March 2012: And, We Still Have Hits From Behind...

Amazingly, the answer is not icing. Though I'm sure a certain broken record and the GMs who apply bandaid solutions twice in any given season wish it were.

Yesterday, Tyler Myers was suspended for 3 games following a blatant hit from behind on Scott Gomez, late in Monday's contest.

This was a good step. But as one example, it also helps to explain why players like Tyler Myers even make these hits in the first place.

Myers, you see was rightly suspended, but inadequately punished during the game itself. The team that suffered the foul was not properly compensated for the dirty play, instead the Sabres next three opponents and playoff rivals will be. His punishment, in case you missed it, was two minutes for boarding. To those of you who missed the beginning of the season and the "crackdown" on dirty hits, this hit would have been punished more harshly back then.

My issue with this is the simple fact that the over-the-top nature of the hit was apparent right from the start. The announcers caught it before the replay, the players all kind of stopped for a moment. Why then did the referees, supposedly trained in the ways and rules of hockey miss assigning the same penalty that was assigned earlier in the season? Why did they make a hit that was a clear suspendable offense (3 more games than the unblemished record of Chara shows) the equivalent of a puck over the glass (or a split second of Pacioretty stick around a waist?

Shanahan was in Florida touting his first year in charge of the discipline ship. Apparently, he showed some statistical analysis of penalty calls and video evidence to show how his "crackdown" has paid dividends.

It's a sham.

If the data is penalties, it gets skewed by this very practice. Want less evidence of dirty hits in the penalty records? Tell them to call less penalties. The Myers hit might have been an example of this were it not for the suspension correcting the error made in the game. To pretend that the league corrects all the legitimate calls it misses in this way would be foolhardy thinking indeed.

It's all smoke and mirrors with the NHL.

Shanahan and his videos, data based on penalized hits (not data on illegal hits penalized or not), twisted messaging on concussion data:

"The league also reported that man-games lost to concussions is up significantly, but the number of concussions are roughly the same as last season.

The number of concussions caused by accidental collisions and fights were down and those caused by legal and illegal hits are up."

Why bother mentioning the other data in the same breath. If the number of concussions from illegal hits are up0, they are up. It matters little that accidental collisions have come down to even out the record in Shanahan's favour. And showing videos of guys stepping out of the way in isolated cases is a nonsense that only serves to distract.

There are more concussions despite the "crackdown"? This should be seen as nothing but an epic failure. Rather than tooting it's own little horn, the NHL should be asking why their methods have failed to produce results that are good enough, indeed, any results at all.

I have a theory on the matter, and it relates very much to the case of Tyler Myers: the consequences for the hits that cause injury are simply too light. What's more they are getting lighter.

Sure, Myers has 3 games to sit, and it may cost the Sabres. But in the game where he could and should have been punished right away, he cost his team 15 seconds of PK and ended up scoring the winning goal. The suspension is apt, but there's no reason to have allowed a GWG in the interim of hit and punishment complete.

At the beginning of the "crackdown", Myers would have been sent to the dressing room. We all know that the rules change over a season as the NHL systematically moves into playoff mode. Sure they kept their numbers up this year with early penalty calls, but the end of season is still the dangerous hitting ground because of the loose refereeing.

So the NHL has to face two facts:

1) Players and teams don't really care enough about 3 game suspensions, 2 minute penalties and $2,500 fines to stop and think the way Shanahan's cherry-picked videos purport they do

2) The NHL's continued insistence on a season of two rulebooks lends itself to plenty of experimetation by the players in the game.


Until the league sets some firm rules with punishments that sting teams (stress teams, because individual players will only care if their teams make them care) and apply those rules consistently through the entire length of a season, these embarrassing problems will survive.

Right now, the league is that lazy patient who takes half his course of antibiotics only to complain to his doctor time after time about the troubles with resistant strains being encountered. Owning up to its own negligence is the only way out of this problem for the NHL.

Less face-saving video displays, more doses Mr. Shanahan. You won't get to what's ailing without a more concerted effort.

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.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Maybe it's too early to deliver a verdict on Brendan Shanahan as VP Discipline. But as he stepped onto the rule-making ice for his first shift, he did very little to distinguish himself from those who came before.

This looks more a waiver wire addition for the NHL change machine than a blockbuster pick up.

It started well enough in August with the re-introduction of the Research, Development and Orientation Camp. At that camp, there were all kinds of things being tested, variations on icing, equipment tweaks, powerplays that last the duration. Changes that could have made significant differences to the game.

Kudos to the new guys for looking at these things in the first place.

It's perhaps not surprising that the more radical ideas on the table are staying there, for now. The game is growing in popularity (or so the book cookers say) and there isn't really a noticeable crisis in the goalscoring department that requires radical action.

But there were certain changes that needed to be made. Foremost among them was to do whatever it takes to eliminate the unnecessary injuries that occur when players hit other players around the side of the head. The action that was thought to be firm last year left us with memories of devastating hits with summer retirements and careers in jeopardy.

So when the announcement that the NHL has changed Rule 48 (the now infamous Illegal hits to the head rule), one could be excused for being underwhelmed with the conviction.

The full explanation of the changes is here. But the gist of it is this:

1) Last year, hits to the head were penalized when they were blindside or lateral. This year, those words have been removed. All hits will be penalized. (One step ahead)

Oh wait, it's actually up to the referee. Couldn't commit that far (step back).

2) Last year, the penalty was at least severe in theory. A major penalty would be assessable. This year, they deemed that too harsh, so it's now a minor call (several steps back?)


The net change is that the penalty is lessened, but the penalizable offence is broader. However, since we know the referees that have been given the freedom of interpretation (heaven forbid they weren't for the sake of safety) we can imagine the cockamamie explanations on the way for the unpenalized hits coming up this year.

It's a very weak response to a very serious issue. A completely unnecessary part of the game could be removed with leadership and conviction and fairly simple penalties, yet the team at the top bottled it.


Now consider their similar superficial changes to the boarding rule where they changed wording (vulnerable to defenseless).


Is anyone else worried that Shanahan might not be bold enough to break the establishment? Does anyone believe he even wants to?


If the real threat of retirement before 25 for the best player to come along in years is not enough to light a fire under these guys, what is? I think we all know the horrible answer to that question.

Let's hope an outcry, or maybe just some good sense from the players themselves (pipe dream), ends this nonsense before that day.