Dreakon wrote:
I suppose the whole point of this discussion and, well, forums in general isn't what hockey is... but our differing opinions about what hockey should be. If you want to have an argument about whether or not what happens on the ice is technically hockey by definition, I have a feeling it'll be a short and particularly uninteresting conversation.

I assumed you would prefer to go the more interesting angle, but I was quite wrong.
My post had nothing to do with deciding on 'which way to go' with that argument. I was responding to people saying "That's not hockey", a statement which was clearly incorrect. I'd love to engage in a 'what the rules should be for hockey', but thats not the discussion we were having.
I dont think hits like that should be allowed, personally. Did you guys see the replay of leopold sprawling after the hit? Dude does like 4 distinct unconscious wiggles in the air before even hitting the ice. Then he flops and seems to be just fucking OUT. It would have been different had leopold had his head up. Does Sutton bear responsibility for Leopold not seeing him coming, and defending himself? If leopold had seen him, but had sort of braced himself it still would have been a huge hit, but leopold wouldnt have been knocked the fuck out like that, what then...would that have been legal? How do we even draw these lines in between these gray areas?