It is absolute insanity to me that anyone in something called "The Department of Player Safety" can look the Knies hit and say "Yeah, that's totally fine, we want guys to be able to do that to each other as much as they like." The NHL is such a joke.
If that’s a suspendible hit, just take hitting out of the game. Matthew Knies was flying through the middle of the ice with his head down. Whitecloud was going for a clean hit, it was Matthew Knies who put himself in a vulnerable position.
@@user-ji3il6ce2o "If that's a suspendible hit, just take hitting out of the game. Darnell Nurse was flying around the net with his head down. Reeves wasn't going for a hit at all, it was Darnell Nurse's reckless play that put himself in a vulnerable position." See how easy it is to swap these situations around, there needs to be reliability with the punishment on these plays. Give them both nothing, give them both two, or 10 and suspension. I just want to see the rules and the response to broken rules to be set in stone, instead of leaving it open.
This is such a great video that should be released for every single rule in the book. One of the best things that happened was the Hockey 101 videos they did with Snoop. They should make those for every rule. Are you telling me they can't partner up with Ryan Reynolds and Marvel/Disney to get Deadpool penalty videos? Put some production value into them, make them fun.
The “main point of contact” does nothing to protect players. The rule should be regardless of the point of contact if head contact is made, unavoidable or not, it is a major penalty. I am not on the side of taking contact out of the game. Hockey is a contact sport. But the long term consequences of contact to the head is the only thing that is unavoidable.
My issue with the video is that there's a bias in it towards blindside hits, against straight-on hits. There's a lot of whiplash on the Knies hit, but because it's straight on, it's not as blatant at first glance as it was with Reaves or Jeannot. I'm not sure if we're supposed to take from this video that "hits to the head" are not going to be called on straight-on hits or if they're gaslighting us again.
Read the rules. He said that they will focus on angle of attack (which is in provision 1 of avoidable hits) because of the first 2 hits being that, but there's many other ways in the rule that makes a hit unavoidable. Either the player being hit moves rifht before the hit, the player being hit is in a vulnerable position making a clean hit without head contact impossible, the hitter extends their shoulder or elbow or change body position to ensure head contact, the hit is late or badly timed. Etc. Those are off the top of my head but read the rule. He said he focused on that only because it is a good one to contrast with. The others don't make the hit avoidable either. Knies was in a position where a clean check to his front at chest height would hit his head. Hit wasnt late, it didn't include any extension to pick the head either.
A straight on hit can be illegal if its late, if the person jumps to make head contact on a player that isn't in a vulnerable position. If they elbow or extend to get head, etc.
@@geebster. The rule says "does not elevate up excessively". Whitecloud definitely does. Regardless, the section I'm talking about is the one where they state "Knies body...driven backwards simultaneously with his head". It didn't.
@@geebster. it’s pretty clear if you watch in 0.25x knies takes a shoulder to the face, unavoidable maybe but whitecloud for sure has a foot off the ice and is elevating more than I would suggest. That said this is a classic 90’s/00’s era hit, which they’re kinda trying to remove. I don’t think this is actually comparable to Reaves hit but definitely should spark a conversation because I’ve definitely seen suspensions with similar hits and I’ve seen no penalty on worse hits. Since tripping is tripping intentional or not, I do feel like any head contact should be illegal, intentional or not.
Wonder how many times DPS is going to contradict this video over the rest of the season? I appreciate the explanation, but you know its going to change over the next couple of weks
I hate arguing about suspensions and comparing it to previous suspensions because you can’t compare any play, because the league never seems to have the same ruling for any play you can class as similar, it’s like the stock market honestly, the rulings change every day, the closest I could find, and I’m sure there is ones out there that are closer, was Mike Matheson hit on Johnny Boychuk during the 2020 bubble, that’s the closest one I could find, it was only given a 2 minute penalty and then nothing else, but even that was different, so I get it’s frustrating as a fan perspective, because all you want it consistency, but this happens all through out the league, and I don’t think it’ll change as long as Paros is in charge, because it would be nice to know either the other hidden rules they have for dishing out suspensions, or just that we have a competent guy running the department that is supposed to keep our players safe
I understand why people thought it was dirty But that was probably the dictionary definition of the absolute limit you can go before it is too much Dare I say it was a perfect body check in the eyes of the rule book
If one is confused about a rule or a penalty, the NHL has released in the past Rulebook videos that show what the refs are looking for during play and they are as informative as this latest one. I also think they don’t do these often because fans just will not listen to any explanation and think the refs are out to get their team and their team only. They’ll also apply terms that have nothing to do with the rulebook (like jumping) in an attempt to justify their case because they heard it from someone that it isn’t allowed.
Looks like the exact situation that happened to Justin Barron from the Habs. No Penalty there either. You're asking for consistency, this looks like it.
Yeah, but the issue is whether that interpretation of the rule will stick when the jersey's are different, and, according to past HISTORY we know that won't be he case. The Whitecloud hit on Knies would have had a different interpretation had the player roles been reversed. If one thinks the DOPS video has set a gold standard moving forward, then, once again, one has been bamboozled.
Why can they honestly just not make this like the high sticking rule? If your stick hits someone in the face, 2 minutes doesn't matter if your stick was brought up by somebody else's stick or whatever contact to the face is 2 minutes. Blood is 4 minutes. If a check hits someone in the head, 5 minutes. Supplemental discipline can determine intentionality and all the nuances, but as for the actual game, why would you have any hitting to the Head be tolerated?
A counter argument is that players take stupid risks to gain advantages. If any hit to head became a penalty they'd frequently be leaning over the puck with their heads down to protect a bit of rubber rather than their brains. If you want an equivalent that already happens consider how players turn to face the boards so that the guy checking them has to go through the numbers to make a hit. It's reckless but effective.
Have they ever said why Bennet didn’t get suspended after he punched Marchand in the face in the playoffs last year? It’s even more questionable since he has a history and did the same thing to Knies the year before.
Leafsfan here. Was and still am with the refs and the nhl on this one. a normal physical play with a bad ending for Knies. hope he is well. love his play.
it should be up to the aggressor to not cross a line. why do you get two extra minor penality if you draw blood but wen a clean hit happens and the guy gets stretcered off the ice is okay, your enforcing the results of an action on the minor and ignoring the results of the major, anyway go caps.
You guys are a breath of fresh air. I've been reading comments about this hit and I'm wondering if I'm taking my crazy pills. As you guys step through the video, and talk about it, I audibly said EXACTLY multiple times. Thanks for this.
If you’re explaining, you’re losing. The fact that they even put out this video means they know it was wrong and they screwed up. But it’s Bettman’s NHL so they’ll never admit fault and always double down. It should’ve been 5
They only explained it because it was a Leafs player. Same reason it was on the canadian coverage. Toronto fans lost their minds as Adam said. Having read the rules so many times over the last few weeks its so obviously a clean hit. The video says exactly what I and many others have been saying. They should change the rules though, any hit with major head contact should be at least a penalty, but that aint the rule.
So he didn’t “excessively jump up” …meaning he did leave his feet which isn’t legal. How often are these calls going the Leafs way? They seem to have the book thrown at them while other teams take liberties.
watching the hit on knies over and over again. to me the contact is to the head first and takes the majority (>50%) of the force. as per the language used in the video for the other hits, having the brunt of the force to the head is at least a 2min penalty
@@byaialele5916 He picked the head and happened to go straight through him. He didn't leave his feet, but he did extend upwards to an extreme level - legit his knees go from fully bent to straight line in a split second. It's not a charging call, it's a hit to the head, so leaving the feet isn't the standard. You can see a deflection in Knies' neck from the hit before the rest of his body moves from the hit. Watch the angle from the bench in slo-mo to see it. It's small, but that's because the neck is not as flexible in that direction. I'm not sure if we're supposed to take from the video that it's not a bad hit not because it's not mainly head contact, but because the hit is from "a good angle of approach" (which it is). That seems antithetical to the spirit of the rule, because it gives you free reign as long as you track the player well before going balls-out with the contact..
I don't like dangerous hits. I don't think hits should be taken out of the game. The Reaves hit deserved 5 games. Plain and simple. He picked a path that directly cut across Nurse's head and didn't touch a single other part of his body. Whitecloud took a path that went through the body, and the head contact was NOT avoidable as the two players were skating directly into each other. It's really not that hard. Y'all are just leafs fans that are mad your 3 minute a night borderline 4th line player got suspended rightfully.
If it was unavoidable why did he launch off the ice instead of just driving straight through the guy? I’m a B’s fan but y’all’s bias is hilarious anytime the Leafs become involved in anything
The nhl will never follow the transparency of the NBA. Imo there has been a clear directive by the nhl (ahem, turd in control who stiffens up to new or less "hockey" markets) If you know hockey and how much momentum plays a part........you can see the marginal calls (ones that kill the play).......you will or have seen this. I am a hockey fan first, die hard leafs fan second. My example is the Habs run a few years ago........soooo many marginal calls that killed the play, yet they powered through.......that team should have won (btw, kills me to say) Not to be negative, but wake up.....this league will never be truly transparent until the wizard of oz is gone.
Either Reeves and Whitecloud should be suspended or neither should be suspended. Don’t care which way they would have gone, but one being a suspension and the other not makes no sense.
What an incredibly stupid rationale about whether the head gets hit or not. It depends on the point of whatever. If the head gets hit you're out. Be more careful. Don't hit the head. Just like you don't hit someone with your stick in the face.
Yeah and? The world's using AI more and more than you think. I saw the Sony CEO talk about how having coders is a thing of the past soon. Soon enough coding will be done with AI. They're also talking about how in the near future....bank tellers will be useless and AI will do the job instead
Like dude....there's literally a company who's designed a personal robot you can have at home lmao. It costs 26k USD I'm pretty sure but yeah....the only reason I'm mentioning it is because you're clearly unaware of how advanced AI is and how used it is.
Did you watch the video? Specifically the part where they question why the voice sounds so weird? It sounds less like a dude hunched over his couch and more like a shitty free Microsoft Sam.
Whitecloud still left his feet while driving up into Knies’ chin AND it caused a head injury! The explanation still doesn’t explain why it wasn’t a penalty, without just saying “No he didn’t! Haha!” Like, we can all see it happen.
Whitecloud was not in enough control to keep his skates on the ice. This has always been charging even back in the seventies. It is a minimum charging, causing an injury which is a major penalty. Not a clean hit, maybe not suspendible due to the “through” the body to the head contact. The fact they did not call a penalty is the problem, not that they did not call a check to the head.
That Luke Glasdic guy on the SN panel is such a tool. He basically asked for Reeves to be kicked out of the league, saying it's always the opposing players responsibility to avoid any head contact. Than he completely flips his script on the Knies hit saying hits like that will force guys to keep their heads up and was a clean hit. What a joke of a panelist, if you say something at least keep to your word. He's such an Oiler homer, I'm actually surprised he's still employed after he posted that video last playoffs about the Canucks and their fans. Get him out of there before Bieksa and Biz kill him.
@@yobruhh8161 "Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not “picked” as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward." In 2013, the rule was modified to eliminate the term “targeted” and instead focus on “avoidable” contact to the head. Absolutely avoidable, if he didn't unnecessarily extend his body upward. Should have been 5 and a game, no suspension.
The NHL is a giant joke . If anyone can honestly say Canadian teams have a legit chance to win a cup, it is just not true. Look at the teams that have won a cup in last 40 years! After being a die hard hockey fan for 50 years I don;t even watch a Leaf game anymore, the NHL is dead unless you are a American team that needs more fans and needs more money!
Yeah idk what you’re talking about lol, the nhl is the most alive it’s ever been and the most amount of the outside world actually starting to watch hockey.
I often agree with you Steve on this one however, you are suggesting that there be no more contact in hockey? That, is what you infer if the hit begins at the knee but ends with the head. /facepalm
I'm surprised the NHL even offered an explanation.
SAME.
Next they need to make the refs accountable!
@@duckymans7604 I bet that Marchand will be Director of Players Safety before that happens.
Word
He left his feet and jumped up and hit his head......end of f?%^ story
If troubas hit on barron this year was clean than this is nothing
I'm glad the NHL made the video. I still disagree that it shouldn't have been a penalty.
I had a good chuckle at that press release from the DOPS😂
It is absolute insanity to me that anyone in something called "The Department of Player Safety" can look the Knies hit and say "Yeah, that's totally fine, we want guys to be able to do that to each other as much as they like." The NHL is such a joke.
If that’s a suspendible hit, just take hitting out of the game. Matthew Knies was flying through the middle of the ice with his head down. Whitecloud was going for a clean hit, it was Matthew Knies who put himself in a vulnerable position.
@@user-ji3il6ce2o "If that's a suspendible hit, just take hitting out of the game. Darnell Nurse was flying around the net with his head down. Reeves wasn't going for a hit at all, it was Darnell Nurse's reckless play that put himself in a vulnerable position." See how easy it is to swap these situations around, there needs to be reliability with the punishment on these plays. Give them both nothing, give them both two, or 10 and suspension. I just want to see the rules and the response to broken rules to be set in stone, instead of leaving it open.
@@user-ji3il6ce2owhitecloud launched into the head, his feet left the ice. That’s never necessary for a clean hit
The NHL player safety department is a joke, they can't even understand their own rules.
The NBA calling traveling 🤣🤣🤣. You’re funny
that stash is rough😂
Check his hard drive!
What jersey is Steve wearing??
Halifax Mooseheads from the QMJHL
@chrisi1466 thanks buddy
He was just there doing a book signing.
Well that's a weird way to smoke a cigarette... 😐
This is such a great video that should be released for every single rule in the book. One of the best things that happened was the Hockey 101 videos they did with Snoop. They should make those for every rule. Are you telling me they can't partner up with Ryan Reynolds and Marvel/Disney to get Deadpool penalty videos? Put some production value into them, make them fun.
The “main point of contact” does nothing to protect players. The rule should be regardless of the point of contact if head contact is made, unavoidable or not, it is a major penalty. I am not on the side of taking contact out of the game. Hockey is a contact sport. But the long term consequences of contact to the head is the only thing that is unavoidable.
My issue with the video is that there's a bias in it towards blindside hits, against straight-on hits. There's a lot of whiplash on the Knies hit, but because it's straight on, it's not as blatant at first glance as it was with Reaves or Jeannot.
I'm not sure if we're supposed to take from this video that "hits to the head" are not going to be called on straight-on hits or if they're gaslighting us again.
Read the rules. He said that they will focus on angle of attack (which is in provision 1 of avoidable hits) because of the first 2 hits being that, but there's many other ways in the rule that makes a hit unavoidable. Either the player being hit moves rifht before the hit, the player being hit is in a vulnerable position making a clean hit without head contact impossible, the hitter extends their shoulder or elbow or change body position to ensure head contact, the hit is late or badly timed. Etc. Those are off the top of my head but read the rule. He said he focused on that only because it is a good one to contrast with. The others don't make the hit avoidable either. Knies was in a position where a clean check to his front at chest height would hit his head. Hit wasnt late, it didn't include any extension to pick the head either.
A straight on hit can be illegal if its late, if the person jumps to make head contact on a player that isn't in a vulnerable position. If they elbow or extend to get head, etc.
@@geebster. The rule says "does not elevate up excessively". Whitecloud definitely does.
Regardless, the section I'm talking about is the one where they state "Knies body...driven backwards simultaneously with his head". It didn't.
@@geebster. it’s pretty clear if you watch in 0.25x knies takes a shoulder to the face, unavoidable maybe but whitecloud for sure has a foot off the ice and is elevating more than I would suggest. That said this is a classic 90’s/00’s era hit, which they’re kinda trying to remove. I don’t think this is actually comparable to Reaves hit but definitely should spark a conversation because I’ve definitely seen suspensions with similar hits and I’ve seen no penalty on worse hits. Since tripping is tripping intentional or not, I do feel like any head contact should be illegal, intentional or not.
@@geebster.whitecloud jumped to make head contact…so try again
Clean hit, classic leafs fan crying.
Wonder how many times DPS is going to contradict this video over the rest of the season? I appreciate the explanation, but you know its going to change over the next couple of weks
According to NHL rules: huge hit ON a Leafs player, therefore it is fine. If the exact same hit is BY a Leafs player, then match penalty.
Victim mentality
Makes sense!!!
@@sdpnlook at the feet not legal jumping to check legal nope
I hate arguing about suspensions and comparing it to previous suspensions because you can’t compare any play, because the league never seems to have the same ruling for any play you can class as similar, it’s like the stock market honestly, the rulings change every day, the closest I could find, and I’m sure there is ones out there that are closer, was Mike Matheson hit on Johnny Boychuk during the 2020 bubble, that’s the closest one I could find, it was only given a 2 minute penalty and then nothing else, but even that was different, so I get it’s frustrating as a fan perspective, because all you want it consistency, but this happens all through out the league, and I don’t think it’ll change as long as Paros is in charge, because it would be nice to know either the other hidden rules they have for dishing out suspensions, or just that we have a competent guy running the department that is supposed to keep our players safe
I understand why people thought it was dirty
But that was probably the dictionary definition of the absolute limit you can go before it is too much
Dare I say it was a perfect body check in the eyes of the rule book
Launching up off the ice is a textbook hit? Nah
Wow. Almost understandable. Don’t stop NHL.
If one is confused about a rule or a penalty, the NHL has released in the past Rulebook videos that show what the refs are looking for during play and they are as informative as this latest one.
I also think they don’t do these often because fans just will not listen to any explanation and think the refs are out to get their team and their team only. They’ll also apply terms that have nothing to do with the rulebook (like jumping) in an attempt to justify their case because they heard it from someone that it isn’t allowed.
Looks like the exact situation that happened to Justin Barron from the Habs. No Penalty there either. You're asking for consistency, this looks like it.
Yeah, but the issue is whether that interpretation of the rule will stick when the jersey's are different, and, according to past HISTORY we know that won't be he case. The Whitecloud hit on Knies would have had a different interpretation had the player roles been reversed. If one thinks the DOPS video has set a gold standard moving forward, then, once again, one has been bamboozled.
Why can they honestly just not make this like the high sticking rule? If your stick hits someone in the face, 2 minutes doesn't matter if your stick was brought up by somebody else's stick or whatever contact to the face is 2 minutes. Blood is 4 minutes. If a check hits someone in the head, 5 minutes. Supplemental discipline can determine intentionality and all the nuances, but as for the actual game, why would you have any hitting to the Head be tolerated?
A counter argument is that players take stupid risks to gain advantages. If any hit to head became a penalty they'd frequently be leaning over the puck with their heads down to protect a bit of rubber rather than their brains.
If you want an equivalent that already happens consider how players turn to face the boards so that the guy checking them has to go through the numbers to make a hit. It's reckless but effective.
Have they ever said why Bennet didn’t get suspended after he punched Marchand in the face in the playoffs last year? It’s even more questionable since he has a history and did the same thing to Knies the year before.
I'm curious why Josh Manson got no suspension for hitting the ref when Dennis Wideman got 20 games for the exact same thing.
Hanson's hit was accidental while Wideman's was intentional.
Leafsfan here. Was and still am with the refs and the nhl on this one. a normal physical play with a bad ending for Knies. hope he is well. love his play.
Still think it was clean. Predatory for sure but I’m seeing torso as primary contact and head secondary.
it should be up to the aggressor to not cross a line. why do you get two extra minor penality if you draw blood but wen a clean hit happens and the guy gets stretcered off the ice is okay, your enforcing the results of an action on the minor and ignoring the results of the major, anyway go caps.
is that not AI that’s reading it?
The Ron Jeremy stash
You guys are a breath of fresh air. I've been reading comments about this hit and I'm wondering if I'm taking my crazy pills. As you guys step through the video, and talk about it, I audibly said EXACTLY multiple times. Thanks for this.
Just play the video before picking it apart, by god
If you’re explaining, you’re losing.
The fact that they even put out this video means they know it was wrong and they screwed up. But it’s Bettman’s NHL so they’ll never admit fault and always double down. It should’ve been 5
The ice hit Knies harder than Whitecloud did.
April Fools from NHL in November and not April..
What about the fact that Whitecloud left his feet during the hit? isn't leaving you feet to make a hit illegal ?
only if you leave your feet before making contact, which isn't the case here
@@Jubedy thanks for clarifying
They only explained it because it was a Leafs player. Same reason it was on the canadian coverage. Toronto fans lost their minds as Adam said. Having read the rules so many times over the last few weeks its so obviously a clean hit. The video says exactly what I and many others have been saying. They should change the rules though, any hit with major head contact should be at least a penalty, but that aint the rule.
You know if Toronto threw the hit...the outcome
So he didn’t “excessively jump up” …meaning he did leave his feet which isn’t legal. How often are these calls going the Leafs way? They seem to have the book thrown at them while other teams take liberties.
Leaving your feet after contact isn't illegal, its only if you leave your feet before contact is made.
watching the hit on knies over and over again. to me the contact is to the head first and takes the majority (>50%) of the force. as per the language used in the video for the other hits, having the brunt of the force to the head is at least a 2min penalty
he didnt pick the head, he went straight through him. didnt flare the elbow, didnt jump, so its clean
@@byaialele5916 He picked the head and happened to go straight through him. He didn't leave his feet, but he did extend upwards to an extreme level - legit his knees go from fully bent to straight line in a split second. It's not a charging call, it's a hit to the head, so leaving the feet isn't the standard.
You can see a deflection in Knies' neck from the hit before the rest of his body moves from the hit. Watch the angle from the bench in slo-mo to see it. It's small, but that's because the neck is not as flexible in that direction.
I'm not sure if we're supposed to take from the video that it's not a bad hit not because it's not mainly head contact, but because the hit is from "a good angle of approach" (which it is). That seems antithetical to the spirit of the rule, because it gives you free reign as long as you track the player well before going balls-out with the contact..
No
I don't like dangerous hits. I don't think hits should be taken out of the game.
The Reaves hit deserved 5 games. Plain and simple. He picked a path that directly cut across Nurse's head and didn't touch a single other part of his body.
Whitecloud took a path that went through the body, and the head contact was NOT avoidable as the two players were skating directly into each other. It's really not that hard. Y'all are just leafs fans that are mad your 3 minute a night borderline 4th line player got suspended rightfully.
If it was unavoidable why did he launch off the ice instead of just driving straight through the guy? I’m a B’s fan but y’all’s bias is hilarious anytime the Leafs become involved in anything
Hit was not clean at all
The hit was clean get over it leafs fans
The nhl will never follow the transparency of the NBA.
Imo there has been a clear directive by the nhl (ahem, turd in control who stiffens up to new or less "hockey" markets)
If you know hockey and how much momentum plays a part........you can see the marginal calls (ones that kill the play).......you will or have seen this.
I am a hockey fan first, die hard leafs fan second.
My example is the Habs run a few years ago........soooo many marginal calls that killed the play, yet they powered through.......that team should have won (btw, kills me to say)
Not to be negative, but wake up.....this league will never be truly transparent until the wizard of oz is gone.
Either Reeves and Whitecloud should be suspended or neither should be suspended. Don’t care which way they would have gone, but one being a suspension and the other not makes no sense.
To me it was a dirty hit
What an incredibly stupid rationale about whether the head gets hit or not. It depends on the point of whatever. If the head gets hit you're out. Be more careful. Don't hit the head. Just like you don't hit someone with your stick in the face.
That’s the rule in international hockey but not the NHL. Not saying it’s the way it ought to be. Just the way it is.
I got $20 that the video released by the league was narrated by an AI bot. I'm certain I've heard that voice on youtube shorts time and again.
Yeah and? The world's using AI more and more than you think. I saw the Sony CEO talk about how having coders is a thing of the past soon. Soon enough coding will be done with AI. They're also talking about how in the near future....bank tellers will be useless and AI will do the job instead
Like dude....there's literally a company who's designed a personal robot you can have at home lmao. It costs 26k USD I'm pretty sure but yeah....the only reason I'm mentioning it is because you're clearly unaware of how advanced AI is and how used it is.
Did you watch the video? Specifically the part where they question why the voice sounds so weird? It sounds less like a dude hunched over his couch and more like a shitty free Microsoft Sam.
@VirulentGunk it is AI dude. You're right. What I was trying to get at though is that it isn't really a big deal lol. AI is being used lots now
Whitecloud still left his feet while driving up into Knies’ chin AND it caused a head injury! The explanation still doesn’t explain why it wasn’t a penalty, without just saying “No he didn’t! Haha!” Like, we can all see it happen.
Don’t care what their explanation is. We all know if a Leaf had thrown that hit he’d have gotten 5 and probably a couple games
Whitecloud was not in enough control to keep his skates on the ice. This has always been charging even back in the seventies. It is a minimum charging, causing an injury which is a major penalty. Not a clean hit, maybe not suspendible due to the “through” the body to the head contact. The fact they did not call a penalty is the problem, not that they did not call a check to the head.
Just patently waiting for that same hit to happen in a different game
...and then us leaf fans will be justified
you'll be waiting a loooooong time, this is exactly how they've called every hit like this.
Then watch other games... Trouba on Barron, Xhekaj on Hyman and Noesen on Slafkovsky.
They did it because the leafs have the biggest fan base and also whine the most.
All Leafs hits get reviewed by DoPS. Other teams : only if your guy is bleeding out on the ice.
So, Knies is out multiple games due to a head injury because he got hit legally in the head?
The rule is a joke and, of course, it's intentional. Because you can't easily manipulate games if the rules make common sense.
Look at the rempe hit. They hate toronto.
That Luke Glasdic guy on the SN panel is such a tool. He basically asked for Reeves to be kicked out of the league, saying it's always the opposing players responsibility to avoid any head contact. Than he completely flips his script on the Knies hit saying hits like that will force guys to keep their heads up and was a clean hit. What a joke of a panelist, if you say something at least keep to your word. He's such an Oiler homer, I'm actually surprised he's still employed after he posted that video last playoffs about the Canucks and their fans. Get him out of there before Bieksa and Biz kill him.
So jumping to hit someone in the head is ok along as the hit is through the body?
Jumping before the hit is a penalty if ur feets go up during the hit as a result of the impact its not
He didn't jump.
@@yobruhh8161 "Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not “picked” as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward."
In 2013, the rule was modified to eliminate the term “targeted” and instead focus on “avoidable” contact to the head. Absolutely avoidable, if he didn't unnecessarily extend his body upward. Should have been 5 and a game, no suspension.
@@RobbieG17 did you not watch this video to explain the hit went through the body and not just the head?
@@sacul7572 Did you actually not read the rule and just decide to try to clown around in the comments?
Knies is white and Whitecloud is not.
The NHL is a giant joke .
If anyone can honestly say Canadian teams have a legit chance to win a cup, it is just not true.
Look at the teams that have won a cup in last 40 years!
After being a die hard hockey fan for 50 years I don;t even watch a Leaf game anymore, the NHL is dead unless you are a American team that needs more fans and needs more money!
"NHL is dead" WAT?!?! They had record revenue and attendance last year. Leafs are the most valuable team in the NHL. Your post make ZERO sense. SMH
Yeah idk what you’re talking about lol, the nhl is the most alive it’s ever been and the most amount of the outside world actually starting to watch hockey.
So you can hit to the head if you check from the front?
I often agree with you Steve on this one however, you are suggesting that there be no more contact in hockey? That, is what you infer if the hit begins at the knee but ends with the head. /facepalm
@LeafsJellyHD saw it there