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?

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.

NHL DisciplineAvery Suspended Indefinitely

I know this is a polarising issue. Generally speaking I sit somewhere between Mike Komisarek and Jeff Marek of the CBC. I think a lot of what he does goes too far, I think he is probably a big jerk, but some things he does (like that screening the goalie – full within the rues at the time) well that's creative and interesting.

I wouldn't have normally felt the need to comment on Sean Avery or his comments (which should be ignored anyway and won't be repeated here today), but I thought the NHL's own behaviour in this matter interesting enough for comment:

It’s a funny thing the mind of an NHL disciplinarian. I don’t know if I’ll ever understand how it works. The NHL has now suspended Sean Avery for making inappropriate comments about another player and his personal life:

Dallas Stars forward Sean Avery has been suspended indefinitely, pending a hearing with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman, for conduct "detrimental to the league or game of hockey," the league said. The suspension was imposed following inappropriate public comments about the personal lives of opposing players, and not pertaining to the game, made by Avery yesterday.

While his comments were certainly deplorable. But Avery let fly at a noon-time pre-game press call in Calgary on a Tuesday in early December. I fail to see how his comments would have reached me (a keen follower of the NHL) much less the masses of people Bettman concerns himself with – those who switch on televisions in the US. By suspending Avery, the NHL has brought attention to the statement and of course their response. By making a fuss over this the NHL has brought this disrepute on themselves.

In considering alternative course of action on this matter, I tend to agree with this commenter form the CBC website when he says:

"... slap avery on the head for saying it, but slap the broadcasters/publishers as well for getting the statement out to the public. the cameraman's boss should have simply sent the tape to bettman and had him/them deal with the issue behind closed doors. putting the comment out there for all to hear was the biggest blunder..."

Indeed, Avery should be deplored for saying these things. But the question should be asked of the network too. There was no need for this tape to be made public as commenter suggests. Will there e some discipline in that case. Is there no call for common sense, decency and editorial good judgment on the part of those who fuel these NHL fires?

NHL discipline on the whole
Now I applaud the NHL for their response here. Once the tape was out and broadcast, they should stand against sexism and bullying. In fact, if anything, I wish they would do more of that – be a little bit more consistent with their responses to acts we all deplore. We know people are turned off by Avery and that’s fine – punish him. But we are also aware that people are turned off by violence like hits from behind, high-sticking and acts of revenge carried out in the name of some code. The NHL is a hapless bystander in maters such as these.

If I thought this was a turning point in NHL discipline, believe me I would be pleased. By my suspicion is that it isn’t. I refuse to be giddy about the NHL's sudden moral quest while they don't do a worthwhile thing about dangerous play.

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...