Per Rule 56: "...The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally,..."
Kronwall deemed Havlatt to be in possession of the puck, then legally rendered him unconscious.
This was one of the greatest hits of all time, followed by one of the biggest pussy penalty calls of all time.
NHL = No Hitting League. NHL goaltenders already wear skirts, what's next -- everyone wears figure skates?
The on-ice officials are the ones that deem people in possession, not Kronwall.
I have no argument with yours official, legal viewpoint. However, I also believe reality: when Kronwall locked-on to Havlat in his crosshairs, he declared Havlat to be "deemed and doomed."
Uh, yeah, but if the refs deem he's not in possession then the hit is illegal. Just because Kronwall thinks he is doesn't make the hit clean. Of course Kronwall thought he had the puck, he doesn't just run around hitting players without the puck.
I think that the hit was entirely clean, but not because Kronwall "deemed" Havlat to be in possession. If it worked that way then players could just cheap shot everybody and defend it by saying they "deemed" them to be in possession. It doesn't work that way.
The whole rule, and interpretations of it, leave soooo much up to the discression of the officials. Problem is, that in any given situation, different refs will see it differently. And as Players and fans, we are blown away by the lack of consistancy. Which leaves two things. 1. They will never be consistant and 2. we will always have difference of opinion about it.
__________________ Penguins Fan living in Sabreland
Uh, yeah, but if the refs deem he's not in possession then the hit is illegal. Just because Kronwall thinks he is doesn't make the hit clean. Of course Kronwall thought he had the puck, he doesn't just run around hitting players without the puck.
I think that the hit was entirely clean, but not because Kronwall "deemed" Havlat to be in possession. If it worked that way then players could just cheap shot everybody and defend it by saying they "deemed" them to be in possession. It doesn't work that way.
I believe you've taken too literally my use of the term "deemed," which was intended to be entirely in a humorous vein versus a comment about its usage in legal vernacular. Thus, I now deem myself to be done with this thread.
I agree with nossagog but think the days of the "Scott Stevens hits" are gone.. they are calling all good hits now a days
it was a "good hit" but illegal at the same time.
Scott Stevens had his own special rule. "Don't call a penalty on Stevens no matter what he does." A Scott Stevens hit was a forearm to the head. Kronwell's hit looked fine to me but I saw it first in slow motion.
Scott Stevens had his own special rule. "Don't call a penalty on Stevens no matter what he does." A Scott Stevens hit was a forearm to the head. Kronwell's hit looked fine to me but I saw it first in slow motion.
I agree about Stevens he was a head hunter.
The problem with Knonwell's hit was Havlat "NEVER" touched the puck prior to the hit there for making the hit illegal by definition.
The problem with Knonwell's hit was Havlat "NEVER" touched the puck prior to the hit there for making the hit illegal by definition.
I can't stand this excuse. D-men constantly protect the puck behind the net without ever touching it and git hit all the time and it's never called because they are in the play. Havlat was in the play and playing the puck. So you can stick to the letter of law word for word or you can use common sense. Which the refs didn't it was a good hit and a bad call.
Scott Stevens had his own special rule. "Don't call a penalty on Stevens no matter what he does." A Scott Stevens hit was a forearm to the head. Kronwell's hit looked fine to me but I saw it first in slow motion.
just watched Scott Stevens top ten hits, all were shoulder, elbow straight down to his side you must be mistaking the player.
Legal Hits
Linear Mode
