| > Now hitting someone when their head is low invariably is a suspension. The responsibility is on the tackling player. An attacker with his head too low is not a valid target. The rules are way more strict now, but this isn’t accurate. It has to be intentionally targeting the head, or feet leaving the ground. There is no responsibility on the player unless contact with the head was deemed to be avoidable. That doesn’t apply to the hit overall, as there is never an obligation to avoid contact - just that if you do make contact, and you have the option of where to hit them, you aren’t allowed to choose the head. The rule states: In determining whether contact with an opponent’s head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered: (i) 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. (ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable. > I don't care whether NHL players get a few more concussions. They make millions and have great healthcare. That’s the biggest issue in professional contact sports, particularly football and hockey, so any argument that dismisses it is not going to be very compelling. There is no such thing as good health care for concussions. It’s permanent brain damage. |