I would try to explain physics, momentum and kinetic energy here but I think it would be futile.
I am not saying the chest AND head weren't hit but it's pretty darn obvious the head took most of the hit and was the inital point of contact. I am not arguing intent here (which some people don't seem to get through their heads) I am simply saying the head was hit first and took most of the check's energy.
He didn't get the concussion from hitting the ice.
Olver lined him up went to hit the guy and he turned into his shoulder. This is on Tarasenko, sucks that it was a young potential star but deal with it and stop complaining.
Olver lined him up went to hit the guy and he turned into his shoulder. This is on Tarasenko, sucks that it was a young potential star but deal with it and stop complaining.
Okay for the 4th time...
I am NOT arguing whether or not the hit was dirty or clean. I have said this in just about every post I have made in this thread! The only point I have been trying to point out is that his head was in fact hit first and took most of the energy of the check.
If it makes you feel better I will say that Olver had no intent at all to injure and that the check was a bajillion percent clean and that it was completely Tarasenko's fault.
It doesn't change the fact that his head was hit first.
I would try to explain physics, momentum and kinetic energy here but I think it would be futile.
I am not saying the chest AND head weren't hit but it's pretty darn obvious the head took most of the hit and was the inital point of contact. I am not arguing intent here (which some people don't seem to get through their heads) I am simply saying the head was hit first and took most of the check's energy.
He didn't get the concussion from hitting the ice.
OK but what does it matter? The head can absorb 90% of the impact and it still be a legal hit. Two criteria are to be met: 1) the head is targeted, and 2) the head is the principle point of contact. When the head was hit and how much energy it took, which I should add has not be measure by anyone, are both immaterial.
__________________
You can take my wings, but I'm still gonna fly
OK but what does it matter? The head can absorb 90% of the impact and it still be a legal hit. Two criteria are to be met: 1) the head is targeted, and 2) the head is the principle point of contact. When the head was hit and how much energy it took, which I should add has not be measure by anyone, are both immaterial.
And now the fifth time. I am not arguing the legallity or cleanliness / dirtiness of the hit. AT ALL.
OK so the hit was mostly to the head, and the head was the first thing hit. Those two things have NOTHING to do with the legality of the hit.
You are now saying nothing.
All I was doing was pointing out to the people who were screaming and yelling that the hit was to the chest that they were wrong. I never once tried to argue how clean / dirty / legal the hit is. It apparently was just assumed by everybody who replied to me that if I think the hit was initally to the head it must have been completely intentional, dirty and illegal.
Identical rules. Two criteria must be met. The hit must result in the head being the principle point of contact (no), and the head must be targeted (no).
Whether or not the hit should have been delivered (and I argue it should not since it would have been from behind without Taransenko turning), it was not in violation of 48.
All I was doing was pointing out to the people who were screaming and yelling that the hit was to the chest that they were wrong. I never once tried to argue how clean / dirty / legal the hit is. It apparently was just assumed by everybody who replied to me that if I think the hit was initally to the head it must have been completely intentional, dirty and illegal.
That's just not the case.
OK fair, but the hit was initially to the chest. It resulted in a hit to the head.
The NHL has redefined targeted to mean intentional, or less than intentional.
The head was the point of contact.
It meets all the criteria I know of to be a suspension.
I believe there is another criteria that you missed.
If the player getting hit places himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to the hit, this will be taken into account.
VT basically turned his head right into a moving shoulder, that looked as though it would've hit his shoulder had he not done so.
I feel for the players because the NHL is so inconsistent with their calls of legal and illegal hits it's not even funny.
The NHL says it wants to get rid of head hits, but then the president of player safety says the principal point of contact was the head and no suspension. I realize the head has to be targeted but that is a joke of a rule as well, nobody really knows if he targets the head or not besides the player.
If the NHL was serious about getting rid of head hits, they would have suspended Olver, but like the NFL it's just a PR campaign to try and get the fans thinking they actually care about the players.
The NHL has redefined targeted to mean intentional, or less than intentional.
The head was the point of contact.
It meets all the criteria I know of to be a suspension.
And it was Tarasenko that turned in such a way, that a quarter of a second later, his head took a hit. If he hadn't turned, it would have been a shoulder to shoulder hit.
Which is why it's not a suspension in anyone's minds except for blues fans.
I realize the head has to be targeted but that is a joke of a rule as well, nobody really knows if he targets the head or not besides the player.
I guess you didn't watch the video I posted:
"Targeted" is determined by the following factors:
- Did the player put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to the hit?
- Did the offending player flare their elbow or jump into the hit?
- Was the contact full body (Stuart, Olver) or was the head "picked" (Potter, Cole, Thornton).
I feel for the players because the NHL is so inconsistent with their calls of legal and illegal hits it's not even funny.
The NHL says it wants to get rid of head hits, but then the president of player safety says the principal point of contact was the head and no suspension. I realize the head has to be targeted but that is a joke of a rule as well, nobody really knows if he targets the head or not besides the player.
If the NHL was serious about getting rid of head hits, they would have suspended Olver, but like the NFL it's just a PR campaign to try and get the fans thinking they actually care about the players.
This is a common misconception. The word targeted in this rule doesn't mean "intentionally aim at" but is more referring to "where the impact was".
Shanahan can't prove intent and isn't trying to. If you accidentally get only a players head, the head was targeted.
The Blues did not formally address the reasoning for placing Tarasenko on injured reserve and have yet to update his status.
Quote:
In addition to announcing Tarasenko's placement on injured reserve, the team also announced that they had recalled forward Chris Porter from the American Hockey League's Peoria Rivermen.
