Re: Is This a Clean Hit?
posted at 10/24/2013 12:38 PM EDT
In response to Fletcher1's comment:[QUOTE]There is no apples to oranges whatsoever in the two hits. They were both predatory and now that one was done to a Bruin there needs to be justice! [/QUOTE]
Here's a few differences:
John Scott makes principle contact to the head, like targeting. He gets almost nothing but Eriksson's head. Garbutt gets almost exclusively the body on Penner. Upon watching the replay, it appears that his shoulder may have gotten Penner's chin too. Scott's hit: 80% head, 20% body. Garbutt's hit 90% body, 10% head. That's the difference between targeting and not.
John Scott hits Eriksson late and blindside. Garbutt is not late, and hits Penner directly from the front.
Eriksson does nothing to put himself in a vulnerable position and would not be prepared to get hit there from the blindside. Penner does everything to make himself vulnerable -- cuts to the middle of the ice, in the zone, with the puck, with his head down (you're always going to get hit there).
I know Shanny disagreed, obviously, but I saw it the same way Kronwall did)) [/QUOTE]
I disagree that Penner looking down at the puck or cutting to the middle is "putting himself in a bad position" when Garbutt has already made his decision to make a B line to Penner. Garbutt also cut in to make sure he got his hit off to the front. Then jump to get more contact to follow through for the hit. Where as Scott doesn't have to jump.
I see your points and am not ignoring them. The end result is, I think were we can agree, is no good for either they were both predatory.