Get ready folks, hitting is about to exit our game

[toby91_ca 620]

Isn't "blindside" relative to where the player is looking? Technically Cooke was in front of Savard when he hit him, but Savard had been looking left and just turned around, much like what happened here. Thornton comes from the "blindside" and specifically targeted the head when he had everything thing else available to hit. That's what they're trying to eliminate, unnecessary hits to the head. I don't like it, but he'll be suspended.

esteef

I agree, there isn't a signficant difference in this his vs. the Cooke hit. There is a difference in that the Cooke hit was more clearly targetting the head and he started from behind, but he was in front of Savard before he turned to make that hit. The Cooke hit was worse, but I wouldn't call the Thornton hit completely different.

Edit - I should clarify that I agree to an extent. Blindside isn't really about where you are looking. Example, if you have your head down and a guy comes north south and hits you straight on, you won't see it, but it's not a blind side. I think blindside assumes that you are looking in the direction you are skating and if you wouldn't see the hit coming, or only see it at the last minute, that's blindside.

In the Thornton case, Perron definately should have saw it if his head was up, but he only would have saw it at the last minute becuase Thornton came from the side = blindside hit.

Everyone also has to remember that blindside hits are not illegal, it's only those that target the head.

Edited November 5, 2010 by toby91_ca

[esteef 2,679]

Edit - I should clarify that I agree to an extent. Blindside isn't really about where you are looking. Example, if you have your head down and a guy comes north south and hits you straight on, you won't see it, but it's not a blind side. I think blindside assumes that you are looking in the direction you are skating and if you wouldn't see the hit coming, or only see it at the last minute, that's blindside.

Agree.

esteef

[henrik40 76]

Murph and Bobby Holik were addressing this on NHL on the Fly last night. Holik was pissed because he felt like Perron embellished, which I agree with him on. Perron made it look like the hit was really serious, yet he was out there later scoring a goal. Then after the game, he was vague in his answers but basically admitted he wasn't really that hurt but he wouldn't know til 24 hours had passed. There is going to be a big adjustment period but I'm hoping to see diving penalties called way more often. However, both Murph and Holik agreed that the 5 minute penalty should have been assessed but not a game misconduct.

[esteef 2,679]

...what was Thornton supposed to do - let him skate on by with the puck?

Not target the head.

esteef

[toby91_ca 620]

However, both Murph and Holik agreed that the 5 minute penalty should have been assessed but not a game misconduct.

If that is the case, I think both Murph and Holik need to educate themselves on the rule:

Rule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head

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.

48.2 Minor Penalty – There is no provision for a minor penalty for this rule.

48.3 Major Penalty – For a violation of this rule, a major penalty shall be

assessed (see 48.4).

48.4 Game Misconduct Penalty – An automatic game misconduct penalty

shall be assessed whenever a major penalty is assessed under this

rule.

[jollymania 162]

That's true, but it wasn't a north south hit, not even close.

FYI, a disciplenary hearing has been scheduled with Mr. Thornton.

whether it was purely north south or slightly diagonal is debatable, but what isn't is that if perron was simply looking forward with his head up Thornton would have been visible, thus you can't possibly penalize this hit

If that is the case, I think both Murph and Holik need to educate themselves on the rule:

the rule is horribly flawed

[Carman 387]

Awesome, you aren't allowed to hit anymore.

Great job NHL, soccer on skates here we come.

[jollymania 162]

Not target the head.

esteef

he didn't, 70% of this hit was body to body, only thornton's shoulder hit perron's head, lets not forget the arm to arm, hip to hip , thigh to thigh, and possibly even knee to knee (incidental.) contact. thornton hit perron in the head partially because 1. he is much taller 2. perron was hunched over

[esteef 2,679]

So what's a taller player like Thornton supposed to do - bend down, and go for Perron's knees?

Seriously guys.

Thornton could have easily dropped Perron with a shoulder to shoulder here, still would've knocked him down, still would've broken up the play, but he made sure to get around the shoulder to get to the head. That's against the new rule, primary contact is with the head. I'm not a huge fan of it but he did break the rule.

esteef

[Tr!PoD#19 524]

That's true, but it wasn't a north south hit, not even close.

FYI, a disciplenary hearing has been scheduled with Mr. Thornton.

That's because he crushed someone from behind later on and got 5 and a game, I believe.

The hit on Perron was nice. The dude needs to keep his head up.

I hate the direction the NFL & NHL are going.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Tr!PoD#19

[GSBrooks13 204]

That's because he crushed someone from behind later on and got 5 and a game, I believe.

The hit on Perron was nice. The dude needs to keep his head up.

I hate the direction the NFL & NHL are going.

No, Thornton was coming out of the box from serving his 2 minutes for that hit from behind when he made the hit on Perron. He got the 5 and a game for the hit to the head which is what the hearing is for.

[Tr!PoD#19 524]

No, Thornton was coming out of the box from serving his 2 minutes for that hit from behind when he made the hit on Perron. He got the 5 and a game for the hit to the head which is what the hearing is for.

You're right. (I can't watch YouTube videos at work)

Edited November 5, 2010 by Tr!PoD#19

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

If that is the case, I think both Murph and Holik need to educate themselves on the rule:

The rule you provided only proves that the hit was against the rules. Lateral hit to the head.

[esteef 2,679]

From where I sit I find it pretty challenging for players whom are moving very fast nowadays to specifically target 1 particular part of the human anatomy when attempting to deliver what is now deemed a "legal/clean" bodycheck...

I hear ya, but in this case was Joe really moving very fast right out of the box? These will be things discussed at the hearing I'm sure.

esteef

Edited November 5, 2010 by esteef

[jollymania 162]

look at all of these body parts, they are actually all synonyms for head

[toby91_ca 620]

whether it was purely north south or slightly diagonal is debatable, but what isn't is that if perron was simply looking forward with his head up Thornton would have been visible, thus you can't possibly penalize this hit

the rule is horribly flawed

It shouldn't be debatable to anyone that watched the video. I'd rephrase is to say "whether it was purely east west or slightly diagonal is debatable." Thornton practicly skated along the red line.

[esteef 2,679]

look at all of these body parts, they are actually all synonyms for head

This is after his head is already whipping around from being contacted.

esteef

[jollymania 162]

It shouldn't be debatable to anyone that watched the video. I'd rephrase is to say "whether it was purely east west or slightly diagonal is debatable." Thornton practicly skated along the red line.

what? i think you have a seeing disorder that skews your vision

This is after his head is already whipping around from being contacted.

esteef

it was all simultaneous, seriously i don't know why you have such a burr in your saddle over this hit, it was nothing and perron wasn't even unjured

[St. Michael (the Red Wing) 422]

As bad as it looked. It looked like a clean hit to me. Hard to tell if Thornton used his elbow. After a lot of replays I'd say there was no elbow to the head. Clean hit. Kudos to Thornton...

[esteef 2,679]

it was all simultaneous, seriously i don't know why you have such a burr in your saddle over this hit, it was nothing and perron wasn't even unjured

Whether he's injured or not is irrelevant, the hit was blindside (east/west) and to the head. That's against the new rule. Thornton does skate right up the red line to make the hit (at the 5-6 second mark of the vid) and makes sure he hits the head first.

You can disagree, that's fine but Thornton will be suspended here because he passed up a safer hit to deliver one to the head. That's what the NHL wants out of the game, the unnecessary blindside hit to the head.

esteef

Edited November 5, 2010 by esteef

[Carman 387]

He won't get suspended, it wasn't a hit to the head.

[jollymania 162]

Perron's vision had he had his head up

[Konnan511 1,736]

There is no penalty for "targeting the head" on a north south hit, and it is debatable whether it wasn't just Thornton being tall and Pereon being hunched over.

To me this part makes it sound like you can't target the head at all:

Rule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head

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 notpermitted.

Sounds like you can't blindside and/or make the head the principle point of contact.

he didn't, 70% of this hit was body to body, only thornton's shoulder hit perron's head, lets not forget the arm to arm, hip to hip , thigh to thigh, and possibly even knee to knee (incidental.) contact. thornton hit perron in the head partially because 1. he is much taller 2. perron was hunched over

True, 70% was body to body, but the initial hit with all the moment was targeted at the head.

And it really isn't that hard to bend over slightly to deliver a check to the chest, why are people arguing that it's hard to bend over to deliver a check? Have you ever played hockey? Just widen your stance and bend over a bit, it REALLY isn't that hard and I know all these guys know how to bend slightly. Height is just a lazy excuse, just like having a longer stick and getting a hooking call.

[jollymania 162]

To me this part makes it sound like you can't target the head at all:

Rule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head

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 notpermitted.

Sounds like you can't blindside and/or make the head the principle point of contact.

True, 70% was body to body, but the initial hit with all the moment was targeted at the head.

And it really isn't that hard to bend over slightly to deliver a check to the chest, why are people arguing that it's hard to bend over to deliver a check? Have you ever played hockey? Just widen your stance and bend over a bit, it REALLY isn't that hard and I know all these guys know how to bend slightly. Height is just a lazy excuse, just like having a longer stick and getting a hooking call.

i have played hockey, except im 5'8'' and thronton is 6'3'', I can only remember hitting one guy in the head my whole career and koing him, and low and behold, he was about 5'4''.

Edited November 5, 2010 by jollymania

[esteef 2,679]

i have played hockey, except im 5'8'' and thronton is 6'3'', i hit one guy in the head my whole career, and low and behold, he was about 5'4''

The rule gives no provision for "being tall".

esteef