NHL, NHLPA officially ban blind-side head shots
"Right now, you can blindside a guy -- you can see a player coming through the center of the neutral zone looking away to catch or receive a pass and you can drop your shoulder right into his head and it's a perfectly legal and appropriate hit," now former NHLPA head Paul Kelly said at those meetings. "We don't think that is correct. We think that is a serious safety issue."
League disciplinarian Colin Campbell, who usually makes the suspension decisions but didn't today because his son plays for the Panthers, disagrees with Kelly and echoes the sentiments of the Stevens' era, the type of game the Richards plays.
"I believe there is a responsibility by the player getting hit by a legal check that he has to have his head up and avoid it," Campbell said. "In my day, if you got hit that way, legally by a player, your teammates would wonder what was going on, your coach would look at you and maybe not say anything, but your dad for sure when you got home would give you crap for having your head down. I'm certainly concerned about player safety, but I'm more concerned about taking a play out of the game that is a good, physical part of the game."
According to the rules at hand right now in this league, this is a legal hit. It's part of the game. If that changes in the future, if Campbell's day becomes the distant past, then so be it. But for now, Booth and anybody else that takes the ice against Mike Richards should keep their head on a swivel.
That's how we reacted to the Mike Richards hit on David Booth back in October. If that hit were to happen this evening against the Minnesota Wild at the Wachovia Center, it would be illegal and subject to suspension. Colin Campbell's day has officially become the distant past.
The NHLPA today agreed to the rule change already approved by the NHL Board of Governors that band any blind-side hit where the head it targeted. While we defended the Richards hit here back in October with the justification that it hadn't broken any rules, it's hard to argue that the rule change in effect today isn't something that's good for the game.
There is an argument to be made -- one that we contributed to back in October -- that the player getting hit bares a certain level of responsibility for putting themselves in a vulnerable position. I believe that Booth put himself in a vulnerable position back in October by admiring his pass. But ultimately, it's still good for Richards to hold up in that situation, and the rule really gets to the core of the more frequent occurrence: flat out dirty plays by guys like Pittsburgh's Matt Cooke.
It doesn't completely ban these hits as 'hockey plays'. As long as they aren't from the side or from behind, they're still legal, meaning that you can still make someone pay when they coast through the neutral zone with the puck and their head down. This is something that should not be removed from the game.
But injury for no reason is something that should be removed at all costs, and the rule change today goes a long way toward doing that.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I am rather curious to see how this all plays out. Obviously this rule will not capture or rather outline every single type of hit, what is legal and what is now deemed illegal. There is still going to be debate on this that much I am sure of. Part of the equation, something that is really almost impossible to know is intent. Does someone intend harm on their victim? While it might be easy to say that guys like Matt Cooke have such an intention every time they throw an elbow that isn’t always the case and blanket statements, no matter how dirty the player may be, should ever be made. That is what I think is most intriguing. This rule while addressing the hit I don’t think addresses the more pressing issue which is the intent.
Doesn’t this rule still leave something open to interpretation, though? That’s the part that worries me. I want something really clear cut, and I don’t think this is.
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luuko
Yeah I agree. As much as it is supposed to be clear, it’s still not. What about the David Backes hit on Rafalski last night? Back/lateral pressure sent Rafalski flying but it was shoulder to shoulder. Do you trust the NHL to call that correctly?
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
Repost
I like the attempt to control the head hits and the video is pretty good but I am still confused about how a hit to the head from a straight ahead approach is still legal? Stevens’ approach was from the front, face to face, and Lindros was looking down, which is not good, but the fact remains Stevens’ initial contact was to Lindros’ head not his body. I understand the basic premise of trying to eliminate blindside hits but if you make contact with the head before the body it should be a penalty. And he opens the video stating exactly that point then says the Stevens’ hit was legal? This is going to turn into more arbitrary judgements in which punishment will still be levied depending on what color jersey you are wearing. In other words if Cooke does it again they will qualify the hit by the new ruling in some way and if anyone wearing orange and black commit a borderline hit a new precedence in suspension will be recognized. No surprise!
Just Call Me "M"!
Here’s the difference with Stevens/Lindros and Cooke/Savard. Imagine both Savard and Lindros have their heads up looking directly ahead. Lindros would have Stevens in his line of sight, Savard wouldn’t have Cooke in his sight. So while Stevens doesn’t come from directly in front of Lindros, it’s still a frontal attack. Cooke chases down Savard and side-swipes him on the head. Cooke could side-swipe and get shoulder, but didn’t. With Lindros dangling his head in front of his chest like some low-hanging fruit there wasn’t much chance for Stevens to not hit head. Even aiming center mass puts Lindros’ head in the target zone because it’s right in front of his sternum.
They aren’t trying to remove all contact to the head. They’ve been clear about that. They want to remove the predatory and avoidable hits to the head. When you blindside a guy they have no chance to see you coming and adjust. When you are skating with your head down going forward and run into a D, it’s more your fault. You can disagree with the distinction, but I’m pretty sure that’s what the NHL is getting at. It’s the same thing as the Kessel hit in that video and the Toews hit. Both guys skating forward toward their checker but not looking at him.
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
There is no way someones head can realistically get In front of their sternum. Trust me i was one of the few that blamed lindros during that week, but stevens hunted him and went shoulder to head, period. But it was legal under those rules so it fell on Eric.
Just Call Me "M"!
by MJDII on Mar 25, 2010 6:27 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Honestly all I got from that video was that if you hit a guy in the head when they are facing you, even if their head is down then it’s good, but if you blindside him or hit him from the side then it’s illegal. Even though both can do damage.
I don’t get why they don’t just say you can not hit a guy in the head, period. Doesn’t matter the direction or what part of your body you use to do it.
Remember this he same league that assesses an extra two minutes for drawing blood. You can decapitate a guy with your stick and as long as he miraculously does not bleed it is only two minutes. But if you incidentally nick a guy with hemophilia you are done for.
Just Call Me "M"!
by MJDII on Mar 25, 2010 6:13 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
That’s frggin laughable. And you get 5 minutes for fighting even though the guy didn’t fight. Isn’t that roughing?
Just Call Me "M"!
by MJDII on Mar 25, 2010 6:30 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Nobody is going to let an opponent hit them in the head from the front. Think about it. The only way it happens is if someone had their head down, and in that situation, they quite honestly deserve to get hit. Keep your head up and there are no problems.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Mar 25, 2010 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions
One common thing to all these blindside hits was the checker had one hand off the stick, elbow bent and arm tucked tight against his mid-section to lead with the shoulder….I guess this is standard checking technique. If the checker is required to keep both hands on the stick he will hit the opponent in a more crouched position (thus not aligned the opponets head in most cases) with more of hit done by his upper back or side of the the arm. This will increase the time of contact and thus generate less force by the eq. F= momentum / time. It also means that the checker cannot apply a glancing blow so easily and therefore cannot impart all that momentum [mass times velocity] without absorbing more of the impact. A good example of this was when Gagne in the last Bruins game was skating thru the middle and the Bruins defender made the check with both hands on the stick, hitting with his body and was still effective from keeping Gagne off the puck without concussing him. At least if not with both hands on the stick then the hit must be made crouched and with the body. The both hands on stick thing would just ensure the proper body positioning.

by 
























