The Second Step

BOCA RATON--The NHL's obvious strategy, to come out swinging against concussions on the first day of the winter general managers meetings, met with some success.

The league got the headlines it craved, creating at least some backspin against the wave of negative publicity that hit the league last week following Zdeno Chara's crushing hit on Max Pacioretty of the Canadiens. Gary Bettman wanted to make an impression, and even his critics would have to concede he did by taking the offensive on the opening day of the meetings rather than waiting until the end, his usual custom.

Now, however, that's put the onus on the GMs to keep the momentum going, no easy task. It's possible they could come up with nothing specific today, but that certainly won't make league headquarters happy. The plan was to strike hard on the first day and then follow up with some kind of rule alternation on the second day. Even if that rule change never comes into being - we all remember the "committment" to rid the league of staged fights, don't we - the public relations value will be there.

By contrast, the last headline the league will want at the end of Tuesday will be "GMs Come Up Empty-Handed."

But what will the GMs come up with, if anything? Charging and boarding, two fouls have gone largely unrefined for the better part of seven decades, are the target. Some progress has been made on the questionable hits that occur in the middle of the ice, but it's the ones that take place along the boards that are often the most destructive. The definition of charging, like the rules governing faceoffs and icing, have become rather elusive, or at least elastic. Nobody seems to really know what boarding is; it's become what they call on a hit from behind when its deemed to be worth only a minor, which is right up there with the dumbest rules in the book.

How can a hit from behind into the boards EVER be worth only two minutes?

So the GMs could work on the wording. Or they could simply say any charging or boarding foul will automatically be five minutes and a game misconduct. More than one, you get a one-game suspension, and the bans double after that.

See, the league pointed to the fact on Monday that 44 per cent of all hits that result in concussion are legal hits. That leads you to the inescapable conclusion that too many hits defined as legal should be re-defined as illegal.

So we'll see what the GMs come up with. You know Bettman is looking over their shoulders.

 

 

Comments

[Matt Taylor]

That sounds like a good idea, let's throw out every person who mis-times a hit near the boards. The 44% statistic ignores the fact that in a contact sport where the playing surface is surrounded by glass and a hard composite surface, there will by definition be concussions caused by legal hits. Calling the minor penalty more often would probably be the better solution. Throwing people out of the game will only have the unintended consequence of incentivizing players to go limp every time someone makes contact with them along the boards in the hopes of getting opposing players tossed from the game.

[Mthsn]

Damien- generally I think you're a dummy. However, you're bang on with respect to the ridiculous way the league treats charging and boarding. Great blog!

[CPH]

Another tough (i.e., marginally criminal) Boston defenseman, Eddie Shore, ended the career (and almost the life) of the Leafs' Ace Bailey with a hit from behind, back in 1933. At least Shore was suspended (for 16 games). Whether a hit is deemed to be clean or dirty will probably always require some subjective judgment on the part of the officials, but it would probably be better to err on the side of caution. Still, I have to wonder whether dirty hits might subside if players were not so well-armoured. Some old-timers argue that back in the day, players had "respect" for one another and generally avoided head hits.

[othermark]

Gary Bettman is looking over the GM shoulders? Really? Is that the motivation these guys have? Maybe the companies that insure NHL contracts should be looking over the GM shoulders. The only way things will change is when it starts to cost the NHL owners money. With TV ratings and gate receipts higher then ever, it appears that Bettman is now engaging in another smoke and mirrors show designed to pacify some... but not really change the game he's marketed as UFC on ice since day one of his reign. Face facts. "Bubba" (Gary's target market as witnessed by his obsession with US South expansion) is more interested in Matt Cooke-like antics then they are the exploits of Crosby, Marc Savard or David Booth (to name a few of the sacraficial lambs). At least that is what Bettman believes; and until the dollars start to indicate otherwise, he will stick to that belief and so will the BoG.

[Sean Boulton]

Respectfully, there's a logical fallacy in there. Illegal hits cause concussions, therefore legal hits that cause concussions should be illegal? That's on par with the Latin phrase 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' - after this, therefore because of this. Just because b happens after a, it doesn't mean that a caused b.

Hockey, like football, soccer, wrestling, MMA, and even baseball, is a physical sport. Participating in it carries a degree of risk, namely that the participant could suffer an injury, and participants have to assume that risk willingly. You're never going to eliminate concussions completely, and it's discouraging to see people think that's possible (not suggesting you're among them).

But, to throw in two cents toward a solution, how about getting rid of the antiquated notion of 'finishing your check'? The purpose of contact should be to gain possession of the puck. Once the puck has already moved on to another player, or is loose, what's the purpose of contact at that point other than being for contact's sake?

[Stephen]

Good article. It is hard to believe that people that watch a lot of Junior and Minor hockey could believe that a two minute minor for head shots and calling games more tightly would make for a game without hitting. I have watched a ton of hockey this year at all levels and the most physical game that I saw all season was an NCAA Division I game. Banning head shots would not only make the game safer for the players, but also make for more consistent officiating. The only infraction that seems to be called consistently in the NHL right now is high sticking, because it is clearly defined. Everything else seems to be inconsistently applied depending on the officials on that given night. Are we heading back to the pre-lockout era when NHL officiating continually cycled back and forth between tightening up and loosening up based on the whims of the league leadership, or worse, when the officials on the ice decided what was legal or illegal on any given night?

[Matt Taylor]

@othermark
Not that I agree with Bettman's policy of stubbornly trying to place teams in the South, but if he were marketing the NHL as the UFC on ice, wouldn't guys like Colton Orr and Jody Shelley be in all of the commercials instead of Crosby and Ovechkin?

@Sean Boulton
I agree about finishing you check, it always seems that the injuries happen when a player has either passed or shot the puck and the defensive player hits him anyway. There should of course be some leeway for those that have already committed to the hit, but just trying to finish the hit is likely part of the problem

[Ron]

The answer is they will not abolish hitting to the head so says Brian Burke who has become one of the knuckle dragging crowd. They are going to start calling the penalities that are already in the book he says....yeah right put it on the referees and walk away so you don't have to make a decision right Brian. The NHL operations office in Toronto and most of the GMs are ex players who live by the code of " it is a hockey play" when you smash someone in the head. I believe the Olympics and world Juniors had a zero tolerance policy and we saw some great hitting and hockey. The OHL is zero also and David Branch has said on several occasions that it has not stopped the hitting. The NHL doesn't get that head smashing is not a good thing but the NFL does. What is a few ruined hockey careers is their motto I guess. Go figure.

[Ron]

This whole 5 point plan is smoke and mirrors to again delay putting a complete ban on head shots. If the IIHF can do it and the CHL can do it the NHL could do it, if they wanted to, but they don't want to it is as simple as that. The NFL which is a much more violent game did it and the hits still keep coming there. these guys have their head deep in the sand.

[canadianclair]

I have the strongest urge to call Ricky Gervais and offer up Bettman to replace that Pilkington lad, if you haven't seen the show it is titled " Idiot Abroad".
As far as Burke taking fellow GMs to task over recent events, this guy is less credible each time he crows.
Keep us informed thanks Damien

[Kirk]

If you want to have fines that are meaningful, here is what you do. Instead of a one time monetary lump sum, which is chump change to some of these folks, you penalize the team. Yes, instead of a payment, you hit them in the salary cap after a certain point. That may sound brutal but that would be the ultimate penalty. People say that the offending player should be out as long as the injured player is on an illegal hit. Well, we know that is impractical but the effect of that player being out to the other team for weeks, should also be translated to the offending team. And the only way to do that in my opinion is to hit their cap the following year. Owners and GM's will certainly rethink things then. Why has this not been suggested before?