I'm not sure I follow how one player handling the puck and the other not handling the puck doesn't make the play where the player doesn't have the puck dirtier -- at least Lindros should have have been expecting some sort of hit, since he was a legal target as the puckcarrier.
You don't follow.
-Because both were hits from the player's blind side. While you can expect a hit, it is hard to expect one you never see coming. But let's blame the player that got hit instead, if he had the puck, he just had to expect it, right? Similarly, when a player with the puck gets nailed from the back smack on his own player bench, it matters little if he had the puck or not. It would be a dirty hit, not any less than if the player was 10 feet away from the rubber thing. At the end of the day, puck or no puck, you'll need facial reconstruction and someone will get suspended.
-Because both hits were deliberately aiming the player's head with a high shoulder with intentions to cause as most damage as possible. There is no doubt Stevens was looking to injure on that play.This is the worst kind of behavior and you cannot relativise its gravity because there was no interference. Had Lindros shot the puck a second before, he would have received the same check from a player he probably wouldnt have had time to defend against. One second appears to be pretty much the only difference between the hit on Lindros and the one Nathan received.
Now I don't know this Rome guy and if that's his usual style of play but Stevens has a history of hits like that. At the very least the NHL is a lot less tolerant than it used to be on such hits... that Stevens hit used to make NHL highlights for fucks sake. Today, it probably would be an immediate suspension. There is still a lot of room for improvement, but it isn't as bad as it used to be.
But sure there was an added interference call possible on that play last night and because of that you ''don't follow'' how the hits are similar. Well then just don't follow.