Head Hits, Cindy is whining again, but is it legit

[North Buffalo]

We have often beaten this topic to death on weather the NHL should do a better job enforcing cheap shots to the head ever since Chris Neal took out Chris Drury. But does Cindy Crosby's threat carry more weight and will the NHL actually respond league wide or will it only get more protective of cheap shot artists Cindy Crosby?

 

http://www.sportingn...even-if-healthy

[SabresGameNight]

I saw both hits and honestly, they don't look like much. They both seem like accidents on replay.

[Stoner]

I saw both hits and honestly, they don't look like much. They both seem like accidents on replay.

 

Upper arms/shoulders don't accidentally land on opponents' heads. Besides, intent is not important in the rule.

 

The problem with the first hit is that Crosby turned to, in effect, make the hit a blindside one. The Capital player didn't skate from Crosby's blindside. The NHL created this problem when it said a hit to the head from the front is fine. In real speed, I don't know if the Capital player could have held up. I suspect he took advantage of a situation.

 

The second one is just an old fashioned, pretty mild hit from behind. Good penalty. I don't see the argument for anything more than that.

[That Aud Smell]

marc savard is in full agreement with you, cindy.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-I5m4f0ZXA

 

(ye feckin' whining hypocrite.)

 

EDIT: okay, so the juxtaposition doesn't make him a hypocrite. still, the stuff about how his grace would withhold himself from the all-star game in protest is just repugnant.

[Stoner]

This would carry a lot more weight if six or eight top players joined in.

[shrader]

I applaud anyone who is going to speak out about hits to the head. They've become beyond absurd and something needs to be done. Like PA suggested, hopefully a few more people speak up and make threats (threats that need to be far more serious than just skipping the all star game).

[Weave]

I haven't watched video of the hits on Crosby so I can't speak to the level of "dirty" on those hits, but I will say this...

 

I don't know that you can *effectively* outlaw hits like the Cooke hit on Savard. Mostly because if the penalty got severe enough to truly eliminate those hits I believe it would also basically eliminate all open ice hitting. When a puck carrier is skating with speed he almost always is leaning forward somewhat. Most attack angles for an open ice check will end up with the head being impacted first. And I am not convinced that video evidence is sufficient in most every case to determine whether the checkers' intent was to target the head or target the player as a whole.

 

Now, late hits, flying elbows, etc...... I'm OK with throwing the book at a player. Checks that end up hitting a player in the head with the upper arm or shoulder are damned iffy to me for the reason above. The league certainly could punish severely enough to make players choose not to make a risky check, but the end result would be less hitting. Certainly alot less open ice hitting. And I haven't decided whether I want that to happen or not.

[That Aud Smell]

I don't know that you can *effectively* outlaw hits like the Cooke hit on Savard. Mostly because if the penalty got severe enough to truly eliminate those hits I believe it would also basically eliminate all open ice hitting.

i know that the "lateral/blindside" rule from last spring hasn't brought closure to this issue, but i strongly disagree with the idea that you can't eliminate what cooke did to savard (or what neil did to drury) without eliminating open ice hitting.

 

does a rule that punishes a cooke-esque hit also punish what campbell did to umberger? no.

 

the larger debate is whether the league can abide lawful contact to the head.

 

EDIT: a similar debate is ongoing in the nfl relative to defenseless receivers and defensive players who defend pass plays as thought they were torpedoes. to my eye, goodell has already had decent success in getting defenders to engage a player's torso rather than his head when defending a pass (thus belying the nonsense we had heard about how "the game is played at an amazing speed, there's no way to aim where you hit"). does the nfl's new rule/policy diminish the level of violence associated with its game? yeah, probably. is the game, and are the players, and is the league's overall brand better off for it? i'm thinking yes.

[Fire Lindy Ruff NOW]

whats repugnant?

[Stoner]

Crosby and agent deny report.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=6033468&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

[bunomatic]

Crosby and agent deny report.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=6033468&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

Was that story written by Bucky?

[wonderbread]

whats repugnant?

I think its when you have to pugnant it again.

[That Aud Smell]

whats repugnant?

much more than being repugnant, it's apparently untrue. which is something.

 

i'm not someone who blindly hates crosby, but i don't think there's any denying that that he's provided plenty of fodder for those who choose to view him as an (generationally-talented) pair of v@ginal lips.

 

in this instance, the report suggested that crosby would sit out all-star weekend (something that's meant to promote the game, reward the fans, etc.) not because of a health issue, and not because of some principled stand on head shots, but because he himself had sustained a mild concussion and no one got suspended.

[shrader]

much more than being repugnant, it's apparently untrue. which is something.

 

i'm not someone who blindly hates crosby, but i don't think there's any denying that that he's provided plenty of fodder for those who choose to view him as an (generationally-talented) pair of v@ginal lips.

 

in this instance, the report suggested that crosby would sit out all-star weekend (something that's meant to promote the game, reward the fans, etc.) not because of a health issue, and not because of some principled stand on head shots, but because he himself had sustained a mild concussion and no one got suspended.

 

Even if it is because he got the concussion, does that change the message at all? Head shots are a problem and if that's what it takes for the face of the game to realize it, then so be it.

[That Aud Smell]

Even if it is because he got the concussion, does that change the message at all? Head shots are a problem and if that's what it takes for the face of the game to realize it, then so be it.

not sure what we can really debate here, since the report is apparently misplaced.

 

under the reading i offered, the problem isn't that crosby would have "come to jesus" on head shots because he himself had sustained his first concussion as a pro -- although there's criticism to be had on that point alone, since he didn't threaten some sort of job action when cooke almost killed savard (crosby expressed concern over the issue at the time, but nothing more).

 

rather, the problem would be seen in the fact that crosby wasn't so much taking a principled stand on head shots as he was having a tantrum over the fact that the incidents that gave rise to his concussion haven't resulted in supplemental discipline.

 

i'm struggling for an analogy here -- but perhaps liken it to a scenario where some influential figure had been conspicuously silent on some important matter of public health policy (second-hand smoke, maybe), and only started chirping about it when s/he her/himself had some personal problem that implicated that threat to public health. is the issue important? yes. is that person's support helpful? sure. but does that person come off a little douchey for having said nothing until her/his health was at stake? arguably.