NHL 2010/2011 Season

[10spro]

Not sure what Brown and Murray were bitching about, but being thrown out of the game was the right call. Now, it's up to the league for the follow up.

[10spro]

Not sure if the embed worked, but here's the hit in case you missed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qBeA8v_dWA

[LAking]

Not sure what Brown and Murray were bitching about, but being thrown out of the game was the right call. Now, it's up to the league for the follow up.

They were bitching because it wasn't a hit to the head, therefor it shouldn't have been a penalty according to the new rule. The league did not suspend Brown.

[10spro]

While the principle point of contact was a hit to the shoulder, upper chest area the follow through did brush across his head as the Minnesota plater releases the puck. And while his intent may not have been directed to the head, it was the type of hit meant to wipe off the other guy after he finished shooting the puck. A dangerous blindside hit which the league is trying to avoid. While the league may not suspend Brown any further, the call made on the ice was correct.

[Naples39]

While the principle point of contact was a hit to the shoulder, upper chest area the follow through did brush across his head as the Minnesota plater releases the puck. And while his intent may not have been directed to the head, it was the type of hit meant to wipe off the other guy after he finished shooting the puck. A dangerous blindside hit which the league is trying to avoid. While the league may not suspend Brown any further, the call made on the ice was correct.

I agree. Close call, but it's exactly the kind of hit the league is trying to eliminate--a dangerous hit on a defenseless player that has no 'hockey' purpose.

Also, I'm not sure that the 'principle' point of contact wasn't the head. It seems to me that Brown's shoulder brushed Miettinen's shoulder before the main force of Brown went into Miettinen's head.

Darren Dreger agrees with me;
After looking at several replays, call on Brown is correct. Miettinen opened up after taking a shot and Brown caught him. Shoulder to head.

Either way, very close call and would be a limp rule if any little grey area on the contact would negate the new rule.

[LAking]

While the principle point of contact was a hit to the shoulder, upper chest area the follow through did brush across his head as the Minnesota plater releases the puck. And while his intent may not have been directed to the head, it was the type of hit meant to wipe off the other guy after he finished shooting the puck. A dangerous blindside hit which the league is trying to avoid. While the league may not suspend Brown any further, the call made on the ice was correct.

I agree. Close call, but it's exactly the kind of hit the league is trying to eliminate--a dangerous hit on a defenseless player that has no 'hockey' purpose.

Also, I'm not sure that the 'principle' point of contact wasn't the head. It seems to me that Brown's shoulder brushed Miettinen's shoulder before the main force of Brown went into Miettinen's head.

Darren Dreger agrees with me;
After looking at several replays, call on Brown is correct. Miettinen opened up after taking a shot and Brown caught him. Shoulder to head.

Either way, very close call and would be a limp rule if any little grey area on the contact would negate the new rule.

If it was shoulder on head why didn't the league see it that way and suspend him? Or why wasn't Miettinen knocked unconscious? It was completely shoulder to shoulder. If Dustin Brown, one of the heaviest hitters in the league, had hit him in the head with his shoulder he wouldn't have been playing on the ensuing PP like nothing happened.

Not a hockey play? Miettinen released the puck from a prime scoring chance a half second before Brown makes contact. Is it really that hard to believe that Brown was trying to hit him before he got the shot off? It's not illegal to hit someone when they are trying to shoot the puck...as long as you aren't hitting their head.

If the league was trying to get rid of ANY hit of a player in a "vulnerable position" why did they bother making the rule so damn specific about it being BOTH blindside and a direct hit to the head? I'm going to post the most logical explanation of the rule of heard so far. I read this on another message board.

I think there's been a lot of confusion and misconceptions about what exactly the new rule does or does not do. So let's look at the exact words of Rule 48.1:

Illegal Check to the Head – A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principle point of contact is not permitted.

The new rule is just one simple sentence. For a penalty to be called, yes, the check must be a lateral or blind side hit, but obviously that's not sufficient to trigger a penalty or else the rule would simply read "A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent is not permitted." There is additional language in the rule that cannot be conveniently ignored. Therefore, any suggestion that the league intended to prohibit ALL lateral or blind side hits is just flat-out wrong.

The rest of the rule speaks of targeting the opponent's head and the opponent's head as the principle (I still maintain that should read "principal") point of contact. This is an either/or proposition: for a penalty to be called, the hitter must have either intended to hit the opponent's head OR regardless of what the hitter intended, the hit was delivered more or less at head level anyway. And if both apply, then the penalty is even easier to call.

Taken all together, the rule is focused specifically on headshots or attempted headshots, but only from lateral or blind side hits. Presumably, the league feels that players can adequately protect themselves against frontal headshots. All this talk about the league eliminating dangerous hits or hits on players while they're in a vulnerable position where they can't protect themselves is somewhat beside the point. Those are factors that don't come into play AT ALL as far as whether a penalty can be called under this rule. However, these factors might be relevant when the league investigates the hit for supplemental discipline (that is, whether to also suspend the penalized player and for how long).

The point I'm trying to make is that this new rule is far more narrowly focused than most people seem to believe, and that includes the commentators we all see on TV. We can debate all day long what the league should or should not do to protect players, but this is precisely the rule the league came up with and it speaks for itself.

[Zlax45]

That was a textbook blind side hit....I think it was the right call and he should have been suspended.

[LAking]

That was a textbook blind side hit....I think it was the right call and he should have been suspended.

How can it be textbook when the rule clearly states that it must be BOTH blindside and a hit to the head? Read the rule. Being blindside does not make it a penalty. There has to be intent or principle contact with the head, neither of which happened. This is exactly how the league saw it, no suspension, case closed.

[Naples39]

If it was shoulder on head why didn't the league see it that way and suspend him? Or why wasn't Miettinen knocked unconscious? It was completely shoulder to shoulder. If Dustin Brown, one of the heaviest hitters in the league, had hit him in the head with his shoulder he wouldn't have been playing on the ensuing PP like nothing happened.

Not a hockey play? Miettinen released the puck from a prime scoring chance a half second before Brown makes contact. Is it really that hard to believe that Brown was trying to hit him before he got the shot off? It's not illegal to hit someone when they are trying to shoot the puck...as long as you aren't hitting their head.

If the league was trying to get rid of ANY hit of a player in a "vulnerable position" why did they bother making the rule so damn specific about it being BOTH blindside and a direct hit to the head? I'm going to post the most logical explanation of the rule of heard so far. I read this on another message board.

I think there's been a lot of confusion and misconceptions about what exactly the new rule does or does not do. So let's look at the exact words of Rule 48.1:

Illegal Check to the Head – A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principle point of contact is not permitted.

The new rule is just one simple sentence. For a penalty to be called, yes, the check must be a lateral or blind side hit, but obviously that's not sufficient to trigger a penalty or else the rule would simply read "A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent is not permitted." There is additional language in the rule that cannot be conveniently ignored. Therefore, any suggestion that the league intended to prohibit ALL lateral or blind side hits is just flat-out wrong.

The rest of the rule speaks of targeting the opponent's head and the opponent's head as the principle (I still maintain that should read "principal") point of contact. This is an either/or proposition: for a penalty to be called, the hitter must have either intended to hit the opponent's head OR regardless of what the hitter intended, the hit was delivered more or less at head level anyway. And if both apply, then the penalty is even easier to call.

Taken all together, the rule is focused specifically on headshots or attempted headshots, but only from lateral or blind side hits. Presumably, the league feels that players can adequately protect themselves against frontal headshots. All this talk about the league eliminating dangerous hits or hits on players while they're in a vulnerable position where they can't protect themselves is somewhat beside the point. Those are factors that don't come into play AT ALL as far as whether a penalty can be called under this rule. However, these factors might be relevant when the league investigates the hit for supplemental discipline (that is, whether to also suspend the penalized player and for how long).

The point I'm trying to make is that this new rule is far more narrowly focused than most people seem to believe, and that includes the commentators we all see on TV. We can debate all day long what the league should or should not do to protect players, but this is precisely the rule the league came up with and it speaks for itself.

I don't buy most of that.

First of all, I've seeing several people say the fact that he wasn't suspended means the league thinks it wasn't in violation of the new rule. Sorry but that makes no sense. The rule doesn't call for a mandatory suspension. Just because he wasn't suspended definitely DOES NOT mean the league decided the hit didn't violate the new rule. That's like saying every time a player gets called for boarding but not suspended that means the league office thinks it wasn't a boarding penalty.

Ditto for the injury argument. Whether or not someone is injured is nonsensical way to judge a play--players can get concussions from whiplash on hits nowhere near the head, and a player can be fine on a blatant headshot. Whether or not a serious injury is sustained is irrelevant.

Second, the new rule doesn't ban a hit on players in any vulnerable position, but the REASON the rule was enacted was to protect players in this particular vulnerable position. For instance in the NHL rulebook for boarding it says this;

There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.

I think it's perfectly appropriate (and probably intended) that officials graft the same principles onto the new rule even if the new rule doesn't contain this paragraph. That's certainly the impression I got based on everything the league has said when trying to explain the rule, right down to the league specifically distinguishing that's it's the puck carrier's responsibility for headshots that aren't from the blindside in their instructional video on the new rule.

Third, I said it had no hockey purpose because Brown didn't need to hit him up high. He could've easily checked the player lower or in a different way to eliminate him from the play if he merely wanted to make a 'hockey play'. Again, just like boarding--'the onus is on the checking player to ensure his opponent is not a vulnerable position' and adjust his check accordingly.

If the league was trying to get rid of ANY hit of a player in a "vulnerable position" why did they bother making the rule so damn specific about it being BOTH blindside and a direct hit to the head?

Lastly, the rule doesn't require that the hit be BOTH blindside and a direct hit the head. It's and/or. The referee is entirely free to call this penalty even if the checker completely misses the head if the referee determines 'the head is targeted.' The fact that mere intent is enough makes all these defenses (shoulder to shoulder, no injury...etc) completely moot, though I would agree refs should only call this play based on the intent clause in close calls, like this one.

[pk500]

Good call. Brown was aiming for the head. Sorry, but if he was aiming for shoulder-to-shoulder, he would have hit Nieminen lower on the body.

Nice to see the NHL finally enforcing the rules. The stricter enforcement probably will last another week or so.

[10spro]

That was a textbook blind side hit....I think it was the right call and he should have been suspended.

How can it be textbook when the rule clearly states that it must be BOTH blindside and a hit to the head? Read the rule. Being blindside does not make it a penalty. There has to be intent or principle contact with the head, neither of which happened. This is exactly how the league saw it, no suspension, case closed.

Wrong. The league is adamant about cheap, blindside hits. This is where some players complain about the lack of respect in today's game. I've shoved players aside after the opponent just finished swinging or is in a process of shooting the puck. Brown could have done that, a little shove would have sent the other guy flying, but he was aiming for a high hit. The fact that he missed Nieminen's 'full head' and that he wasn't injured doesn't mean that it wasn't a dangerous hit.

And if the league decided not to further punish him doesn't mean s**t today, especially when you're talking about the NHL.

[Jimmydeicide]

I thought it was a good call, shooter couldn't protect himself and it was kinda blindside.
Now the hit 15 seconds before that one tho jeez i cringed, i thought that one would get a call cause of the shear heaviness of it.
Doubt he was going for the head at all thats not him its just the shooter dips his head to get the shot of naturally.
Someone pissed Brown off the shift before im guessing.

[Naples39]

Read today that Miettinen has indeed been diagnosed with a concussion from the Brown hit.

[Jimmydeicide]

They say Drew Doughty has a concussion also and that hit looked like nothing seemed he held his ribs after so the concussion issue is as serious as ever can you imagine the league losing a player like Doughty to post concussion syndrome because they are too macho to make the correct calls
Thats why i was ok with the Brown Penalty if it means more protection for players down the road im all for them erring on the safe side.

I would hate too see a promising player like Drew Doughty have a short career when they could just put a stamp on it right now.
The brown call is heading in the right direction.

[Jimmydeicide]

Dp.

[Diablo25]

Claude Giroux! Love this guy!

[MizzouRah]

Yeay.. hockey is back for us dish network people!

[Jimmydeicide]

For real ? All Regions? Err ill check.

Yep Same here thanks for the heads up. So happy , now i dont have to squint at my pc screen.

[MizzouRah]

For real ? All Regions? Err ill check.

Yep Same here thanks for the heads up. So happy , now i dont have to squint at my pc screen.

HAHA.. I said the exact same thing to my buddy last night!

[tjung0831]

wow...so now the rumors are out...Parise wants out of New Jersey!!! The Kovalchuk signing is gonna be the death of that organization! Rumor is that he's willing to finish out the year but is hoping for an offer sheet over the summer.

Tim

[MizzouRah]

wow...so now the rumors are out...Parise wants out of New Jersey!!! The Kovalchuk signing is gonna be the death of that organization! Rumor is that he's willing to finish out the year but is hoping for an offer sheet over the summer.

Tim

He would look great wearing the blue note!

[LAking]

wow...so now the rumors are out...Parise wants out of New Jersey!!! The Kovalchuk signing is gonna be the death of that organization! Rumor is that he's willing to finish out the year but is hoping for an offer sheet over the summer.

Tim

I'd LOVE if the Kings could get him. MUCH better than signing Kovy. That being said, where are these rumors coming from?

[tjung0831]

wow...so now the rumors are out...Parise wants out of New Jersey!!! The Kovalchuk signing is gonna be the death of that organization! Rumor is that he's willing to finish out the year but is hoping for an offer sheet over the summer.

Tim

I'd LOVE if the Kings could get him. MUCH better than signing Kovy. That being said, where are these rumors coming from?

Hockey Central on Sportsnet. The panel discussed it. He's looking for a new agent and wants out of NJ.

[tjung0831]

By the way, Parise suffered what appears to be a serious knee injury last night.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=339401

[MizzouRah]

What a comeback by the Blues last night! Down 3-1 in the 3rd they tie the game and win in a shootout!!!

5-0 so far!