Rule 48: Legal Hits Are Now Illegal

Chris Golden

Chris is the Head, Social & Community Relations here at CHB, hosts the C4 podcast and is the guy who goes streaking when Chris Tanev scores goals. He's also still looking for 1.21 gigawatts of power.

You may also like...

  • http://twitter.com/vansport Sporting Vancouver

    I guess Edler should have slammed on the breaks and let the king skate by with the puck….sheesh…

  • http://www.leftcoastbydesign.ca/ Chris

    That’s the problem, I don’t agree that Edler should have to yet the rule doesn’t have any leeway. It doesn’t matter if the opposing player is placing their head in a dangerous position, as all that matters is whether or not it’s the principle point of contact.

  • http://canuckshockeyblog.com/ J.J. Guerrero

    As far as I can tell, the hit on the head was a result of Clifford skating stupidly – reaching for the puck with his head down – into Edler’s shoulder than Edler throwing a hit.

    I understand the rule and its intent, but I think the referee misinterpreted it. I don’t think it was a blindside hit nor a lateral hit – Edler was skating up ice was he not? – and I don’t think rule 48 should have been applied.

  • http://dmkarp.blogspot.com David

    This was an insightful post, thanks. It’s disturbing that there is no option for a minor penalty, as what Edler did shouldn’t have been a game misconduct, even though it clearly violated 48.1. To call it elbowing is a little far-fetched because Edler didn’t use his elbow. It’s nice of the refs to have let Edler get off with an elbowing call, but very scary that according to the rules, they should have tossed him from the game.

    That rule should be reformed to allow for a two-minute minor penalty where there “the head is the principle point of contact” even though there is no intent by the guilty player to make contact with the head.

  • http://www.leftcoastbydesign.ca/ Chris

    That’s the thing JJ, Rule 48 was NOT applied. Had it been, Edler’s night would have been over as soon as the penalty was called as there is no provision for a 2 minute minor under the rule. I completely agree with you that what Edler did was what we understand to be “part of the game,” but it’s also a good example of how Rule 48 can become an albatross should something like this happen again in the future. There isn’t anything in the rule that even says “in the opinion of the referee” to give it some grey – it’s good ol’ black and white cause and effect.

  • http://www.leftcoastbydesign.ca/ Chris

    That’s exactly my point – I had never read the rule until after the Edler hit and was shocked once I did. I’m all for the intent of the rule in an effort to protect the players, but I think it may have been rushed out in a effort to have something over nothing.

  • Sternip

    I think what made it look bad was that Edler leaned right into the hit, which made it seem more aggressive than it really was – at the freeze frame of impact his body and trailing leg make an almost 45 degree angle to the ground. I’d say it was just off being a good clean hit, had Edler held body position into the hit a bit differently he probably would not have been penalised. It also did appear to me on first look that he made contact with his elbow, even if the commentator said the opposite – I think that had a lot to do with his body positioning and lean.

    For me, it was his lack of thought in making sure he wouldn’t give the refs a reason to give him a penalty.

  • Pingback: He Said, She Said: Torres Hits and Ballard's Hips | CANUCKS HOCKEY BLOG

%d bloggers like this: