Polaris922 Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) @Polaris922I see it. I think it's incidental and not suspension-worthy.How can it be incidental? Coyle isn't looking, doesn't move, doesn't duck... And Kronwall hits right into his head with initial contact. If that's not targeting the head, what is?? Edited March 28, 2013 by Polaris922 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I don't agree. I see a guy not jump and hits the guy with his upper arm in the head. He gets his head. He may even did it deliberately (with the number on the sweater and the name on the back I even buy that). But I don't see anything other than the head getting hit at chest-level that makes this suspension-worthy. There is no other criteria being met here. No charge, no jump, not blind-side, etc. Just a kid getting hit in the head by an upper arm at basically chest level. I know the name involved and all, but on this hit alone I'm glad there's no suspension. I just don't think it qualifies. I just think if you start suspending that you effectively starting taking all hitting away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I don't agree. I see a guy not jump and hits the guy with his upper arm in the head. He gets his head. He may even did it deliberately (with the number on the sweater and the name on the back I even buy that). But I don't see anything other than the head getting hit at chest-level that makes this suspension-worthy. There is no other criteria being met here. No charge, no jump, not blind-side, etc. Just a kid getting hit in the head by an upper arm at basically chest level. I know the name involved and all, but on this hit alone I'm glad there's no suspension. I just don't think it qualifies. I just think if you start suspending that you effectively starting taking all hitting away.But it's the hit to the head that IS the violation. If the head is targeted I think intent to injure is a given.48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent's head where the head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted. However, in determining whether such a hit should have been permitted, the circumstances of the hit, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit or the head contact on an otherwise legal body check was avoidable, can be considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit or the head contact on an otherwise legal body check was avoidable, can be considered.For me, this criteria is met. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 For me, this criteria is met.That is referring to sudden moves or changes of body position made that cause the head to be primary impact point. Coyle's head is down, yes, but he never so much as blinks for fifteen feet until Kronwall decides he doesn't respect him enough to keep his body low and thump him in the chest instead of the ear. THAT is the reason the rule exists. This wasn't much different than the Cooke hit in Savard that created this rule. That his was appalling and that was before any rule prohibiting such stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Maybe @Polaris922, but if you're going to hit the guy there, I don't know how you hit him withOUT getting the head. I mean seriously. Kronwall would have had to go in so low to avoid the head that he might have gotten a call for submarining.I don't think we're going to agree on this and I do respect your opinion. I just don't agree on this particular case. Now, if you want to argue that Kronwall should be shot just on principle, I think we may have common ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Maybe @Polaris922, but if you're going to hit the guy there, I don't know how you hit him withOUT getting the head. I mean seriously. Kronwall would have had to go in so low to avoid the head that he might have gotten a call for submarining.I don't think we're going to agree on this and I do respect your opinion. I just don't agree on this particular case. Now, if you want to argue that Kronwall should be shot just on principle, I think we may have common ground.I'm down! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 @ruxpin "but if you're going to hit the guy there, I don't know how you hit him withOUT getting the head. I mean seriously." The NFL is now entering the same kinda slippery slope with regards to the new RB rules. It is now illegal for RB's to lead with the crown of their helmet...but really, how do you get a first down if you don't lower their heads in anticipation of a wicked hit coming from a defensive player? The other thing of course is, a lot of times when a RB lowers his helmet, it's a defensive move, meant to protect them from the oncoming hit....yes, quite the slippery slope the NFL has got themselves into....how strict will this be called? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.