andru,
I'm not saying it was necessary or even that it wasn't vicious, I'm just saying it wasn't illegal. it was unfortunate. Hey, Seabrook  is from BC where all the best players come from . I want his career to last long enough so that he can come home to play for an actual contender again.

The ref and the NHL are probably more impartial than you and I (can't believe I saying this). They've made their call. Don't you think the NHL would love nothing more than to make an example out of a player on a Canadian team? But there is nothing there.

And if looking the other way equals blindside..........uh how is Torres to predict that. You are essentially saying there should be no hitting in hockey.
Should shooting a puck at a goalie who's looking the other way be illegal? Isn't it dangerous?    

Actually, according to TSN.ca the league is justifying it by saying the reason it didn't violate rule 48 simply because it happened behind the net, which is designated as a "hitting area". Are you kidding me? Does the NHL know how ridiculous that sounds? So a hit to the head is ok behind the net, but not anywhere else? Cmon, how is that sensible?

peter, I'm not saying the league and the refs aren't impartial, and it's hard to blame the referee on the ice because he doesn't have the luxury of still images or replays when calling penalties. But to say that hits like this are "good hockey hits" as you seem to be implying is part of the attitude among fans, players, coaches and GMs that is the reason headshots and concussions continue to rise.

I don't want to take hitting out of the game, but hitting in hockey was never about injuring the other guy. It has always been about separating the man from the puck and Torres was trying to do anything but in this instance.

My problem is that in giving the reason they did, the NHL basically said that it was a headshot and a violation of Rule 48, but because it happened behind the net it was ok.

IT WASN'T A HEADSHOT!!

How was it not a headshot? Torres went in, targeted an unsuspecting player and his elbow/upper arm/shoulder (depending on what team you support) made contact with Seabrook's head. The evidence is clear in the still I posted peter, cmon.

In addition, by saying that the hit didn't violate rule 48 because it happened behind the net is basically and admission by the league that, had it happened anywhere else on the ice it would have been a suspendable hit. Seeing as how any hit that violates rule 48 is a blow to the head of an unsuspecting player from the blind side, you can see where my logic comes from.

RULING:
"In this case, Seabrook was vulnerable and as video replay clearly shows, Torres made no attempt to play the puck and focused on what he understands his job to be - separating player from puck by administering a thunderous body check.

An important distinction for the NHL is the fact the puck was in the area of the hit last night and Torres stopped skating near the faceoff circle and cruised in before landing the hit.

Not long ago this hit would have been celebrated (highlight of the night material), but not any more. Instead, player safety has become the focus, so all hits viewed too violent or that seemingly fall within the boundaries of Rule 48 are rightly questioned."

Andru, you said you couldn't rewatch the play. Watch it slow. First contact is shoulder to chest. Seabrook's head hit Torres' chest because his head was down. Seabrook is taller than Torres.
 

Where is that quote from?

I agree Torres stopped skating. I agree the puck was in the area and that Torres made no attempt to play it, and that that is his job. What I disagree with is the first contact argument because Torres did in fact make contact with the head. Whether it was first or not should be irrelevant. It's like saying if I fire a gun, and the bullet riccochets off a wall and kills you, I shouldn't be convicted of murder. That doesn't make any sense.

And let's remember one more thing...in calling a penalty, it was already established that the hit was illegal. Furthermore, in calling it interference, the NHL effectively is contradicting itself by saying the fact that the puck was "in the area" is a major factor.

Just holding a player's arm is interference. A late hit (which is what it was) is interference, clean hit or not. 

Seabrook  himself says it was mostly body to body.

That quote was from TSN: Dreger

Seabrook says it was "mostly" body to body because he doesn't want to concede anything. He's not going to sit there and cry about there not being a suspension. That's not his style.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not saying it was the worst hit in the world either, don't get me wrong. All I'm saying is that it was comparable to other hits that started to raise questions about player safety (like Cooke and Richards), which were widely considered vicious, albeit borderline clean hits that should have been suspendable and got nothing in the end.

 Seabrook is a tough western Canadian kid ,he knows its a clean hit so does everybody else,I guess you never watched Scott Stevens play hockey Andru? this is the NHL ,its a tough sport ,if you dont like physical play dont watch the game,some of us enjoy good hard hitting hockey,just like BC boy Brent Seabrook..try some womens hockey Andru? lots of nice plays and nobody gets really hit hard..may be your cup of tea?

 Or better yet Soccer? have you watched Soccer Andru? its a beautiful sport  for those not into the contact variety

  " Honey, have you seen that old broom around the house?, you know im gonna need it for tomorrow nite ,right?..thanks sweetie...ill be up in 5"

WOW, just checked a few of the new 2010/2011 SIM ratings?

Hamhuis got a 99 D rating............for about 5.5 mil

Maybe NHL players should wear cow bells so that when players have their heads down you can hear someone else coming. That or you could pay attention to the play on the ice. I think everyone agrees that the first rule in hockey is to keep your head up.

 Cant believe  i agree with C.Simpson but why do the Canucks always try to play defense and hold a lead? how many failed attempts  does the coaching staff have to endure,they simply cannot win playing that passive sit back and defend style..unbelievable..play hard and check throw hits go offensive..just frustrating to watch same thing year after year ..hopefully game 5 they get back to what makes them successful..