NHL head shot policy not working

Damien Cox

thestar.com


You can deplore the hit Tom Kostopoulos laid on Brad Stuart, breaking the veteran Detroit defenceman’s jaw, as a totally unnecessary bit of hockey violence.

At the same time, however, you can also understand the stance taken by the Calgary Flames, Kostopoulos’s employers, who have vehemently argued that the veteran winger did nothing wrong under the rules of the NHL to deserve a penalty, let alone a six-game suspension.

The fact that you can agree with both of these stances on this incident tells you all you need to know about the NHL’s current policy on head shots.

It’s not working. Nobody really understands it. The officials don’t know how to enforce it — Kostopoulos received a two-minute roughing minor in the game itself — and the players are uncertain as to what is and is not a legal hit.

In other words, after initially rushing through a rule during the season to deal with what was perceived to be an urgent problem, and then following up in the off-season with more detailed and binding legislation, the NHL has solved nothing.

Why? Well, primarily because it is still trying to be half-pregnant, or have its cake and eat it too, or whatever well-worn cliché you feel fits best.

It wants to penalize head shots, but not all head shots (this starts to get a little Orwellian after a while — you know, all head shots are equal, but some are more equal than others).

Instead of moving to a zero-tolerance rule on hits to the head that would certainly have made a lot of sense given the league’s ongoing issues with brain injuries, the NHL tried to appease the dinosaur element by leaving certain types of head shots legal.

You remember all the chatter, right? We’re going to take all of the hitting out of the game, turn it into ballet, etc., etc. — the same old nonsense. This is the element of the hockey populace that embraces as an article of faith the notion that if you make the mistake of skating with the puck with your head down, you essentially deserve whatever terrible thing happens to you.

Gotta keep your head up, right?

So, in their wisdom, the GMs concocted, and the governors approved, a scheme under which blindside and lateral head shots would be illegal, but “north-south” head hits would be ruled legal. So a puck-carrier with his head down could be concussed into tomorrow by a heavy shoulder check and everybody would say that was okay.

Except that’s what Kostopoulos did. And everyone isn’t okay with it, specifically the NHL and chief hangman Colin Campbell.

Stuart was swatting at a puck in his feet and Kostopoulos came roaring into the scene. Stuart’s head was either down or not focused on the incoming danger, and Kostopoulos, without jumping or raising his elbow, caught Stuart on the jaw.

No blindside. No lateral blow. North-south. No elbow. No jump.

And a six-game suspension resulted. No wonder the Flames and Kostopoulos are ticked. They presumably thought they understood the league’s ridiculous head shot policy and were simply skating right through the loophole provided.

Now to any reasonable person that kind of hit shouldn’t be part of the game. But the NHL managers and governors specifically decided they wanted it to be, at least until someone was seriously injured.

Which brings us to the Sidney Crosby concussion, the one that was inflicted by either David Steckel or Victor Hedman. There are some who actually believe Steckel tried to deliver a head blow to the Pittsburgh star in the Winter Classic, although it sure looked like the Washington forward was trying a lot harder to get out of the way as Crosby curled right into him.

But really, it’s just another head shot and another intense debate over who’s at fault, another instance of how the absence of a zero-tolerance policy on head shots is at the root of this entire problem.

If any hit to the head resulted in a major, a game misconduct and a suspension, there wouldn’t be any debate, would there? You get caught knocking an opponent in the melon, it’s your fault. Sort of the antithesis of the “keep your head up” mentality.

But the only one that will truly work.

Go back to Joe Thornton’s two-game suspension for nailing David Perron of the Blues back on Nov. 4. The Sharks screamed bloody murder over losing Thornton for two games. Perron, however, still isn’t back, the brain trauma he suffered in the hit was so severe.

So where’s the justice? And was anyone satisified by the application of the new rule?

Drew Doughty was concussed by a head shot delivered by Erik Cole in October and missed six games. Cole wasn’t suspended, and while Doughty has returned he hasn’t been the same player he was last year.

The rule isn’t working. The NHL just doesn’t want to admit it. Yet.

So expect the concussions to keep on coming.

What was the point of the Macintyre-Ivanans fight?

Bob Mackenzie

Tsn.ca

Based entirely on the premise that it's never too early in the season to be called a pussy(cat), can someone please explain to me the purpose/meaning/significance of the Steve MacIntyre smackdown of Raitis Ivanans last night in Edmonton?

  

Now, I get that Oiler fans were almost as (maybe more?) titillated by MacIntyre's knockout punch on Ivanans with 2:40 left in the third period, when the homeside was already up 4-0. It was a vicious and powerful exclamation point on a night when the northern neighbour handed its southern rival its lunch in every way. I mean, the sight of Ivanans, bloodied and unable to get off the ice under his own power, pretty much summed up the night for the Flames, didn't it?

I also get that fighting is part of hockey and, to varying degrees, always will be, but that doesn't mean I can, for the life of me, understand the point of the MacIntyre-Ivanans fight. I can't honestly say I would feel as strongly about it if Ivanans hadn't been brain damaged in the scrap -- and not to put too fine a point on it, but that is precisely what happened. But I still don't get the point.

Oh, I know all the tried and true rationales for it.

Ivanans was sending a message that the Flames weren't going to go down without a fight. Though go down the Flames and Ivanans did.

Whether Ivanans was running around in the third period -- he hit Gilbert Brule and knocked him out of the game midway through the third -- to send a message for the next encounter or whether he was doing that solely because he knew it would invite a response from MacIntyre, it was pretty much ordained that Ivanans and MacIntyre were going to dance before this game was over. From the Oiler perspective, MacIntyre was defending the honour of his team.  He, too, was sending a message -- mess with our young players and I'll mess with you.

The two heavyweights were just doing their job.

And heaven knows I'm not faulting either guy, per se, as they were only doing what they've effectively been bred (in the professional hockey sense) to do, and it's a hard job, and a damn dangerous one because I am convinced in this relatively new era of super heavyweight fighters in the NHL it's only a matter of time until someone suffers a catastrophic injury in a hockey fight. (As a side note, noted author Malcom Gladwell did a controversial piece in the New Yorker magazine where he made a case that professional football was not dissimilar to dog fighting although I often wonder if Gladwell, a Canadian, couldn't have drawn more parallels between dog fighting to the culture of hockey heavyweights that starts as early as the teen years in Canada, but that, trust me, is another story for another day).

I also understand the Edmonton fans, and many watching from elsewhere, being excited by what they saw when MacIntyre KOed Ivanans, at least once they saw Ivanans was able to get up and off the ice.

Human beings are complex individuals and why the sight of two grown men beating the daylights out of each other can be stimulating is something I'm not equipped to explain. But I do get it. Or, at least, in some circumstances, I feel it.

I'm not proud of the incongruities of someone who rails against shots to the head -- that would be me -- being a fan of mixed martial arts (MMA) and the UFC, but I am. Go figure. Some things in life just can't be explained.

Now, I can make a case there's a lot more to the MMA and UFC than punching someone's lights out. I mean, Georges St. Pierre is a marvelous athlete who uses as much, if not more, brain/strategy/technique as muscle/brawn. But who's kidding who? It's still, in its most base form, two guys trying to kick the crap out of each other and prepared to do serious physical harm to one another.

So I don't try to make myself any better or worse than the many hockey fans, especially in Edmonton, who took great pleasure in seeing MacIntyre first bloody, then knock out Ivanans. But the one distinction I will make is this: In the UFC, the point of the fight is the fight. That is the essence of it. It's the whole gladiator thing, which is probably as old as humanity.

I don't think you can say the same thing about MacIntyre-Ivanans, can you? Really?

I mean, the point of hockey is to use speed, skill, hitting and yes, in some instances, fighting to score more goals than the other team.

I have never been a black and white guy when it comes to fighting in hockey. Some abolitionists will be disappointed to hear that. The pro-fighting crowd won't care because anyone who dares question anything about fighting in hockey is a pussy(cat).

Having played the game (not very well and only to age 20 or so, aside from the odd beer league game here or there), I get that it can be such an emotional game that things sometimes spill over and the gloves come off. And I'm fine with that. That's a hockey fight - I totally understand.

I also understand the age-old issue of "regulation" and how the threat of being beaten up should, in theory, moderate the behaviour of the players, although in the increasing age of the Rat Factor, there are more and more players who will engage in aberrant behaviour (hits from behind, cheap shots, head shots, stick fouls, whatever) and simply not answer the bell or not feel overly threatened by the fight factor.

Or a player will be such a good and willing fighter that he can hit people from behind , do basically whatever he wants, and welcomes the opportunity to drop the gloves, in which case fighting is no deterrent at all to "unacceptable" behaviour. And I'm not saying there's no place for a fighter in hockey because on a young team like the Oilers, protecting Eberle, Hall and Paajarvi is a legitimate concern.

But this specific MacIntyre-Ivanans bout? I In spite of the rationalizations -- Ivanans was going after the Oilers' young players and that's why MacIntyre fought him -- it had nothing to do with anything meaningful in the game.  It was all part of an orchestrated dance that was set the motion the minute the Flames dressed Ivanans and the Oilers dressed MacIntyre. Yet it seems there are almost as many people talking today about the fight as the Eberle goal. And forgive me for saying this, but that's @$%^*@!

I just don't get it. The game was out of reach, over for all intents and purposes.

These two guys were merely justifying their existence. For me, it was simply a sideshow  and it was happening whether Ivanans hit Brule or not. Let's face it, in any NHL game where one heavyweight is dressed for each team, the odds of them going are awfully high.

And I suspect the only rationale or defence for it anyone can come up with is: a) the Flames were trying to send a message,  to which the Oilers had no choice but to respond and b) these guys are an important part of the team and fighting is an intrinsic part of our game.

To which I would say: a) If the Flames really want to send a message, they should try scoring a goal, and b) the fighters are so important that when the games actually mean something in the playoffs, it's highly likely they won't even be dressed.

Like I said, never too early in the season to be called a pussy(cat).

Keep your stick on the ice!

Visor use still rising in NHL
thehockeynews.com

For the eighth straight year, visor use by NHL players has risen from the previous season — and now stands at a full 50 per cent of the league — according to a new survey compiled by The Hockey News.
The survey — full details of which can be seen in the Nov. 6th edition of THN — found that 318 of 640 NHLers (not including goaltenders) currently play with some form of eye protection, a three per cent increase from last season.
When The Hockey News first began tracking visor usage during the NHL's 1998-99 campaign, only 15 per cent of players shielded their eyes. By 2001-02, that number had increased to 28 per cent (191 players), and by 2005-06, 38 per cent (244 players) were wearing visors.
This season, the Ottawa Senators lead the league in visor-wearing players, with 15. Buffalo and Minnesota each employ 14 players with visors, while Colorado, Florida, San Jose and Washington each have 13.
Anaheim, Boston and Pittsburgh have the fewest number of visor-wearers, with just seven apiece. The average is 10.6 visors per team.
Once again this season, a handful of NHLers who do not wear visors have suffered serious eye injuries.
New Jersey Devils defenseman Colin White may miss the entire season after practice mishap in which a puck deflected into his eye, breaking his nose and blurring his vision. As well, Tampa Bay Lightning center Chris Gratton is playing, but still suffers from blurry vision in his after his cornea was clipped by an errant stick blade in a pre-season game.
The NHL has gone on record as supporting mandatory visor usage, but says such a measure must be collectively bargained in concert with the NHL Players' Association.

"Most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French guys."
-Don Cherry

Today's multiple choice exam

Q: Which of the following generated the most media coverage? Outrage?

a) NFL will not suspend Ravens linebacker

Associated Press

NFL star Ray Lewis pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor Monday under an agreement that drops murder charges in the stabbing deaths of two men outside a Super Bowl party.
Lewis entered the plea before Judge Alice Bonner, who sentenced him to a year's probation under Georgia's first offender act.
"It's a good day for Ray," defense attorney Don Samuel said as he entered the courthouse.
The Baltimore Ravens linebacker walked in a few minutes later, tossing the yellow tennis ball he has clutched throughout the first two weeks of testimony in his murder trial.
Defense attorney Ed Garland said he and Lewis discussed the plea agreement and went over his testimony before going to court.
"He said a prayer with me about his duties and his responsibilities and what he was doing and he was happy to go forward and let the truth -- all of it -- come out," he said.
Garland said Lewis' only crime was to tell his companions after the brawl that led to the deaths, "Keep your mouth shut," and giving an incomplete statement to police.
"He fully acknowledges his responsibility for those acts," Garland told Bonner after the plea was entered. Lewis is a former player at the University of Miami.

OR

b) Terrell Owens' insult reveals how far star has fallen

Kevin Sherrington The Dallas Morning News

IRVING, Texas — Of all the low points since the Super Bowl days — handing Arizona its first playoff victory in 50 years, players quitting on Barry Switzer, Dave Campo's debut against Philadelphia — this was the lowest:Terrell Owens standing on the star, arms raised, staring up through the hole in the roof. Said Owens: “It was just a spur of the moment thing.” Twice?No one could remember anything quite as insulting. Not in Texas Stadium, not even in the Cotton Bowl.Nothing in the long proud history of the Dallas Cowboys could match it for sheer embarrassment.

OR

c) Lawyer: Brutal violence beyond football

Associated Press

Former Raiders linebacker Bill Romanowski ended Marcus Williams' NFL career two years ago when he ripped off his teammate's helmet and punched the second-year tight end in the face during a practice drill, Williams' attorney told a jury Tuesday.
During opening statements in the trial of Williams' multimillion dollar lawsuit against Romanowski, lawyer James Brosnahan said the linebacker struck Williams with such force that it broke the tight end's left eye socket with a "sickening sound" that could be heard 15 yards away.
"This case is about brutal violence beyond the rules of football," Brosnahan said.
Williams, who earned $300,000 a season with the Raiders, is seeking damages of $3.8 million for alleged battery, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The blow he took Aug. 24, 2003, also injured his brain. His football career ended at age 27.

OR

d) Vick makes obscene gesture to home crowd

Associated Press

Michael Vick apologized for making an obscene gesture toward Atlanta fans as he walked off the field after the Falcons' fourth straight loss Sunday.
Vick used both hands to deliver the gesture and flashed an angry look toward the handful of fans remaining in the Georgia Dome. Those who hung around booed the home team loudly after its dismal 31-13 loss to the New Orleans Saints.
''First and foremost, I would like to apologize for my inappropriate actions with fans today,'' the quarterback said in a statement released by the Falcons. ''I was frustrated and upset at how the game was going for my team, and that frustration came out the wrong way.''

A: ?

"I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out"

- Rodney Dangerfield

TV isn't lacking for punch
Fighting is waning in the NHL; so why is it all over the highlight shows?

Chris Zelkovich
Toronto Star

Fighting is down in the new National Hockey League and the one-dimensional enforcer is apparently an endangered species.
The statistics certainly indicate that's the case, with NHL players exchanging blows almost 40 per cent less often than they did before the league decided to turn roller derby back into hockey. But you certainly wouldn't suspect such a thing if you tuned in to any of the games, talk shows or highlight shows that surround the NHL. If there's a decrease in fisticuffs, the media sure aren't reflecting it.
Hockey Night In Canada opens every Saturday night with a highlight reel that includes several punch-ups, all to the tune of "Saturday Night's Alright For Fighting."
Rogers Sportsnet has decided every edition of Sportsnetnews must include ``the fight of the night" and caps the week with a bloody ``The Friday Night Fight Fest."
This Friday's edition, if you're wondering, featured eight bouts.
If there's a highlight show that opens without a hockey fight, I must have missed it.
And if there's a highlight show that doesn't feature a disproportionate number of fights, I haven't seen it, either.
On Saturday night, for example, there were 49 goals scored and five fights.
TSN's SportsCentre showed 37 goals and five fights. That means 12 goals were considered too inconsequential to make the highlights.
As for the fights, well, they were obviously sacrosanct.
Sportsnet showed 36 goals, but it, too, managed to get all five fights on the air.
As for The Score, it showed 32 goals and three fights in its NHL highlight reel. No doubt the two missing fights will result in stern warnings today.
There was only one fight in the NHL Friday, a number that no doubt caused much weeping among hockey fans, but every network managed to record it.
Most of these bouts are accompanied by hoots of joy.
"The second-best fight I've seen this week," crowed Sportsnet's Peter Loubardias on Saturday. "The other was in Sarnia and what a beauty that was."
The likes of Loubardias have nothing on the CBC's Don Cherry, who practically sheds tears when he decries the absence of fisticuffs. He manages to get a fight highlight on almost every edition of his show — and Saturday did one better.
The segment featured a still of Bobby Orr pummeling Pat Quinn 30 years ago with the accompanying message that Orr was truly a great if he could beat them in the alley, too.
There are two reasons for this love of fights. One is that they make good images, which is why newspapers, including the Star, print them so often.
The other is that the networks — and papers — know violence sells. It's all about the lowest common denominator.

More TSN and less CBC

1967

Tie Domi had his entire 1000th game (dressed) ceremony televised on CBC recently, much to the delight of all the QEW & 401ers out there, especially the presentations from all-time Leaf "greats" Dougie Gilmour and Tiger Williams. All that was missing was the footage of Domi’s cheapshot against Neidermeyer in the playoffs or McGrattan’s asskicking of a fading Domi in November 2005? Domi's upcoming retirement might be easier to appreciate if I knew that I wouldn’t be seeing his mug on everything from Canadian Celebrity poker, Live from Casino Rama to Rock’em Sock’em XXXII.
But more importantly was the role of the national broadcaster CBC is covering (producing?) this event. A week later, Boom-Boom Geoffrion, Montreal Canadien great, and “inventor” of the slap shot, barely received a sniff of media attention from the CBC. I realize the CBC needs to keep its consumers and sponsors happy but why is the Toronto sports fan such an insecure demographic? Surely they can appreciate the success of others. Don't worry T-dot. You have pro sport covered. The Expos are long gone. Go Jays! The Grizzlies barely existed. Go ©Raps! The NFL ain’t comin. Go Argos! Bob Cole even thinks you are the bestest city in the country. But as anyone who saw Conan O’Brien’s week of episodes in Toronto a few years back can attest to, there is nothing more quaintly pathetic than "Leaf Nation"…Sittler v. Lafleur, Salming v. Robinson, Wregget v. Roy, Gainey v. Ferguson, etc. [I’d keep going but you get the point].