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.

News and Consequences November 28

How does big news actually affect the Habs? This is how we think it does

Big news: Bruce Boudreau and Paul Maurice replaced

Why a Habs fan should care:Habs fans need to recognize what has been lost here today. Bruce Boudreau was a buffoon who frequently took a hard-headed approach to his team. Montreal beat his Caps in the playoffs because he didn't adapt quickly (ever actually) and they would have been able to beat them again, I propose. Maurice was predictable and probably beyond having a real influence on his players.

Dale Hunter has been a great success with the London Knights and has turned out some great players. More importantly, that team has scored and scored. Ovechkin and co. will benefit from the anyone but Boudreau factor, but this may be amped by Hunter. Muller, well we know him, we know he'll be good.

The Habs wouldn't be beating Washington in the regular season, Boudreau or not, but the Canes still in touch may now become a real rival for a lower seed. Together with the playoff match-up implications, this is news that affect the Habs significantly.


Big news: Pacioretty speaking to Shanahan

Why a Habs fan should care: Besides the fact that the team may lose its best straightshooter for a while, the other news is that Habs fans have a chance to show their sincerity.

The hit Pacioretty laid out was against the rules and accidental or not is exactly what the league needs to root out. Jack Todd was quick to point out the need for suspension. I'd second that. Unless players with no history are suspended, suspensions are a powerless mechanism to change the game. Unless semi-accidental hits are punished, players will continue to "accidentally" cause concussions and broken necks. Power to the consequences, forget partisanship. If you really dislike what the Bruins stand for, a Pacioretty suspension is a step in the right direction.


Big news: Toronto winning again

Why a Habs fan should care: Habs fans have revelled for several years in the fact that the Leafs and their fans were experiencing worse troubles than us. Well, after a quick start, Toronto is winning again. And the genius is looking to be proved right by Phil Kessel's scoring lead with Joffrey Lupul!?! sitting in third.

Losing the Toronto schmozzle is jarring. That comfortable thing you could always go back to for a good chuckle. The mockery of the two loud-mouth buffoons who run the team and their brainwashed players could be lost forever if there's a scoring title or heaven forbid a playoff berth.I'm not sure what's to be done.

Why the Malone Hit Happened

There's a reason these hits to the head have been happening in the NHL. There's a reason that players refuse to take heed of the "significant" suspensions that are being handed out thus far.

Excuses instead of commitment. From the mouth of the new veep himself:

"In the end, we felt that Malone had committed to the hit when Campoli was upright. However, when the contact was made, Campoli's head position significantly changed just prior to the hit."

If the NHL doesn't understand that to eliminate hits to the head, it will even have to go as far as penalizing hits that could end up being a hit to the head (and do), then they are going nowhere on this. This is the perennial " he turned his back" argument those who care about player safety, but not at the expense of their entertainment take.

Curbing this habit, hits that might endanger the opponent's head, will be difficult, yes. But it will be impossible if hits like Malone's continue to go unpunished.

The lack of punishment in this case baffles. It really does. I can make sense of the excuses Shanahan and his office offer because I'm used to hearing things like that. But in the end, they are just excuses.

"There are elements about the hit that we don't like - specifically, the principal point of contact being the head and that it was not a full-body check. But the overriding factor in our judgment was that Campoli's loss of the puck and subsequent bending forward for it just prior contributed significantly, if not entirely, to those elements."

The opportunity is there, with the will of the current players, to rid the NHL game of this pointless element on the periphery. Seize the moment Shanny. Get this one in on the next rebound.


Punishment that matters

I've had the conversation several times now, and I'm sure I will again. I believe that the only way to truly rid this (or anything) from this game (or any other) is not through personal suspensions but through action that matters.

A suspension is money. But a penalty big enough is paid in points.

I don't know how big PP has to be in an extreme case, but let's say for the sake of argument, it's 10 minutes.

Do you think a player doesn't get an earful from his captain and his coach after a 10-minuter costs his team a game? Do you think said player will be told to just go out and do what he does after a couple of these?

No, of course not. Coaches live and die by the win. GMs as well. They pull the strings on a team and can actually change a player's or a number of players' behaviour.

Make the penalty affect the win column and you'll see. I believe this strongly.

Really though, if we can't even get suspensions done, what's the hope of something like this?

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.

Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back

In the wake of announcements made by Gary Bettman about the seriousness that the NHL is going to start ascribing to head hits, this week the NHL Wheel of Justice assessed Dany Heatley 2 games for a deliberate (if not very injurious) elbow to the head of Steve Ott, Lecavalier was handed a game misconduct for a deliberate high-stick to PK Subban’s head, and even Bruin Brad Marchand is getting a suspension for an unpenalized play. Given that the GMs have just finished a meeting specifically addressing concussions and head hits (among other things), it’s worth asking whether the league has done enough to address what a lot of hockey minds seem to think is a key issue facing the game today?

Ken Dryden, Habs legend and one of the more intelligent players to ever grace the game, had a very smart piece in the Globe and Mail last Friday where he compares today’s perceptions of head hits to yesteryear’s perceptions of the health risks of smoking (i.e. none) and asks the question: "How could we be so stupid?" This is a valid point, and 20 or 30 years from now I think many doctors and family members will be asking the same question. It is all too easy to think of our players as gladiators and heroes, and that head trauma is just part of earning their stripes; part of the the job.

This certainly seems to be the outlook of the NHL executive committee, with very little about head hits and concussions coming of this week’s GM meeting. What we got was a very public 5-point "action plan" from Gary Bettman after the first day, which seemingly calmed sponsors by making it sound like the league is really going to do something. My feelings are obviously a little mixed on the subject. I certainly hate their data on the source of concussions – especially the category labelled "accidental hits." According to their classifications, the Chara hit would have been "accidental" simply because it wasn’t ruled as intentional (i.e. suspension-worthy) by the executive, and I don’t think this provides a very meaningful representation of the data.

One point I was very happy with, and that was the new protocol for determining what constituted a potential concussion threat and how the teams are expected to react. Clear rules are set for what scenario requires an intervention by the team doctor, and the player is removed to “a quiet place free from distraction” for examination with a validated acute concussion assessment tool. These are good steps, most of all because they are clear, logical, and will probably improve the prognosis for players with concussions dramatically. In fact, the only way that this could be better is if doctors had an obligation to share data from tests (maybe at season’s end) for use in evaluating how various rule or equipment changes affect concussion rates.

The rest of the list I’m less excited about. The first item is for Brendan Shanahan to lead an investigation into whether equipment size can be reduced without compromising safety. I think that the answer is a resounding “yes.” Equipment size has grown rather dramatically over the past three decades, mostly in the name of player safety. However, I wonder whether this has backfired somewhat; protection against higher forces seems to have encouraged harder hits, and likely leads to less forgiving impacts between players. It is important to remember that no equipment can protect a player completely from injury, however, and that changes made at a cultural level might be more effective in reducing concussions.

The second, related, item is the naming of Joe Nieuwendyk, Rob Blake, Steve Yzerman and Brendan Shanahan to a committee investigating concussions and concussion-related issues. I have tremendous respect for all of these men as hockey players, but have less faith their ability to ask smart, testable questions about why concussions have been on the rise, and supervise the data collection and analysis required for this job. I’m biased, being a scientist, but I’d like to see people who do this kind of analysis for a living doing this work.

Which brings me to the next point, which is the hiring of an independent safety consulting team to tour the 30 NHL arenas to ensure they conform to the highest safety standards. My question is: how is this not a routine procedure for the league? The same could be said for the last point, which is penalizing teams as a whole for repeated offences by multiple players, though I can’t find anything saying 1) how many offences it takes to become a “repeat offender, or 2) how many “repeated offenders” would qualify as enough for a fine or other punishment.

What I hate most about this is that, unlike the new head injury protocol, it doesn’t seem to be clear, logical, or structured. It requires on-the-fly judgement calls that will lead to inconsistent rulings from referees and the disciplinary committee, which is why so many of us refer to them as the "Wheel of Justice." Inconsistency and judgement calls are ruining the punitive structure of the league both on the ice and in suspensions (although our friend Down Goes Brown seems to have the suspensions figured out). Decades of psychology research have shown that if punishment is not consistent, it doesn’t change behaviour, and that’s what we’re seeing on the ice.

My dad and I were talking about this last night, and came up with a good example: in the old days (for me this means the 1980s), 3 steps and leaving your feet meant a whistle and 2 minutes for charging. Now, charging is a rather abstract concept because, as Colin Campbell freely admits in his emails (remember those?), referees are more or less expected to be inconsistent by making calls based on the score, the number of previous penalties and the flow of the game. Bad judgement by the referee on some stickplay between Subban and Lacavalier in front of the net last night led to frustration and the eventual 2-handed blow to Subban’s face that saw Vinny ejected. It never should have gone that far, even if it meant 2 minutes for PK and none for Lacavalier.

I think overall the league has taken some steps in the right direction by introducing independent safety consultants, clear criteria for high-risk hits, and protocols for how deal with these hits. However, we’ve been taking a lot of steps in the wrong direction over the last couple years in terms of man-games lost to injury. Until the punitive structures are made more severe and consistent, I think we’ll continue to watch that stat rise.

Sundin, the Media and Me

As you know (if you've been reading this site over the summer), I don't think the Sundin story is the story of the NHL summer – that would be KHL signings. However, it is impossible to deny its importance altogether.

Take the media for example. Every day since July 2nd, we've had an article like this one (When will the Sundin story go away?). Every other day, Mike Boone on the Habs Inside/Out has done his funnier-than-thou take on the story.

The question being asked every time is "When will he decide?", but I think the real question (everyone's doing their best to hide) is: "How did we get so lucky?".

The story doesn't get old because there is legitimate interest and hope from all the key places when it comes to hockey: New York, Philadelphia, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal. The media (I would be wrong to exclude myself from this tag, though I'm decidedly more amateur than most) love this story exactly because it lends itself to jokeyness, mocking and satire. It can be retooled and recycled day after day, and people will still read it because the writers have the knack for expressing some of the angst and frustration the fans are feeling. I think they'll all miss it when it's gone – despite having us believe the opposite. The rumour hack is eating it up too, as it means he doesn't have to do as much work making up false trades and imagining plausible stories to explain their contacts.

While, it is without doubt an important item for the media, I wonder how important it is for the NHL and hockey.

I mean, how many GMs are really on hold? How many players are really left out in the cold until Sundin decides? My feeling on both counts is that there aren't many.

I'll take what I am most familiar with – the Canadiens. They happen to have cobbled a roster together with a $7 million dollar hole in it. But to say they are waiting for Sundin is wrong. Several members of the organisation have made it clear that offers have been made to the (former) Leafs captain, and others have cited how great it could be to have him in the squad; but the Canadiens did not hold up the operation for him. They have signed all their free agents. They have picked up the offensive winger for Koivu. They have grabbed other defencemen.

I acknowledge the "plight" of the unsigned third- and fourth-liners, but if most of us can only dream of an anxious summer before finding out where we can play 10 minutes of hockey every third day for $700,000. I'm not shedding tears for them yet. If they wanted certainty and security, they could do worse than settling for a life in the beautiful Swiss Alps for a few hundred thousand tax-free francs. Again, not an option to people without their hockey skills.

But, really, apart from these unsigned guys, what are the implications for a hockey team?

The main consequence of this summer may be a change in the way things are done in the future. In waiting, Sundin, Sakic, Selanne, Shanahan, the Canadiens, Canucks and Avalanche (to name but a few) have let the air out of the free agent season. They have shown it up for what it is – hype. Maybe teams will also wait in the future – wait for salary demands to settle down, as patience hasn't proven to be too disastrous a strategy.


Sundin and the Habs

Leaving the money for Sundin has been a sensible approach for two reasons:

1. It would be good to have him

2. There are few willing alternatives worth signing that can't wait until September


It is the latter that has been the success story for the Canadiens. Instead of looking to spend for the sake of it to placate restless fans and bloggers (I still want them to spend to cap eventually, as well), they have seen that there is no rush. Generally speaking, I am not anxious about Sundin. On one hand, I can see the great attributes he could bring to the team. But on the other hand, I still find myself aligning myself with my earlier feeling that getting Sundin is a move too far.

I think the chances of his signing are as good now as they ever were. i don't think time has done anything to hurt our bid or Mats' impression of our commitment. I honestly just think that neither side is in that much of a rush. Anyway, even if doesn't sign for us, we still win as Toronto won't be the constant comeback threats they always were without him.


One final Sundin question that has been kicking around a bit under the radar has been the possibility of a Nordic league to compete with the fledgling KHL and the dismissive NHL.

Obviously, these teams would need some infusion of wealth and some star attractions to get off on the right foot. I wonder if a certain three Nordic millionaire superstars aren't following this story more closely from their summer homes back in Scandinavia than we all are, and whether it might be one more option for them all to consider for prolonging their hockey careers.


And how about all of you? Are you waiting and hoping for Sundin? Did you stop caring long before we did? Are you happy with the Habs as they are (or just resigned to them)?