Archive for the 'Opinion' Category

From Rule 85

Published
by
Matt Saler
on February 29, 2008
in Opinion and Quotes
. 6 Comments

85.1 Puck Out of Bounds (PDF):

… Should the puck strike the spectator netting at the ends and the corners of the arena, play shall be stopped and the ensuing face-off shall be determined as if the puck went outside the playing area. However, if the puck striking the spectator netting goes unnoticed by the on-ice officials, play shall continue as normal and resulting play with the puck shall be deemed a legitimate play. Players must not stop playing the game until they hear the whistle to do so.

My emphasis.

Discussion added (01. Mar, 12:28 AM): So that’s the rule. Fine. That doesn’t make it a good rule.

As Bruce MacLeod wrote, the key to the whole thing was the lack of noise. How four officials missed the lack of any sound such as the puck hitting glass is beyond me.

How is it that the puck is deflected high, over the glass so that it bulges the netting, falls back to the ice, and gets put in the net while four on-ice officials stand apparently oblivious to what’s going on around them?

Actually, the referee in the corner (I did not catch his number) was apparently not quite oblivious: he actually brought his whistle halfway to his mouth before letting his hand drop as the puck returned to view. If he intended to stop the play, wasn’t that puck dead under the accepted interpretation of Rule 32.2? Why didn’t he follow through on the motion? Was he not surprised that the puck fell to the ice after a noticeable delay?

The fact that both referees were experienced officials makes their blunder all the more disappointing. According to the NHL Officials Association website, Tom Kowal is an seven-year veteran with over 321 NHL regular season games under his belt. Paul Devorski has been officiating since 1989 and has appeared in over 1041 NHL regular season and 116 playoff games. That both missed the puck hitting the net is inexcusable.

I don’t want to get too hung up on a goal in a game in which the Sharks by and large dominated. However, what happened on that goal is shameful and an embarrassment to the NHL. It’s analogous to an NFL running back going out of bounds and then back in bounds on a touchdown play and every official on the field somehow missing it. Tell me people wouldn’t be justifiably upset.

What makes it worse is that there is no review on a play like that. As the rule says, any play following the striking of the netting by the puck that goes unnoticed by the referee is legitimate. That has to change when it leads directly to a goal. How can it still be considered a legitimate goal when the puck technically left the playing area?

In my opinion, the NHL should allow for the review of suspicious goals. Make it the job of the old goal judges to determine if a goal was scored under suspicious circumstances. If not the goal judges, allow the coaches of the team to challenge the goal.

Set up a checklist that includes looks at offsides, goaltender interference, high sticking, kicking motions, whistle blowing (intended or actual), the possibility that the puck went under the net or through the side, and possibility that the puck hit the netting. If any of those things occur during the offensive zone attack leading to the goal, it should be disallowed.

Giving the officials an out like Rule 85 currently does is just silly. Blowing a rule interpretation on goaltender interference is one thing. If they make a mistake on something such as rink boundaries or clearly definable lines, that’s another. That sort of thing is not open to interpretation. It’s pretty cut-and-dry, and video evidence can correct a mistake.

It’s easy to complain about the goal as the reason the Wings lost. However, they had plenty of time to stage a comeback and wouldn’t have been in that position had they not allowed the Sharks to dominate them in their own zone all night. Although the goal turned out to be the game winner, it’s not the real reason the Wings lost. They were outplayed, once again.

However, I point the goal out because I believe the League should make the easy rule change. Use modern technology. Eliminate cheap goals like that. Give your officials some support so they don’t have to bear the brunt of the fans’ ire for blowing a call that could be overturned by video evidence.

Hartnell suspended two games

Published
by
Matt Saler
on November 27, 2007
in NHL, Opinion and Video
. 8 Comments

This isn’t strictly Wings-related, but I had to point it out: all-around goon/punk Scott Hartnell (my fellow Central Division fans know what I’m talking about) has been suspended a mere two games for this vicious hit on Boston’s Andrew Alberts:

I’m sorry, but two games? What a joke. What is it going to take for the NHL to take this stuff seriously? Maybe when some minor league call-up forth-line three-minute-a-game Neanderthal destroys Sidney Crosby’s career. Maybe when Alexander Ovechkin gets decapitated on one of his high-speed rushes. Who knows? Let’s all pray no one gets killed one of these nights.

How long are we fans going to tolerate this crap? The League seems to think that just because a guy like Alberts isn’t an “A-list” superstar that it’s okay to give the perpetrator a slap on the wrist. Is it okay? I don’t think so. I love the game and I love the NHL, but if the League doesn’t take measures to more severely punish players who take liberties with their peers such as Hartnell did, I’ll have a hard time remaining a fan.

The solution to all the NHL’s problems?

Published
by
Matt Saler
on October 5, 2007
in NHL and Opinion
. 0 Comments

Slate’s Nate DiMeo has it: a European soccer league-style team promotion/demotion system involving the NHL and minor leagues such as the AHL, ECHL and WHL. One problem (among many): hockey’s minor leagues are not like European lower leagues.

Let’s say the League institutes this policy, demotes the Chicago Blackhawks or St. Louis Blues and promotes the Grand Rapids Griffins to the NHL. Those same Griffins that conceivably would propell their team to the NHL are also members of the Detroit Red Wings. Can you see the problem there?

Even if there is a minor league team that could compete on the NHL level (a debatable point), such a team would be composed of players owned by a team against which they’d be competing. How, exactly, would that work?

For an outsider like DiMeo to walk up and suggest to say that the NHL could rotate out the bottom feeders in favor of the best teams from the minor leagues is all well and good. But such a suggestion ignores the realities of the system already set up and the fact that implementation would require a massive overhaul of the League’s feeder system. This idea is even less likely than straight contraction and we all know it’ll be a cold day in a very hot place before that happens.

One last point: it was a lockout, Mr. DiMeo, not a strike.

Cheaptshots 101: Brought to You by the Calgary Goons…er, Flames

Published
by
Megan Hirdes
on April 21, 2007
in Brett Lebda, Dominik Hasek, Flames, Johan Franzen, Mathieu Schneider, Nick Lidstrom, Opinion, Playoffs and Suspensions
. 33 Comments

This is another joint post by Sarah and Megan.

If you missed this game, you missed one of the most exciting and at the same time bizarre games in recent history. In this series, as well as in the regular season, games in Detroit have followed a pattern. The Wings score first, and Calgary loses their composure. This is what we expected tonight, and Calgary did not disappoint. In fact, they went further than anyone expected. The Wings resolved their special team woes in the second period, with two shorthanded goals and a PP goal. This did not sit well with the Calgary Flames. So they went into the locker room and devised a master plan: Take out everyone in a Red Wings jersey, and then win the came by forfeit. As least, that’s the way it kind of seemed. The unraveling really began with an encounter between Lebda and Langkow. Lebda delivered a low hipcheck to Langkow, which caused Langkow to flip over Brett’s back, sending both of them to the ice. Langkow rolled over, lifted up Brett by the back of his jersey and sucker punched Lebda in the face. This was not a weak little love tap. He pulled back and hit Lebda with all the force he could muster. It was reminiscent of Tootoo’s gloved punch to Robidas. Lebda suffered a concussion as a result of the cheapshot, and was also assessed a minor penalty for clipping. When the camera first went back to the play, Langkow looked seriously injured. Upon replay, we see that he was able to lift Lebda up, punch him, and hold on to him before he curled up in the fetal position. Also, Langkow finished the game and did not receive a penalty for the play. If there is any justice in this league whatsoever, Langkow will be suspended for this disgusting display of cowardice and goonery.

Langkow was not the only Flame worthy of suspension. In fact, the most worthy candidate played only 18 seconds in the game. The Wings scored their fifth goal at 15:42. At this point, we were wondering why they wouldn’t just pull Kipper to give the guy a break. After all, he does have to play tomorrow and he had just given up five goals. In fact, they left Kipper in for another minute, until Primeau took a slashing penalty. Apparently, they weren’t pleased with Primeau’s technique, so the sent out McLennan to show us all how the pros do it. As soon as the first unsuspecting Red Wing (Franzen) was within reach, he began slashing. He delivered two slashes to the back of Franzen’s legs, for which the Referee immediately signaled a delayed penalty. As soon as the whistle blew, he slapped at the puck in anger, and then delivered a nasty two-hander to Franzen’s midsection as he coasted by.

“It doesn’t belong in hockey,” said Franzen, who said the slash shocked him more than it hurt. (via AP)

Franzen fell to the ice as the jaws of the entire audience (including us) collectively dropped. McLennan was given the original two minutes for slashing, five minutes for intent to injure, and a game misconduct. Pretty impressive for 18 seconds of play. We’ve all heard of sending out the goons in the closing minutes of a losing game. We never expected this goon to come in the form of a back-up goaltender. There is little question in our mind that McLennan will receive a suspension. When you look at the situation, he kind of looks like a fall guy. Whether he sits on the bench or not really has no impact on the Flames. So why not send him out as the goon? This whole move is very suspicious. If they were gonna pull Kipper after the fifth goal, why didn’t they do it right away? Why did they wait a full minute, until they had handed the Wings another PP? It seems to be the consensus among Wings fans, as well as hockey media, that McLennan was sent out there with a mission. We are told that he was out there to send a message to the Wings to stay out of their crease. If this is the case, he should have gone after his own defensemen. Apparently the Flames are blind to the fact that every time a Wing was in the crease or made contact with Kipper, it was because he had been shoved there by a Flames defenseman. Case in point: Maltby. Kirk was avoiding the goaltender, then got sandwiched between two Flames who pushed him into their goaltender. Matlby was slapped with goaltender interference and a goal was wiped out. Luckily, we scored a lot more, so this incident kind of fades into the background.

If you thought the madness was over once McLennan was thrown out, you were sorely mistaken. No way is the Flames fearless leader gonna be shown up by some backup goaltender. He also picked out the nearest man in a Winged Wheel. Iginla slashed Mathieu Schneider in the Wings defensive zone. He then followed Schneider up to center ice, where he proceeded to spear him with the butt of his stick. This did not cause Schneider to fall over, nor did it slow him down at all. So, Iggy had to take more drastic measures. How about a cross check to the lower back? Yup, that sounds like Iginla. Here’s where we would like to point out that Schneider was nowhere near the puck, nor was he involved in the play. His crime was apparently skating on the ice, which apparently belongs to Iginla. Jarome was assessed a hooking minor and a cross-checking minor.

It’s no wonder Calgary is so quick to lose their composure. And it’s no wonder they are so immature, given that they are lead by Jarome Iginla. Apparently Mr. Iginla subscribes to the Slapshot version of hockey. After game four, there was already a question of Iginla’s integrity. At the end of this game, and in his comments after the game, he showed his true colors. He was left on the ice purely and admittedly to start fights.

“It was really about getting some fights going at that point to keep our energy up and carry some anger into the next game,” Iginla said with several new stitches over his left eye. “We’re not going away.” (via TSN)

He is actually proud of the fact that his team made fools of themselves on national television. Sound like someone you want leading your team? This right here is proof that the whole thing was premeditated. Going out and trying to injure guys or just fighting just because you’re losing sends only one message: this is a team of cowards. Rather than save some dignity, they would prefer to “take some anger” into game six. Really, the only people they’ve succeeded in making angry are their own fans. Wings fans are just laughing, and Babcock is probably still trying to make sense of the whole thing. Franzen hit it on the nose when he said that this kind of play has no place in hockey.

After a display like this, the league should punish the offenders. Will they? Most likely not. At least not all of them. They will suspend McClennan if they have any sense. This is too close to the Chris Simon incident and too blatant to ignore. The popular number here is ten games, and that sounds about right to us. Langkow really, really should be suspended for at least two games. Whether or not he will be is up in the air. Iginla deserves a game in the press box because of the stick-butting and the bad cross check. It is very likely that he will not be suspended. On top of these suspensions, Playfair should be getting a hefty fine.

Overall, it was a wild game. The Wings showed that they are not only the better team, they are by far the classier team. The Wings refused to allow Calgary’s late-game antics get under their skin and kept their composure like the veterans they are. The difference between the two clubs is clearly displayed in their leadership. Lidstrom’s class and Iginla’s lack thereof. Hasek’s comment really sums it up:

“I was really disappointed. Not a little, but a lot,” Hasek said. “Their goalie, what he did and Iginla, he’s the captain of the team and should be in charge.” (via TSN)

Rosenberg on Babcock

Published
by
Matt Saler
on April 11, 2007
in Hockey Media, Mike Babcock and Opinion
. 4 Comments

The Freep’s Michael Rosenberg has come out from under his rock and posted a column on Mike Babcock in which he demonstrates that he, like most columnists, is all fluff and no substance, particularly when it comes to a sport they know nothing about. How else would someone be able to mention Johnny Depp, The Pirates of the Caribbean, and Edward Scissorhands (Rosenberg’s way of saying you can’t predict the future based on past performance) in something ostensibly related to hockey? Or, for that matter, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Anniston, and Angelina Jolie (Rosenberg’s way of describing the hiring of Babcock and the firing of Dave Lewis).

Of course, the basic premise of Rosenberg’s column is strictly true: we don’t know anything about what’s going to happen in this series. Still, I think we can draw conclusions based on the Wings’ performance in the regular season and to me, the conclusion is that this team is different than last year’s. You say, “No kidding, it’s different.” I mean more than the loss of Brendan Shanahan and Steve Yzerman. I mean the addition or increased roles of players like Kyle Calder, Danny Markov, and Johan Franzen, the committment to team defense from everyone from Pavel Datsyuk on down. This team has bought into Mike Babcock’s system much more so than last year’s and is becoming more made in his image all the time.

I don’t think I buy the notion that Babcock is done if the Wings don’t find playoff success this year. This team is still in transition and yet we can still see enormous potential. We saw last offseason how this team is changing, with the players they let go and the players they brought on. I think they can be very successful this year, but give it another season and I think that’s when we’ll really see what Babcock can do for this organization.

Maybe I’m just crazy and Babcock will be gone much the same way Lewis was after two playoff attempts. I just think the situation with Lewis was different, as the team seemed to come to the conclusion that familiarity had bred contempt and what the players needed was someone from outside. I don’t think Babcock will ever have the players feeling as comfortable as Lewis did, and so I think he’ll really have to screw up to be ousted.

I said above that I don’t think Babcock is done if the Wings don’t go deep into the playoffs, but I will admit that if they lose in the first round, his job is in jeopardy because that would fall under the category of “really screwing up.” I suppose that’s all the Babcock Doom-and-Gloom party is saying and it must be my confidence that they’ll make it out of the Quarterfinals that causes me to leap to his defense.

Jordin Tootoo: Exciting or Dangerous?

Published
by
Megan Hirdes
on March 14, 2007
in Jordin Tootoo, NHL, Opinion, Predators, Suspensions and Todd Bertuzzi
. 39 Comments

Jordin Tootoo has always left a bad taste in my mouth, but previously, he was just an annoyance. However, after last night, I see him in a new light. It could be a little bias, as he tried to take out Mathieu Schneider twice. Why does any team feel they need a guy who can go out there and lay on nasty hits and pretty much just put the other team in danger? I’m all for hitting/checking and even fighting–but there’s a right way and a wrong way. Leaving your feet to try to lay a huge hit is not acceptable. I have no doubt that if Schneider had not jumped out of the way, he would have been injured. And when fighting, generally you want to square off first and then fight–which I’m sure is what Bootland would have expected.

The only thing Tootoo brings to his team is this type of rough play. He generally would be put in the same category as a Kirk Maltby or Sean Avery. However, those two players have other benefits. Avery has 32 points this season, including 12 goals. While Maltby has a mere 8 points this season, his defensive game has been valuable to the team for years. You’ll always see Maltby out on the PK. So what does Jordin Tootoo bring along with his antagonistic style? With 2 goals, 6 points, 98 PIM and a +/- of -12, not much. His +/- is the worst on the team by 6. Last night, he had two shots. Most of what he did on the ice was simply going from hit to hit. And his hits are not standard hockey hits–they are risky.

The way that Tootoo plays seems to be evidence of something very disturbing going on in the NHL today. There is a lack of respect among opposing players. There was the Bertuzzi attack on Moore, the McSorley incident, the McLaren hit on Zednik, the cheap shot Janssen laid on Kaberle, and most recently, the Simon incident. These are the most wide-known of the past few years. But there are also a lot of hits that go unpenalized and unpunished. Take, for instance, the Raffi Torres hit on Jason Williams earlier this season. It was obvious charging on a guy with his head down, but there was no call made and no action taken by the NHL. The League is more interested in making the game exciting than protecting its players. If these types of hits continue to go unpunished, they will not stop. Even when the NHL does hand out suspensions, they are almost laughable. A 20-game suspension for Bertuzzi when Moore will never play again? A 25 game suspension for Simon when, had his stick been 1 inch or so lower, he could’ve easily killed Ryan Hollweg? No penalty, fine or suspension for Torres, when Williams had to be taken off the ice on a stretcher? Here’s a reminder of what Bobby Orr said after the hit on Williams:

“I don’t want to see hitting taken out of the game, I love hitting in hockey, but if someone puts his shoulder into a player’s face, if he puts anything — an arm, an elbow, a glove — I think that player should get a penalty. Definitely, it should be a penalty. We are having players getting knocked unconscious before they even hit the ice and carried off on stretchers. How can that be legal? When did hitting someone in the head with your shoulder or any part of your body become part of the rules? Anything above the neck, it’s wrong.

“Hey, I got hit a lot when I played and I didn’t get hit in the head with checks. Players didn’t always hit like that. To me, that’s not part of bodychecking. I mean, don’t you have to be responsible for your actions? If you hit a guy in the face with your stick by accident, you’re going to get a penalty. Two minutes, four minutes, five minutes, something. If you go to bodycheck a guy and you hit him in the face or head, and injure him, that’s legal? That’s fair? That’s not a penalty? I’m sorry, I don’t think that is right. It should be a penalty.”

The high-stick penalty has forced players to always be aware of where their stick is and what it is hitting. Why do they not have to have the same responsibility for their shoulders? In the NFL, if you hit a player in the head, it’s a penalty. It doesn’t matter if it was on purpose or not, it’s a penalty.

The NHL needs to take a serious look at what’s going on in the League and do something about it. This means harsher punishments for these types of hits. With some of these hits, the officials did not see it. Perhaps they need to be able to go to a replay every time something like this happens, and if they see it there, to be able to asses a penalty. Maybe it would help to institute post-game handshakes after every game.

The general population already has the Slapshot view of hockey. Incidents like Bertuzzi-Moore and Simon-Hollweg just increase this perception, especially when the NHL doesn’t do much about it. We all know that is not the image the league wants. But as long as there are guys like Tootoo, whose sole purpose is to run around and hit as many people as hard as possible, that is the image the NHL will have.

On the trade situation

Published
by
Matt Saler
on February 26, 2007
in Opinion, Roster Moves and Trade Rumors
. 1 Comment

Ansar Khan reports that the Wings are only likely to be in the running for a “second-tier” player at the deadline, given the ridiculously high price at which the Thrashers bought Keith Tkachuk yesterday. It’s hard to disagree, especially as that seemed to be a foregone conclusion as far back as the Stars’ acquisition of Ladislav Nagy. Like Khan, I think it is very unlikely the Wings will be able to swing a deal for Bill Guerin or any other top choice without putting a serious dent in their plans for the future.

I’ve never really bought in to the hysterical rhetoric that the Wings need a top-six forward or else they’re doomed, because, for the most part, I’ve been impressed with the team as it is. I believe such a forward, if attainable at a reasonable price and if he fits in the system, could be useful and helpful, but I hesitate to say that such an acquisition is imperative.

Over the past few weeks, there has been a widespread sentiment in Hockeytown fan circles that Ken Holland needs to go after someone to jump-start the stagnant second line. Why is that? No one was saying such things a few months ago when the second line was tearing it up and the first line was relatively dormant. The Wings have a possible solution on their roster and that is to promote Jiri Hudler and Valtteri Filppula to Robert Lang’s line and to demote Jason Williams to the fourth line with Josh Langfeld and Matt Ellis. Give the kids the kind of ice time they’ve earned and maybe then we’d see the second line start producing.

Even without that mixing of the lines, the second unit’s trouble is not from a lack of talent. It’s called a slump, folks. These things happen and there’s no reason to panic in February about it.

As far as a trade goes, it’s time to give up the idea of the Wings making a big acquisition. Ken Holland may be throwing up a smoke screen on his intentions, but it is clear that he is not going to sell the farm for success now. I believe the team wants to win the Cup this year, of course, but they also want to be in a position to win it down the road. I would not be surprised if they acquired a lesser-known player in the hopes that they turn into a Mikael Samuelsson or a Dan Cleary - i.e. a scorer nurtured by the team’s system.

Holland is not known for making big-name acquisitions at the deadline, but the three names that stick out, Chris Chelios, Mathieu Schneider, and Robert Lang, did not, with the exception of Schneider, cost the team much in terms of its future. A big name player this year will, however, and it is very likely that such a player, especially if you’re talking about Bill Guerin, will be a rental player only. You’ll notice that Chelios, Schneider and Lang are all still with the team. The Wings’ investment has paid off in each of their cases (though there is some argument on that with Lang) and with a rental this time around, they won’t get a fair trade-off without a Cup.

My point here is that I expect the Wings, if they’re able to make a move at all, they are less likely to trade for a big name player than they are to trade for a lesser-known, and thus less satisfactory to the majority of fans, player.

I was skeptical of it when it happened, but I’m now convinced that the Wings made their big push for the Cup when they signed Dominik Hasek over the summer. They are pinning their hopes on him and I actually believe they have a pretty good team surrounding him as it stands today. A defensive forward may actually suit their needs better as they go into the playoffs with a defensive emphasis. I do think they’ll go after a scorer, but don’t be surprised if it’s someone out of the blue and lacking top-tier credentials. I won’t be disappointed in any case, because, like I said above, I’m comfortable with the team the way it is, but I’m willing to admit an addition could be helpful.

Maybe a move that would harm chemistry, which is overall good, the second line’s slump notwithstanding, and disrupt this team’s greatest asset, its defensive prowess, would not be a good thing. One added player probably won’t make the team, but he could break it.

Overall, I’d be more surprised if the Wings get someone than if they don’t. And I’d be more angry if the Wings threw away top prospects for a rental than if they did nothing at all.

The Kronwall hit on Lupul

Published
by
Matt Saler
on February 24, 2007
in Niklas Kronwall, Oilers, Opinion and Video
. 4 Comments

Update (25. Feb, 1:53 PM): Joffrey Lupul has been quoted in the Edmonton Sun as saying he thought the Kronwall hit was borderline dirty, but said he wasn’t going to complain. By contrast, his head coach, Craig McTavish told the paper,

“People have long memories at this level and it’s not something we’ll quickly forget. He’s got a history of that. When you blindside guys like that viciously, that says something and we’ll remember it.”

“He’s got a history of that”? When, pray tell, has Kronwall given a guy a concussion with a shoulder-to-head hit before, McTavish? It was not vicious, it was just unfortunate timing and placement. If you want a suspension because it was a headshot, say that, but don’t spew that kind of whining crap. - Matt

Update (9:47 PM): I’m obviously not the only one who wants the League to rethink their policy on hits to the head, but I think this is the first time a person in authority has spoken out against it.

The recent Senators/Sabres conflagration was kick started by a headshot on Chris Drury by Ottawa’s Chris Neil. Drury is out with a serious concussion now and Buffalo’s owner has written a letter to the NHL asking for change.

Neil’s hit was far more malicious than Kronwall’s hit, so the fact that he went unpunished is far more telling than the fact that Nik didn’t for his check, which didn’t demonstrate an intent to injure. - Matt

Someone has YouTubed a video of Niklas Kronwall’s hit on Joffrey Lupul. Dirty or not dirty? See for yourself.

Call me biased all you want, but I say more ill-advised than dirty. It was all shoulder and, though he did power through it with his legs, it wasn’t malicious and it would have just been a big open ice hit had Lupul not just dished off the puck and looked away.

Still, at the risk of being called a Red Wings heretic (but I’d rather be wrongly accused of being a heretic than rightly accused of being a hypocrite), I will say that it was not a safe hit or a smart hit, and almost certainly one deserving of a suspension as a head-shot. However, the League doesn’t punish hits to the head because of an irrational and ridiculous fear that it would make the game less physical. Like I wrote in November, I think it’s criminal of the League not to police hits like that more, regardless of whether or not a Red Wing is delivering them, and regardless of intent. Hits to the head should not go unpunished, period.

The Blues accuse Illitch of foul play

Published
by
Matt Saler
on December 10, 2006
in Blues, Mike Illitch and Opinion
. 3 Comments

St. Louis president John Davidson has accused Red Wings owner Mike Illitch of breaking the rules after hearing that the latter talked to the officials between the second and third periods of Thursday night’s game, according to Ted Kulfan. Davidson, who did not see it himself, told the St. Louis Dispatch,

“We have more of a concern about the owner of the Detroit Red Wings going down to escort the officials off the ice to their dressing room during the second intermission. That’s more of a concern that defies the spirit of the game. We think as an organization that that was wrong. A Hall of Fame owner decides to have a conversation with the officials during a game. It’s our opinion that’s not right.”

Davidson would not say whether or not he believed Illitch had attempted to influence the referees, even though the Blues had four successive penalties in the first 10 minutes of the third period.

The matter is being reviewed by Colin Campbell, the League VP, who received a report from referee Kerry Frasier after the game, writes Jeremy Rutherford of the Dispatch. Apparently, Illitch approached Frasier and the other referee, Chris Rooney, just before they took the ice for the third period, and asked them, “politely,” about a hit, which the officials were already looking at. The “hit,”, as Rutherford points out, was most likely that which Dallas Drake laid on Brett Lebda late in the first period. The hit went unpenalized at the time, but Drake was suspended two games on Friday after the League reviewed it.

If Frasier’s report and Campbell’s recounting of it are to believed, Davidson was incorrect about Illitch going with the officials to their dressing room between the periods. It would seem he is also wrong to say Illitch broke any rules, as the Dispatch quotes Campbell as saying, “We have a standing rule that managers and coaches are not allowed to go to the officials room. He did not go into the room.”

I personally have no problem with Illitch approaching referees in such a manner, especially if he was asking about the Drake/Lebda hit. Davidson perhaps cannot understand it, but the Wings have had two players taken out this seaon because of headshots, and if Mike Illitch wants to talk to the officials about a play that endangered another one of his players, he should be able to.

Campbell says they were already reviewing the play, but that does not automatically mean punishment was guaranteed to be dealt out, as we recently saw with Alexander Ovechkin’s brutal hit on Daniel Briere. Ovechkin, aside from being ejected from the game, got away nearly scot-free (he may be fined more than the automatic $100), a decision likely driven more by revenue concerns than anything else. With Ovechkin set to play Sidney Crosby in a much publicized game on Monday, the League couldn’t have one of their two best young stars just coming off a suspension, could they? Even if he literally almost killed a fellow player.

If the results of similar plays earlier this season say anything about the likelihood of punishment in the NHL today, Drake may very well have gotten away with that hit had Illitch not approached the officials, even if the League was already planning on looking at it. Two other instances of headhunting Wings have gone without penalty, despite the fact that they caused injury.

After the Drake hit, Lebda was a little woozy, but he returned to the ice seemingly none the worse for wear in the second. So, if the League isn’t going to suspend players for hits that cause injury, why would they for a hit that didn’t? Illitch’s comments to Frasier may have been necessary, sadly, just as Babcock’s may have been.

If Davidson is implying that the Illitch somehow either influenced Frasier and Rooney to make pro-Wings calls, he’s being ridiculous. It’s insulting to the officials, for one thing, and deflects blame from his players, who earned what they got, for another. However, Illitch may have had something to do with Drake’s suspension, which should have been coming to him anyway because there’s no place for hits like that in the game.

Davidson should be more concerned with his 7-16-4 team’s place in the standings than with Mike Illitch’s effort at looking out for one of his young players.

On head contact in the NHL

Published
by
Matt Saler
on November 10, 2006
in NHL and Opinion
. 5 Comments

Update (1:27 PM, 11. Nov): Dave at Gorilla Crouch has a good idea: “I think the league needs to look into developing better helmets.” That would definitely help, but I wonder how the players would react. We’ve already seen how little they want to have visors imposed on them, and a new helmet may get a similar reaction. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be worth doing, however. - Matt

According to CBC, the League GMs met in Toronto on Tuesday, and viewed a tape of various hits similar to that of Raffi Torres on Jason Williams. They were asked whether or not they thought the NHL was handling the issue of hits to the head properly. The answer, apparently, was yes.

“… we have to be careful because we’re not allowing low hits, if we eliminate all hits to the upper body, what’s left? Hits to the belly button? We can’t forget we are a physical game.”

Wait a second. I thought we were talking about hits to the head. Who said anything about eliminating “all hits to the upper body”? No one, as far as I know.

My position on the issue is this: the NHL is in danger of being crimminally negligent if they insist on hiding behind the assertion that hits to the head are inseperable from upper body hits. How can anyone say or imply that with a straight face?

In football, a sport even more physical than hockey, a defensive player cannot lay out a quarterback with helmet-to-helmet contact, nor can he hit the QB after the release of the ball if he has any ability to avoid the hit. This is especially true in college football but it goes to for the NFL as well. In no way do such rules detract from the physical nature of football. Rather, they protect players from unnecessary violence and keep the hitting within certain bounds while still allowing for some pretty spectacular contact.

There is no helmet-to-helmet contact in the NHL, but there are sometimes body checks to the head, such as what Torres dealt to Williams. Contrary to what the GMs might think, legislating these hits to the head would not mean removing upper body contact. It would mean a safer game and, by that, I mean a game without a potentially deadly, or seriously injuring, element. It woudn’t be safe like golf, if that’s the concern. Hockey can be physical without hits to the head, believe me. We see it all the time.

The traditionalists in authority within the League can try to further institutionalize potentially scandalous violence in the game, or they can protect their players (not just the stars) by punishing head contact regardless of intent. As of now, they look for intent to injure only, rather than punishing all such hits.

How does it help the game’s image when someone flipping through the channels Wednesday night might have come across the picture of Williams lying limp in the corner with a team of paramedics, trainers, and doctors kneeling by him with a stretcher? If such a person were to have seen the replay and stuck around long enough to find out that Torres was not penalized in any way, they may very well have been shocked and perhaps their pre-existing Slap Shots-esque perception of hockey would have been enforced. A similar situation in the NFL or NCAA would have at least resulted in a 15-yard penalty, leaving the same viewer with at least sense of justice administered.

If a defensive lineman in football can be expected to pull up on a QB, who, mind you, he is supposed to tackle with all the speed and intensity in his being, an NHL player can be expected to avoid head contact when trying to knock someone off the puck.

Torres’ hit was legal within the current NHL rules. That doesn’t mean those rules are right.

What is it going to take for the League to see it?