The ETC Solution for Head-Shots in the NHL

[end the curse]

With NHL players now targeting the head with disturbing regularity, something needs to be done to end the madness. The question of how to end the head shots without compromising the physical nature and integrity of the game seems to be a complicated one for the NHL brass to figure out, so let me help by offering the ETC Solution.

 

The ETC Solution comes in 3 parts:

 

1. Remove the Instigator Rule

 

This rule (found here: http://www.nhl.com/rules/rule56.html) has helped strip the players of being able to effectively self-police the cheap shots, and as a result more cheap shots than ever are taking place. If a player knows he'll get his ass beat into oblivion if he runs an unsuspecting opponent he'll be a lot less willing to take that chance.

 

Fighting is much less dangerous, pleases the crowd, and self-polices the game. Let the outlet for anger be a good fight, not a blindside elbow or shoulder that could end a player's career.

 

2. Reduce the armor

 

Players today are wearing equipment more suited for jousting than hockey. The shoulder pads are big enough for a linebacker, and made of a bullet proof plastic that KO's unsuspecting players with the greatest of ease. It needs to be controlled. Safety should always be #1, but the equipment these guys have on is often built as a weapon of mass destruction, not just a protective pad. Not only would reducing the armor reduce the attacks that cause injury, it would also reduce the number of blocked shots. Let's face it, watching a game today is so frustrating when 3 out of 4 shots are blocked in front by skaters wearing a coat of armor thicker than the goalie equipment of the 70's.

 

3. Ban Head Hunting

 

Obviously the players are now given incentive to KO unsuspecting opponents with head shots. Well, by changing the rules to ban head-hunting that crap would be eliminated. The rules on head shots should be the same as those used for the Olympics in Vancouver.

 

Rule 540 of the IIHF book:

 

a) A player who directs a check or blow, with any part of his body, to the head and neck area of an opposing player, or "drives" or "forces" the head of an opposing player into the protective glass on boards, shall be assessed, at the discretion of the referee, a minor penalty plus an automatic misconduct penalty (2 plus 10), or a major penalty plus an automatic game misconduct penalty (5 plus game), or a match penalty.

 

b) A player who injures an opponent as a result of checking to the head and neck area shall be assessed a match penalty.

 

By making these changes, the NHL would protect both the integrity of the game, the players, and make it more fun to watch for the fans. Enough is enough.

[Howie Hodge]

Agreed - some players have become too "brave" behind their armor; er equipment....

[shrader]

It's coming. There is increasing chatter around the league about this issue and it's only a matter of time before the so called "traditionalists" wake up. We're quickly approaching a major crackdown on head injuries across all sports, which in the end, I think, will be a lot like the steroid backlash of the last 10 or so years. It's that big of a deal.

[end the curse]

Looking for a good pub...

Opened for business...

 

http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/16283-etcs-pub-ii/

[end the curse]

It's coming. There is increasing chatter around the league about this issue and it's only a matter of time before the so called "traditionalists" wake up. We're quickly approaching a major crackdown on head injuries across all sports, which in the end, I think, will be a lot like the steroid backlash of the last 10 or so years. It's that big of a deal.

I don't think this really needs to be a battle of "traditionalists" vs "trendy". Removing the instigator rule and reducing the body armor would please traditionalists, while adding a rule banning head-hunting would please pretty much everybody. I see the traditionalists appreciating the options I outlined, and I say that because I consider myself to be a traditionalist, too.

[Stoner]

Could tightening up charging help too? These guys are so fast and so strong and so big, you give them a big runup and of course they're going to do damage. "Distance traveled" means little. How should it be defined though?

[end the curse]

I haven't noticed charging to be an issue so much as boarding, where players are drilled from behind and their heads get driven into the boards/glass. I think at some point it's up to the discretion of the officials and the league if a player was intentionally attempting to injure with a blow to the head.

[Stoner]

I haven't noticed charging to be an issue so much as boarding, where players are drilled from behind and their heads get driven into the boards/glass. I think at some point it's up to the discretion of the officials and the league if a player was intentionally attempting to injure with a blow to the head.

 

Most of the hits come with a pretty big runup, wouldn't you say?

[wonderbread]

Most of the hits come with a pretty big runup, wouldn't you say?

 

I'd concur. Charging needs to be more strickly enforced ala "interference" of the 04-05 season. This would lessen the amount of opportunities that players have to forcefully hit someone from behind. These are the type of hits which cause necks to snap back and heads to fall on the ice. Campbell nees to develop a repeat offender rule as well. Funny to see the chart a few weeks back about how he doles out the suspensions. He really should have a flow chart that applies to all. Remove the subjectivity from it. Hit from behind on a charge called, period. They'll change.

[shrader]

I'd concur. Charging needs to be more strickly enforced ala "interference" of the 04-05 season. This would lessen the amount of opportunities that players have to forcefully hit someone from behind. These are the type of hits which cause necks to snap back and heads to fall on the ice. Campbell nees to develop a repeat offender rule as well. Funny to see the chart a few weeks back about how he doles out the suspensions. He really should have a flow chart that applies to all. Remove the subjectivity from it. Hit from behind on a charge called, period. They'll change.

 

So you want them to enforce it at first and then quickly forget about it? :blink:

[wonderbread]

So you want them to enforce it at first and then quickly forget about it? :blink:

 

well played. :lol:

[Mbossy]

The last meeting they agreed to implement that only soft shoulder pads be used .... next year.

[Orange Seats]

I don't think this really needs to be a battle of "traditionalists" vs "trendy". Removing the instigator rule and reducing the body armor would please traditionalists, while adding a rule banning head-hunting would please pretty much everybody. I see the traditionalists appreciating the options I outlined, and I say that because I consider myself to be a traditionalist, too.

 

If it picks up as much steam as you suspect, it would probably also come with a ban on fighting, which would rile up the "traditionalists."

 

But... isn't all this old news? After the lockout we were going to have a faster, precision oriented NHL where obstruction was enforced. But then the refs didn't call things and we had to go back into revenge mode to police the ice / break the funk of trap defenses with the good ole glovedropping.

[Kristian]

Most of the hits come with a pretty big runup, wouldn't you say?

 

Not a bad idea, but it should not be a call made by the on-ice official.

 

I have to say, the mere thought of having the refs make even more on-ice judgement calls make me cringe.

 

Very simplified, it would all boil down to the Habs being allowed to take players heads off in the Montreal, nobody would be allowed to touch Cindy Crosby, and everybody, aside from Cindy of course, would be fair game late in the 3rd and in OT of playoff games where these clowns always swallow their whistles anyway.

 

Any rule change that gives the refs more power to decide games on the ice is a bad one, IMHO.

 

Having video reviews of headshots and intent to injure is the way to go in my book, seeing as the system is already in place, you just need to expand the area of responsibility for the war room.

[Stoner]

Not a bad idea, but it should not be a call made by the on-ice official.

 

I have to say, the mere thought of having the refs make even more on-ice judgement calls make me cringe.

 

Very simplified, it would all boil down to the Habs being allowed to take players heads off in the Montreal, nobody would be allowed to touch Cindy Crosby, and everybody, aside from Cindy of course, would be fair game late in the 3rd and in OT of playoff games where these clowns always swallow their whistles anyway.

 

Any rule change that gives the refs more power to decide games on the ice is a bad one, IMHO.

 

Having video reviews of headshots and intent to injure is the way to go in my book, seeing as the system is already in place, you just need to expand the area of responsibility for the war room.

 

You want Toronto to call penalties?

 

Charging is already a penalty! I'm suggesting that it be defined beyond "distance traveled."

[Kristian]

You want Toronto to call penalties?

 

Charging is already a penalty! I'm suggesting that it be defined beyond "distance traveled."

 

I understood that, but my point is that a charging penalty for one ref isn't a charging penalty for another, so how can we sure it's being defined correctly?

 

Giving the on-ice officials further power to decide what is and what isn't a penalty, IMHO is a bad idea.

 

As long as a headlock in one end is a roughing penalty and a headlock at the other end is just clearing your crease, the on-ice officials shouldn't be given further responsibilities, as they clearly are having trouble as it is. I'm not asking for perfect, but I don't think the current state of officiating is good enough to warrant more power for the on-ice officials.

 

Also, my post was partially related to banning head-shots, which I think would be possible via video review. We take commercial breaks all the time, so no problem in taking a 2 minute break in which Toronto can decide to kick a moron like Rutuu out of the game, for instance.

[Stoner]

I understood that, but my point is that a charging penalty for one ref isn't a charging penalty for another, so how can we sure it's being defined correctly?

 

Giving the on-ice officials further power to decide what is and what isn't a penalty, IMHO is a bad idea.

 

As long as a headlock in one end is a roughing penalty and a headlock at the other end is just clearing your crease, the on-ice officials shouldn't be given further responsibilities, as they clearly are having trouble as it is. I'm not asking for perfect, but I don't think the current state of officiating is good enough to warrant more power for the on-ice officials.

 

Also, my post was partially related to banning head-shots, which I think would be possible via video review. We take commercial breaks all the time, so no problem in taking a 2 minute break in which Toronto can decide to kick a moron like Rutuu out of the game, for instance.

 

Make it more objective. If there's more than a "one-one-thousand" runup to the hit, it's a penalty.

[shrader]

If it picks up as much steam as you suspect, it would probably also come with a ban on fighting, which would rile up the "traditionalists."

 

But... isn't all this old news? After the lockout we were going to have a faster, precision oriented NHL where obstruction was enforced. But then the refs didn't call things and we had to go back into revenge mode to police the ice / break the funk of trap defenses with the good ole glovedropping.

 

Where have you been?

[bottlecap]

My opinions:

 

1. A player who injures another one intentionally should be out twice as long as the player he injures, or at least just as long.

2. Headshots are the most serious blows you can take...severe penalties for concussion causing headshots.

3. New regulations should be made for shoulder pads to have more give. The armor they have now causes injuries.

4. The NHL NEEDS a new commissioner who knows what the game of hockey is. The old commissioner makes up rules every year so now refs don't know how to ref and players can't keep up with all the double standards.(eg, "No Goal" and 2005 Hurricanes series lost on a new delay of game penalty when a defenseman flipped it over the glass) I nominate Gretzky.

[shrader]

My opinions:

 

1. A player who injures another one intentionally should be out twice as long as the player he injures, or at least just as long.

 

This approach is so incredibly flawed. There is no difference between two identical hits where one injures and the other doesn't.

[Stoner]

This approach is so incredibly flawed. There is no difference between two identical hits where one injures and the other doesn't.

 

d4rk can give us the case law, but... You punch someone. He laughs at you and you both have a beer. You punch someone else. Same punch. The guy drops dead. I'm just saying...

[shrader]

d4rk can give us the case law, but... You punch someone. He laughs at you and you both have a beer. You punch someone else. Same punch. The guy drops dead. I'm just saying...

 

Sports are an incredibly different world. What we're talking about here is a situation where the league wants to eliminate a dangerous aspect of the game. Half- suspending based on the result doesn't send the message that the league wont' tolerate those hits anymore. It sends the message that you can feel free to hit like that, just hope you don't injure. Punish everyone equally and those hits go away much quicker.

[end the curse]

Bucky comments on this topic in today's News.

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/899845.html

[korab rules]

This approach is so incredibly flawed. There is no difference between two identical hits where one injures and the other doesn't.

 

An approach like this would open up a lot of ice for TC.

[Sabre Dance]

This approach is so incredibly flawed. There is no difference between two identical hits where one injures and the other doesn't.

 

Yes - the punishment cannot depend on the result of the hit, but the execution of it. If you rob a liquor store with a toy gun, you still get charged with armed robbery.......