You've Just Gotta Marvel At The Circus

I'm in a good mood, so let's look for the silver lining.

And that would be that with Raffi Torres' Houdini-like escape from all sensible laws of hockey justice, there won't be a fan in Vancouver today buying into any of the silly conspiracy theories that have in the past circulated this time of year about the NHL wanting Chicago to beat the Canucks or how Mike Murphy wants the Kings to win or any nonsense like that.

See. Don't you feel better already?

Actually, what was really heartening about the reaction to the Torres' patently illegal hit and rather obvious violation of the NHL's head shot rule - obvious to everyone but the NHL, that is - was the large number of Vancouver fans who emailed or tweeted and said while they support their team, they felt Torres should receive a significant suspension for his cheap shot on Brent Seabrook.

Thank you, Vancouver!

Now, to the meat of the NHL's decision, or non-decision, or whatever this can be termed, since there's no official word from the league on why Torres will be out headhuntin' as usual for Game 4 of the Chicago-Vancouver series.

In a ruling eerily reminiscent of the 1999 Brett Hull toe-in-the-crease-but-it's-okay ruling, the league apparently dug deep into its files of memos and off-the-cuff remarks and came up with a magical reason to keep Torres skating. Hull, you remember, was in the crease on his Cup-winning goal against Buffalo after a season in which dozens of goals hadn't been allowed for that very reason. But after the television cameras invaded the ice and bedlam ensued, the NHL decided it couldn't even review the goal and instead held the funniest press conference of all time in which Bryan Lewis produced a magical memo detailing a "continuous possession" rule that made the Hull goal a good one.

In the Torres-Seabrook case, the ruling is apparently that because the hit took place behind the Chicago net, the rules that usually apply on illegal hits didn't apply, that this is a special hitting zone in which otherwise illegal play is okay. League disciplinarian Colin Campbell took the unusual step of releasing an explanation of why Torres wasn't suspended in which he said that there was never any intention to make Rule 48 - the blindside head shot rule - apply to hits involving forecheckers hitting defencemen behind the net.

"We distributed a video to all players and teams that showed a similar hit on a defenceman by an attacking forward coming from the opposite direction behind the net and stated this is a 'legal play,'" he said in the release.

Now, the Torres/hitting zone ruling might come as a bit of a surprise to Jarret Stoll given that he was given a one-game suspension last week for hitting San Jose's Ian White into the glass behind the net. So the "hitting zone" - "separate head from body zone?" - area apparently doesn't extend all the way from the goal line to the glass, but just to some ill-defined area immediately behind the net.

Having been now to three of four GMs meetings and NHL board of governors meetings at which head shots and concussions were extensively discussed, I can assure you I've never, EVER heard of any special rules for hits behind the net. Several NHL managers were mystified about this concept when contacted.

Of course, one of the more celebrated incidents that started the current head shot debate came in the OHL two seasons ago when Mike Liambas fractured the skull of Kitchener's Ben Fanelli with a hit into the end glass behind the net.

Liambas was booted out of the league for good for that hit. No special hitting zone area was in play. But that was the OHL.

Where this special NHL understanding or ruling - another magic memo! - came from is anyone's guess. Torres' hit was from the blindside, Seabrook was unsuspecting and vulnerable, it was a shoulder to the head, and it was of the kind that GM after GM argued at the most recent winter meetings that the "league just doesn't need." Totally gratuitous, nothing to do with pursuing the puck, and dangerous.

It was Matt Cooke on Marc Savard - the same hit - except that it took place in a different part of the ice surface.

Seabrook's error, one supposes, is that his skull didn't crack, and that he wasn't carted off on a stretcher.

Under this interpretation of the NHL rules, apparently anything goes back of the cage. it's the equivalent of a dark alley. Don't want to get mugged? Don't go in there.

That's fine, I suppose, but shouldn't it have come up before? it's weird. The NHL creates the rules, then itself seems to search for loopholes and reasons not to enforce the very rules it created.

On one hand, the Torres ruling is kind of funny. It's like the circus; one can only marvel at the acts.

It's truly amazing how many times this league can make itself look utterly ridiculous, promising to crack down on something and then doing the opposite. There's no point being particularly bothered about it; they're the ones hurting themselves. It's similar to why I can't muster any sympathy for those who suffered facial injuries that would have been easily preventable if they'd only had the common sense to wear a visor.

But it's also kind of sad. The league's GMs and governors, in their desperation to attract the UFC-minded while fighting terrible attendance problems throughout the league, are dancing as fast as they can, trying to allow some head hits while outlawing others with rules few can articulate or understand. So confusion reigns.

Eventually, as in the OHL, all hits to the head in the NHL will be illegal. But these guys will keep dancing this dance as long as possible, forcing Colin Campbell to apply these bizarre and convoluted rules that make little or no sense. The NHL rulebook expands and expands, and while doing so makes less and less sense.

Along the way, as was the case before the lockout, those who run the league are determined to protect the lowest common denominator, the Raffi Torres players of the league, and ignore the safety concerns of the talented players, the Brent Seabrook types.

But let's end on another nice note, another silver lining.

At least Cooke won't feel alone anymore. In Torres, he's got a buddy, somebody who plays the game exactly the same way. And Cooke could be back in action next week if the Penguins advance to the next round.

 

Comments

[Matt Taylor]

Damien,

Honestly I don't think the NHL knows what hits are dirty and which hits aren't anymore. I'm honestly divided since I am a huge fan of the physicality in the league, and worry that putting down hard, fast blanket rules will destroy what makes the game great. At the same time, I prefer watching guys like Sydney Crosby play hockey as opposed to Raffi Torres. As such I recognize the need to put in better rules to get idiots like Torres out of the league.

It's difficult to find a balance, though I'm not sure there's an answer to be found in either extreme

[GaryP]

once again the NHL proves what a joke of a league it has become. Torres sould be gone for 10 games minimum. Really, is somebody gonna have to die before the league and the players get it?

[John]

Didn't Steve Downie get dinged 21 games for a precedent setting (sarcasm) hit that happened below the goal line?

[mike diver]

One players coming in from one side and the other player from the other......that will always be blindside......whats ur answer?.....no hits behind the net?....Wendels hit on Bruce Bell was one of the best ever.....guess that would now be concidered a dirty hit now?

[Scott]

Gotta love the NHL. When 99 people can plainly see that the sky is blue they will always be that last person who, for some reason, thinks that it is orange.

[Ron]

Gee what a surprise! The Hockey Ops people in Toronto who consist of former players from the dark ages come up with another beauty of a decision. It boggles your mind to hear this junk on a regular basis. Let's come up with a reason to allow the fool to play the next game so he can run another skill player for the enjoyment of the fools in the crowd. Just read an article that there were 559 concussions in the NHL in the last seven years. That is an average of about 80 per year. About 10% of the workforce. I guess the NHL thinks that is a reasonable number based on their lame decision making process.

[Dominic]

As a Vancouver fan let me reiterate: Torres should have received a significant suspension for his cheap shot on Seabrook. I really do not want to see him in a Canuck uniform ever again.

[Matt B]

I felt the hit was unfortunate but I wasn't howling for a suspension. Torres kept the arm in, coasted and did not charge, and did not leave the ground. Seavrook is a tall man, so for his head to hit Torres' shoulder means he put himself in a position that was dangerous. Torres had timed it right, hitting Seabrook just as he made contact with the puck.

And this is where it gets murky — it wasn't blindside since the direction of the skaters was in flux behind the net. Seabrook turned at the last second away from Torres and seemed to put himself in a vulnerable position.

We used to love these type of Wendel Clark hits behind the net. Now, we're afraid of them. I want my hockey to be tough but fair. Without clear-cut rules (no hits to the head EVER) we will have these situations where 100 people will have 100 different reasons why they believe it was legal or illegal.

[Drum44]

Wow!

Damien you've GOT to be kidding!!! Matt Cooke and Raffi Torres the same?!?! I'm almost speeachless...

Wow - you really are a BAD journalist. I use to think you were pretty knowledgable, but this article shows how bad you really are in your profession.....

NOW, let's look at this last comment I made. Seems I think your story is bad and I am basing your ability to be a good journalist on this ONE article, kinda like you are doing with your comparison of Torres to Cooke. Taking one or two plays (of which neither player was hurt) and comparing it to a guy who HAS hurt others with multiple actions and subsequent suspensions.

Do us all a favour. Stop talking now and just WATCH the playoffs. Your Leafs are gone, so are your Raps, so if you need to talk, just talk about the Jays and leave the Hockey to the rest of Canada to enjoy. When someone asks your opinion, just respectfully decline, because the rest of the country doesn't want to hear from you.

Best Regards,

Dru M

[snacker]

I can't help but think that with a little bit of clutch and grab, Seabrook probably has about 1-2 more seconds to find out that Torres is coming...the rule changes have allowed guys like Torres, Cooke, Clutterbuck...whomever to run around unimpeded all over the ice. You allow a bit more clutch and grab (watch Detroit, they still get away with it as they know how to do it perfectly) and guys aren't getting hammered like this, especially deep in the defensive zone.

I really think that Seabrook knows he should have been watching and is more disapointed in himself for getting caught watching the puck (which he was fully doing when he got hit). You used to get a bit of protection from your teamates from with clutch and grab - now, you're on your own out there and this is what happens.

We can't have it both ways...

[John Q]

What exactly makes this hit a "blindside" hit? Seabrook's body was squarely facing Torres when contact was made. Is it blindside because his head was down? Does that mean a player cannot be hit when his head is down? If he's looking over his shoulder does that mean he's actually facing backwards and you can hit him in the numbers? The hit was no doubt a big hit that could cause an injury, but I don't see how it was a "blindside" hit (thus under rule 48) which is why I think the league ruled it legal. Until the league outlaws ALL contact to the head (as they should) and not just blindside hits, this play will continue to be legal.

[Marc]

That's why I'm starting to drift away from hockey...

[Steve Clarke]

Perhaps if you took the time to observe the video circulated by the NHL with respect to Rule #48, Mr. Cox, you would be better educated as to what constitutes an illegal blind side hit to the head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SszoPpBEit8&feature=related

The situation involving Raffi Torres and Seabrook constitutes the exact parameters for which the NHL has allowed under Rule #48. "A North-South hit where the responsibility to be aware still remains with the player being hit."

Was it an ugly hit? Yes. Seabrook was vulnerable and the timing of the hit was somewhat questionable - a definitive interference penalty. It also looked horrendous because Seabrook was moving, making the collision much more violent.

Was the principal point of contact Brent Seabrook's head? No. Torres executed the check through the body, which is why he also fell during the check. He did not extend his elbow and he did not target the head in an East West blindside check.

This was a North South hit whereby Seabrook was responsible for awareness of his location, and the oldest adage in hockey still applies: "Keep your head up".

Comparing this hit to Cooke on Savard demonstrates a significant failure to understand the offenses in both cases. Cooke deliberately extended his elbow and targeted Savard's head in an East-West hit.

Comparing this hit to Stoll's hit again demonstrates a fundamental disconnect with respect to how each hit differs under the NHL's rules. Stoll was suspended for a hit from behind into the end boards under the determination that there was an intent to injure.

Please, educate yourself on the rules before coming down on players in the game and spewing ignorance about the NHL and hockey in general.

[Braco]

To all NHL forwards, you can kill any defenceman behind net.Defenceman, please make sure next time when Cosby is behind net to take his head off.Everything is allowed "behind net" in this joke of NHL.

[gordon]

Right Call - Baffling Reason
I agree more often than not with Cox, especially when it comes to headshots. Intent or no intent - no matter - players have to be 100% responsible for their hits. After watching the replay numerous times it really looks like Torres drifted in intending to paste Seabrook as soon as he gets the puck. If you really watch closely though, you'll see Torres did leave his feet in an attempt to avoid Seabrook by jumping up into the boards. He looks shocked when Seabrook cuts off the lane - and in an instant, bang, Seabrook is down. The only case I would allow the headshot is an accidental hit, and maybe Torres should be more responsible, but a clear attempt to avoid the hit makes the hit totally accidental. Really watch that replay Cox, I think you'll see the same. At first glance it looks like a Matt Cooke style cheapshot - close scrutiny and Torres is cut off. The NHL's reasoning just muddy's the water. I am sure Torres must have told them he tried to squeeze past Seabrook but was cut off. Why the NHL chose to insult our intelligence one can only guess. I am a 'Hawk's fan true and through - so, so much for the Vancouver consensus, Cox.

[Greg]

This is an overall comment about the hitting/injuries in the game today. Does anyone else think that modern day warrior equipment has anything to do with the injuries? The players are bigger, stronger, faster than they were in the 50's, 60's, 70's and they are equipped in armour. They player doing the hitting feels nothing. Perhaps if they were wearing the equipment from the 70's, with less padding and more give, there wouldn't be so many injuries. Of course a hit to the head is still a hit to the head, but maybe the hitter doesn't come in so hard if he is wearing cardboard instead of armour. Just a thought.

[Alex]

That wasn't blindside. That's the problem with everyone screaming about this. Just because someone's head is turned doesn't mean its blindside. If you can see the majority of the logo on his chest from the direction the hit comes, its a good hit. Torres came from the direction that Seabrook should have been looking if he was facing forward.

Now, it definitely was a hit to the head. But not a blindside one. The hitting area bullshit need not even apply, because rule 48 doesn't eliminate head checking. The problem I see is that people have different understandings of blindside, some think it should be determined by the head, others with the body.

I think there is a huge hysteria around eliminating head shots that is clouding people's judgement, and lots of team bias going on.

Mr Cox, I find you are bit too keen to eliminate the more blood sport aspects of hockey, on this we disagree. I think fans need to admit a lot of hockey is a bloodsport.

I agree with the poster who talked about equipment. Put these guys back in the equipment I wore in the 90s playing minor hockey and they'd injure each other less.