NHL Explains Why Zach Whitecloud's Hit on Matthew Knies Didn't Warrant a Suspension
Photo credit: � John E. Sokolowski-Imagn Images
The NHL's Department of Player Safety handed out their final verdict on why Zach Whitecloud's controversial hit on Matthew Knies was deemed legal.
Not known to be fierce rivals, the Toronto Maple Leafs and Vegas Golden Knights looked like bitter age-old rivals on Wednesday night when they faced off at Scotiabank Arena.
You first had Nikita Grebenkin driving Shea Theodore into the boards and then John Tavares having a run-in with goaltender Adin Hill. However, the rivalry might've really been set off when ZachWhitecloud collided with Matthew Knies near centre-ice.
The Department of Player Safety made their final verdict on the play last night and while they deemed that there was contact with Knies' head, they explained through Rule 48 that it was not done illegally.
Rule 48 has two addendums; the first being main point of contact and the second being whether or not the head was avoidable.
While comparing the Whitecloud hit to other suspension-worthy plays like Tanner Jeannot's and Ryan Reaves' checks, the Department of Player Safety felt that both points were not met during this particular play.
For the first part, they made mention that his head was not the point of contact as Whitecloud drove through the body of Knies. They added that the rule was recently changed from "principle point of contact" to "main point of contact" to better reflect the intention of the rule and the way that players understood it.
"Whitecloud hits through the body of Knies. While there is inarguably head contact here, we see Knies' entire body stopped in it's tracks and driven backwards simultaneously with his head in a way that indicates the body absorbed the force of this check."
They also then pointed out that through the second part of the rule that Whitecloud's hit was deemed legal because Knies' head was unavoidable due to the defenseman's good angling and him stepping up into his body rather than his head:
"Conversely, Whitecloud takes a good angle of approach, stepping up directly through Knies' core. And while Whitecloud does come up off the ice due to the force of the contact of the hit, he does not elevate up excessively or unnecessarily to pick the head as he delivers the check. This means the head contact on this play is considered unavoidable contact.
Both elements of the illegal check to the head rule must be met in order for the play to be deemed illegal."
Both elements of the illegal check to the head rule must be met in order for the play to be deemed illegal."
The NHL felt they needed to explain their decision and believed that there was nothing wrong with the play at hand. While Knies was injured and forced out of the contest, that seemingly didn't factor into their ruling.
The Department of Player Safety has dealt with their fair share of criticism over the years and after Wednesday night's incident, it most likely won't die down any time soon.
| POLL | ||
NOVEMBRE 22 | 3614 ANSWERS NHL Explains Why Zach Whitecloud's Hit on Matthew Knies Didn't Warrant a Suspension Do you agree with the ruling on the Whitecloud-Knies hit based on their explanation of Rule 48? | ||
| Yes | 587 | 16.2 % |
| No | 3027 | 83.8 % |
| List of polls | ||
MUST READ
TRENDING NOW
