A Change in Attitude . . . But Not Completely

NAPLES,Fla.

NHL players are demanding tough new rules on head shots.

Well, sort of.

NHL Players Association boss Paul Kelly told NHL general managers at their meetings today that 75 per cent of players want new rules imposed on reckless, intentional blows to the head.

But the union stopped short of calling for a crackdown on all hits to the head, such as in the Ontario Hockey League where all blows to the head regardless of intent are penalized.

“Hits to the head are the most significant concern on the part of the players,” said Kelly. “I would say better than three-quarters of the players believe we need to have a new rule on hits to the head that protect players.

“We’re not looking at all hits to the head. There are accidental and inadvertent hits that don’t cause a great deal of injury. You do have situations where you have large players hitting smaller players and they are going to make contact with the head.

“But we are talking about the unsuspecting player, the guy that’s in a vulnerable position who gets hit by a player who either intentionally or recklessly targets the head of that player. And whether he strikes him with his shoulder or some other body part it’s the view of the players that those types of hits need to be eliminated from the game.

JULIE JACOBSON/AP

Witt suspended five games for his Feb. 26 hit on Hagman.

“It’s a pure safety issue.”

It sounds like a drastic change, except that the league is already clamping down on those types of “intentional” hits to the head with heavier suspensions. Two weeks ago, Islander defenceman Brendan Witt received a five-game suspension for an elbow to the head of Maple Leaf forward Niklas Hagman.

Kelly said the rule the players advocated would be similar to the current hits-from-behind rule and would give officials room to assess a minor, major or match penalty.

“Right now you can blind-side a guy, see him coming through the neutral zone looking away to catch or receive a pass and you can drop your shoulder straight into his head. It’s a perfectly legal and appropriate hit. We don’t think that’s correct. We think that’s a serious safety issue,” said Kelly.

“That’s the type of hit we want to see eliminated from the game and you can’t do it simply by preaching respect to the players. You’ve got to put more teeth into it. You’ve got to deter this type of conduct.”

Several seasons ago, Chris Neil of the Senators nailed Chris Drury of the Sabres with that type of open-ice hit and wasn’t even penalized, so presumably that type of incident would fall under the new rule proposed by the union.

REUTERS FILE PHOTO

Few will forget the aftermath of Stevens vs. Lindros.

But the devastating hit by Scott Stevens in the 2000 playoffs on Eric Lindros – a crushing shoulder hit to the hit when Lindros was caught with his head down – would probably still be allowed according to the union’s proposal. It would be up to the referees to determine if the player delivering the hit was intentionally targeting the head of his opponent, an awfully tough judgement to make in many circumstances.

NHL history shows that when such judgement-type rules are put in place, they generally aren’t enforced in all but the most obvious situations. But when the league eliminated hooking from the game in 2005, it did so by making it a “no tolerance” rule.

Interestingly, while NHLers seem to understand that hits to the head can cause irreparable damage, they seemingly make no connection between those and the violent punches to the head featured in each and every hockey fight.

Instead, according to Kelly, players like fighting at the levels it is now.

“Players believe that fighting plays an important role in the sport,” said Kelly. “Players believe that fighting to a large degree does cut down on the violence in the sport. They believe it cuts down on stickwork and other play. It protects the star players and the smaller players.”

Kelly also said players support playing in the Olympics beyond 2010 in Vancouver

“Players strongly support continued Olympic participation after Vancouver ,” said Kelly. “They believe it’s good for the game. They understand the issues of the owners, but they think it’s a positive.”

Comments

[mark]

Damien, you should go back to high school physics class. That way you would understand how different a two guys standing toe to toe punching is from a shoulder or elbow to the head when the play is in motion. I'm pleased to see that the players union is starting the conversation around this dangerous play and I'm equally happy to see that they are not painting fights in the same light. While I would be pleased to see penalties for fighting increased to eliminate the 'goon' role some teams still believe they need, I would still maintain that hits from behind, hits delivered to the head, knee on knee, charging/leaving the ice and recklessly swinging sticks are still far more dangerous to the players and, if policed properly by the league, can eliminate the cause of many fights in the first place. In summary, solve the problem by looking at the cause, not the result.

[2nd Guess]

In point of fact, Damien, Stevens' hit on Lindros was an arm shiver to the head -- as were virtually all of his big hits. They weren't flagrant enough to be elbowing penalties, but neither were they, technically, shoulder hits.

Had there been a rule against head shots during the last 20 years, Stevens would have been effectively neutered throughout his career.

[Mark]

Come on folks let's call fighting in the NHL what it is. The NHL is the only pro sport that promotes fighting. The NHL claims it is a vital part of hockey. Hence, all penalties for fighting should be eliminated and players should be able to beat each other up as long as it takes. In my opinion, fighting is not integral to the game. Football players hit each other every single play - yet stand up for the next huddle without as much as throwing an elbow. And as for fighting selling the game in the US - not true. US sport fans are much more sophisticated than in Canada - they laugh at hockey and call it roller derby on ice!

[Shawn]

Mark - Fighting is integral to hockey in the NHL, and has always been. Whether or not you agree with it is up to you. Fighting itself is a a pro sport, so you can't use the argument that no other pro sport promotes fighting. Hockey is a pro team sport in which players occasionally fight. They do so willingly and in full knowledge of the risks involved, just as boxers and mma fighters do. Also, your comment about US sports fans being more "sophisticated" than Canadian fans is ignorant, and makes you look unsophisticated. Just because you may have heard someone refer to hockey as roller derby on ice doesn't make that the viewpoint of all US sports fans. Thanks for coming out though.

[John]

Easy there, 2nd Guess.

The hit on Lindros as total shoulder cap on the chin, Stevens follow through had nothing to do with the injuries that resulted. It's the same motion that Wendel had on most of his hits (Bruce Bell), and many other effective body checkers.

For this to mean anything, though, Damien is right that most of those Stevens hits, the Clark hit, and many others should be penalized. Another example is any stick above the shoulders - intentional or not - is called for high sticking. This wasn't always the case.

Very hard to eliminate those (currently) clean hard hits that make head contact without it affecting the amount of body contact completely.

[Peter]

i found it disappointing that they are trying to eliminate shoulder checks to the head. why don't they try to re-design the shoulder pads? that's the real danger. if it is a clean hit, it should remain in the game. get rid of the blind side hits and the elbows to the head. what's next? no contact?

[PhillyCanuck]

Shawnm you cannot compare fighting in hockey to boxing or MMA fighting...in those sports, the purpose of the action is to land punches and make your opponent incapable of continuing. The PURPOSR of action in hockey is to score more goals than your opponent; in addition, you are punished (penalized) for fighting in hockey, so you CANNOT say it is a "legitimate" part of the game. That's like saying that catching and running with a ball is legal in pro sports (football or baseball) so it should be allowed in soccer...and kicking a ball is allowed in pro sports (soccer) so it should be allowed in basketball...figting fans, let's ALL just be honest...it's not part of the game in hockey, it's fun and entertaining for the fans...and CANADIANS want it more than Americans...

[Sean]

I think it is fascinating that only 75% of the players want to eliminate blows to the head - are the other 25% too concussed to realise the danger in that practice?

I take exception with the Kelly's characterisation of open ice hits in the neutral zone. There is a reason, at a very young age, defencemen are taught to not make "hospital passes". Hockey is a physical game, if you are looking backward in the neutral zone, cutting across centre ice with your head tilted back looking for a pass, it should come as no surprise to you when you catch the pass to see a very large man from the other team blocking out the light and heading in the opposite direction. As long as the elbows stay down and the arms don't connect above the shoulders, I see nothing wrong with those hits. Yes they hurt people, but I bet a QB hurts getting blind side crash tackled from behind by a 350lbs defensive end. Contact sports hurt.

I think the real problem is the glass and the equipment. 40 years ago, the equipment was made of dense fabric and leather. It got wet, it slowed the speed down and things were good. The glass had lots of give. 20 years ago, heavier plastics came into equipment, but because of the density and weight, there was a limit to how much players chose to wear. Getting hit on the side of the head by a plastic elbow pad is dangerous. Now, everything is made of some kind of carbon composite, waterproof and super lightweight while being nearly as hard as steel. Players look like the Michelin Man out there now. Then they hit each other in the head with equipment moulded in such a way to ensure the impact is passed across the device to the wearer, but it ends up being a blunt assault on the hapless victim. Look at shoulder pads, I have played hockey for thirty years and have yet to figure out what the massive amounts of plastic on the top of the shoulder is meant to protect me from. I finished playing competitively when those massive shoulder pads first came in, they are just weapons, no protective value at all. Elbow pads now no longer cover the elbow, they have become the equivalent of a suit of armour's forearm piece - except they don't dent and are a fraction of the weight.

Here are two radical solutions: one, the NHLPA and the NHL should regulate equipment more closely and work with vendors to eliminate the weaponry and deliver greater protection. And two, if the NHL and NHLPA won't do it, then perhaps the CSA should. If the CSA looked at the equipment from not just the wearer's perspective, but also the opponent, I reckon alot of what get's the CSA approved logo would not be approved at all. So why is this important? Simple answer - insurance, without CSA approved equipment the insurance companies won't pay out in the case of injuries. The CSA by its charter is there to promote safety, this is just a different view.

Finally on fighting. I loved watching Probert vs Clark; Bob Nystrom vs Terry O'Reilly; Semenko against anybody who looked at Gretzky. I think fighting back then really did have a place in the game. With the exception of Semenko, most of those guys mentioned could play a bit of hockey as well as take care of themselves and their teammates. Now, there are "designated" fighters on the roster just keeping some talented player in the stands. You have professional hockey fighters and they are dangerous people who take lessons in boxing, work a speed bag and can't shoot a puck. Shut it down, game suspension for fighting and $100k fine to the team that goes to some kind of charity that the NHL and NHLPA can agree on. I'll miss watching a guy like Iginla cop a bit of stickwork, drop the gloves and teach the scoundrel a lesson, but I'll give that part of my entertainment up to save one concussion or heaven forbid, one life. If I want to watch staged fighting, there's the WWE and if I want to watch more serious fighting then MMA is available - in the NHL, I want to watch the fastest game on earth, played by the best players with the game designed to showcase their talents.

[Guido]

The part I don't get about banning fighting is why? Why is fighting so bad? I don't get it .. nobody is forced to do it, and it's entertaining to many people.

I think we are heading for a showdown between the union backed competition committee and the GM's. Most of the players according to rumors hate the instigator and want fighting, and the want head shots penalized. Now we have the GM's going after fighting and ignoring head shots. Just bizarre.

[Philip]

Sean is 100% correct about equipment. Why is that not a bigger issue?

I'm not a big guy. I used to wear Mickey Mouse shoulder pads and would bounce off other players. Then I got new pads that were typical for these days and other guys bounced off me! It was insane. You cannot convince me that the pads don't make all the difference in the world and are responsible for the flood of concussions in the NHL.

Hitting a guy with shoulder/elbow pads these days is like hitting a guy with a cast iron frying pan.

These pad aren't more "protective"; they're weapons. It's like people saying they drive SUVs because they feel "safer" - sure, YOU do. How's the guy in the sedan supposed to feel?

Greater equipment regulation/standardization is required at the very least.