Trying to Stay A-'Head' of the Game

Alas, I didn’t bring the right man purse to go with this golf shirt…

You’ve been prepping that response for a while haven’t you? LOL.

Keeping me on my toes, for sure.

It’s very true. The landscape of the NHL as most of these GM’s and even most fans are holding on to has really changed.

I have to applaud USA Hockey and Hockey Canada for taking progressive steps toward eliminating the need for players to carry not only their sticks, but their elbows and arms, above shoulder height.

Another example of this issue that really stands out in my mind is Mike Mottau’s hit on Frans Nielsen earlier in the year. As I said back then, not only should Mottau have been suspended a minimum of 5 games for deliberately targeting Nielsen’s head with no intent to play the puck, but that it should have been a Butt-Ending Major or Match for use of that hand to initiate contact.

There is no need for Mottau to do what he did and instead of being reprimanded for what was truly intent to injure, he gets away with a slap on the wrist. It’s time for a change and that starts with the 70% of players polled in the NHL who believe that there should be a “Head Contact” minor, major and match penalty.

I would tend to agree with you. The Weight/Sutter hit is a different animal. Each incident is a like a snowflake in it’s uniqueness. Weight did not intend, in my opinion, to hit Sutter in the head. Should that particular incident be used as a benchmark? Sure. I think that Weight deserved a suspension as a “look and see that even a legal hit is suspension-worthy”.

The Kronwall/Havlat hit was a timing play where it was obvious that Kronwall had no intention of playing the puck and instead was playing the body all the way. So, in that situation, I wouldn’t even be against instant replay being used as a basis for calling the correct penalty.

There are only 2460 games during the regular season (30 teams). I have to disagree with you that even though you don’t see a dangerous hit to the head every game, it doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a rule to give the referees a tool to utilize when necessary.

Have you ever seen a “Butt-Ending” call? Well, there’s a rule for it in the NHL Rulebook:

Rule 58 – Butt-ending

58.1 Butt-ending – The action whereby a player or goalkeeper uses the shaft of the stick, above the upper hand, to check an opposing player in any manner or jabs or attempts to jab an opposing player with this part of the stick.

58.2 Double-minor Penalty – A double-minor penalty will be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who attempts to butt-end an opponent.

58.3 Major Penalty – A major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who butt-ends an opponent (see section 58.5).

58.4 Match Penalty – A match penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who injures an opponent as a result of a butt-end.

58.5 Game Misconduct Penalty – When a major penalty is imposed for butt-ending, a game misconduct penalty must also be assessed.

58.6 Fines and Suspensions – When a major penalty and game misconduct are imposed under this rule, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) will be imposed.

If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 29).

In my entire officiating career, spanning close to a decade, I have only been forced to call this penalty once. That’s even officiating about 5 different leagues and multiple age-levels.

Wanna know how many times I’ve called “Head Contact” in a USA Hockey game? Upwards of at least 100. There is a need for this rule to protect the players. As much as I hate to say it, do you believe that Eric Lindros wouldn’t have possibly had a true Hall of Fame career without the concussion issues?

As far as fighting goes, there will always be fighting. What I agree with is what the OHL did in enforcing the need to keep the helmets on. If you remember earlier this year, Brendan Witt smashed the back of his head on the Coliseum ice against the Buffalo Sabres during a meaningless game in October. What if Brendan Witt is paralyzed or worse because of what happened? How would people react then, when a professional at the pinnacle of the sport he plays is seriously injured during an altercation that meant nothing to the outcome of the game. A young man lost his life. I don’t choose to sully his memory.

NASCAR made stricter rules after Dale Earnhardt’s passing. The NFL looked into better helmet and neck restraint technology after Dennis Byrd of the New York Jets was paralyzed from the neck down during a game. The NHL has to inevitably look into making the unfriendly confines of the ice surface safer for the elite athletes that have been entertaining most of us since we were kids.

I’m gonna have to disagree that it would be difficult to call hits to the head. Sure the rule must be objective but you’re only thinking of the fact of using a major penalty. If the rule is to be created it has to be a minor, major and major+game misconduct as choices for the referee.

At that point, you have an objective decision on the severity of the contact with the head. You’re not just wrestling with the fact that, “Is this a major penalty or not?”

Heights of players wouldn’t mean anything in the situation of a hit to the head. USA Hockey utilizes a “Head Contact” penalty and that’s for the youth levels. I’ve seen a bantam player that is 5’5" tall get hit by a bantam (remember 14 years old here) that was 6’3". The height of the players means nothing. I’m 6’1". If I were to hit a player that was 5’8" but I kept my arms tucked in and hit with proper technique and still hit that player’s head then it is the discretion of the referee whether or not that’s a penalty. The onus is on the player delivering the hit to target the opposing player’s chest, shoulders or hips. If the hit is delivered anywhere but those areas it would be considered as a possible penalty.

That’s the beauty of the rule book. Nothing is every “set-in-stone”. The rules are meant as guidelines to be followed when a particular situation arises during a game. In this sense, I believe that the NHL Rulebook is an incomplete entity until the “contact to the head” situation is addressed.

I think comparative height could enter the equation just the same as the other factors in judging a play (e.g. "Was the player in control? Was the recipient in an indefensible position? etc.).

It may make it subjective — and admittedly the NHL already does a sub-par job of communicating its standards — but I think putting the burden on the checker when the recipient is in a vulnerable position is an achievable standard. Ultimately, Kronwall does not need to fly in like a typical Kronwall torpedo on that Havlat play to achieve the hockey objective. Havlat wasn’t even a moving threat, he was a sitting duck still collecting a loose puck.

I voted “for” some sort of head shot rule, but I’m with you in a sort of middle ground. Sometimes it happens unavoidably. I’m okay with some missed/bad calls as long as offenders know they risk a penalty by targeting the head.

Speaking of soccer (which I love, though the Ronaldo-dives are atrocious), the concern about increasing diving by motivating everyone to collapse as if they’d been head-targeted is legit. That would be awful. Hopefully the hockey ethic would discourage it. We could add in a rule that allows thorough beatings for fakers :) (“You want a head injury? I’ll show you a head injury…”)