Does it Matter What Chara Intended?

No and Yes. Yes and No.

Many fans are missing the point this morning as they rant for one faction or the other on the hit that dropped the Bell Centre to its knees.

The back and forth of the debate rages about whether Zdeno Chara intended to injure Max Pacioretty or not. Slow replays the tools. Many fans are burning Chara at the stake for insisting the outcome was not what he had in mind.

Of course it would be nice to know what Chara thought and settle this once and for all. But we've all played sports and we all know that what we think in a moment is not necessarily how we would like to represent our "thoughts" on a matter, our beliefs.

Does it even matter what the Bruin captain thought in that moment, immediately before, or immediately after?

I would suggest that it matters inasmuch that malicious intent would have to be severely punished. If Chara changed tune and stated that he intended to injure Pacioretty, but not this much, that would have to accelerate the consequences. But I don't think that will happen. And I think we have to take the stance that if we don't take players' word and trust that their motivation is to win 2 points and not injure, then we are taking a turn down a long and convoluted road.


More important than any of this. More important than what Chara thought, or thinks now, is what the NHL thinks and what they are willing to do about this kind of avoidable incident.

Regardless of the suspension the NHL decides to hand down to Chara, this is another moment in time during which they can choose to take a real stand on eliminating viciousness from the sport, something to this point they have only paid faint lip service.

What I would like to see come of this incident is this:

1) First and foremost, a return to good health for young Max Pacioretty

2) A serious inquiry and interview for Zdeno Chara, with a suspension that suggests the league is serious now, but also one that reflects the current rules

3) And last, but not least, a rule that lays the ground rules for what will happen in any future case like this one.

I think Scott Stinson laid down an excellent piece on this today:

"If the NHL had mandatory suspensions in place for shots to the head, or hits against vulnerable players, or however you want to define it, then it’s decision here would be easy. It would say, sorry Zdeno, but rules are rules and you are done for 20 games, or 10 games, or 50 games or whatever the punishment would be for a guy who is not new to the violent-hit game. But it doesn’t have that. Instead, disciplinarian Colin Campbell will do the usual routine where he interviews the guilty party, reviews the tape — which is pointless since everything relevant happened in fractions of seconds — and bring down a punishment that will please few people."

Indeed, this should be a "Sorry Zdeno" case, but the league has been lax in their commitment to removing violence and especially dangerous "accidents". As I said before, drunk drivers don't intend to kill anyone, nor do people texting and driving, they only mean to save time. But actions have consequences. If people agree the consequences are too steep, it's time to set the appropriate curbing mechanisms for the actions.


At the end of the day, I would much prefer that I never have to stand by and watch for evidence of breathing and movement from an athlete on my screen than for arbitrary suspensions to fly without future implication.

The NHL owes this much to Max Pacioretty, his parents who were at the game, and to all its players, employees and fans. The NHL can't simply wait until the time that player doesn't move. For that, there's no excuse.

Poor Van RynTwice the Victim; Differing Reactions

Injuries and suspensions. The NHL seem to link these two in the mind like Southern US and expansion opportunity. They see one, they see the other. Without one, they often forget about the other.

The Daily Hab-it once again brings up some nice point about this matter. There they focus on why Kostopoulos got a three game suspension and why Ruutu only got two. It's a very valid observation. I agree with Arpon that Tom deserved three games (if not more) and that it was the Jarkko Ruutu suspension that is out of whack.

While it's tempting to lay all the blame at the feet of Colin Campbell and the NHL head honchos. It's my opinion that they are only trying to tread a fine line. Even with the Kostopoulos hit, where injury occurred, there were supporters for the offender. I'm not only referring to the people who suggest Tom would have stopped if he could, but was too committed, but also those who still feel like they would prefer to see hits like this than not.

When you take the injury out of the equation altogether. And the play is judged without the complication of guilt over an injured player, then I really begin to see support from the faction of fans who ultimately like hockey for its ruggedness, its hitting.

Take the example of Milan Lucic's hit on the very same Mike Van Ryn. A few weeks ago, this hit was all over the internet – people were singing the praises of Lucic and marvelling at the beauty of the hit (even Habs bloggers who dislike Lucic as a rule).

I don't need to see the hit in slow motion, or to be told twice that that hit could have been calamitous for Van Ryn. Lucic came from at least half the rink away at full tilt with no interest in retrieving the puck (he'd have been too late) and intent only to throw his 220 lb frame at the opponent. Thank goodness the glass breaks in that instance, because otherwise Van Ryn comes between irresistible force and immovable object with only a thin plastic hat to protect him.

It's worth noting that Lucic was not suspended for the hit, though he clearly had no intent of playing the puck (or affecting the play – it was a dump in). He also took many many strides (which I think is illegal) and left his skates. I think it's fair to say that had the glass not broken, the hit would have ended in a crumpled Van Ryn and suspension for Lucic. Had Van Ryn been injured, the suspension would have been long.

I'll admit, I used to love the breaking glass. I spent hours trying to hit the referee through the glass on NHL 98. But I've changed my position. I now think plays like that one should be punished, because part of the act went against sportsmanship, against the spirit and even the rules of the game. And, I used to be as biased as Yvon Pednault about these things, but I think a non-partisan approach would be more helpful overall. Now I can see hits like Kostopoulos' and Markov's as boarding, even with the bleu, blanc rouge glasses on.

Take, for example, another case of flagrant fouling gone unpunished was Sergei Kostitsyn on Mikhail Grabovski the other night. Regardless of what Grabovski did to Price, which took quite an eye to spot even after the fact, Kostitsyn's hit was dirty. He came after the play and hit an unsuspecting player in a very dirty and unsportsmanlike way.



At the very least, Sergei was ejected from the game (a meaningless gesture at that juncture). But why has there been no suspension attached?

I'm sure the plays were reviewed. Ron Wilson probably sent a whole tape full of incidents.

I suspect the fact Grabovski got up with no grogginess had a lot to do with it.


Injuries should not come into consideration
With the ability the NHL has to review plays from multiple angles and at any speed, there is no reason to consider hits that cause injuries to be any different from those that do. Often that is luck (as Kostopoulos will tell you).

I think, if the NHL wants to see this stuff cut out, it must rule on hits where the possibility (not intent, no one will concede attempting to injure at any point, they're all such good guys like Bertuzzi) of injury. A blind hit on a player not involved in the play, for example could carry a 5-game suspension and fines. A hit like Lucic's could carry the same or more. Same for Kostopoulos'.

The NHL needs to stop pandering to the vocal minority who bawl for more hitting, fighting – and a trip back to 1974, and consider the safety of the players, what the game is about and how dangerous play comes into that.

The retort of course is where do I draw the line?

It's a tricky business drawing a line, I'll concede. It would take a bit of careful consideration. There will be gray areas. But that shouldn't necessarily slow action on the dirtiest hits, so clearly beyond the line – hits on unsuspecting opponents that have nothing to do with playing hockey or pursuing the puck.

Like drunk driving, the potentially harmful activity could be punished – even if no harm is done.

I could do without watching games that resemble a runaway car with a drunk at the wheel. I could live without dirty hockey. I even know it's possible to enjoy those types of games – they make up 90% of the ones I watch...

The Gonchar clause

If you bar players from taking a shot in the shootout if they are in the penalty box, you may open a whole can of worms with intentional penalties.


For example, say we're playing the Leafs. With 1 second to go, someone who can't shoot well (pick anyone on the Leafs) shoots it over the boards and gets a delay of game penalty. Wade Belak jumps on Alex Kovalev and punches him outright. Kovalev doesn't retaliate, but Markov does and so does Komisarek. Hapless Leafs jump in (though none of their shooters).

Multiple roughing penalties get handed out: 5 to the Leafs and 2 to the Canadiens. Notably, the Leafs lose none of their successful shooters, but manage to shorten their shooting bench to 15, so if the shootout goes beyond 15, Sundin is up when Gorges is shooting for the Habs. The Habs lose Markov who was goaded into a penalty.

Or take this example. I'm the Bruins playing the Sens in March. Gerber has been tanking now for a while. Andrew Alberts runs Emery and gets him to take a swipe. Both get penalties. Alberts can't shoot (who cares), and Emery must watch Gerber face the shooters.

This time it happened to be Gonchar that took the penalty, but more often than not it is not a skilled player doing that in OT (or any part of the game for that matter). Therefore, on average, between shortening the bench, targeting players to instigate and the chance of goalies missing the SO, there are many implicaations for this suggested rule change.

I wouldn't suggest asking for it. That is unless the Canadiens are craftier than I thought and have all these gameplans of their own up their sleeves.


Here's my proposed solution to the problem:

If the team on the PP scores on their first penalty shot, the game is over and won. No chance to reply for the offending team.

Wouldn't see many penalties that way, I bet. Whaddya think?