Should head shots be banned?

Supersabre · November 11, 2008

Head shots should be banned and according to the level of the infraction the appropriate penalties should be handed out.

spndnchz · November 11, 2008

Kostopoulos gets three game suspension.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=391684

It wasn't a hit to the head. It resulted in a check from behind, which is not legal, and then his head hit the glass. It wasn't late. He (Van Ryn) wasn't unsuspecting. He knew there was a forechecker coming. He had the puck, he expected to be played. He started to reverse direction to evade the forechecker and that's when the hit happened. There was an injury to the player, and the player didn't leave his skates, he didn't jump into him."

While he does look at previous similar hits, Murphy said each incident is weighed on its own merit.

"Colie says every one is different, every one is a little unique," said Murphy. "You have to put yourself in his (the offending player's) shoes. He looks at all aspects of these things, he analyzes them and compares them. You want him doing this on a case-by-case basis. You don't want them clumped together with a bunch of other plays. He looks at each one individually and makes his decision."

nfreeman · November 13, 2008

Here's another one, from a career cheap-shot artist who now unfortunately resides in our division. I think this should be a 10-game suspension for the 1st offense, then 20 for the 2nd offense, then 40. Then you'd see these hits disappear. The NHL gave him 2 games, which will be completely ineffective.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sMuqIZLYyHQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sMuqIZLYyHQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

in case that didn't work (I'm not entirely sure how to embed a youtube video), here is the link:

R_Dudley · November 13, 2008

Here's another one, from a career cheap-shot artist who now unfortunately resides in our division. I think this should be a 10-game suspension for the 1st offense, then 20 for the 2nd offense, then 40. Then you'd see these hits disappear. The NHL gave him 2 games, which will be completely ineffective.

in case that didn't work (I'm not entirely sure how to embed a youtube video), here is the link:

Yeah that is blatent he should have got more than 2 games just for the intent. I did note one of his teammates(Bullion) immediately went after him.(Something our current Sabres do not do enough). I haven't chimed in on this earlier because this is a tough subject for me since hockey to me has always and should include that physical aspect but I do believe they need to ban it now just because of the number of punks and plays like this.

It needs to start somewhere so yes, like a high stick minor starting with 2 minutes for incidental and then allot more for intent and repeat offender's along the lines you suggest (e.g first with intent 10, second 20, third season,).... multiple minors should also have some sliding scale but I'd leave those specifics to the more detail oriented....

shrader · November 13, 2008

Yeah that is blatent he should have got more than 2 games just for the intent. I did note one of his teammates(Bullion) immediately went after him.(Something our current Sabres do not do enough).

Have there really been too many plays this year that would warrant that kind of retaliation from the Sabres? It seems like it has been pretty clean as a whole. They came to Peters' aid last night and I can remember one or two other times.

spndnchz · November 18, 2008

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=256270&lid...s=headlines_nhl

That Aud Smell · November 18, 2008

Here's another one, from a career cheap-shot artist who now unfortunately resides in our division.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

i can't believe there was a time when, based on what little i'd seen, i thought i liked that ass clown's game. guys like that should have shards of glass inserted into their rectums and then be put on a slow boat to china.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=256270&lid...s=headlines_nhl

"The NHL is trying to crackdown on unnecessary blows to the head."

:unsure:

rbochan · November 18, 2008

...
"The NHL is trying to crackdown on unnecessary blows to the head."

:unsure:

Necessary ones come from the coaches.

shrader · November 18, 2008

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=256270&lid...s=headlines_nhl

I thought about posting that yesterday, but it didn't seem worth the effort. They still have no idea what they're doing. They've already been cutting back on those elbows to the head since, you know, it's an actual rule in the book. Until they start going after the shoulders to the head, then I'll start listening.

spndnchz · June 3, 2009

Burke says "when a guy crosses the line, Colie bangs him"

GM's shoot down head shot penalty

"In the leagues where they've put in an automatic penalty, I think it's drastically reduced hitting, and we have no desire to see a reduction in the amount of contact that takes place on our ice surface.

and goes on further to say "I know players seem to think it's important, and you hear (NHLPA executive director) Paul Kelly talk about it, but in our room? No appetite."

So this means a bit of the "Your a hockey player, a commodity, if you get hurt from an elbow and end your career, well, we'll suspended the guy that hit you and have a nice day?" I assume that for a blatant elbow that really lays someone out they'd get a good number of games and fines?

shrader · June 3, 2009

It's official. Someone has to die before they do something about it.

Stoner · June 3, 2009

It's official. Someone has to die before they do something about it.

That really should be the last word on it.

It's one of those days where you're embarrassed to be a fan of this league. But isn't there a bit of hypocrisy coming from the players? They alone have the ability to end this garbage.

nfreeman · June 3, 2009

That really should be the last word on it.

It's one of those days where you're embarrassed to be a fan of this league. But isn't there a bit of hypocrisy coming from the players? They alone have the ability to end this garbage.

Interesting point. Certainly the NHLPA could make it one of their demands in negotiating the next CBA, and maybe they would get it. But I don't think it's correct to say that ONLY the players can end it. The owners can change the rules anytime they like -- and if we want to consider moral questions, I'd say the owners are morally obligated to do so.

Taro T · June 3, 2009

Burke says "when a guy crosses the line, Colie bangs him"

GM's shoot down head shot penalty

"In the leagues where they've put in an automatic penalty, I think it's drastically reduced hitting, and we have no desire to see a reduction in the amount of contact that takes place on our ice surface.

and goes on further to say "I know players seem to think it's important, and you hear (NHLPA executive director) Paul Kelly talk about it, but in our room? No appetite."

So this means a bit of the "Your a hockey player, a commodity, if you get hurt from an elbow and end your career, well, we'll suspended the guy that hit you and have a nice day?" I assume that for a blatant elbow that really lays someone out they'd get a good number of games and fines?

Well, you can't really blame them for not addressing head shots. They had FAAAAR more important work to take care of, such as proposing that there be an official GM of the year award. They won't be able to take up the cause of head shots at the next meeting because they will be arduously bearing down on the FAAAR more important task of coming up with a name for said award. And at the meeting after that, and perhaps the next couple after that as well, energies will be focused on determining how the award is awarded. But I found it very magnamimous for Don Wadell to think there should be such an award because while they don't currently have a name for it, should he ever win it, it will officially be renamed the "H*ll has frozen over" award.

Getting back to head shots, unfortunately Shrader is dead on.

That really should be the last word on it.

It's one of those days where you're embarrassed to be a fan of this league. But isn't there a bit of hypocrisy coming from the players? They alone have the ability to end this garbage.

They do and they don't. They are the ones on the ice and they can show respect for their opponents, you are correct about that. But there are guys that are in the league that would be out of it in about 5 minutes if they ever DID show respect for their opponent. When the choice is knock somebody's head off or work in a lumber yard, the choice to show respect for the opponent isn't as clear cut as we'd like to think it is.

shrader · June 3, 2009

Taro, everyone knows it would be called the Ken Holland award.

Taro T · June 3, 2009

Taro, everyone knows it would be called the Ken Holland award.

:lol:

While he would be the most worthy of the current batch of GM's, I'd far sooner expect it to be named Burke or Gretzky. (Politics, politics, politics!)

Actually, my money would be on it being named after Sam Pollock.

That Aud Smell · June 3, 2009

with thanks to cheese, who apparently found and bumped this thread/poll after i could not.

here's what i posted elsewheres:

Couldn't find a thread where this was being kicked around.

As per usual, Puck Daddy's got the league's and the players' sides covered.

I found it a little surprising how unequivocally Wyshynski sided with the GMs, though. To wit: "Don't buy the players' line. It's a sport whose fundamental system and game-play leads to injury. This is an attempt to make the legal illegal, and it's preposterous to believe it won't affect the fundamentals of the Game at the NHL level."

That's easy to say when you're just plugging away at your blog.

FWIW, MacLean's 11-minute Hot Stove with Bettman addresses the issue in the first 2 1/2 minutes here.

Seems to me that the principal problem at present is the Office of Colin "Captain Kangaroo" Campbell -- if that office could consistently, forecefully, and logically impose supplemental discipline on players who deliver intentional/reckless headshots, we might actually see some improvement in this area.

One other point: I don't see the need to cut it fine as between intentional and reckless -- you can be convicted of high-level homicide crimes for acting with reckless disregard, as opposed to actual intent.

nfreeman · September 18, 2009

Well, here's another one for this debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iql-lyihBkM

This hit reminds me of the one against Ottawa in the playoffs in 2006 that put TC out for a year, although I'd say this one is more within the rules.

shrader · September 18, 2009

This hit reminds me of the one against Ottawa in the playoffs in 2006 that put TC out for a year, although I'd say this one is more within the rules.

I wish I could see it from the reverse angle to see exactly where Phaneuf makes contact. This one is kind of tricky though. Phaneuf moved in to make the hit right at the same time as Okposo was knocked off balance from the pressure from behind by the other Flame player. He didn't leave his feet to make the hit, so I can't fault Phaneuf at all on this one. But if he did in fact make contact to the head, I have no problem with them calling the contact to the head call that I've been pushing for constantly.

Mbossy · September 18, 2009

Well, here's another one for this debate:

This hit reminds me of the one against Ottawa in the playoffs in 2006 that put TC out for a year, although I'd say this one is more within the rules.

Most of the damage seems to be from the back of his head hitting the ice. Phaneuf knocks his helmet off, Okposo then falls backward and smack his head on the ice. Goes back to "strap your helmet on your head tighter".

No penalty to Phaneuf.

korab rules · September 18, 2009

Trying to regulate unintentional blows to the head is difficult. A player looks up last second and sees a D-Man coming at him and he ducks, resulting in an elbow to the head on what the D-Man intended to be shoulder to shoulder hit. How is that the D-Man's fault? Or Gerbe is in the corner fighting for a puck with Chara, and Chara accidentally dick slaps Gerbe in the head. Chara's fault or inevitable when a 5'4" guy is struggling with a 6'9" guy.

The unintended effect of banning all contact to the head will be to take contact out of the game. Guys will be afraid of drawing a penalty, and find it easier to pass on finishing the check. Guys like Tallinder would love it, and guys like Kaleta will be out of a job. Which one would you rather see on the ice?

Intentional blows should be punished harshly, but unintentional blows to head are part of the game.

spndnchz · September 18, 2009

Messier's helmet wouldn't have helped there. The helmet needs to be on the head to work.

shrader · September 18, 2009

Trying to regulate unintentional blows to the head is difficult. A player looks up last second and sees a D-Man coming at him and he ducks, resulting in an elbow to the head on what the D-Man intended to be shoulder to shoulder hit. How is that the D-Man's fault? Or Gerbe is in the corner fighting for a puck with Chara, and Chara accidentally dick slaps Gerbe in the head. Chara's fault or inevitable when a 5'4" guy is struggling with a 6'9" guy.

The unintended effect of banning all contact to the head will be to take contact out of the game. Guys will be afraid of drawing a penalty, and find it easier to pass on finishing the check. Guys like Tallinder would love it, and guys like Kaleta will be out of a job. Which one would you rather see on the ice?

Intentional blows should be punished harshly, but unintentional blows to head are part of the game.

College has the contact to the head rule and there is still plenty of hitting. There will always be a short adjustment period with any type of rule like that, but it won't eliminate contact from the game. It just might save some careers/lives while in place too.

SwampD · September 18, 2009

College has the contact to the head rule and there is still plenty of hitting. There will always be a short adjustment period with any type of rule like that, but it won't eliminate contact from the game. It just might save some careers/lives while in place too.

I play in a "no contact" league and there is still plenty of hitting.

BetweenThePipes00 · September 18, 2009

To me, this hit illustrates my two biggest problems with the whole "It's a contact sport! you can't ban headshots! Keep your head up!" side of the argument ...

First of all, even if the kid didn't drop his head when he got bumped by the other guy at the last second, he was getting CREAMED. He might have seen it coming, but with the other D-man right in front of him, no way he can make any kind of move to avoid it at the speed he was going and the speed Phaneuf was coming at him. A good checker knows the best angle to take to make sure he hits the guy to finish his check. Head up or not, Phaneuf had a bead on him and the kid had nowhere to go.

Second, I do believe Phaneuf does everything within the rules ... he didn't leave his feet to hit him and he led with his shoulder, not his elbow ... but to me that's exactly the problem with the rules the way they are now. They are a blue print for HOW to LEGALLY hit a guy in the HEAD. Elbow down, skates on ice, FREE HEADSHOT!!! And if he happens to have his head down, well, maybe you can even sneak a little elbow in there and most of Canada will be on your side because it MUST have been the hitee's fault for dropping his head!

I don't know ... I don't like the idea of long suspensions when there is no intent and it turns ugly at the last split second because of something outside the hitter's control (like thsi kid getting bumped by another player and dropping his head), but at the same time I think they could give the refs some discretion to assess minors or double minors for headshots .. because like I said, it seems now guys DO headhunt and play the "Hey it was my shoulder" card ...

It's a tough debate for sure ...

Sign In

Should head shots be banned?

Should it be the checker's responsibility to avoid hitting the opponent in the head, even if the opponent is leaning over and his head is low?
39 members have voted

1. Let's keep it very simple: should a checker get suspended for a blow to the head, even if the opponent is leaning over, cuts into the middle, etc.?

Recommended Posts

Supersabre

spndnchz

nfreeman

R_Dudley

shrader

spndnchz

That Aud Smell

rbochan

shrader

spndnchz

shrader

Stoner

nfreeman

Taro T

shrader

Taro T

That Aud Smell

nfreeman

shrader

Mbossy

korab rules

spndnchz

shrader

SwampD

BetweenThePipes00

Archived

Browse

Activity

Should head shots be banned?

Should it be the checker's responsibility to avoid hitting the opponent in the head, even if the opponent is leaning over and his head is low? 39 members have voted

1. Let's keep it very simple: should a checker get suspended for a blow to the head, even if the opponent is leaning over, cuts into the middle, etc.?

Recommended Posts

Archived

Should it be the checker's responsibility to avoid hitting the opponent in the head, even if the opponent is leaning over and his head is low?
39 members have voted