[That Aud Smell]

The following language was agreed to unanimously by the group:

"A lateral, back pressure or blindside hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principal point of contact is not permitted.

A violation of the above will result in a minor or major penalty and shall be reviewed for possible supplemental discipline."

http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=520844

[PASabreFan]

Clear as mud.

[nucci]

PASabreFan, on 10 March 2010 - 06:09 PM, said:

Clear as mud.

Typical of the NHL.

[bunomatic]

We may review such incidents so we can decide not to punish the offending party in anyway that can be considered meaningful or may act as a deterent.That sounds about right.

[Taro T]

bunomatic, on 10 March 2010 - 10:01 PM, said:

We may review such incidents so we can decide not to punish the offending party in anyway that can be considered meaningful or may act as a deterent.That sounds about right.

Although per the article on the NHL's website, Campbell did say that under the newly proposed rule Cooke would have been suspended.

So, the net result of that hit might actually work into something reasonable. I'm hopeful but won't hold my breath.

[billsrcursed]

I watched a little of NHL Network's coverage of the meetings, and this rule in particular.

Good to hear it was a unanimous decision to go forward with this verbiage for the new rule. It sounded pretty clear to me as far as what will be and what won't be a penalty. Not sure why some are confused.

The biggest issue was being able to eliminate head shots while not restricting players from being able to check. Seems to me like they got it right.

Hopefully this gets passed through the next two boards and is in play next year.

[DeLuca67]

What's the point of changing any rules if the those who are supposed to enforce the rules refuse to do so. From the on ice officials to Colin Campbell changes need to be made.

[bunomatic]

In a league where Sean Avery gets 6 games for saying sloppy seconds and on a play where Cooke was clearly headhunting and gets absolutely nothing,absolutely nothing can surprise me.The fact that there was no existing law governing this type of play should'nt matter.Send a clear message that you want to protect your most important assets which are the players.Someone could die before the new rule comes into effect next season.

[Taro T]

bunomatic, on 11 March 2010 - 09:18 PM, said:

In a league where Sean Avery gets 6 games for saying sloppy seconds and on a play where Cooke was clearly headhunting and gets absolutely nothing,absolutely nothing can surprise me.The fact that there was no existing law governing this type of play should'nt matter.Send a clear message that you want to protect your most important assets which are the players.Someone could die before the new rule comes into effect next season.

I respectfully disagree. I think the play could (should) have been determined to be illegal under the current rules for charging (or even intent to injure).

IF in fact the play wasn't illegal, how do you justify giving a suspension? Hasn't the league caught enough (well earned) criticism for making stuff up on the fly? If the play wasn't illegal, then there should be no suspension. The fact that the 30 GM's all want to make that play illegal is actually impressive for this bunch.

[bunomatic]

Point taken but I feel the league is taking far too long to find a solution for dangerous hits.Like I said,someones going to die.Imagine that player was a Crosby or a Miller?Not that it should matter who it is.We don't want to lose anyone to a senseless hit that shows no respect between players.

[Taro T]

bunomatic, on 12 March 2010 - 12:16 AM, said:

Point taken but I feel the league is taking far too long to find a solution for dangerous hits.Like I said,someones going to die.Imagine that player was a Crosby or a Miller?Not that it should matter who it is.We don't want to lose anyone to a senseless hit that shows no respect between players.

Someone DID die. Bill Masterton, 2 days after he hit his head on January 13, 1968.

Considering it's been over 40 years since that death, the odds aren't high that there will be another in the next 15 weeks. (But I do agree with your point that we don't want to lose anyone to a senseless hit and that it took the league far too long to get to the point where they MIGHT address this category of hits.)

[billsrcursed]

Taro T, on 12 March 2010 - 12:27 AM, said:

Someone DID die. Bill Masterton, 2 days after he hit his head on January 13, 1968.

Considering it's been over 40 years since that death, the odds aren't high that there will be another in the next 15 weeks. (But I do agree with your point that we don't want to lose anyone to a senseless hit and that it took the league far too long to get to the point where they MIGHT address this category of hits.)

To add to this, it still has to go through the Competition Board and then I believe the Board of Governors(or something along those lines). Not to say that they couldn't or shouldn't attempt to expedite this to impose ASAP, but the appropriate steps for this to take place would prevent this rule from become active this season.

Also, along the lines of your previous post regarding all of the GM's being on board with the verbiage created for this rule, it was even MORE impressive that the GM for Pittsburgh (can't remember his name) had nothing to add and was in complete agreement with what they came up with. Tto me, it's a great start to a rule that is ridiculously over-due.