Lacing Up with Ash and Stoosh - 11.24.08
Ashley Gallant | National Hockey League
Nov 24, 05:46 PM | Hype this story!
Lacing Up is a weekly column taken from an email conversation between Ashley Gallant and CJ. “Stoosh” Jiuliante. Stoosh is a former Faceoff Factor staff writer and a long-time hockey fan.
Ash: In the NHL, hits to the head are not penalties yet they can cause devastating injuries. Just recently, Andrei Kostitsyn, Mike Van Ryn, and Brandon Sutter have been on the receiving end of some nasty hits. Some say that it is necessary to introduce stiff penalties for players who deliver such hits, similar to what the OHL is doing. On the other hand, critics say that tall players will be unfairly penalized if they hit a shorter player, and this will only lead to a “No Hitting League”.
(Former) Anaheim GM Brian Burke is one of the most vocal opponents to a ‘hit to the head penalty’. He was on television a few weeks ago and said that hockey players know the risks and that, if they suffer a head injury as the result of a hit on the ice, then that’s too bad.
How should the NHL address this matter?
Stoosh: I’d wonder what guys like Pat Lafontaine, Brett Lindros, Tim Connolly or Patrice Bergeron would have to say about Brian Burke’s statements. The only thing Burke loves more than talking tough is hearing himself talk tough, so it doesn’t surprise me that he spouted off like that.
I know a lot of people are lamenting the new rules changes taking so much of the physicality out of the game, but hits to the head go beyond being physical and start becoming an issue of preserving not just the health of the player but the safety of the player as well. Players are moving around at incredibly fast rates of speed, and you could certainly make the argument that hockey players have never been as well-conditioned and athletic as they are now. You watch some of the replays of these hits – especially at full speed – and you start to think it’s a miracle that someone hasn’t been killed with a hit to the head.
The NFL has very strict policies against any hits to the head, particularly a helmet-to-helmet hit. On-field NFL officials have the discretion to call a penalty on anything they determine to be a hit to the head during gameplay and the league then goes back, reviews tape of every game played that week and can subsequently fine a player for such a hit, even if there was no penalty called on the initial play. The NFL can also suspend players for hits to the head.
What makes implementation of an across-the-board policy tough is that everything is happening so fast. A player who realizes he’s about to be hit will almost instinctively duck or recoil to avoid the hit; it’s almost impossible in most cases to ask a player delivering the check to make some sort of ultra-quick adjustment to avoid delivering a hit to the head. I thought this was the case with the aforementioned hit on Brandon Sutter by Doug Weight. Is it fair to suspend Weight for a lengthy period of time when it almost looked like Sutter ducked to avoid the hit and actually wound up putting himself in an even worse position when he was hit?
I DO believe, though, that there absolutely needs to be a stiffer penalty for players who make rather obvious attempts to bring their stick or arms up high on a player to deliver a check. If you saw Jarkko Ruutu’s hit on Max Lapierre earlier this week, you’ll see what I mean.
Ash: One thing that’s interesting is that, as we discuss this topic, the NHL has sent a memo to all teams indicating that they will punish those who deliberately hit someone in the head. It shows that this is very much a relevant topic in the hockey world.
TSN’s Sportscentre had a little feature on this memo story and they spoke to a number of players. What I found sad was that there are a number of players who are not in favour of hit to the head penalties because they feel that it will take hitting out of the game, leaving it to be the “No Hitting League”. Why is it that a number of hockey leagues around the world (including the OHL) can penalize hits to the head, without there being a decline in overall hitting, yet the NHL has their collective heads in the sand when it comes to player safety?
You bring up a very good point in talking about the NFL. They penalize hits to the head, and I’ll sell my left kidney if anyone tells me that this rule has come at the expense of the physicality of the game.
I most certainly agree that some players are just caught in a bad situation when they go in for a legitimate hit, only to end up hitting the other player’s head as he turns away. I don’t believe that those players should be suspended because they did not intend on hitting said player in the head. However, I think there should still be a penalty on the play. Refs issue tripping or high sticking penalties, even if it’s accidental, so why not a hit to the head penalty?
Second, players who seek out a another and deliberately deliver a hit to the head should be handed a suspension that would make them think twice. Start with a minimum of 20 games, and increase the penalty by 10 games every time it happens. The NHL should not be afraid of handing out these kind of suspensions if they truly have the best interest of their players in mind. Wouldn’t you rather suspend Ryan Hollweg for 20+ games than have your star players sit at home with a concussion all season?
Third, players should be educated about the severity of head injuries. Coaches should be involved in trying to break the players’ habits of turning away from a hit that will only put them at risk for injury. I would rather see players protect themselves before protecting the puck – even in the Stanley Cup Finals – and it’s about time that teams felt that way too.
Fourth, Brian Burke’s an idiot.
Comments
DaBich
Nov 24, 06:59 PM
“Fourth, Brian Burke’s an idiot.”
Well spoken, Ash.
I wonder if he knows how asinine he sounds?
As for your topic, I favor the penalties, and the suspensions when a review clearly shows the hit was intentional and mean spirited.
TheOneandOnlySurge
Nov 25, 10:48 AM
As bad as hits to the head are, the league needs to concetrate on calling the penalties they already have. A hit to the head can easily be considered a roughing penalty so there really isn’t a need to change the rules. Just enforce the current ones and we will see alot fewer injuries as a result. (I mean as a result of bad hits, whether it be to the head, from behind, into the boards or while launching yourself. Hitting is a great part of the game, if a player is out of line with a hit, then give him a 2 minute or double minor for roughing. If it is a severe hit that results in injury allow for a 5 minute roughing penalty and a game misconduct. Either way adding additional rules for two refs who already have trouble watching the game is a mistake.
Ashley Gallant
Nov 25, 04:37 PM
Tom, I wasn’t proposing that the refs decide which hits to the head are intended and which are not. I think suspensions should be handed out if the NHL finds that a player crosses the line and intentionally hits a player’s head, and the suspension should not be these meaningless 2- or 5-game sentences they hand out.
I was thinking of something more along the lines of what Surge is talking about. The refs should penalize a player for hitting another in the head/from behind/etc (the ‘bad’ hits), regardless of intent. Call it roughing if you want, it doesn’t matter as long as it’s called. However, the worse the hit is, the worse the penalty should be.
I know that the refs sometimes do a really bad job on the ice, and they mess up things that are blatantly obvious, but it seems to me that calling a penalty on a bad hit would be a little easier than trying to decide a holding penalty. Sure, there will always be cases when a penalty isn’t called because the refs did not see it happen, but there would be plenty of cases when that same play would be called.
However, I do agree with you Tom in that the NHL should make their players wear better helmets. I don’t know about football helmets because I’m not too familiar with the technology behind helmet design, but I do know that companies are constantly improving their equipment. And for the record, I am all for grandfathering in mandatory visors.
At the end of the day, I have nothing against hitting in hockey. I think it’s a very important part of our game and I love seeing a great check, but how can we sit back and think that it’s okay for players to hit each other in the head, or from behind and into the boards? Why is it acceptable for players to lay unconscious on the ice as the result of one of these hits?
THEONEANDONLYSURGE
Nov 25, 05:57 PM
Tom, Letangs hit on White was hardly legal. It was interferance at best. If the player is not playing the puck you shouldn’t and can’t hit them. White was at least 5 feet from the puck when he was blind sided. The injury was also most likely a result of being hit while being unaware of it coming, thus not bracing for the hit. However, adequate head protection could have also changed that result and should be looked into by the league.
Ashley Gallant
Nov 27, 08:35 PM
Tom, even if the players had the best helmets in the world, I don’t think you would see a dramatic decrease in head injuries. If you’re skating that fast, and your head stops instantly (as is the case when your head is slammed into the boards) or if your head instantly changes direction (such as when a flying elbow hits your head), it’s not so much the external forces of the elbow/boards on your helmet that you have to worry about. That sudden stop and/or change in direction causes your brain to slam against the inside of your skull, causing injury. It can cause serious problems such as bruising and swelling, and the forces can even tear blood vessels.
Commenting is closed for this article.