The Ladd on D'Agostini hit
by James Mirtle on Oct 31, 2009 8:48 AM CDT
86 comments
There are so many of these lately, I don't know which ones to post and which ones to ignore. Given it's the weekend and likely to be slow around these parts, however, this issue is worth bringing up yet again.
At some point, this hit will be considered illegal in the NHL, whether that's due to a devastating injury or otherwise. For now...
"I thought it was a good hit," Blackhawks head coach Joel Quenneville said. "I thought it was a clean hit, that’s my view of it."
"It was a hit to the head," Canadiens coach Jacques Martin said. "It's up to the league to make judgment on that."
0 recs |
86 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
Shoulder to the head should be some variation of roughing or elbowing, and should be eligible for a major. That technically wasn’t a penalty (though Ladd got tossed anyway), but it was in no way clean.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
by Doogie2K on Oct 31, 2009 9:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
"clean" hit
Let me preface by saying that I am in no way a Blackhawks fan. Being a Blues fan, I am anything but; however, I think he was going for a big, but clean, hit and ended up getting the guy in the head. I think it should be a 2 minute roughing penalty, but nothing more than that.
by stlfan on Oct 31, 2009 10:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Headshot
Concussions are devastating and are the most susceptible of inflicting permanent damage. You clip a guy in the head? Suspension. It was an accident, you didn’t mean it? Suck it.
The day the leagues does just that, then those kind of hits will disappear.
Now, I saw the game and tought the referee had a gutsy reaction when they called it an elbowing (when it clearly was a shoulder hit). They penalized the fact this was a hit to the head with what they saw the closest fit in the rulebook. Quenneville can say it was a clean hit for the next 12 months, the fact is, his (and his player’s) perfectly muted reaction to the ref’s decision (again: it wasn’t an elbowing, and it was obvious) tells me they knew this was an unacceptable hit. They just can’t say so.
by Olivier on Oct 31, 2009 10:20 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Concussions are devastating and are the most susceptible of inflicting permanent damage. You clip a guy in the head? Suspension. It was an accident, you didn’t mean it? Suck it.
This I don’t get at all. Players are expected to maintain control over their sticks at all times – even unintentional high sticks get penalized. I would think that an actual body part would be a little easier to control than a long stick flying around with no input to the nervous system to provide feedback.
We know so much more about the long-term impact of concussions on quality of life – the NFL is dealing with that right now – that I have a really hard time seeing these hits and knowing that any one of them might be just another factor in a story a couple decades from now about a man in his fifties who was once a professional athlete and now has early-onset dementia and his wife worries about him finding his way home when he takes the dog for a walk, or the repeated head trauma has led to mental illness and depression that broke up a family and led to him taking his own life, or any number of other adverse outcomes.
I don’t want to watch a sport that has such a destruction of human potential as an accepted inevitable consequence of the style of play because everyone involved is so afraid of “changing the physical nature of the game” that they aren’t willing to even think about changing rules that might help the health and long-term lives of the players.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 31, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 14 recs
Well said
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 31, 2009 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 31, 2009 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is it the fans responsibility to ensure the safety of a bunch of millionaire athletes? Surely if the players decide the risk of long term injury outweighs whatever benefit stems from creaming a guy in the open ice, they’ll take the necessary steps to ensure the rules change. Why is the onus for change on everyone except the people who are actually affected by these rules?
by mclea on Oct 31, 2009 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is it the fans responsibility to ensure the safety of a bunch of millionaire athletes?
It isn’t. I’m just saying that some fans are going to decide whether or not they want to watch based on how comfortable they are with the destruction. It’s an individual choice.
Surely if the players decide the risk of long term injury outweighs whatever benefit stems from creaming a guy in the open ice, they’ll take the necessary steps to ensure the rules change. Why is the onus for change on everyone except the people who are actually affected by these rules?
I’m not sure the players have been adequately informed – the NFL certainly hasn’t been honest with the long-term consequences with their players, saying that there really isn’t a link between the dementia and their sport and pooh-poohing any medical evidence that says otherwise. You need look no further than the current government hearings for that. And it seems as though the players have brought up the prospect of changing the rules, they have said that they think the issue of headshots is a problem, but they can’t make changes unilaterally and the league has told them that they don’t think it is an issue so the rules changes aren’t needed.
Although the league could get around it by putting an additional $10 surcharge on every ticket or piece of merchandise sold, I suppose. Put it into an early-onset-dementia fund so the players whose lives have been wrecked in the service of entertainment will be properly taken care of afterwards.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 31, 2009 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because I don’t get any enjoyment from watching people get hurt. Where are you going to draw the line? Are you okay with actual gladitorial contests so long as the contestants agree to it? Is death acceptable entertainment?
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 31, 2009 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess it depends what colour uniforms they wear.
by yrmom on Oct 31, 2009 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m thinking that gladiators look best in a lavender/dusty rose combo.
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 31, 2009 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also very few athletes are millionaires. Careers are generally very short – the twenty-year players are an exception – and if a career is ended at 23 by a severe concussion, that kind of limits the earning potential of a young player unless he cashed in already, and that isn’t very common.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 31, 2009 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or is a member of the Red Wings. Think Jiri Fischer, though that was a heart attack.
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 31, 2009 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was fortunate in that he has some talent for his new hockey job and enjoys it, though. Not every player has a front-office ability that can keep him involved in the game. Jiri Fischer is a lucky man in a lot of ways.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 31, 2009 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you don’t think fans should have an opinion, then why are you here?
I've been looking at the sky
by Back In Black on Nov 1, 2009 12:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
perfectly said:
I don’t want to watch a sport that has such a destruction of human potential as an accepted inevitable consequence of the style of play because everyone involved is so afraid of "changing the physical nature of the game" that they aren’t willing to even think about changing rules that might help the health and long-term lives of the players.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Oct 31, 2009 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep your head up
Ladd hit him cleanly with the shoulder, and didn’t leave his feet, but he caught a player looking the wrong way and bent over.
If this becomes ‘dirty’ than you are going to have players feeling like they can skate with their heads down all the time because any shoulder check to them is going to be called ‘dirty’. It isn’t.
by velociraptor on Oct 31, 2009 11:08 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
are going to have players feeling like they can skate with their heads down all the time
I have heard this slippery slope argument ad nauseum. It is long past time to aske the basic question in response to that statement:
SO WHAT?
by Gerald on Oct 31, 2009 11:12 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
How exactly was Ladd supposed to put a bodycheck on him there without first making contact with his head? Ladd lined him, buddy dropped his head slightly, and Ladd’s shoulder made contact with his head. I mean, the duty of care you’re asking of these guys is totally unreasonable.
Players line other players up and they hit them where they hit him. The suggestion that players have the ability to align where their shoulder makes contact once they’ve committed to the bodycheck is totally unsupportable.
If you ban head shots, you will ban open ice bodychecks. The reason the NHL hasn’t banned head shots isn’t because they are a bunch of callous bastards that don’t care about the safety of its players, its because they can’t without fundamentally changing how the game is played.
by mclea on Oct 31, 2009 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How exactly was Ladd supposed to put a bodycheck on him there without first making contact with his head?
First, Ladd could have not jumped. I realize his skates were on the ice when the hit was made, but he was jumping when he made the hit, who cares which split second his skates left the ice.
Second, contact was made when D’Agostini’s head was up. He may have put himself in a bad position with his head being down, but his head came up at the last second when Ladd drilled him.
Intentionally or not, Ladd was aiming for the head. He could have not done that.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 31, 2009 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Intentionally or not, Ladd was aiming for the head. He could have not done that.
Indeed. Watch the replay again, Mclea. His shoulder was totally in play. Both of them, even. Hit him square in the shoulder, buddy still goes flying and loses the puck, but his risk of concussion is reduced dramatically.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
by Doogie2K on Oct 31, 2009 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you ban head shots, you will ban open ice bodychecks.
If that’s what it takes, then that’s what it takes.
The reason the NHL hasn’t banned head shots isn’t because they are a bunch of callous bastards that don’t care about the safety of its players
Yes, it is. The league would rather have the revenues that hitting generates than they would have players that don’t get concussions.
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 31, 2009 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you ban head shots, you will ban open ice bodychecks. The reason the NHL hasn’t banned head shots isn’t because they are a bunch of callous bastards that don’t care about the safety of its players, its because they can’t without fundamentally changing how the game is played.
I don’t believe you. There are 100 bodychecks in any given game – maybe one or two of those ends up hitting someone in the head. Players are more than able to throw effective bodychecks and watch out for a players head. This argument of “fear” has no basis in reality.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Oct 31, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Woo hoo! We’re on the same side.
I still like Phil Collins, though.
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 31, 2009 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Oct 31, 2009 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec’d for pointing out the obvious elephant in the room. Why is skating with your head down bad? You don’t want to do it all the time, but sometimes you need to make sure you have the puck firmly in your control, and you shouldn’t have to risk your career every time you do so.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
by Doogie2K on Oct 31, 2009 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Along with my other favorite: “he shouldn’t have been admiring his pass.” Sometimes a player has to see if his pass connected or missed because that will determine what he has to do next, if he can go for a change or not, or if he has to cover for someone else, or what.
Kids might be looking at the play as it progresses while coasting aimlessly down the ice afterwards, but I suspect most professionals are watching what happens with the puck because they need to be aware of the play as it develops so they know what their next reaction should be in the game.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 31, 2009 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Head Down Hockey
Here’s the thing, last night we saw Steve Begin throw a clean body check into the chest of a player that resulted in a turnover and a scoring chance. The difference between it and the Ladd hit was nothing to do with the check being thrown and everything to do with the player with puck having his head up when the check arrived.
Begin’s was a clean legal hit not because his intent to inflict a heavy check was any less than Ladd’s – but because the recipient looked up in time to avoid taking it on the chin.
If we can agree that Begin’s hit was a legal, clean, and exciting hockey play, than the only difference is in how the player recieved the check.
If we make Ladd’s hit illegal, we also make Begin’s more rare. Thats the price we pay for being extravigilant.
My advice is simple. Keep. Your. Head. Up. Players who admire their passes, or stickhandle with their heads down are asking for head injuries on what would otherwise be clean checks.
I’m all for new helmet designs that reduce injuries from heads bouncing on the ice, for mouthguards being mandatory, and for automatic IR time for anyone diagnosed with a concussion. But taking body contact and hard checks isn’t the way to fix the concussion issue.
by velociraptor on Nov 1, 2009 12:51 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
My advice is simple. Keep. Your. Head. Up. Players who admire their passes, or stickhandle with their heads down are asking for head injuries on what would otherwise be clean checks.
Sometimes the ice is bad, the puck is bouncing, and the player has to look down for a second to gain control of the puck. He shouldn’t get blasted into next week because the puck is bouncing over rough ice and he would rather glance down to get it under control than let it skitter off and possibly slide over to an opponent to go the other direction. He isn’t asking for punishment – he is trying to do his job.
Same with “admiring his pass.” These aren’t stupid teenagers (well, maybe some are, at that) – most of them are professionals who are pretty far beyond the point of passing the puck, following it with his eyes, and coasting aimlessly down the ice because his part of the play is over. It seems at least possible that maybe, just maybe, if a skater passes the puck and then watches where it goes that he might need to see if the pass connects or not because that will determine his next move – if he can go for a change or needs to get back on defense because there is a turnover or something. I would think that a player who developed a habit of passing the puck and assuming everything was fine and heading to the bench would very shortly be informed by his coach that if the pass was picked off he should get his butt back to defend against his turnover instead of head directly to the bench without sparing a glance behind him since someone might be skating in to take his head off if he pays too much attention to how the play develops.
I am so tired of the assumption that all players should never look down and have eyes in the backs of their helmets because if they get hit in the head because they weren’t looking where the hit was coming from they deserved it. The hitter has more control over the situation than the hittee – he should bear the responsibility for injuries, not the player who didn’t see him coming.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Nov 1, 2009 2:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When D’Agostini took the hit, his head was up. Ladds shoulder was aimed straight for the head, and not the chest (and he was jumping top it all off). I Didn’t see the Begin hit, but if it was as you described it, there’s no way it’s a similar hit.
“Keep your head up” only works so far. There has to be a responsibility place on the person throwing the check too.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 1, 2009 3:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What replay were you watching? I didn’t like the manner in which Ladd viciously attacked D’Agostini but it was in no way an intentional hit to the head as it was a clean hit that was egregiously vicious. It happens in hockey and nothing is going to change as unfortunate as that sounds.
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 Nov 2, 2009 9:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Read above
I didn’t say it was intentional, I don’t know, but the aim of his check is clearly at head height.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 2, 2009 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m all for new helmet designs that reduce injuries from heads bouncing on the ice, for mouthguards being mandatory, and for automatic IR time for anyone diagnosed with a concussion. But taking body contact and hard checks isn’t the way to fix the concussion issue.
Yeah, it is. It’s probably the only way to fix the concussion problem. Take your pick: you can have hockey with heavy body checks, or you can have players without brain damage. Which is it going to be?
by J. Michael Neal on Nov 1, 2009 7:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh….a little extreme don’t you think? I think there are plenty of ways in which the NHL and the NHLPA can work together either through rules and/or technology that can have heavy hits continue in the game just without the current consequences. Hitting is never going to be taken out of the game, as well as fighting and because of this conscussions are going to be a consequencial part of the game. There are ways to limit the possibilites of concussion of occuring but there is no way of making it obsolete.
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 Nov 2, 2009 9:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hitting is never going to be taken out of the game
A little extreme, don’t you think? [groan]
Sorry, but ridiculous strawmen deserve ridiculous responses.
I am not sure how old you are, but just in case you have only been watching since the 90’s, “the game” did not always have the monster hit. It is a relatively modern development. Taking two or three monster hits per game (at MOST) out of the game will change the game?
Hardly.
by Gerald on Nov 2, 2009 6:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The real question is
How long will D’Agostini be sidelined? And how many goals is Ladd on pace to score this season? Because those are the true measures of how dirty the hit was.
—Colin Campbell
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 31, 2009 11:26 AM CDT reply actions 5 recs
What has to change is the intent of checking. Theoretically, the only reason for checking is to separate the player from the puck. We need to get to a place where that is how they are policed. So long as the intent remains to hit people hard enough to hurt them, the problem will remain. I don’t mean that we need to get rid of checking with the intent to knock a player out and send him to the hospital. We need to get rid of the mentality that the purpose of a check is to bruise someone, or shake them up, or send a message. Separate the man from the puck. That’s it.
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 31, 2009 11:46 AM CDT reply actions 2 recs
If you ban head shots, you will ban open ice bodychecks. The reason the NHL hasn’t banned head shots isn’t because they are a bunch of callous bastards that don’t care about the safety of its players, its because they can’t without fundamentally changing how the game is played.
I think that is the key point. You can make some of the same arguments about hockey that were made about football in this article in the New Yorker. Can hockey still be recognizably hockey without the resulting damage, or is it inherent in the game and an unavoidable consequence?
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 31, 2009 11:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
There will always be some risk with hockey, but it can be reduced dramatically. At the extreme, women’s hockey is recognizably the same game even though it (theoretically) bans checking. Although, Minnesota/Wisconsin games put that theory to the test.
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 31, 2009 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s what I think about the reduction of risk. When cars are flying around a track at really high speeds, there are going to be crashes – it’s inevitable. Those crashes don’t have to result in deaths of the drivers as an inevitable consequence of a car race. Horses are going to get hurt in races, but the incidence of injuries can be minimized by spreading out races and making rules about how often a horse can race to make sure they don’t get hurt, as well as looking at the track surfaces to make it more comfortable and safer for the animals. These don’t do anything fundamental to the sport. There are always going to be risks in hockey because injuries happen in any sport. The issue is how to make such a damaging result not an inevitable component of the entertainment.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 31, 2009 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comparing hockey to horse racing that has to be a first. Enjoy repeating yourself over and over again don’t you. Ever hear of ESPN Sportscenter? This is one of the main reason why a hit like Ladd’s is a component of entertainment. Just like the UFC, everyone loves the vicious knockout. You may not agree with it and it doesn’t make it right, but that’s just how it is.
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 Nov 2, 2009 9:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
it doesn’t make it right, but that’s just how it is
That’s not much of an argument, is it? Why not just say “I like watching hockey players give each other concussions” and stop beating around the bush with the passive voice?
I've been looking at the sky
by Back In Black on Nov 2, 2009 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What?
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 Nov 2, 2009 4:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you missing the point that you yourself have effectively made? Every part of a game comes with a price. Monster hits come with a price of concussions. Ignoring that equation does not absolve one of the choices that one makes as a fan, nor does dressing it up under the banner of “it’s part of the game” or “everyone enjoys the big hit”.
by Gerald on Nov 2, 2009 6:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
“a component of entertainment”, “everyone loves the vicious knockout” and “that’s just how it is” are pretty lame attempts to prop up the status quo without taking any personal responsibility for your position. If you like watching people get knocked unconscious during a hockey game, and it seems like you do, then act like a grownup and admit it.
And maybe, once you’ve done that, you’ll ask yourself if that’s really the sort of person you want to be.
I've been looking at the sky
by Back In Black on Nov 2, 2009 9:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There’s no need to be snippy. If you bothered to read my comment, I was making an analogy between car racing or horse racing and hockey to show that a component of a sport that leads to greater injuries can be removed without affecting the popularity or essential nature of the sport.
And yes, I have heard of ESPN – it’s that loud obnoxious channel that modestly calls itself “the world wide leader in sports” but I don’t generally bother watching because they don’t cover hockey – and if they do, they are patronizing and shallow in their “insight” – which is why I read blogs.
it doesn’t make it right, but that’s just how it is.
I never said it wasn’t “like that.” The question is should those be the instincts in the fans that are indulged at the cost of long-term health and safety consequences to the players involved in the sport.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Nov 2, 2009 6:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just like the UFC, everyone loves the vicious knockout. You may not agree with it and it doesn’t make it right, but that’s just how it is.
Yes, I understand that there are a lot of low grade sociopaths around me. I’ve been at a bar during a UFC PPV, though that wasn’t my intent. I’ve seen a room full of people cheer at the sight of a human being flopping on the ground because his brain has been smashed around inside his skull to the point that he can’t get his body parts to work in synch.
I find the UFC, and boxing, repulsive beyond my ability to describe. The purpose of the “sport” is to cause brain damage to your opponent. If that’s the comparison that hockey is headed towards, I’ll start looking around for another winter sport.
by J. Michael Neal on Nov 2, 2009 7:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
These hits and the resulting debates are more predictable than modern political debate.
[sarcasm] I am SHOCKED that Quenville thought it was a good hit. [/sarcasm]
If the League isn’t going to take a rational approach to dealing with hits to the head, then it should at least prohibit commenting to the media from the two teams about those hits. You can predict exactly what the teams head coaches and players will say, depending on which side of the hit they are on.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Oct 31, 2009 12:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Or hand out leaflets with the usual comments, but Mad-Lib style have blanks for the names of the coaches, players involved, and specific adjectives chosen by the various parties.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Oct 31, 2009 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Although Ladd’s feet were on the ice at the start of the hit, he was launching his shoulder into the head of another player, exploding upwards into his head.
This historically has been a legal hit. But I think exploding launches of one’s shoulder into the head of another player should be made illegal and suspendable (depending on the situation, apparent intent, etc).
Some shoulder to head collisions in hockey are inevitable. In a situation like last night, the player delivering the hit should be able to brace himself for the contact (was was inevitable), but it should be made illegal to explode/launch oneself into that inevitable collision.
There was going to be a fire in the house. Exploding/launching, like Ladd did, into the hit, was pouring accelerants on the fire.
By current standards, the hit was legal. The standard should be made tougher. The NFL has made penalties of some types of enhanced measures in tacking. i.e. All hits to a quarterbacks head. Low hits to a quarterback. Chop blocks on double teams. Helmet spearing.
Banning launches in shoulder to head collisions would be a similar type of step the NHL could take. The hit will still occur, but the player doing the hit, cannot use means to magnify the damage of the hit.
by godot10 on Oct 31, 2009 12:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Although Ladd’s feet were on the ice at the start of the hit, he was launching his shoulder into the head of another player, exploding upwards into his head.
This is exactly what I see when I watch the replay. Ladd intentionally throws his shoulder into D’Agostini’s head. D’Agostini does not try to get out of the way of the hit, it happens too fast. He attempts to brace for the impact, but moves very little.
Why does penalizing head shots hurt the game? There have been penalties for boarding/cross checking for years. No one questions a penalty when a guy gets crushed from behind into the boards. The NHL has a duty to protect its employees from injury, within reason. If they aren’t going to make everyone wear a full face mask and mouthguard, then at least try to limit the number of headshots.
by birky on Oct 31, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Skull fractures
Last night, 16 year old defender Ben Fanelli of the Kitchener Rangers was checked from behind by Mike Liambas of the Erie Otters. His helmet came off during the hit, and he subsequently smashed his head into the glass and then crumpled to the ice. Fans watched in stunned silence for 20 minutes as he lay on the ice convulsing and throwing up with his parents in attendence. He was later airlifted to Hamilton General hospital and is now in critical condition suffering from skull and facial fractures.
There is already debate about how clean the hit was, but who cares? Liambas was reckless, regardless of whether he hit Fanelli with his shoulder or elbow, and players (and potentially the league) should be accountable.
Accidents happen, and players expect to sustain reasonable injuries. But being run at by a guy at full speed because you have your head down or back turned to the play is not a necessary part of the game.
by eboy71 on Oct 31, 2009 1:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
But, but, if we allow fighting, players will be too afraid of the retaliation to do things like this!
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 31, 2009 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly! And if someone was just able to punch Jarko Ruuttu once in a while without getting an extra two minutes for instigating, he’d become such a nice guy on the ice!!
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Nov 1, 2009 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It would definitely alter his habits on the ice. Jarkko would have to, from time to time, think first about what he is about to do rather than just feel free to be a complete ass out there. Complaining about Jarkko? What about Avery?
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 Nov 2, 2009 9:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Avery…Ruutu…pick your pest. Doesnt matter, because fighting would have zero impact on their actions. According to hockeyfights.com – Avery had 5 fights last year, 6 year the before. Ruutu had 4 and 5, respectively. How many more would it take before either would start “thinking” about not being an ass?
This is one of the most likely misconceptions of the pro-fighting brigade – that there are all these players out there just waiting to be free to “police” each others actions, they just need to be allowed to.
You want to alter Avery’s jackass habits? You have three better options then fighting: (1) injure him severely, (2) penalize him severely, or (3) suspend him severely and hit him in the wallet.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Nov 2, 2009 3:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d much prefer someone to fight him than severely injure him. Avery may be a pest but there are better ways to deal with him than severely injure him ala Steve Moore. Sometimes a fight can be appropriate whereas an attempt to severely injure never is.
#’s 2 and 3 are the two options that make the most sense.
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 Nov 2, 2009 6:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, the best way to deal with Avery is to ignore him whenever possible. When he starts waving his stick in front of the goalie, put him into the box. He does it to get attention, and denying that to him is the only way to get him to stop.
Ten years from now, he’ll replace Dennis Rodman on whatever that reality show for has beens is.
by J. Michael Neal on Nov 2, 2009 8:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously I wasnt suggesting someone actually pull a Bertuzzi on Avery…but yes – #2 and #3 make the most sense. And that supports my point – I dont believe fighting has any deterrence effect on players actions whatsoever. People fought Chris Simon 2390482948234 times…and he still swung a stick at Ryan Hollweg’s chest. People have fought Avery…and he’s still a slimy pain in the ass on the ice. Deterrence will only occur when there are serious consequences – significant fines and significant suspensions (and even then wont be enough – because you’ll need significant pressure from the players on other players on teams in the NHLPA).
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Nov 3, 2009 12:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When the NHL figures out that rock hard shoulder pads with no give are part of the problem, something might actually get done. However, chances are it will take a death on national TV for something to happen.
Saw the hit on Ben Fanelli. More of the same.
by skatehack on Oct 31, 2009 2:26 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Open ice hits used to be shoulder to the chest, shoulder to shoulder, hip to hip (including the butt check that guys like Blake and Komisarek still use), with the occasional dirty knee to knee or the borderline roughing push with the gloves to the chest. The head rarely was involved, as players didn’t hit with an upwards trajectory. I don’t know if it’s because of players now all wearing helmets, or players having insanely protective (and hard) shoulder pads that the upwards trajectory towards the head has evolved into a part of the game.
You can say guys need to keep their head up, and that’s good practice for players for a variety of reasons, but it’s impossible for 20 players to play 60 full minutes without looking down at the puck every once in a while. Ladd could’ve hit him lower, but he didn’t. Fair enough, it’s generally accepted at this level, but there is a fundamental issue with open ice hitting that changed at some point in the past 20 years. I never see anyone hit like Rod Langway or Larry Robinson anymore. Even Chris Chelios never hit like this, but those guys were great hitters, even in open ice. Even Jeff Buekeboom never hit guys like this.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Oct 31, 2009 2:40 PM CDT reply actions 5 recs
Like Chelios’ cross-checks to the jaw of an opponent were sooo much cleaner than a hit like Ladd’s. Give me a break. Chelios during his time in Chicago was regarded as the dirtiest player in the NHL and he didn’t receive that reputation by being a choir boy as most often if he could do something to help his team he would and if it were him instead of Ladd the result would have been the same.
Remember Messier’s elbow on Modano? Bure on Churla? McSorely on Gilmour? There were plenty of incidents back then were players thrusted themselves towards their opponents head so don’t give me this ’didn’t happen back then’ garbage.
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 Nov 2, 2009 9:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Whoa, when did I say the guys didn’t play dirty back then? Gordie Howe’s elbows are legendary, and Richard’s stickwork is as well. I just said when they went for open ice hits, they didn’t aim for the head. Sometimes they went for the knees, which was very dirty. But when they went with their shoulder, they didn’t automatically hit upwards. You’d screw up your shoulder big time if you had done that back then with the consistency to which Colby Armstrong does it today.
And generally, back then, those elbows and cross checks were penalized. Again, not everything is called, but they were illegal and those players knew it. We’re talking generally legal checks that have huge reprecussions down the line.
I still don’t see many open ice hits today that simply don’t target the head. There are plenty of ways to hit guys hard without concussing them.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Nov 2, 2009 10:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My problem with this is the fact that we only seem concerned with these head shots in big hits such as this one. I saw quite a few other elbows to the head at this game last night, are they less important because nobody was rendered motionless because of it? If this is all about policing hits to the head, I’m fine with that. But let’s penalize the play and not the result. Send the message that any hit to the head is off limits, not just big open ice checks that end in hits to the head.
http://accordingtwomey.blogspot.com
by hawksfan21 on Oct 31, 2009 4:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely agreed. That hit on Toews last week was problematic, too, though my sympathy is a bit limited for anyone that comes out of the North Dakota program, since that’s exactly how they play there.
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 31, 2009 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i dunno
I’m inclined to agree with Don Cherry on this one. He didn’t charge. He didn’t leave his feet. He didn’t raise his stick.
He waited for him, and hit his man as he crossed the blue line.
i say clean hit.
Violent and rough? Absolutely. But that’s hockey and like it or not, people like that.
by pevans on Oct 31, 2009 7:50 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
The people that enjoy it should be made to work the nursing homes that the players will end up in.
by J. Michael Neal on Oct 31, 2009 10:07 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Interesting how so many people here are worried about the welfare of a human being that makes more money in one game than they make in an entire year. Some people here act as if it was there own children out there which is laughable. They’re grown men paid lots of money to play a game and if they get hurt then so be it but they’re paid to do so. There are risks involved in every sport and it happens as unfortunate as that sounds.
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 Nov 2, 2009 9:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting how so many people here are worried about the welfare of a human being that makes more money in one game than they make in an entire year.
What’s interesting is the way people strip others of their humanity just because they get paid well.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 2, 2009 3:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting how so many people here are worried about the welfare of a human being that makes more money in one game than they make in an entire year.
Not all of them. $2,000,000.00 divided by 82 games = $24,390.25. I make more than that.
I also don’t think that just because someone is paid well he should get injured for my amusement – same way I don’t buy items made by companies with business practices I don’t like.
(Or am I repeating myself again? Heaven forbid I be redundant and offend someone’s delicate grammatical sensibilities.)
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Nov 2, 2009 6:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting how so many people here are worried about the welfare of a human being that makes more money in one game than they make in an entire year
More money than you make, maybe, young’un. I make more money in a year than you have probably made in your entire life, yet I would be concerned if you were a budding NHL player putting yourself at the risk of unnecessary concussions.
by Gerald on Nov 2, 2009 6:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll add you to the list of low grade sociopaths.
by J. Michael Neal on Nov 2, 2009 8:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just because something is traditionally okay in hockey does not mean it needs to remain okay. Various economies in the world were built on slavery until it was realized how messed up and wrong it is like that. As I recall, some people were pretty upset about governments getting rid of laws that allowed that.
Hockey can be a fast, physical game without resulting in the all-too-frequent brain traumas that are prevalent now.
Silver Seven: the Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators blogs.
by DarrenM on Nov 1, 2009 9:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
so what was the correct play there?
Ladd should have poke checked the puck away from d’agostini as he left the zone? Or to take the body, just not the head?
I’m about as far as you can get from a meatheaded “woo hockey fight” fan of the sport but i’m loath to get rid of any physicality. I don’t want to see an NHL player get injured, ever, but bodychecking is an undeniable part of the sport’s appeal to me
At the end of the day, the collective wisdom in this thread is right. The NHL could get rid of these hits within a matter of weeks if they decided they want to. Hit to the head? Suspension. Without pay.
Watching the Leafs/Habs game on Saturday, I thought the same thing. I counted a half-dozen players being hit into the boards from behind. But nobody was injured, so who cares, right?
by pevans on Nov 2, 2009 10:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Or to take the body, just not the head?
Yes
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 2, 2009 3:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not one person on this thread suggested it wasn’t a “clean” hit. However, we’re almost all in the “not like it” category.
And Cherry and his cynically manipulative patriotism can stuff it.
I've been looking at the sky
by Back In Black on Nov 1, 2009 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't I already bring this up 5 days ago?
The question here shouldn’t be whether or not the hit delivered by Ladd was clean or not, or whether or not D’Agostini should or shouldn’t have had his head up. The real question is why did Ladd feel the need to hit D’Agostini in such a vicious manner? How many players are being laid out by these types of vicious hits so early in the season? That’s the problem.
I don’t see the benefit of absolutely maiming your opponent at any time in any manner. Sure it made the highlights but how did that actually help the Hawks in the long run? You could actually make the case with the injuries the Hawks are suffering right now that it hurt them immensely during the course of the game, which left the Hawks with only 10 forwards. Not smart. Will Ladd be suspeneded? Are you kidding, if Richards wasn’t then I seriously doubt that Ladd will either for both hits were very similar in terms in the force in which they were delivered.
The media needs to take some of the blame here as well as many hockey outlets that admired Scott Stevens for the types of vicious bodychecks he once delivered to his opponents, especially the one that basically ended Eric Lindros’ career. Just that alone has created the monster that is becoming the MMA finish to a bodycheck. Does anybody (the media) care about the concussions sustained in that sport? Don’t hear to much about it on NFL Primetime or Fox Sunday do we? It seems to be the nature of all sports to just treat it like “dirt off the shoulder” and become rhetorical in their response. The NHL is no different.
And there lies the biggest problem concerning hockey right there, as we have all seen that the NHL has never shown any leadership in becoming a trailblazer in any way. Rather than tackle the issue and take a stand they just hope it all goes away or just send out memo’s to all teams concering this issue asking them to take precautions but nothing more. It just loves to follow and only when MLB or the NFL finally come to terms with this issue and create some guidelines and boundries will the NHL follow suit. Until then, as hockey fans, we’ll just sit and wait until the next victim comes along which has been happening at a rapid rate. But when it stops it will be placed on the backburner just like so many other issues concerning this sport unless it starts to effect the wallets of the owners.
It’s sad to see and I only hope the D’Agostini is O.K. and returns to the game he loves symptom-free. The same goes for Booth, Tucker, Toews, and others that have already suffered concussions from the ‘hit to the head’ bodycheck.
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 Nov 1, 2009 11:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I have been saying for quite some time that the huge check has become the hockey equivalent to the NBA monster jam, and I maintain the validity of that analogy.
It gets a player on the sports highlights, often when that player is someone who is not going to be on a goal highlight. And then there is the validiation that said player gets by being picked on the latest Don Cherry Violence-athon and selection for Coaches Corner. People who assume that players do not intuitively connect that opportunity to notoriety and higher salaries for said player are fooling themselves.
by Gerald on Nov 1, 2009 2:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Some how though
Last night Cherry completely missed the Kitchener incident. Funny, considering how long and loud he lobbied to get an OHL franchise and how he used to trumpet his superior hockey knowledge on his soap box week after week (even though reality and statistics proved otherwise).
by Exit716 on Nov 1, 2009 10:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
FYI
Any hawks fan who defends this hit, but was furious at the Kronwall-Havlat hit last year must proceed directly to jail. Do not Pass Go. Do not collect $200. Lose all credibility.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 2, 2009 10:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Agree with you on that as both were very identical. Vicious, yet clean on how it was delivered with the same question being asked after the hit “Did he need to hit him like that?”
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 Nov 2, 2009 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We need to make one for Ladd now.
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 Nov 2, 2009 10:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent!
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 Nov 2, 2009 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
