View Single Post
10-03-2011, 03:06 PM
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Well, at least they released a statement.

It's clear that the head was the principal point of contact, but I don't agree that the vulnerable position was "immediately prior".

Really worrying that we're back to looking for reasons not to suspend people as a way to backslide without seeming to, especially by putting the blame right back on the victim once again. Turns out the NHL is not all that serious about head shots after all.
If he found the decision so tough, which I agree it was certainly tougher than others, you have to side with the player being hit in this instance, why does the hitter get the benefit of the doubt and the player being hit doesn't. If player safety is the number one priority these borderline calls should be ruled in favor of the player being targeted, not the other way around.

I would also like to add that this explanation is in contrast to the video explanations released in the first place. They all referenced the head being hit, but not being the principal point of contact, I don't remember seeing a video where the head being the principal point of contact was ever deemed legal.

All the sudden the video releases are a work in progress and the NHL safety committee can adjust the meaning of them as times goes on, I think he made the wrong decision here big time.

Last edited by habsjunkie2*: 10-03-2011 at 03:12 PM.
habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote