Head Games: NHL Playing with Fire by Condoning Head Shots
by Bob Wage on Nov 3, 2009 1:32 PM EST
37 comments
Canes Country Mail Box
Just to change gears here a bit, I decided to take some time out and answer a couple of emails.
Vince, from Connecticut sent me the following email last week:
The trend I have been seeing the past season or so now appears to be the norm. The Neanderthals have won. The head high hit with the shoulder is getting way out of hand. Since the league does nothing to stop this it is only reasonable that you will have an incident like the one in Philly (Mike Richards) last night. Why just this week the Montreal defenseman Bergeron was shouldered in the face by an Atlanta player and that guy in Chicago got blindsided with one to the noggin by someone leaving the penalty box. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
I have said this before and I’ll say it again, there are people in the hockey that won’t be happy until someone gets flattened and does not get up. Then they will still blame the victim.
Vince and I have exchanged emails on a few occasions about other topics and I agree with him about this. I have never liked watching crushing blows to the head.
There have been a lot of bad hits lately and of course Carolina's own Tuomo Ruutu was recently involved himself as he received a three game suspension for his hit on Darcy Tucker. But you never saw a word of complaint about that suspension from anyone in the Caniac Nation, the team, or even from Ruutu himself. Everyone recognized that the hit was unacceptable and the punishment was pretty much justified.
But what about some of the other hits you see out there?
The Mike Richards hit on David Booth, the prototypical "legal hit" can be just as damaging as Ruutu's hit, if not more so. Ruutu's hit was deemed illegal because Tucker had his back to him and did not see him coming. Richard's hit was legal because Booth had his head down and did not see him coming.
In both cases the victim never saw the hit coming, but in one case it's perfectly legal, in the other it's not.
"You've got to keep your head up", that's the mantra of the folk who love to watch players get carried off the ice on stretchers. The question that I have is, what happens if the puck is at your feet or behind you? What if it's a bouncing puck and you are trying to control it? There are some cases when hockey players need to have their heads down if they want to see what they are doing.
Case in point, Ron Francis. In the 2001 playoffs against New Jersey, Scott Stevens, a player who earned a living by handing out concussions, nailed Ron Francis when he was not looking. Francis staggered to the bench and had to leave the game as well as the series. Of course hockey "experts" as well as the league office, could not convey fast enough that the hit was all Francis' fault. He did not have his head up.
That's right, one of the best players in hockey history, second only Wayne Gretzky himself in all-time assists, was suddenly not smart enough to keep his head up?
The fact of the matter is, everyone has their head down at some point or another. Opponents can either try to take advantage of that by attempting to injure them, or they can play with respect and keep the contact body to body.
The rules concerning head hits almost seem arbitrary and inconsistent. If you hit a guy with your elbow, that's a no-no, but it's okay to lead with your shoulder. If your arm comes up after the hit, that's okay. Are elbow hits more dangerous than solid shoulder hits?
If you leave your feet, that's a penalty. If you leave your feet after the hit, again it's legal.
If a player turns his back to you and you hit him from behind, again a no-no. Yet isn't that similar to a player with his head down?
Another puzzling thing is that the NHL seems to value knees more than they do heads. If one player is deemed to take out another player's knees on purpose, that act is penalized and is worthy of suspension. Not so with a head shot. But couldn't you use the same logic with knee hits that you use with head hits? Shouldn't the player keep his head up and avoid the knee collision?
More and more players and ex-players are starting to speak up about this.
Ex-Hurricanes captain, Keith Primeau, has been interviewed recently by several media outlets. This particular one was with USA Today. Here is an excerpt:
P: I don’t disagree. I think there’s lots of different issues at hand. That certainly is one of the pieces of the equation. For me, again, the question was how do we do it different? How does that scenario become different? For me the scenario is: it’s gotta be body contact. If he’s going to make that hit over the middle, it’s gotta be contact to the player’s body. Ultimately it could be the same result. I’m here to tell you that from my past history that it’s a cumulative effect and I certainly don’t discount the amount of body contact over the years as not having an impact. It certainly did. But still, the head, there has to be off limits or else we’re creating and we’re setting a dangerous precedent. And so for me, what has to happen is when he’s coming through the middle and he wants to make contact because he’s not going to be known as a soft player, he’s gotta make body contact. There can’t be contact to the head.
Puck Daddy recently interviewed RJ Umberger, who when asked about the Richards hit had this to say:
Even though it's clean, it's still a hit to the head and it can end that guy's career. You watch a play [and wonder] if a big hit there is really necessary; he didn't have the puck anymore. If Richards just picks him up and stays with him, he's eliminated from the play. There's really no reason to drill the guy.
Some fans are not going to like that reply, but he has a point.
Here are a couple of recent articles in The Hockey News about the topic.
And some recent questionable hits on You Tube:
First a hit in a junior game from a couple of days ago which left the victim in critical condition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Next a hit from James Wisniewski on Shane Doan which resulted in a suspension.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Finally a recent hit by Andrew Ladd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
James Mirtle talks specifically about the Ladd hit on his blog, From the Rink.
Fans are as divided about this as players. Some are afraid that if you make head-hunting illegal, it will take the hard hitting aspect out of the game. Others say that body to body hits can be just as exciting.
Should all hits to the head be penalized? Should the NHL step in and make some rule changes? Bottom line, it's up to the general managers and board of governors. They control the league office. Jim Rutherford has complained about hits to the head on several occasions, so at least one GM seems to want change.
Is the league waiting for the worst to happen?
(Have a question to be addressed on Canes Country? email canescountry@gmail.com)
0 recs |
37 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Hitting the head is a death waiting to happen
just make it so expensive for the players and the coach and it will stop.
When all else fails, read the instruction manual.
The issue is not a black and white one
I have spoken about this with other poster here before. I don’t think it is an epidemic of headhunting. I think at least half of these head shots are unintentional.
The question is, if you heavily fine or suspend for these kind of hits, how much will ALL hitting go down? I know some of you on here disagree with me ( on a lot of topics, truth be told), but you have to agree on one thing. If you were unsure whether or not a player you were getting ready to check was going to cost you a half million dollars by moving in a way you had not anticipated, you are just as likely to pass that hit up…Clean or not. It’s a violent sport, and we all relish in it when someone gets laid out with an open ice hit. We can’t get indignant when the invariable accident occurs and someone gets hurt.
Then let them hit
with arms and the twig in a down position. Don’t even bend the elbows or push off on them. Then hit as hard as you want.
Almost always the injuries are elbows or the push that takes the opponent into the board.
That’s all I’m going to say.
When all else fails, read the instruction manual.
“Is the league waiting for the worst to happen?” Yes, just like every other “governing body” in the history of professional sports. It’s not the hitting I have a problem with, it’s the helpless player getting steamrolled for the sake of getting steamrolled I have a problem with. Richards hit was no different than the hit on Cullen a while back, it was almost identical. The only effect it had on the play was putting the guy in the hospital. I’m all for finishing a check but give the checkee a fair chance, anything else isn’t sportsmanlike.
Making any “Head Hit” a 2 minute minor would be a good way to sneak up on a solution. Like “Kneeing”. Let’s not rush to drastic action. You’ve still got the same suspensions and fines in place for the more serious hits.
Additionally, after any 2 minute minor for “Hit to the Head” the Instigator rule is negated for the next 5 minutes. Only for the team the Hit was against. I’m almost serious about that one.
by drifterscape on Nov 3, 2009 10:36 PM EST up reply actions
Hits to the head should be illegal
Ice hockey is a physical sport, but allowing hits to the head goes too far. I really hate justifications like “it’s legal, because he had his head down”. The fact that someone glances at the puck should not be a reason to be legally injured. Besides sometimes you cannot see a player if he is coming from the side and the vision of the other guy is blocked by other players. Many players have their career cut short by concussions. What is worse is that doctors still do not know enough about treating concussions and thus you cannot say whether a player will be back in a week, half a year or ever. I do not understand why there is not more pressure from players through NHLPA or teams, who are the ones potentially losing valuable players to head injuries.
Don’t get me wrong, I like physical play, but intentional head shot, regardless or how or where they happen, should be illegal. To me, that is a clear attempt to injure a player.
and the last sentence of your post says it all…intentional. That verbiage alone opens up a huge can of worms, because now you have an official who can barely make the easy black and white calls, now having to judge gray things like intent.
The determination of legality can be done later by the league, in game penalty should be more than a minor (double minor, major or a game misconduct).
Intentional is of course the key, and yes, you can play it many ways, but most of the well-known hits were obviously intentional (Stevens/Lindros etc.) taking advantage of the player who does not see them.
If they can use instant replay for goals they can use it to determine “intent” while the medical crew is bringing out the spine board. If Ovechkin, who’s skates are 6 inches off the ice everytime he hits somebody, got knocked out cold, or even better, if Crosby got concussed by a hit like Richards on Booth the other night, you’d see some changes.
I agree, Wylde. I also wonder how a ref is gonna call something like this – a guy with the size of Phaneuf or even Chara trying to hit a 5’8" forward is going to make some sort of contact with the guy’s head according to a ref who has top make a snap judgement call….
There also seems to be many players in hockey of ALL levels (including the NHL) who do NOT know how to wear a helmet properly, or wear the least protective helmet possible….
I don’t think intent should have anything to do with it. If your stick clips somebody in the face you’re penalized for high sticking whether you intended to hit them or not. I don’t see why hits to the head couldn’t be handled the same way. Hit somebody in the head and it’s two minutes in the box. Give ‘em five for especially egregious offenses. It does seem a bit silly that you get penalized for a stick to the face that doesn’t even leave a mark but you can end a guy’s career with a shot to the head and all anybody says is “Well, it was a legal hit.”
There is not a lot of gray area with a stick – either it is being carried high, or it isn’t. You do get extra PIM’s for “leaving a mark…” and not all high sticks are called, either. Hits to the head are a bit different though, especially when you have a mix of giants like Chara trying to hit some of the little guys buzzing around. It almost seems like the bigger guys will get penalized for a “shot to someone’s head” JUST BECAUSE of his size. Chara’s hip lines up with Theo Fleury’s head – so should Chara NOT be allowed to hip check Fleury? (Extreme example, but I can see how those players over 6’4" get penalized for this…)
I see what you are saying but it is kind of apples to oranges. Your stick belongs on the ice at all times, so if you meant to high stick someone or not does not matter. Your stick should not have been there in the first place. The exception to the rule is when a stick clips someone on a follow through.
Checking someone with the intent of delivering a clean check, but accidentally delivering a head shot, I would argue is more like clipping someone with the follow through. Having said that, they should look at things like players leaving their feet, leading with elbows, things of that nature.
It is a sensitive issue for sure. Take for example: The Doug Weight hit to Brandon Sutter… We all know that Dough Weight is a classy player and he is an asset to his team and to the league… That hit (by the book) was legal… Doug Weight should have still had to pay a price for the hit…. either by suspension or by paying a fine…. he made a legal-but-not-necessary hit on a player who was clearly in a vulnerable position with his head down…. In that moment there was no respect shown whatsoever for the vulnerable player…. (in some cases… how you play the game is more important than if you win or lose…)
It’s kind of like yelling out and calling the president a liar during his speech… it’s not illegal… but it is no less disrespectful…. (just because you can does not mean you should)
The players seem to have lost respect for one another…. and that is a sad thing.
I think that if the league is not going to do something about it…. by either changing their rules or still handing out fines or suspensions to those who exploit players who are vulnerable…. then the players union should step in and police itself. If they are in fact a true union then they can revoke their members who engage in actions and activity which creates a hazardous work place for it’s other members….
either way… something should be done before someone dies…….
by Mateos_Canes_Lamp on Nov 3, 2009 3:40 PM EST reply actions
I agree that something needs to be done...
…but I think that if you asked Doug Weight or any of the Fishsticks if Weight’s “by the book” hit was necessary, they would all answer YES, IT WAS NECESSARY. The game is played at such a high speed that last minute decisions can be bad ones, or a player can turn his back or lean forward after the decision to check someone has been made. Most of us make bad decisions at regular life speed – imagine trying to make some of these decisions while adrenalin is pumping & flying around the ice?
Instant replay gives the viewer the luxury of deciding whether or not there was “intent” or whether a hit was dirty or not – repeated viewings, slo mo etc. Watch one of these hits like a ref – once, at full speed, and while action is going on all over the ice. Then deal with the aftermath of it (the usual pile up of players) before deciding on penalties. It is tough.
The one thing that I really think can’t be debated is the lack of respect that players have for their peers, and that is what makes this an extremely messy argument and discussion.
Video Clip w/Ladd
First off, I miss Ladd and wish we still had him on our team.
Second, I would like to see a penalty for intentional hits to the head but Ladd’s hit was bad because D’Agoistini didn’t see him and it shocked both of them. He shouldn’t have been kicked out of the game.
Last…..I think we should raise money and pay the fine for someone to hit Zdeno Chara’s ugly head.
Excellent points Bob. Unfortunately, (like others) I’m afraid it’s going to take someone dying before the league takes action on this.
I guess I’m weird but I tend to value players’ lives over the flow of the game or the physicality of the game. To me, it seems like a no brainer. Having witnessed the results of hits like these firsthand makes it impossible for me to think any other way.
As an alternative suggestion, I read an article (maybe on PuckDaddy) about removing the hard material from shoulder pads that actually causes the majority of the damage. I don’t know how feasible or appropriate this is, but I thought I would throw it out there for other peoples’ thoughts.
I have been playing the game for more than 20 years...
…and my shoulders are pretty much ruined, even with the hard plastic. Most of these head injuries come from impact with the glass or the ice – even with a helmet, blunt force trauma is hard for the head to take.
As much as it may sound like I am against doing anything about this problem, I really would love a solution that doesn’t penalize players for being big. Respect for other payers & proper helmet / equipment are a good start. I think I agree with drifterscape’s post about it – call any hit to the head ‘roughing,’ let the ref hand out what penalty needs to be handed out, and then let the league (who needs to be more consistent) hand out supplemental discipline.
asking the league to be consistent (on anything) is like asking my cat to bark……
The league turns EVERYTHING into a soup sandwich……
by Mateos_Canes_Lamp on Nov 3, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions
People commenting on the article seemed to think soft pads would be enough for protection (which I was a little skeptical on), so thanks for giving me a firsthand perspective. From what I’ve gathered, the suggestion (or at least its benefits) seemed to be aimed at those hits that happen in open ice with the brunt of the force being directed to the chin. Again, I don’t know all of the logistics, but thought it was an interesting concept.
I would settle for a roughing penalty and then supplemental discipline. But I don’t envision the league being consistent on handing down extra punishment. Someone taking out a superstar is going to get more time than a superstar taking out a no-name.
It’s an extremely fine line. You can’t just per se penalize all head contact because a) sometimes it’s not intentional and results from a legitimate and clean play and b) per se head penalties would allow guys like Eric Lindros to skate right down the middle of the ice with their head down (which is how he was able to dominate in Juniors). I think that classic hit by Stevens was perfectly legal. If you look at it Lindros has his head down and is hunched over at the waist, bringing his head to a lower level than it normally would be expected to be. Even if Stevens was aiming center-mass he’s going to make head contact because Lindros was leading with his head at center-mass height. Lindros shouldn’t be able to guarantee he won’t be hit because he carries his head lower (which is what the result of a per se “head check foul” would be). This brings me to my first criteria when evaluating these kind of hits: was the puck carrier carrying their head lower than would normally be expected. Based on this criteria I think the Weight hit on Sutter was clean and legal. Based on this criteria, the Richards hit on Booth was dirty, even if legal by the rulebook today. Richards is shorter than Booth and Booth was in a normal skating position (all players are going to have a little crouch because that’s a normal skating position, but Booth wasn’t hunched over at the waist like Lindros. A shorter guy in a hockey stance should never make contact with the head of a taller guy in a hockey stance (even if the height difference is minimal, as with Booth and Richards – 1-2 inches difference). Physics and fundamentals tell you that Richards should have planted his shoulder right in the middle of Booth’s chest. However, somehow Richards got his shoulder 6-8 inches higher and made head contact. This leads to my second criteria: did the hitter aim upwards for the hit, or did they aim straight-forward into the chest/body of the player they are hitting?
This is a good post discussing the difference. While everyone wants to look at whether the hitter left their feet before contact, I think the NHL needs to look at whether the direction and force of contact was aimed up towards the head, or straight through center-mass. There is no reason to aim upwards with a hit unless you are trying to make a head shot (and cause serious injury). IMO Richards was clearly aiming upwards towards Booth’s head. This wasn’t like Willie Mitchell on Jonathan Toews or Zdeno Chara hitting a smaller guy; this was clearly an attempt to hit up high. You are taught to lower your shoulder and hit players square in their chest/shoulder/center-mass. It’s the functionally the same as a football tackle in many respects: your power derives from your leverage which derives from your center of gravity, and aiming upwards takes away a lot of your force. All aiming upwards allows you to do is deliver a kill-shot. Unfortunately, one of these days it really will literally be a kill shot.
It’s not realistic for refs to make these calls in-game because of the speed of the game. I suggest the refs continue to call the games as they are used to, but that these hits are reviewed by the NHL and punished when a player intentionally aims their check upward toward the head. Do I have any delusions this will happen? No. Will it always be an easy line to determine? No. But that doesn’t mean the NHL shouldn’t try. An honest effort, even if imperfect, to punish players that intentionally aim for the head will at least start to have a deterrent effect on these hits. The status quo has no such deterrent.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Nov 3, 2009 6:15 PM EST reply actions
Great comments, and I agree with your line of thought. No aiming upwards for the head.
"He has all the virtues I dislike, and none of the vices I admire." -Sir Winston Churchill
My sister hit my car once…. it was not intentional at all… she didn’t even see it sitting there…. but she still has to pay higher insurance premiums because of it…..
Sometimes you have accidental things to happen w/ monumental results…. and consequences….
by Mateos_Canes_Lamp on Nov 3, 2009 8:44 PM EST up reply actions
That’s true, but we are also talking about incentives and the quality of the game. There are a lot of people, myself included, that think it takes away from the quality and appeal of the game when players can skate around staring at the puck; I understand that sometimes it’s necessary but a huge part of the skill and beauty of the game is the ability of these guys to do it without looking down. (OT but one of my biggest pet peeves is when guys in men’s league skate around staring at the puck like they’ve never played contact hockey.) Another part the appeal of the game is hitting. Violent, physical collisions. I’m sorry if you disagree. It’s true in football as well. Taking that out of the game would hurt the quality of the game. The NFL took out hits that led with the head, or directly target the head. The did not outlaw all contact with the head. If the NHL made contact with the head a per se violation you would first see a huge decrease in the amount of even strength play (as if it’s not low enough already). It’s also an extremely subjective call, so refs would essentially start penalizing the result, which is arbitrary and subject to random chance. Then you’d see players dive more to beg for calls (which has already crept into the game). You would probably also see some players pull back on hitting, even when some guys, like Eric Lindros and RJ Umberger, should be hit. That would take away a part of the game that many people appreciate. Intentional hits to the head should absolutely not be tolerated, but it’s simply unrealistic to think that all contact with the head can be abolished without causing serious changes to the game (and giving an officiating crew that already has enough trouble with subjective calls one more major subjective call to deal with). I could also support a rule that any head contact on a blindside hit is penalized, regardless of intent, but I don’t think strict liability is an appropriate standard in this instance.
Short answer is that officiating standards are not apples to apples with insurance premiums.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Nov 3, 2009 9:07 PM EST up reply actions
It can be a beautiful game with awesome hitting all year if it wants…. but as soon as someone dies on the ice…. wait and see how radically it changes when that happens….
I say save it before it needs to be saved…..
by Mateos_Canes_Lamp on Nov 3, 2009 9:20 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with a lot of what you’ve said here and above, but I don’t think the league needs to go so drastic with the hit restrictions to “save” the game.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Nov 3, 2009 9:35 PM EST up reply actions
Remember?
Remember a few years ago when the puck went over the glass, hit a girl and she died. The following season the league made the teams put up those nets (which I personaly don’t like). How many thousands of hockey games had been played before this incident. You watch the older games and the glass was a lot shorter back then. This was a freak accident. Fans have been hit by pucks quite often and have been hurt, it still happens today. But the league didn’t respond until this girl died. The same thing is going to happen with hits to the head. The league seems to feel that cuncussions aren’t that serious, so until someeone dies, nothing is going to change.
I remember, that sucked. I too hate the nets. People are lazy most times and these people that sit down there are BS’ing with the folks next to them instead of paying attention to the game. That’s why you have all those stickers on a ladder, somebody wasn’t paying attention and got hurt.
I’m in no way saying the little girl was in anyway at fault. Just I have been down under the glass and the people are down there like it’s time to gab. Drives me nuts. I don’t like the nets, but see the need. Before the nets, I’d either be under the glass or in the 2-300 section so I had a chance at getting in the way of the puck if it came at my son. I used to have to put a leg on the corner of his seat so it wouldn’t fold up on him, too. I think hockey is great for kids, but it is dangerous, you have to be alert. BTW, my boy made the jumbotron 8yrs or so ago. We were playing the craps when jagr was there. I had a sign on the seat in front of me that said “I just took a crapital and wiped my jagr” and my boy has this big ol’ sausage in his fist gnawing on it like he hadn’t been fed in a week with mustard from ear to ear…
He was too small to get the bun in his mouth so he just skinned it and went for it.
Dam them were the days!!
A
any hit to the head should be illegal. Football is starting to recognize this, and the medical data coming out reinforces the fact that blows to the head lead to long-term health problems. Leave the hitting in the game, just stay away from the pumpkin.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Canes Country
Related FanShots on Canes Country
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- In which former NHL coach Ken Hitchcock foils a shoplifter
- Montreal's Price talks new 2-year contract, expectations post-Halak
- Donald Fehr aware of Kovalchuk drama, mum on everything else
- Puck Headlines: Savard's agent rants on Bettman; Halak in Montreal
- Boudreau, Crawford placed on the coaching hot seat
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
