What constitutes a clean hit?

by hawks61 on Oct 26, 2009 11:49 AM CDT Comment 8 comments

In the past week all hockey fans have witnessed some of the most brutalizing and consequential hits seen in a while. Was Tuomo Ruutu's hit on Darcy Tucker over the line? Sure but was it any different than the hit David Booth received from Mike Richards? How about Willie Mitchell's hit on Jonathan Toews? We all agree that as hockey fans we love the open-ice hit as it brings a sense of excitement to the game but at what price? What constitutes going to far?

Remember Brian Campbel's hit on R.J. Umberger? Niklas Kronwall's hit on Martin Havlat? Both hits were deemed clean but both victim's were left unconscious on the ice all the while a meley broke out around them that could've made things a whole lot worse. Which begs the question should a suicide pass lead to such a destructive hit?
What about Chris Neil's hit on Chris Drury? Was that going to far? That was also deemed clean however that hit ultimately led to a line brawl on the next shift. Should a player when admiring a pass deserve to be knocked unconscious?

The debate is at what point will there be a line drawn on whether or not a hit is not longer deemed legal. There are way too many hits occuring in the NHL that are going beyond the boundries of the game and there has to be a time where "it's part of the game" shtick is no longer acceptable. Concussions are becoming a major epidemic in the game and if the NHL continues to turn a blind-eye to this situation it may lead to a catastrophic result-death. Do we have to wait until something like this happens or wait until it happens to Sydney Crosby? Either way something needs to be done for as of right now nothing is being done and that's the worst thing possible. It won't get any better by just closing their eyes and hoping it will go away.

This item was created by a member of this blog's community and is not necessarily endorsed by From The Rink.

0 recs | Comment 8 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Throw the Ruutu hit out of this comparison right away. That was a hit, square from behind. That is blatantly dirty and illegal, and the discipline he received was just.

As far as the Booth hit goes, in Canadian Junior A hockey, five minutes for interference is referee code for “I didn’t see the hit, but someone got hurt, so something dirty must have happened.”

As to the rest, it comes to me to be a question of intent. The fact is, players are going to get hit in the head from time to time. You can’t change that. All it takes is one player to lunge at the wrong time (Naslund), or to put himself in a bad position (Booth, Umberger), and it’s going to happen.

Frankly, the rules already exist to cover the situations where such a hit is dirty – from behind, elbow, charging, high stick, etc.

To go stronger will, imnsho, have two consequences: first, referees will feel compelled to call any big hit that has an unfortunate result for the person getting hit. Punishing clean hits is not useful to me. Second, individual responsibility goes out the door. Kids are taught from mite hockey that you always keep your head up. At the higher levels, you ALWAYS keep your head up when coming through the middle. If you start punishing clean hits because someone is not paying attention to his surroundings, then I guarantee you that players are going to begin to pay less attention to their own surroundings than they do now.

And if that happens, then I predict the on-ice death you fear will happen as a result of the new rules people propose.

by Resolute on Oct 26, 2009 6:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you, Resolute, but it seems everytime someone says ‘keep your head up’, they get shouted down by others who seem bound and determined to take the physicality out of the NHL. I’ve watched Euro hockey enough to say it’s neither entertaining nor artistic.

I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.

by Smoboy41 on Oct 26, 2009 7:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Heh, that’s funny, because I feel like every time it’s pointed out that the game is much faster and harder than it was even in the 1980s (when “keep your head up” may have sufficed), they’re shouted down by someone who says, “Keep your head up! You just want to take the physicality out of the game.”

I love the physicality in this game; I don’t want it removed, and I don’t want roller hockey-inspired danglers and floaters ascending to the league. But I also see the gruesome danger of head injuries, combined with a speed and size that makes the in-game setting incomparable to 20 years ago, so perhaps some adjustments should be made. My first preference is for the league to actually, specifically, explicitly illustrate what is legal (not just the motion, the action and the intent, but also the “hockey area” that is talked about in suspension decisions), as well as consistently enforce whatever that is through its disciplinary policy. (Nice dream, I know.)

Players have adjusted to a lot of new realities that come with this speed and enforcement of obstruction. If it were decided that they should avoid certain situations or face disciplinary consequences, I’m sure they could adjust without “removing the physicality” from the game. Given the serious long-term consequences of head injuries, I think that’s a fair conversation to have, and it’s one that shouldn’t be dismissed by the oversimplified “keep your head up.”

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Oct 27, 2009 12:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly. Nobody wants the physicality taken out of the game but there are many ways to hit an opponent without being totally destructive. The NHL needs to realize that other professional sports are taking this epidemic (post-concussion syndrome) seriously and they need to follow suit. It would be nice, for a change, that the NHL would take a stand and become an innovator instead of always being a follower.

It's never about the eventual destination, but rather the long journey and its challenging obstacles that are presented and what it takes to overcome them, that makes the taste of success all the more worthwhile!!!

by hawks61 on Oct 27, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clean hits?

At what point does the whole “keep your head up theory” go out the door for it seem a little neanderthal. The NHL over the years has seen it’s athlete’s become faster, stronger, and much larger which has made the game much more exciting with the hits much more devastating and with no guidelines set on what is deemed appropriate the hits are becoming more vicious with casualties increasing.
Somewhere the line has to be drawn in the sand and it has to start sometime and this week would have been a better time than any to set the standard and for that I think the NHL has dropped the ball.

by hawks61 on Oct 27, 2009 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Question is, are casualties actually increasing, or are we just paying attention to it more?

A line has to be drawn in the sand, I agree, but I still very much fear what will happen if we go all the way you propose. I am certain you heard about the OHL kid who ended up in the hospital with a broken skull last week. If you’ve seen the video of the hit, watch his actions closely. The kid was in a spot where he knew someone was coming at him, and turned his back anyway.

It was somewhat expected that my comments from last week almost came to pass in a matter of days. A player in a league that goes a little too far in the “protection” rules, imnsho, nearly died in part because he put himself into a very dangeorus position at a time when he knew someone was coming in on him. Just like how the salary cap can’t save teams with poor management, the rules can’t protect stupid players.

What I would like to see, however, is a serious look taken at how equipment is manufactured. Whatever one feels about who should be responsible when a player with his head down gets smoked in the helmet, I think everyone could agree that the steel-hard plastic armour needs to be looked at as well. Changing the rules won’t change how dangerous the “weapons” are.

by Resolute on Nov 3, 2009 12:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well said as I totally agree with you in that respect that the league needs to look at the equipment and how it’s being manufactured. Putting rules in place that diminishes hitting the game won’t deter the head-shots in the games as it might increase it. Looking at the equipment may be the best possible solution.
Well written.

by hawks61 on Nov 4, 2009 10:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If you intend to put your shoulder into a guy’s chest, it’s clean and legal, regardless of whether or not you ultimately hit him in the aforementioned chest. Strict Liability rules like the OHL’s Rule 48 just punish the result of the play, which discourages clean and dirty players from making contact, even rewarding players who instinctively duck into hits. If anything, players should learn to take a clean check to the chest. Don’t duck and tuck your head in when you fall like a pro wrestler does.

Anaheim Calling

by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Oct 26, 2009 9:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs