Everyone else is wrong and I am right: look at 2:14 of this clip...
If you can execute a "low" hip check you belong in the circus.
Jim Fox (whom I love) is wrong. His little red arrows do NOT point to the point of contact. Watch when Chimera goes up: Scuderi has hit him right on the pants with his back. Look at the Columbus feed around 4:40, since they have another angle. Even as the announcers are saying it's below the knees it's clearly not below the knees, or even on the knee, but at WORST right above the knee, which is of course the same thing as saying "not on the knee." Is "close to the head" the same thing as a check to the head? How about a puck close to over the goal line? That's a goal, right?
Also, "intent to injure?" Ha ha ha. It's a hip check, folks. It's the classic Holy Grail of a defenseman's checking arsenal. And what is the "intent" of a hip-check? I will tell you: to send the guy flying through the air, hopefully head over heels. And, done right, it's spectacular, classic, highlight reel stuff. It's what defensemen have instead of hat-tricks. Does it hurt to be hit this way? Usually, not at all. But it takes you out of the play, and it's embarrassing. I'll try to find the great hip check laid on Jack Johnson in his first ever pro game. Usually, you just pop right up. Chimera fell awkwardly, landed on his face. That's bad luck. And you simply can't plan or "intend" that, and it has absolutely not one f**king thing to do with whether he was hit below the knee or not. Which, in any case, he wasn't.