Should head shots be banned?

[shrader]

There's always going to be accidental breaking of rules. Player X didn't intend to trip player Y, but that doesn't mean you don't make the call. All those accidental high sticks? Yeah, still a penalty. The purpose of any rule is to eliminate the intentional actions. BTP, I'm not talking manditory suspensions here (except for those obvious situations). What I want to see would be basically what the NCAA has adopted where they give out a two minute penalty for any contact to the head. Just like any other penalty, they're allowed to add onto it if the hit is more severe.

[nfreeman]

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.

This is a reasonable response, but I don't agree. The head shots just cause too much damage -- both to the long-term health of the player, and to the short-term quality of the game (and thus the fans' enjoyment) because skilled players are lost for extended periods.

 

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

You are right that the strap would've helped because the helmet would've cushioned the ice-to-head blow (that sounds kinda filthy, btw), but Messier's helmet would've helped on the Phaneuf-to-victim's-head blow. There's really no way of knowing which blow caused more damage.

 

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.

There's always going to be accidental breaking of rules. Player X didn't intend to trip player Y, but that doesn't mean you don't make the call. All those accidental high sticks? Yeah, still a penalty. The purpose of any rule is to eliminate the intentional actions. BTP, I'm not talking manditory suspensions here (except for those obvious situations). What I want to see would be basically what the NCAA has adopted where they give out a two minute penalty for any contact to the head. Just like any other penalty, they're allowed to add onto it if the hit is more severe.

QFT. If the obligation is on the hitter to avoid delivering a blow to the head, head shots will decrease dramatically.

[macsabre]

Keep your head up!

 

Elbows, jumping, or otherwise targeting the head should bring suspensions.

But sometimes a skater just needs to look both ways before crossing the ice.

 

I agree that blows to the head should be a suspension (elbows, jumping, sticks to the head) should be a suspension. But how do you seperate this violation from a fight, as a moving violation only? If hospitalization or a concussion is incurred maybe it should be harsher.

[shrader]

You are right that the strap would've helped because the helmet would've cushioned the ice-to-head blow (that sounds kinda filthy, btw), but Messier's helmet would've helped on the Phaneuf-to-victim's-head blow. There's really no way of knowing which blow caused more damage.

 

I'm still having a hard time seeing just how much contact Phaneuf made with his head. We need a reverse angle.

 

I agree that blows to the head should be a suspension (elbows, jumping, sticks to the head) should be a suspension. But how do you seperate this violation from a fight, as a moving violation only? If hospitalization or a concussion is incurred maybe it should be harsher.

 

It's a good question so I'd assume they'd have to put that in writing. I can't go with my usual college comparison here since they don't allow fighting.

[SwampD]

Couldn't Phaneuf's hit, at the very least, be charging. I don't know what the particular rules of charging are, but he sure skated a long way for the sole purpose of creaming that guy.

[BuffalOhio]

Couldn't Phaneuf's hit, at the very least, be charging. I don't know what the particular rules of charging are, but he sure skated a long way for the sole purpose of creaming that guy.

 

No, he didn't leave his feet and he didn't take more than two strides. He got him self going backwards and skated right to the spot without striding.

[SwampD]

No, he didn't leave his feet and he didn't take more than two strides. He got him self going backwards and skated right to the spot without striding.

He took way more than two strides.

[rickshaw]

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.

 

 

This hit is a disgrace. First. It's a friggin' exhibition game and the hit was made by a player who is clearly going to make the team. Second. He didn't man up and take his lumps. Scott Stevens always answered the bell when the other team came calling for redemption. DP is nothing more than a . He delivers head shots, wears a visor and won't man up. I don't like that type of player.

 

Head shots need to go.

 

Here's what they're saying in Calgary.....picked up by the Vancouver Sun.

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Hard+hitting+Phaneuf+must+stand+checks/2009568/story.html