would be nice to know that reporters are actually doing something like that. Sadly, I don't have much more faith in reporters than I do in the NHL. More often than not they do next to no actual investigation and instead prefer to simply repeat what they're told, with the occasional opinion pulled out of their rear end for good measure. Even still, if someone is checking the timing of hits I'd LOVE to know about it. (Come on some video nerd! Start an NHL hit timing blog and I'll be a regular. ... Yep, I'm a nerd lover. LOL)

Still, it's ultimately up to the NHL to reach out to fans and this is one way they could do so easily. Timing is pretty much the closest thing they have to a purely objective measurement when it comes to discipline and it would be a very easy way to for them to demonstrate consistency and foster a greater level of trust among fans. But unfortunately, rather than taking that simple opportunity, they instead choose to obscure what their standards even are. We've heard that "late" is anything past 0.6 second but since it's not listed in the rulebook there's no real way to be sure if that is the current standard or if it changes at any time. Likewise, the rulebook doesn't detail how lateness can or should be used in terms of discipline. How much should lateness increase the length of a suspension? At what point does a hit warrant a suspension for lateness alone? At what point does "late" become "very late" and warrant a lengthier suspension?

You gotta trust someone sometime. There may come a situation where it's close enough to have that question, but it's not this one.

I can see the appeal for defining the criteria around it, and you can see that's exactly what they've done over the last few years with headshots, so I agree they have room to improve there with many rules. They are trying to help define that with the suspensions and videos that are being handed out, so that's a start.

We'll simply have to disagree on the Elder hit. He did not hit into the body as the rule states and continues his path towards the boards. A pretty good indicator he wasn't hitting into the body. This is consistent with cutting across the front of a player picking the head. In the majority of these plays there is contact to the body because of the targets own forward momentum but it's secondary to hitting the head. The league got that call right imo. It was Hertl's fault for leaning forward the entire time in yours. I somehow doubt you'd feel the same way if that same hit was on a Canuck.

Basically this. It's been rehashed to death by this point. I would be possible for Edler to legally follow through on the angle he did if Hertl beat him to that spot so that Edler was hitting the left side of Hertl's torso/shoulder, but otherwise he has to take a better angle where he's making contact squarely through the center of the body, regardless of what position Hertl takes. Only Hertl putting his head in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or at the same time as the hit would absolve Edler of his own failings in that case (which of course we agree on).

I'll stop myself there before I get pulled into another Edler discussion. I think we've pretty well covered this Burrows one too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't make assumptions about what I would feel based on nothing more than your own disagreement with my opinion. If I were simply going with whatever worked in favor of any particular Canuck I wouldn't have agreed with Burrows' suspension...

And it's not my opinion that Hertl had a responsibility to not leave his head in a vulnerable position. It's what the NHL's own rule book said they must consider as a major contributing factor for head contact. They didn't even make an attempt to discount it in their suspension video. They simply ignored it and they had no right to do so given that Edler was very clearly NOT targeting the head and that head contact could have easily been avoided as the principal point of contact had Hertl simply not been leaning so far forward.

edlerhertlpointofcontact_line.jpg

Plus, I disagree with the assumption that Hertl's fraction of a second contact with the puck absolves him from the hit just in general. They were both pursuing the puck, he knew contact was coming and he knowingly ran into Elder at a spot Edler already legally occupied. Why would Edler be more to blame simply because he wasn't the dumbie who lead into a hit with his head? Elder did his part to make the contact legal. Hertl did not, therefore Edler should not have been suspended.

So, yes, we'll just have to continue to disagree.

Actually Shanny addressed everything quite well. Hertl's position did not change by any great degree just prior to being hit. The hit was not a full body check into the body. Edler cut across the front of Hertl making the head the primary point of contact. Shanny then explains what Edler needed to do to make it a legal hit. Angle towards the front of Hertl hitting into the body or hit him into the body from the side.

Rule I - Poor angle of approach. Yes. Edler cut across the front of Hertl. Explained in the video.

Rule II - Yes Herdl was in a vulnerable position, but Edler could have avoided the head by hitting into the body from the side. Explained in the video.

Rule III - Hertl didn't significantly changed position to cause contact to his head. Explained in the video.

Being in a vulnerable position doesn't give the hitter a free shot to the players head. You seem to be ignoring this part of rule II - assuming a position that made head contact unavoidable on an otherwise full body check. So I'm not sure what you believe wasn't addressed. Shanny covered all three parts of the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...