Shanahan Makes Big Deal of Pacioretty Hit on Letang

Pacioretty will sit 3 games for his colossal hit on Letang Saturday night, despite no penalty being called on the play (if you haven't seen it, you can watch here perjorative-free). Some call it a cheap shot, some a spectacular hockey hit, and maybe some would kind of agree with both. I'm one.

First of all, let's agree that the hit had to be made. Letang was making a potentially dangerous move while in possession of the puck, and Pacioretty had him lined up perfectly. It was very much in the middle of the play, and a solid defensive move for Pacioretty to use his speed and good positioning to deliver some kind of hit to knock Letang off the puck. Just like—and this is a very deliberate comparison—it was a good defensive move for Chara last March to make some kind of play to rub Pacioretty on the boards to do the same.

Pacioretty put it very well himself on TSN : “It's a quick decision there. He's coming across the middle, he's got the puck and is maybe in a scoring opportunity. If I let him go, he could potentially score on us. I knew I had to hit him but I didn't want the result to be like that.” I don't think Pacioretty meant to hurt Letang, but he sure did mean to surprise him with a killer hit and break up the play.

There wasn't a penalty on the hit. I'm not sure that was the right call, because it looks to me like Pacioretty leaves his feet. More importantly, the hit nails Letang right in the head. For better or worse, the refs are supposed to be calling that, partly because of Chara's hit on Pacioretty. I think someone could try making an argument that Letang's head shouldn't have been where it was, but I don't think it's a very strong one for reasons I'll discuss in a moment.

At the same time, it's not like this is the first time someone left their feet do deliver a classic open-ice hockey hit. You know, the kind that guys like Scott Stevens built a whole career around in the pre-lockout and pre-headshot rule era. There was no illegal stickwork involved, no holding or tripping, no running someone's face into a metal pole at full-speed. In many ways, this was little more than a classic open-ice hit that caught Letang unawares, and it was that surprise factor that made the hit as devastating as it was.

At the same time, shots to the head are what we refer to as a “Big Deal” in the NHL right now. There is essentially a crackdown in effect, with Shanahan cast as the new sheriff in town and hopefully handing down the law in a more even-handed way than his predecessor. The rule against head shots is truly to the benefit of the players, the league, and the fans; and it needs to be enforced even if the refs don't call it on the spot.

Pacioretty had this check lined up for what amounts to an eternity in on-ice time. When Chara talked about the game moving too fast to make smart decisions, I found it to be thoughtless and frankly insulting to him and every other world-class hockey player that consistently makes good split-second decisions every moment they're out there. I'm glad Pacioretty didn't try to say the same thing, and I'm proud that he showed the class of approaching Letang pretty quickly afterwards and apologizing rather than insinuating maybe Letang did something ridiculously stupid he clearly didn't do that made the injury happen. I like that Pacioretty took responsibility for a deliberate action on the ice.

The reason I said “some kind of hit” earlier is precisely because of the time that Pacioretty had to line up this hit. Firstly, there was no reason for him to leave his feet to knock a player off the puck. Scott Stevens delivers his most powerful hits in the above video with his feet planted, because the ice provides more leverage and power than hurling himself through the air would. Secondly, Pacioretty didn't have to deliver a high hit. He could have just as easily delivered a wicked hipcheck that would have been equally effective at disrupting the play and knocking Letang out of it without risking the Big Deal that comes with hits to the head. My opinion is that he really did have some time to think about this one, and he made the wrong choice.

Perhaps most importantly, I think that Pacioretty of all people should know better than to make a high-risk play where someone's head even might be in danger. Sure, he's delivered his share of cheap shots in the past while going through the grand tradition of showing enough “grit” for the NHL by logging physical minutes on the third and fourth lines. These days, however, Pacioretty is our top goal–scorer and doesn't need to make high-risk plays in hopes of winning or keeping a roster spot. He's also suffered the consequences of a questionable hit where an opposing player probably could have shown better judgement.

I love a good hockey hit as much (maybe more) than most. All I'm saying is that there's way to clean a guy's clock without hitting him in the head. In addition to the NHL, the medical and research communities are asserting that hits to the head are, in fact, a Big Deal. Sidney Crosby has done the right thing by saying and demonstrating that concussions are a Big Deal, and I have to wonder if Eric Lindros might not have played a few more seasons if concussions had been a Big Deal back when he was playing.

In my opinion, 3 games for Pacioretty seems pretty reasonable. It's a clear head hit, intentional or not, and I'm glad to see the NHL doing anything consistent with their rulebook or stated policies on head hits. Let us know how you feel in the comments.

No Blood, No Foul?

Predictably, there's many here in Montreal braying for Chara's blood, even to the point of calling 911 on Wednesday to report an assault. While calling 911 outside of emergency situations is very much discouraged, I think it illustrates the seriousness that some - not all - are ascribing to what we'll refer to as "The Hit."

Max is in stable condition and the hearts of the whole city and much of the hockey-loving world are with him, and we all wish him a complete and speedy recovery. What he definitely isn't is "okay," as too many sportswriters and commentators are saying. He's in a hospital bed with his head immobilized. He came within a couple millimetres of living the rest of his life in a wheelchair. He's dazed with a major concussion. Not insignificantly, he's upset and feels betrayed by the league.

There's a lot of trust on the ice in an NHL game. You trust the referees to keep a handle on the game, you trust your fellow players to play with safety in mind, and you trust the league will punish those who violate that trust. The league failed Max on two of those three accounts, and I think it's disgusting. He hit the nail on the head himself talking to Bob McKenzie on TSN: "I'm not mad for myself, I'm mad because if other players see a hit like that and think it's okay, they won't be suspended, then other players will get hurt like I got hurt."

A typically vitriolic and highly coherent rant from our friends at FHF lays out the arguments better than I can about "intent to injure" and the way the league seems to be interpreting that. It's good read, but perhaps even more important is the video still they have posted. I thought I saw Chara's hand on Max's head, but wasn't sure from the footage I saw so I kept my mouth shut. Now I'm sure. It's there. Again, I'm 100% convinced that Chara didn't mean to nearly kill or paralyze Max, but I'm equally convinced that he meant to run Max into that stanchion. Chara isn't generally a dirty player, agreed. He's never been suspended. However, basing suspensions and punitive actions on previous suspensions is a flawed strategy, as HF29 is quick to point out by amusing analogy. If Chara (or anyone else with a clean record) does the same thing next week, will they cite a lack of previous suspensions as reason to not issue any punishment whatsoever?

What I think is interesting, and completely hypocritical of the league, is that there are already rules dealing out additional punishments depending on the outcome of the infraction. High-sticking is a 2-minute minor; drawing blood gets you an extra 2 minutes. Do the referees worry about whether a player "intended" to draw blood? If the league is willing to accept that players have to accept responsibility for the consequences of an unintentional high-stick, why are they so reluctant to have players face responsibility for an accident with far more dire consequences?

The league has sent a message. That message is basically "as long as you don't blatantly look like you intended to hit the player in the head, we don't care if you cause a head injury." Their decision to not suspend Chara is in line with the letter of league law, but is definitely not in line with the spirit of any rule trying to prevent head injuries and seems to spit in the face of the idea of playing safe on the ice. And Max has every right to be furious about the decision.

This message is being heard far and wide, and it is heartwarming to me that corporate sponsors of the NHL seem to have more concern for the players than the league itself. Air Canada, a company that understands concepts like negligence and liability, has taken a firm stand against head injuries by threatening to withdraw their support of the league if they do not take serious and immediate action against headshots. I never thought I would refer to something Air Canada does as "heartwarming," but there you go.

The reason that this is so important is that it's difficult to influence the NHL by consumerism. Thousands of Montrealers could decide that they're going to boycott the rest of the season in protest of this travesty, and the Bell Centre would still sell out. But thanks to business buzzwords like "corporate social responsibility," corporations like Air Canada seem to have sprouted consciences over the last decade and are taking public stands on ethical issues.

And that's what this is. An ethical issue regarding the responsibility of players to each other on the ice and the obligation of the league to its players. It's tragic and utterly shameful that the NHL doesn't seem to recognize this and needs corporations like Air Canada to point it out to them. Fortunately for the players, they are in a position to significantly influence the league's bottom line, which is apparently the only thing that Bettman, Murphy and co. understand. I find it equally tragic that the NHLPA hasn't taken a stronger stand on head injuries and the safety of their members, and fully expect this to be a serious issue in the next CBA if the NHL continues this negligent practice.

Let us know in the comments what you think of the league's decision, and whether you can think of anything we can do as fans to express our discontent with the league over this incident.

Get well soon, Max.