Marc Savard knocked out/ Bruins don't react

[shrader]

i still think everytime one of these type of plays happend that one of the problems is the equipment. if these guys didn't wear body armor - like the way the shoulder and elbow caps are currently constructed of hard plastic - that maybe the result is not as bad.

 

I forget the specifics, but I believe the league got rid of the hard elbow pads at least a year ago. Thos never were the big problem though since hitting with the elbow was already a penalty and it happens far less than a shoulder hit to the head. They've had some players in prototype softer shoulder pads this year and that change will be coming soon. I can't think of any possible reason they won't mandate that for next season.

[Stoner]

I forget the specifics, but I believe the league got rid of the hard elbow pads at least a year ago. Thos never were the big problem though since hitting with the elbow was already a penalty and it happens far less than a shoulder hit to the head. They've had some players in prototype softer shoulder pads this year and that change will be coming soon. I can't think of any possible reason they won't mandate that for next season.

 

This is an interesting aspect to the story. But you take the all the equipment off of Cooke and let him deliver the same hit -- wouldn't the result still be devastating?

[shrader]

This is an interesting aspect to the story. But you take the all the equipment off of Cooke and let him deliver the same hit -- wouldn't the result still be devastating?

 

Absolutely, especially since I don't think much, if any of his pads made contact on that hit.

[wjag]

This Colin Campbell quote from an AP article in this mornings Buffalo News caught my interest...

 

"We're looking at can we reduce concussions that come from legal hits?"

 

I don't know if he is referring to hits like Richards on Booth and Cooke on Savard, but if so, shouldn't the issue be, "We need to take these hits out of the game"?

He did say the Richards' hit on Booth was legal in the interview. They showed the footage of it. Said it was exactly this type of hit that was causing them fits to define.

[Sabre Dance]

what should the penalty be for?

 

most of the guys have it right - as the rulebook is written now, there is nothing wrong with this hit.

 

it is definitely lack of respect for your opponent and the intention is to hurt, but there nothing illegal here.

 

i still think everytime one of these type of plays happend that one of the problems is the equipment. if these guys didn't wear body armor - like the way the shoulder and elbow caps are currently constructed of hard plastic - that maybe the result is not as bad.

 

Well....here is the NHL's charging rule:

"43.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

 

Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice."

 

"43.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player or goalkeeper guilty of charging an opponent.

 

43.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player or goalkeeper guilty of charging an opponent (see 43.5).

 

43.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player or goalkeeper attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by charging.

 

43.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

 

43.6 Fines and Suspensions – When a major penalty and a game misconduct is assessed for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall be imposed.

 

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

 

Lots of latitude there - surely, a hit like this could be considered charging using the rule as written. The key words in the above are "The Referee, at his discretion...". The rule is there - it just needs to be enforced.

[Stoner]

I don't know why I torture myself, but I read the nhl.com account of the GMs "addressing" hits to the head.

 

This is some weird and wacky stuff:

 

"Among the things being discussed Monday to curb the amount of head injuries was the possibility of banning shoulder-to-head hits, which are now legal under NHL rules.

 

Monday, there was still not overwhelming support for an outright ban on hit to the heads, a rules tactic used by both the International Ice Hockey Federation and the Ontario Hockey League to curb the incidence of concussions.

 

In part, that is because the League showed that very few hits to the head are dangerous in the NHL. As part of Monday's presentation, the League presented a snap shot of a 21-game sample during this season in which every contact to the head -- be it a check, an accidental stick to the head or pushing and shoving in a scrum -- was documented.

 

In each game, there was an average of 22 "contacts" to the head and just one of those 22 contacts per game was deemed a penalty by the on-ice officials. In fact, just 30 percent of the 22 "contacts" per game actually involved shoulder-to-the-head contact."

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=520658

 

Isn't that 30 percent figure one that should concern the NHL? If we're counting all the face washes in a scrum, 30 percent seems unexpectedly high.

 

But, hey, they penalized only one per game!

 

No problem here. Move along.

[Stoner]

Same article, some gems from Coli:

 

"That's our challenge, to come out of these meetings to see if we can arrive at some sort of conclusion that will make the game safer to play and reduce the concussions when you have a shoulder to the head."

 

"The hits are great -- until someone gets hurt."

 

"The responsibility has always been with the player with the puck who is going to take the hit. Do we shift the responsibility somewhat to the player giving the hit now?"

 

Somewhat?

 

Really, what's the attraction of the shoulder to the head hit? Is this something that needs to be preserved in the game? I don't get it.

[Kristian]

I don't know why I torture myself, but I read the nhl.com account of the GMs "addressing" hits to the head.

 

This is some weird and wacky stuff:

 

"Among the things being discussed Monday to curb the amount of head injuries was the possibility of banning shoulder-to-head hits, which are now legal under NHL rules.

 

Monday, there was still not overwhelming support for an outright ban on hit to the heads, a rules tactic used by both the International Ice Hockey Federation and the Ontario Hockey League to curb the incidence of concussions.

 

In part, that is because the League showed that very few hits to the head are dangerous in the NHL. As part of Monday's presentation, the League presented a snap shot of a 21-game sample during this season in which every contact to the head -- be it a check, an accidental stick to the head or pushing and shoving in a scrum -- was documented.

 

In each game, there was an average of 22 "contacts" to the head and just one of those 22 contacts per game was deemed a penalty by the on-ice officials. In fact, just 30 percent of the 22 "contacts" per game actually involved shoulder-to-the-head contact."

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=520658

 

Isn't that 30 percent figure one that should concern the NHL? If we're counting all the face washes in a scrum, 30 percent seems unexpectedly high.

 

But, hey, they penalized only one per game!

 

No problem here. Move along.

 

And clearly, we're overreacting to this particular hit.

 

Come on, it wasn't even a PENALTY.

 

There are two officials on the ice, and neither saw fit to call it, so obviously it was a squaky clean hit, right?

[That Aud Smell]

the upshot of all the blathering that appears below is this: there is something deeply wrong with the culture of the people who're giving the presentations and sound bites that ###### (why does the censor software object to the screen name of Pennsylvania Sabres Fan?!) has discussed above. my guess is that they will be viewed as having been on the wrong side of history (perhaps unforgivably so) after someone loses their marbles or their life as a result of a "clean" and "thrilling" shoulder-to-head hit.

 

Intent to injure is a match penalty.

i went to the rule book expecting to find that the current scheme didn't allow for a match penalty against cooke.

 

what i instead found was that a match penalty "shall be imposed on any player who deliberately attempts to injure or who deliberately injures an opponent in any manner." rule 21.1 (my emphasis). the rule is written to be mandatory ("shall"), not discretionary ("may"). the rule is also, IMO, written to encompass legal and illegal conduct ("any manner").

 

i next figured that there was an "out" because the match penalty must be tied to another infraction, such as hitting from behind, and these predatory "blind side" hits aren't technically "hitting from behind."

 

so i looked at rule 21.4 which says that, yea, "table 8" provideth a summary of "the infractions that can result in a match penalty being assessed ... ."

 

table 8 provides the following list of match penalty infractions:

 

(i) Attempt to injure (in any manner)

(ii) Biting

(iii) Boarding

(iv) Butt-ending *

(v) Charging

(vi) Checking from behind

(vii) Clipping

(viii) Cross-checking

(ix) Deliberate injury (in any manner)

(x) Elbowing

(xi) Goalkeeper who uses his blocking glove to the

head or face of an opponent*

(xii) Grabbing of the face mask

(xiii) Hair pulling

(xiv) Head-butting *

(xv) High-sticking

(xvi) Kicking a player (or goalkeeper)

(xvii) Kneeing

(xviii) Punching and injuring an unsuspecting

opponent *

(xix) Slashing

(xx) Slew-footing

(xxi) Spearing *

(xxii) Throwing stick or any object

(xxiii) Wearing tape on hands in altercation *

 

now, in terms of crafting a rule, it's a little strange that they said a match penalty is an attempt to injure in any manner, but see table 8 for the corresponding infractions, and then they reiterate that "attempt to injure in any manner" is a match penalty infraction. it's a circular construct. still, there it is.

 

thanks for the food for thought, ###### (there it is again).

 

Head down? Please.

"keep your head up" and "guy had his head down" have become over-used and misunderstood. examples of hits where a guy "had his head down", i think, are the umberger and connolly hits (the latter, i believe, involved "trolley tracks" as well). examples of where a guy did not have his head down are drury and savard. someone in a position of moral authority needs to clear this up -- maybe don cherry can do a segment on it (no irony intended).

 

in any case, i'm not sure if either species of hit needs to be part of the game, but let's acknowledge that the connolly and umberger hits were horses of a different color.

[shrader]

In part, that is because the League showed that very few hits to the head are dangerous in the NHL. As part of Monday's presentation, the League presented a snap shot of a 21-game sample during this season in which every contact to the head -- be it a check, an accidental stick to the head or pushing and shoving in a scrum -- was documented.

 

When you shoot a gun at someone, a decent percentage of the time, you either miss completely or the person survives the wound. It should be legal to shoot someone. If they die, they just came out on the wrong side of the statistics.

[Buffalo Wings]

For what it's worth, Ed Olczyk said last night that if a suspension is handed out, the penalized player's team should not be able to fill that roster spot for the duration of the suspension. So, let's say Cooke is suspended, the Penguins can't call up someone to replace his roster spot. Never mind this being a "legal" hit, so Cooke shouldn't be suspended, anyway.

 

Wasn't this already the case? Maybe I just didn't pay enough attention, but I don't remember call-ups or someone added to the roster when a Sabre was suspended.

 

Even if I'm wrong, it still makes little sense to allow a team to replace this guy on the roster. Sure, you lose the suspended player for X games, but because the incident causes Savard to be out indefinitely, it should also be a "penalty" to the offending team.

[mrjsbu96]

Intent to injure is a match penalty.

 

Head down? Please.

 

My client is not guilty of rape! Her ###### just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time!

 

###### - was the hit that Soupy put on the Flyers player in the playoffs a couple of years ago illegal (forgetting his name - plays in Columbus now)? His head was down and he got what he had coming to him....I am not saying this hit is the same, but now you are putting the onus on officials to determine a head down hit from the front, and head down and hit from blindside; and right now, the latter is not a penatly.

[Bmwolf21]

Interesting side note - I didn't realize that Miller and Soupy were involved in the NHL's joint competition committee.

 

Clearly, the once co-operative spirit between the league and players as expressed through the joint competition committee — a child born of the collective agreement that ended the 2004-05 lockout — is experiencing a distinct chill. Where once veteran players like Brendan Shanahan and Rob Blake advocated their personal beliefs and vigorously debated the various rule changes that decisively changed the sport after the lockout, the players on the committee — Ryan Miller, Jason Spezza, Jeff Halpern, Mathieu Schneider and Brian Campbell — now seem inclined to vote as a political bloc.

 

 

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/article/776515--cox-time-for-nhl-to-crack-down-hard-on-head-shots

[SwampD]

Interesting side note - I didn't realize that Miller and Soupy were involved in the NHL's joint competition committee.

 

Clearly, the once co-operative spirit between the league and players as expressed through the joint competition committee — a child born of the collective agreement that ended the 2004-05 lockout — is experiencing a distinct chill. Where once veteran players like Brendan Shanahan and Rob Blake advocated their personal beliefs and vigorously debated the various rule changes that decisively changed the sport after the lockout, the players on the committee — Ryan Miller, Jason Spezza, Jeff Halpern, Mathieu Schneider and Brian Campbell — now seem inclined to vote as a political bloc.

 

 

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/article/776515--cox-time-for-nhl-to-crack-down-hard-on-head-shots

I actually think a more telling quote is this one,

 

“It all really comes down to the Richards-Booth hit,” said Campbell. “The question is, are we going to shift more responsibility to the hitter than the player being hit?”

 

Uh, yes.

 

While I do believe in the "you should keep your head up" philosophy, I also believe that there is a big difference between a check where the shoulder hits the head, and a head shot. What Cooke did was a head shot and that should be banned. If they outlaw checks where the shoulder hits the head then all tall players would no longer be allowed to check.

[mrjsbu96]

I actually think a more telling quote is this one,

 

“It all really comes down to the Richards-Booth hit,” said Campbell. “The question is, are we going to shift more responsibility to the hitter than the player being hit?”

 

Uh, yes.

 

While I do believe in the "you should keep your head up" philosophy, I also believe that there is a big difference between a check where the shoulder hits the head, and a head shot. What Cooke did was a head shot and that should be banned. If they outlaw checks where the shoulder hits the head then all tall players would no longer be allowed to check.

 

i honestly don't know how the league wins this battle b/c of this point. i mean, doesn't a guy's head technically get hit in some capacity in every bodycheck? What about the Pitt game just after the Olympic break - anyone recall Malkin "running" head first in to Lydman? Under the way people are proposing these new rules, that would be a penalty. This game is played so fast these days that it would be impossible for officials to get most calls right - I mean, is this a penalty in the "new, proposed" world:

[shrader]

i honestly don't know how the league wins this battle b/c of this point. i mean, doesn't a guy's head technically get hit in some capacity in every bodycheck? What about the Pitt game just after the Olympic break - anyone recall Malkin "running" head first in to Lydman? Under the way people are proposing these new rules, that would be a penalty. This game is played so fast these days that it would be impossible for officials to get most calls right - I mean, is this a penalty in the "new, proposed" world:

 

Well seeing as how he jumped...

[SwampD]

Well seeing as how he jumped...

I didn't jump see a jump there. His feet came off the ice after the hit but he didn't jump into his head. He'just taller.

[mrjsbu96]

Well seeing as how he jumped...

 

He didn't jump in my mind. just like half the time, guys didn't actually use their elbows, but b/c someone sees an elbow in the air the instant after the hit, they assume/think a guy used his elbow. there is always an 'aftereffect' after the hit, whether it is the elbow up or a guy off his feet.

 

watch a tape of kaleta hits - in most cases he is off his feet just after the hit, just b/c of how hard he hits and usually the person he does offers no resistance, therefore causing kaleta to come off his feet.

[Stoner]

mrjsbu, what percentage of this hit was a check designed to prevent a scoring chance or cause a turnover, and what percentage of it was designed to take an opponent out of the game?

 

I still say if the definition of charging was brought out of the 1940s and into this millennium, it would help. Shorten "distance traveled." Penalize any player who leaps off the ice at any time during the delivery of a hit.

[SwampD]

mrjsbu, what percentage of this hit was a check designed to prevent a scoring chance or cause a turnover, and what percentage of it was designed to take an opponent out of the game?

 

I still say if the definition of charging was brought out of the 1940s and into this millennium, it would help. Shorten "distance traveled." Penalize any player who leaps off the ice at any time during the delivery of a hit.

Distance traveled had nothing to do with that hit on Elias. It was a pretty routine play where the defenseman checked the guy with the puck into the boards as he entered the zone.

[Calvin]

Even if I'm wrong, it still makes little sense to allow a team to replace this guy on the roster. Sure, you lose the suspended player for X games, but because the incident causes Savard to be out indefinitely, it should also be a "penalty" to the offending team.

Fair enough.. if Cooke was found guilty of injuring Savard and knocking him out, and if Savard is out for the rest of the season then Cooke should be suspended till the end of the season too! If Savard missed say ten games, Cooke should be suspended the next ten games too.

 

I doubt the NHLPA will ever agree to that though, shame.

[Stoner]

Fair enough.. if Cooke was found guilty of injuring Savard and knocking him out, and if Savard is out for the rest of the season then Cooke should be suspended till the end of the season too! If Savard missed say ten games, Cooke should be suspended the next ten games too.

 

I doubt the NHLPA will ever agree to that though, shame.

 

Excellent idea. One of 100 things the league could do to address the problem. But they don't want to entirely address it. Which is why we'll see this idea eliminating head shots from the side only. And that involves so much of a gray area, it will be tough to enforce.

 

They don't want it out of the game because they think it adds to the appeal of the game. But watch the video of the Cooke hit. I don't think anyone in the Igloo was cheering that hit. Maybe it's time for the fans to have a voice here.

[Stoner]

Distance traveled had nothing to do with that hit on Elias. It was a pretty routine play where the defenseman checked the guy with the puck into the boards as he entered the zone.

 

Maybe not in this case. But these guys are so fast and so strong, that they can deliver a lot more violence with a much shorter runup than the pasty doughboys who played the game when that rule was written. As Darcy pointed out on NHL Radio on Monday, while the old-timers will point out how big and strong and tough and nasty and disrespectful they were, there really is no comparison to today.

[SarasotaSabre]

What was disgusting about the Pens' broadcast team were how they surmised about Cooke's "remorse", as if they could read his mind...that is lame & unprofessional; how could they guess about Cooke's state of mind & intentions?

 

This was broadcast journalism par incompetent.....

 

You talking about the Pens broadcast? The pbp man called it for what it was -- a blow to the head. They talked about the league meetings coming up. Yeah, the conversation was weak and watered down -- what do you expect from the offending side -- but at least they had it.

 

Rick? Are you serious? If a Sabre lays that hit, the announcers shut up, they softly go to commercial and come back to talk about Aces and Blades.

[spndnchz]

GM's have "put forth a recommendation".

 

A lateral, back pressure or blindside hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and or the principal point of contact is not permitted.

 

A violation of the above will result in a minor or major penalty and shall be reviewed for possible supplemental discipline.

 

The recommendation will be forwarded to the NHL and NHLPA competition committee and then to the NHL Board of Governors for final approval before it is passed.