View Single Post
05-15-2013, 10:27 PM
Registered User
sub_zero94's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 479
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
I made my point. I can't think of any change of the wording that will make it more clear. He can go lower and avert his head so that is not a legit objection. I don't buy the excuses of "hockey" minds that have objected in the past. They let Torres pass on a clear hit to Seabrook's head when he was behind he net due to Seabrook's location on the ice. I consider that BS. They talk about the responsibility of the hittee. Again BS in my book. If you talk about auto collisions, none of these excuses would pass muster. It is a game; it is not life and death. The players are entitled to a healthy retirement and not have their health compromised by people who override the well researched evidence coming from the medical professions regarding impacts to the head.

I personally think that with hits that are on or near the head that the suspension should go along with the injuries. Just like civil law in driving. It would probably be a better motivator to issue suspensions based on injury caused and add one or two games to the amount that the other player is out for. Escalate the additional games for repeat offenders. It would be the best deterrent. I doubt any more stomping incidents would occur because you would see suspensions of a half season and more just for those.
do we really want players to start targeting opponents low?
imo, its another situation where a player's height is his worst enemy .. Thornton/Perron

sub_zero94 is offline