Safety and Consistency

There is always a call for no-touch icing in the NHL whenever somebody gets hurt.

And that's okay by me, even though I'm one of those people who believes the race for the puck is both an integral part of the game and often a meaningful one. Everybody's seen the hustling forward who negates an icing call in the final minutes of a game to save his team 200 feet of ice.

That said, injuries like that suffered by Minnesota's Kurtis Foster (broken leg) when he was either hit by San Jose's Torrey Mitchell or got tangled up with Mitchell are both unfortunate and often gruesome.

So if people want to call for automatic icing as a safety measure, that just makes sense.

But those same people better be consistent and call for major rule changes regarding other hockey circumstances in which players are hurt far more often.

For example, more players suffer nasty facial injuries because they don't wear visors than players are injured on icing calls.

So if you want safety to be the major consideration, then a call for no-touch icing should be accompanied by a call for mandatory visors like the American Hockey League.

What about checking from behind? Far more player are crunched illegally or semi-legally into the side boards and injured than on icing calls, so those rules should be changed as well.

More players are hurt fighting every season than the two or three that are hurt racing for icing calls. The Leafs' Mark Bell, for example, is still wearing a full cage after having his orbital bone fractured in a scrap earlier this season.

So those who call for a change to icing rules should also be interested in banning fighting.

For safety's sake, of course.

Fact is, hockey's a full-contact, high speed game, and people get hurt playing it. If you want to make the NHL game safer and prevent injuries, there would be many more meaningful places to start than no-touch icing.

You can't just pick and choose.

Comments

[chris]

Good idea, Damien. Of course you are talking about the National Hockey League, where any kind of changes, that would improve the safety of the hockey player, would be seen to them like cross dressing. They'll just continue on adamantly believing their's is the most manly of all sports and that those who question their wisdom don't know hockey, much less have watched a game in their lives.

Oh-bah-dee, oh-bah-daa, life goes on...

[iceberg]

There needs to be greater accountability on the part of players, who through action or inaction cause another player to be injured. Maybe Mitchell didn't intend for Foster to break his leg, but it's been noted in other reports that he could have pulled up on the play.

I think the rules are fine as they are, however they need to be better enforced. Guys should be penalized the second their stick comes up past the height of the crossbar, in any zone. There's a reason there are stop signs on junior players jerseys, to prevent hits from behind. Intentional or not, a hit from behind that causes a serious injury should warrant a lengthy suspension. The NHL also needs more consistency in their punishment. Chris Pronger should have been suspended for the '08 playoffs for what he did, as a minimum. (I'm from Orange County too, so I could get lynched for saying that.) It's almost arbitrary as to the punishments handed out. I also think that there is a serious lack of respect on the ice for other players on the part of some. It seems like some guys intend to injure someone on every shift. Hockey is a rough, emotional game, and I love it because of that fact. But there has to be a line, and I think too many guys cross it with no repercussions.

[BigNiceJohn]

I don't think the real issue is how often players are hurt, but the severity of the injuries suffered. Guys who take pucks (or fists, for that matter) in the face are hurt, but more often than not, you'll see them come back after getting stitched up, or miss less than 5 games. Whenever we see these devastating injuries resulting in the race for an icing, however, it always seems to be something much worse, even though it happens with much less frequency.

Every time something like this happens, though, you find out through all the polls in the media, that the NHL players are more concerned about no-touch icing than fighting or visors

[Marijan Kalman]

Mitchell didn't got tangled up with Foster, he pushed him in to the boards with intent to kill him.Pronger didn't got tangled with Kesler he INTENDED TO BREAK KESLER'S LEG.

As long as you hockey writers, and MENTALLY RETARDED IDIOT like Campbel are trying to explain these injuries are accidental this mayhem is going to continue.

If referee gave 10 minutes to Pronger plus game misconduct and league fined him 100 games someone would blink.
Mitchell should be out of hockey as long as Foster is injured and he should be forced to pay for Fosters insurance.

So we are back to the reason for all this and it is refereeing. IT IS THE WORST THAT EXIST IN ANY BUSH LEAGUE IN THE WORLD.As long as they don't call first hit from behind 10 minutes and game this is is going to continue.As one player and commentators put it after game against Anahaim:
With the exception of Niedermayer, you could call a penalty on their defense on every shift."
Every night in every game you have 50 interferences that are not called and after every whistle you have face washing on the ice.IF THEY CALL PENALTIES, PROBLEMS WOLD BE GONE.

Visors could be enforced in 5 minutes, insurance company could just forced all players to wear visors, but NHL doesn't want this.Ask people in N.Y. why.
So you and all writers should start calling this referring for what it is "WORST JUNK IN THE WORLD" and after year someone is going to blink!!!

[Stephen]

Damien, sometimes you get piled into unfairly by the Many Mindless Minions, but if there ever was a case where you deserved it, this is it.

Of course people should be consistent, but simply because a position is more complex doesn't make it arbitrary. Multiple principles are at play here, and --as BigNiceJohn so aptly demonstrates -- they can apply to varying degrees depending on their context.

The problem is with your presumption "...if you want safety to be the major consideration..." "THE" major consideration, Damien? Nobody who argues for fighting or non-mandatory facemasks (call it facial freedom, if you will) believes that safety should be THE major concern. If safety was such a concern nobody would be playing hockey in the first place, or at least not hockey as we know it.

Your entire post is attacking a ridiculous strawman -- it's the sort of analysis one expects from Other Newspapers.

[Sam]

You've raised two themes. Safety and integral to the sport.

I'm lost on your idea that racing for the puck on a potential icing call is as integral to the sport as fighting. I don't see how something that has been ingrained into the game as fighting (i.e. the Gordie Howe hat trick, Rocket's ability to score and drop the gloves, Orr's toughness vs. Gretzky's lack thereof) is the same as an icing call (who comes to mind when you think of someone who can prevent an icing call? Russ Courtnall?).

Nonetheless, the issue of consistency is valid. If the goal is safety, then yes. Steps should be taken to prevent facial injuries by implementing a rule for visors similar to the rule for helmets. I'm lost as to why insurance companies don't push for visors given the money they must be paying out for those who don't wear such a simple piece of equipment.

[entertainme]

Damien, if you don't like fighting in hockey, there's women's hockey. There's rarely any fighting in that. And that's not a put down, women's hockey is actually very entertaining.

dc, the fact is, most people enjoy the fights. They're entertaining. Yes, I can see how the urban metrosexuals can be bothered by it, but the fact of the matter is, most guys have a considerable amount of testosterone in them. That's why guys grow up rough housing. That's why women have the Young & the Restless and men have the WWE. That's why the UFC is one of the fastest growing sports.

DC, you're a good writer, but you're not very humble. You make broad and unresearched generalizations (see backlash from the last couple of posts for examples), you always assume you're right and everyone's wrong, and you take yourself far too seriously. Lighten up a little bit, it's not all grey and cloudy out there =)

[Rob]

Why can't we pick and choose? The icing races are few and far between, but the injuries caused by them are substantially bigger simply because they occur by skating at full speed into a wall. I absolutely agree that hits from behind are ridiculous, and I'd prefer to see visors mandated by the league, but at the same time, you can cite cases from basically any season you choose of a player getting hit, tapped, tripped, whatever into the end boards in a "race" to prevent an icing, and that player ends up with a high ankle sprain, broken ankle, broken foot, broken leg, torn up knee, and the list goes on. Go ask Mark Tinordi if no-touch icing would be a good idea.

[OddyOh]

Damien, I can sort of see the point you're trying to make, but to be honest, I'm not buying. Like the other posters have posted, fighting rarely results in the same type of injuries as racing 200 ft like a madman and then having your feet ripped out from under you, or getting an extra boost from a defender.

However, we all know the NHL is having a tough time right now, as it waits for Colin Campbell to go away. Until that inconsistent lunatic is out of office, the NHL will continue it's current path.

I don't like to make this prediction, but I cannot imagine we will get through this season without a fatality on the ice. These players have lost all respect for each other, the money (and pressure to win) has never been higher, and the GMs seem to have lost all knowldge of what makes this game great. Hint: Fellow GMs, if you have no star players left due to career ending injuries, then you still expect people at the gate!?!?!

Further to all of that, I've rarely seen a player beat out the icing call and have it result in anything. It's maybe once a year, if that often, I've just never seen it. The GMs should maybe watch the World Juniors once in a while (if only the NHL had that percentage of skilled players), get an idea of how the game should be played.

Ice the puck, blow the whistle, drop the puck again...nobody gets hurt, NHL improves its image. Simple.

[Ice-T]

I heard Bob McKenzie talking about a "hybrid" (I hate that word) icing call being tested in some US junior league whereby the linesmen call it no-touch or touch icing depending on where the puck and players are when the puck crosses the goal (icing) line. That is a good idea and should be implemented, or at least given some consideration.

[Dan Lawson]

What about a variation on the current rule? Instead of requiring the player to touch the puck - icing is either waved off or called depending on who's stick crosses the goal line first. If the defensive player gets there first, then the icing is called. If the offensive player gets there first then icing is waved off. If it's a tie - icing is waved off (like in baseball - tie goes to the runner). This achieves the same intent as the current rule but it will allow people to use their speed while giving them the buffer of not having to touch the puck. Also, a player who interferes with his opponent on an icing play automatically loses the icing call and get's two minutes for interference.

[HABS RULE]

Honestly I like having the touch icing it is a part of the game so there. Some media people just like the ratch up this old story whenever an injury happens. GET OVER IT!

Also Don Cherry just supports the no touch to look like hes worried about safety what a phony!

[bagoverheadguy]

No touch icing...bring it on, now, before more players are shelved with broken legs or worse.

Hitting into the boards from behind is all too common. If a player is hurt as a result, suspend the offender the same number of games the injured player is out, as a previous poster suggested.

Intentional shots to the head and neck, outside of mano vs. mano, should be minimum 10 games for first offense.

It's surprising the NHLPA has not been more proactive in putting a few strict rules in place for their own safety, and career longevity.

But, as someone said earlier, it's the NHL after all!

[Bill R]

Yes we can pick and choose. That's what this society is all about.

[Matt]

I don't think Damien is suggesting the NHL go after fighting as a top priority -- he's just making the point that there are other areas of safety that the NHL could address. Its more of an intellectual challenge to the league honchos than "I think this is the issue you need to deal with".

[J. Boyd]

Why is the NHL so reluctant to make this change in rules??? It's not as if getting to the puck first is going to change the outcome of the game,,,,,,if the offensive player touches the puck first he is creamed by the defensemean, if the defenseman touches it first the ref blows the whistle,,,,,,,in very few instances can the forward get to the puck first and be able to make any kind of play out of it.

But,,,,yes it is the NHL,,,,,,nothing like blood and guts hi-lite reels.

[kenny d]

It seemed to me that Mitchell pushed Foster into the boards. Pushing a player at that speed so close to the boards is inexcusable. Not only did Mitchell cause a possible career threatening injury but also a possible quality of life injury. Let's hope not. I hope he feels proud of himself. Is Mitchell having trouble sleeping at night... too bad. I'm getting tired of these players who cause long term injury's and absolutly nothing of consequence occurs. If a player causes an injury to another player, that player shall be suspended until such time that the injured player is deemed able to play again by independent doctors. Maybe that way sticks will come down, players won't be taking to the air to body check someone into the boards, you won't have goons like Jensen trying to take someone's head off like he tried to do to Kaberle last year, however, it will most likely never happen. After all we live in a society now where right and wrong is not an issue, it's what one can get away with.

[Chris Michaels]

Damien -- while I do enjoy, and regularly side with, most of your articles, I think you've missed the mark here. Big time. The severity of injuries incurred through meaningless races for the puck far outweigh any benefits to the excitement of the game. And to put fighting in the same category is not at all accurate. Sure, there are dangers; but, for wieghing the injuries against the number of fights per season, it's awfully rare.

In my experience, even as the puck persuer in these races, it's always a dicey moment. You want to fish for the puck, but an inadvertant trip could leave your opponent in a wheel chair. Personally, the game is better off without that.

[Jim]

It slays me when fans and players go on about a "lack of respect" amongst players these days... as if a rekindling of that old-time hockey 'respect' is what the NHL needs in order to eliminate injuries.

What a crock.

Did these people ever watch the game during the 50s, 60s, 70s, or even 80s? When it was likely to see a combination of head shots, line brawls, stick swinging, fan brawls and pools of blood in just about every game?

Luckily, those players were half the size of the behemoths in the NHL these days. Otherwise, they all might have 'respected' each other into early retirement.

Recent catastrophic injuries in hockey are from one reason and one reason only - oversized players, wearing hard-as-rock body armor, hitting as hard as they can on an outdatedly small ice surface.