Crosby's Concussions

[Taro T]

If it were up to me, I would assess a minor penalty for any unintentional head shot and a major and game misconduct for any intentional head shot. Intentional hits to the head by repeat offenders would also result in serious suspensions -- i.e. no suspension for the first one, then 5 games, 10 games, 20 games, etc.

 

I think this would result, as with obstruction/hooking/holding penalties post-lockout, in a lot of penalties during the first season (some undeserved), and a lot of complaining by traditionalists. The coaches and players would adjust, though, and the result would be a great game with plenty of hitting and with many fewer players getting seriously hurt.

I generally like your thoughts on this. But I would modify them slightly.

 

Here's what I wrote shortly after the Neil Drury incident:

 

...

 

I would like to see the NHL address in the rulebook this issue of hitting guys in the head. I don't want to see a blanket ban on all hits to the head, because you would end up taking a lot of the physicality out of the game and you would have a new problem of players ducking when a hit is coming to try to take the hit in the melon.

 

I would basically have a rule where if you get your elbow into a guy's head, unless the hitee is below a normal skating / standing stride (I'd allow the Schaefer-Connolly hit to be legal) you get a 5 or a game misconduct regardless of whether it is or isn't in the guy's face. I also would make it a game misconduct to go shoulder to head when the hit comes from outside of what the hitee's field of vision is/should be. A hit where a player leaves his feet and hits a player's head would also be illegal. (It's already illegal to leave your feet to hit someone, this would just reinforce that particular matter.)

 

So the Neil-Drury hit would be illegal (hit to the head from outside normal line of vision), and a hit similar to the Campbell-Umberger hit but where the shoulder hits the head first instead of the chest (unlike Soupy's hit which was shoulder to chest with the followthrough catching him in the head) would also be illegal. And, although it was a dirty hit, the hit of Stevens on Lindros would still be borderline legal (shoulder to chin, although if it had been elbow to chin regardless of it being true elbowing would have been illegal). The ref would also likely have discretion to call a penalty if he determines the shoulder to the head was intentional even if it was square on (not sure if I'd add that or not).

 

Sticks to the head and punches to the head would still be illegal. The facewash would still be legal. (Gotta let 'em have some fun. )

 

Obviously, this is just a 1st draft and the rule would require some careful crafting to avoid unintended consequences (like pretty much making it illegal for Chara to even look at Derek Roy although maybe that's not a bad unintended consequence ), but that is generally the way I'd like to see it addressed.

While I hate the diving call, I'd suggest that as long as we have "unsportsmanlike - diving" on the books, I'd probably add (or at a minimum test in the AHL) an "unsportsmanlike - ducking" penalty. So that a player doesn't get tossed for a game because his opponent pulled a version of a Recchi.

 

I also would add an automatic review post-game of ALL plays that resulted in head contact. The reviewer would NOT know whether / what kind of a penalty was assessed; he also would NOT know on the screening level of whether any potential supplemental discipline should be handed out whether or not the hittee was injured on the play. Obviously, if he saw a player bounce his head off the ice, he'd suspect there was injury, but the feed would stop running after the completion of the play, so the reviewer wouldn't know whether the player was injured or not. That shouldn't be a factor in whether discipline is initiated. The hit also would be reviewed initially at a level where past history of a player was NOT included in the review.

 

All plays that resulted in injury but determined at the screening level to not be worthy of further disciplinary review would have the rationale for no further review made public.

 

All plays that were considered for disciple would be publicly noted and the reason the hit was being considered for additional discipline would be noted. At a hearing, both teams could bring additional evidence (both pre & post-hit) to the hearing. The results of the hearing would be made public, as would the data used to come up w/ the decision.

 

A player that went to a hearing but avoided suspension would still have this hit included in his history; so that after having several of these hits that looked initially worth following up for additional disciple and still avoided getting suspended, he'd end up considered to be a repeat offender if he does end up having a hit that is suspendable. So a player like Chara who has a lot of borderline unsuspended hits might have a longer suspension on his 1st 'suspendable' hit than a player that truly was a 1st time offender.

 

A system such as this would take a lot of guesswork out of it for players as there would be a fairly extensive papertrail of what is and isn't suspendable and more importantly WHY it was or wasn't.

 

And it is still a 1st draft; I'm certain that there are several items that can be tightened / refined.

[shrader]

It's pretty simple to keep track of that stuff too, Taro. It's exactly why they have all those odd calls where they say "obstruction hooking" or "obstruction interference" (my personal favorite in the department of redundancies department). They slap on that label so that they can easily keep track of the numbers. Do the same exact thing with a contact to the head call. That's how the NCAA does it. Then once they're clearly tracked like that, that formal review process becomes that much simpler.

[Taro T]

It's pretty simple to keep track of that stuff too, Taro. It's exactly why they have all those odd calls where they say "obstruction hooking" or "obstruction interference" (my personal favorite in the department of redundancies department). They slap on that label so that they can easily keep track of the numbers. Do the same exact thing with a contact to the head call. That's how the NCAA does it. Then once they're clearly tracked like that, that formal review process becomes that much simpler.

Agreed. It isn't too difficult to track, as each team now has software to track who is on the ice and what has happened at that time. Somebody has to enter it all, but they are able to do it just like the courtroom transcriber.

 

I would have EVERY incidence of head contact reviewed (just like they've been reviewing EVERY play that results in the puck potentially entering the net for about the last 15 years <_<). A lot of those incidents would simply be non-consequential but regardless of whether a penalty was called, the serious ones would get identified and acted upon.

 

I know there'd be a lot of pushback from the refs and dinosaurs like Collie, but in the end the game would be better and the players would get the hang of what the league was doing w/in 1 full season. This isn't something to use to bash the refs, it's something that will help them get better and will keep the players safer; and I honestly believe it won't take much (if any) hitting out of the game. It'll just keep the hitting cleaner as guys would realize they don't just have to avoid the ref's gaze to get in a head shot but the camera's as well. Good luck w/ that.

[RazielSabre]

I absolutely agree. Upping the punishment does nothing if consistency is not enforced.

 

 

Noone said it was a necessary hit by the definition of the word, but even hinting at the idea that steck was at fault here is preposterous.

 

Watch the video again, as crosby turns his head to look at the puck, steckle starts to hustle in an attempt to join the rush, at which point, crosby (who is not looking forward) meanders into steckles path.

 

In your opinion crosby was at no fault, i accept that and in fact i mostly agree with that assessment. But to simply assume that Steckle WAS at fault because the other player involved was not is pure poppycock.

 

After reading what you wrote I did watch the video again. While initially it appeared Steckle went for a bad hit, viewing it again I'd agree with you, my initial assessment was wrong. Crosby was not at fault, but neither was Steckle. Accidents happen. Could it have been prevented? Absolutely, that doesnt mean there is a 'bad guy' here. Thats my re-evaulation of the scenario.

 

Doesnt matter now, Crosby is great for the NHL and I wish him a full recovery.

[MattPie]

After reading what you wrote I did watch the video again. While initially it appeared Steckle went for a bad hit, viewing it again I'd agree with you, my initial assessment was wrong. Crosby was not at fault, but neither was Steckle. Accidents happen. Could it have been prevented? Absolutely, that doesnt mean there is a 'bad guy' here. Thats my re-evaulation of the scenario.

 

Yeah, at most Steckle saw Crosby and decided if their paths converged he'd happen to give him a little bump, but watching it again I'm not even sure I'd go that far.

[spndnchz]

According to experts interviewed Thursday, Mr. Crosby’s inability to exercise symptom-free at the 90-per-cent exertion level could mean that he will have to start his comeback from square one, but it most certainly means that the Penguins superstar will have to back off his recovery with training camp less than one month away.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/crosby-shows-post-concussion-symptoms-during-exercise/article2142651/

 

Doesn't look good.

[shrader]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/crosby-shows-post-concussion-symptoms-during-exercise/article2142651/

 

Doesn't look good.

 

It's good in one way though. I think we may finally see a backlash against hits to the head thanks to this one. This is about as close as possible to the doomsday scenario.