posted at 2/7/2011 4:30 PM EST
In Response to Re: headshot?
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: headshot? : Yes it was a blind side hit. It was the exact same as Cooke's only no elbow to the head. I really don't think there was any intent to injure, other than a normal 'check' that happens 40 to 50 times a game. But he did come into him at an angle that the player could not see him coming, and therefore not protect himself. That is what the league is trying to get rid of. Hopefully everyone learns from this and moves on. I too worry about where this is going as far as hitting and body contact goes. It just seems that every time a rule or change is put in place to address these issues, a more serious problem pops up. Change the equipment, and fine the coaches when these hits occur. That will end it.
Posted by perrysound[/QUOTE]
Big big, difference from the Cooke hit Perry. Savard had dished the puck a full second, maybe more, before numbnuts came crashing in. No comparison at all, Savard wasn't expecting anything. In Pailles's case, the opposing player should have.
This call is gonna create some problems. Originally, the plan was to come down hard on anyone blind siding someone. This was not a blindside hit. It's easy to see, the NHL is on a crusade, and it's not sure what it's crusading against at this point. Now players will be flopping all over the place anytime they get nailed, and everyone is gonna holler for suspensions. Julian is right. Players need to be more responsible, keep there heads up, and play with more respect.
Having said that, the league does need to send out a message that dirty hits won't be tolerated, and those situations that result in serious injury will carry an especially heavy penalty.
Unfortunatley, they picked the wrong example.