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.
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
New Rules Video
I found this video very interesting and informative:
A good primer before the season.
Good to see the NHL finally doing something about elements of the game that add little but injury.
A good primer before the season.
Good to see the NHL finally doing something about elements of the game that add little but injury.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Salary Cap Issues In Need Of Change
By now, we're all up on the league's stance on long and unrealistic contracts. A lot of people are praising the league for their stance on this.
But from my point of view, this is only an important stance if solid action is taken in the form of rule changes, changes to the CBA, else interpretation becomes a bit flaky (see Pronger contract). While the league is at it, I think there’s a few other issues that have come to light that they need to address too.
Contract rules
It’s not only the length of a contract that’s important. In fact, it’s not the length at all. Everything hinges on the age at which the player will receive his last payday.
Yesterday, I saw a good suggestion on the matter. A simple and elegant solution that the league could implement tomorrow:
Don’t allow any long-term contracts to extend past a player’s 39th birthday.
Why 39? Well, the number was chosen based on league averages, but the number it self isn’t that important after all, another number (36, 37, 40) would work just as effectively in setting clear boundaries.
In addition to finishing age, it appears there’s also some concern about what a player is paid at the beginning and the end of the contract. This isn’t really an issue if the player plays those years (see Scott Gomez), as the cap treats every year as equal. It is an issue if the player retires,, though, since a false cap number was calculated with the lower salary which might never be paid out.
The Kovalchuk deal was new because it had so many years at league minimum to bring down the cap hit that it seemed disingenuous. I can see the problem with it. After all, if Kovalchuk was intending to play till then, he’d already have signed for $6 million every year until 44 by now.
There might be an easy-ish solution here too. Limits could be set on how much the top salary and bottom salary in a deal could vary (e.g., 50%, 30% or something) and there could be guidelines about how many seasons at less than say 60% of the average pay there could be.
Whatever, the eventual solutions, the point is that they need to be put to paper and made clear to everyone. Until that happens, the league’s whim will be seen as the rule.
Minor league duty
Just as outrageous as Kovalchuk’s contract is the idea that the Blackhawks can simply put Cristobal Huet in the minors in order to free up salary cap space. In the event they do that, the Hawks will erase Huet’s entire salary from their cap tabulation. Other teams will be on this boat too, as Jeff Finger may be helping Brian Burke from another cap overshoot by playing in the minors.
This situation is fraught with issues as well.
For starters, it seems quite unfair to the player. Huet may be in the minors for his sketchy play, but there will be others who suffer the same fate for their big payday alone. For another thing, the player can still play late on in the season when cap spae is clearer and is free as anyone else to play in the playoffs..
It’s an extreme example, but imagine Chicago opts to sign Kovalchuk and Frolov and gets them to commit to the minors. No matter what outlandish salaries they pay them, come playoff time they could insert the two of them and then Huet back into the lineup without consequence.
Clearly this issue needs to be revisited as well, as the loophole unfairly allows irresponsible GMs to correct errors at a players expense. It also creates an uneven playing field for people who play the cap as if it means something.
Salary cap penalty
While we’re on the topic, how about the salary cap penalty?
Because of bonuses, Chicago went way over the salary cap last season. While it’s causing them some headaches now (and Huet an NHL continuance), the penalty is less than a slap on the wrist.
In a way, I can see Chicago’s point of view. They exceeded the cap for playoff bonuses. That’s hard to account for.
But what’s Toronto’s excuse? And why do they get the same free pass? If it’s true that Toronto went over the salary cap last season, it must also be true that they did so in the regular season (there were no playoffs, after all). I think we all have to ask:
a) Why was this allowed to happen?
b) Why haven’t they been punished beyond the penalty on this year’s cap?
As it stands, with regular season cap busters exceeding the cap without consequence, does it not lead to the next logical question: What is there a salary cap for?
Here, I think the league needs to take action for the next time this occurs, or rather before it happens again. Forfeit of games, draft picks and funds are no brainers. Perhaps something more drastic, though, is what it would take.
Arbitration
Did anyone else see that Clarke MacArthur was awarded $2.4 million a season from the league arbiter? Did anyone else see Jamie Langenbrunner is making $2.8 million a season?
Maybe the MacArthur case is a one off, but I get the feeling it isn’t. Because teams are so terrified of arbiter rulings like this one, they avoid arbitration like the plague. And how do they do that? Well, by overpaying, of course.
An unbalanced arbitration system is good for escalating salaries and not much else. Maybe it too needs a re-look.
Lamoriello is taking some heat and mockery now for his attempt to circumvent the salary cap. However, it must be said that he did it because the laws are loose. If the NHL is at all serious about having this cap, it's high time they took the action to see that things like salary rules, minor league demotions and cap penalties are calibrated correctly. The salary cap was meant to level the playing field, not tilt it towards the unrepentant.
But from my point of view, this is only an important stance if solid action is taken in the form of rule changes, changes to the CBA, else interpretation becomes a bit flaky (see Pronger contract). While the league is at it, I think there’s a few other issues that have come to light that they need to address too.
Contract rules
It’s not only the length of a contract that’s important. In fact, it’s not the length at all. Everything hinges on the age at which the player will receive his last payday.
Yesterday, I saw a good suggestion on the matter. A simple and elegant solution that the league could implement tomorrow:
Don’t allow any long-term contracts to extend past a player’s 39th birthday.
Why 39? Well, the number was chosen based on league averages, but the number it self isn’t that important after all, another number (36, 37, 40) would work just as effectively in setting clear boundaries.
In addition to finishing age, it appears there’s also some concern about what a player is paid at the beginning and the end of the contract. This isn’t really an issue if the player plays those years (see Scott Gomez), as the cap treats every year as equal. It is an issue if the player retires,, though, since a false cap number was calculated with the lower salary which might never be paid out.
The Kovalchuk deal was new because it had so many years at league minimum to bring down the cap hit that it seemed disingenuous. I can see the problem with it. After all, if Kovalchuk was intending to play till then, he’d already have signed for $6 million every year until 44 by now.
There might be an easy-ish solution here too. Limits could be set on how much the top salary and bottom salary in a deal could vary (e.g., 50%, 30% or something) and there could be guidelines about how many seasons at less than say 60% of the average pay there could be.
Whatever, the eventual solutions, the point is that they need to be put to paper and made clear to everyone. Until that happens, the league’s whim will be seen as the rule.
Minor league duty
Just as outrageous as Kovalchuk’s contract is the idea that the Blackhawks can simply put Cristobal Huet in the minors in order to free up salary cap space. In the event they do that, the Hawks will erase Huet’s entire salary from their cap tabulation. Other teams will be on this boat too, as Jeff Finger may be helping Brian Burke from another cap overshoot by playing in the minors.
This situation is fraught with issues as well.
For starters, it seems quite unfair to the player. Huet may be in the minors for his sketchy play, but there will be others who suffer the same fate for their big payday alone. For another thing, the player can still play late on in the season when cap spae is clearer and is free as anyone else to play in the playoffs..
It’s an extreme example, but imagine Chicago opts to sign Kovalchuk and Frolov and gets them to commit to the minors. No matter what outlandish salaries they pay them, come playoff time they could insert the two of them and then Huet back into the lineup without consequence.
Clearly this issue needs to be revisited as well, as the loophole unfairly allows irresponsible GMs to correct errors at a players expense. It also creates an uneven playing field for people who play the cap as if it means something.
Salary cap penalty
While we’re on the topic, how about the salary cap penalty?
Because of bonuses, Chicago went way over the salary cap last season. While it’s causing them some headaches now (and Huet an NHL continuance), the penalty is less than a slap on the wrist.
In a way, I can see Chicago’s point of view. They exceeded the cap for playoff bonuses. That’s hard to account for.
But what’s Toronto’s excuse? And why do they get the same free pass? If it’s true that Toronto went over the salary cap last season, it must also be true that they did so in the regular season (there were no playoffs, after all). I think we all have to ask:
a) Why was this allowed to happen?
b) Why haven’t they been punished beyond the penalty on this year’s cap?
As it stands, with regular season cap busters exceeding the cap without consequence, does it not lead to the next logical question: What is there a salary cap for?
Here, I think the league needs to take action for the next time this occurs, or rather before it happens again. Forfeit of games, draft picks and funds are no brainers. Perhaps something more drastic, though, is what it would take.
Arbitration
Did anyone else see that Clarke MacArthur was awarded $2.4 million a season from the league arbiter? Did anyone else see Jamie Langenbrunner is making $2.8 million a season?
Maybe the MacArthur case is a one off, but I get the feeling it isn’t. Because teams are so terrified of arbiter rulings like this one, they avoid arbitration like the plague. And how do they do that? Well, by overpaying, of course.
An unbalanced arbitration system is good for escalating salaries and not much else. Maybe it too needs a re-look.
Lamoriello is taking some heat and mockery now for his attempt to circumvent the salary cap. However, it must be said that he did it because the laws are loose. If the NHL is at all serious about having this cap, it's high time they took the action to see that things like salary rules, minor league demotions and cap penalties are calibrated correctly. The salary cap was meant to level the playing field, not tilt it towards the unrepentant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)