The tag team hit on Boll

by James Mirtle on Oct 7, 2009 12:31 PM CDT Comment 40 comments

TSN's Bob McKenzie posted a lengthy bit on this hit last night, and there's some interesting discussion points in there:

So, yeah, maybe I would have felt a little better if Hordichuk had been suspended by the NHL, but not much. Because the larger issue for me is how accepted a hit like Hordichuk's has become. I would suggest the NHL community – from the league's hockey operations to the managers to the coaches to the players to the Players' Association – should at least bat around this notion of what type of hitting is acceptable and what's not. Is it really the end of the world as we know it to perhaps consider that the hitters need to exercise judgment before they deliver their hit? Or has the game become so much about hitting and "finishing the check" that it's done with no regard whatsoever on the consequences?

McKenzie's become an advocate on concussions in hockey the past few years as his son, Mike, has battled the injury during his playing career, and it's a good thing given he can address the issue from some such a high profile role in the NHL media.

The fact is that there are so many incidents like the one above that get ignored completely and still way, way too many concussions every year. As I've mentioned before, somewhere between 7 to 12 per cent of the NHL is concussed every year, and the long-term implications of that have now been well documented in other sports.

And it's only a matter of time before we see similar articles written on the issue in hockey.

0 recs | Comment 40 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

the NHL community – from the league’s hockey operations to the managers to the coaches to the players to the Players’ Association – should at least bat around this notion of what type of hitting is acceptable and what’s not. Is it really the end of the world as we know it to perhaps consider that the hitters need to exercise judgment before they deliver their hit?

No, it wouldn’t be the end of the world. But too many prefer simple mantras (“finish your check,” “keep your head up,” etc.) as the end-all, be-all: Those are good, eternal guiding principles, but they also serve as pretense to ignore how the on-ice conditions have changed due to faster, bigger bodies flying around out there that make reaction time (for hitter and hit-recipient) so much shorter. They provide cover to end the discussion before it even starts.

The league and players could easily sit down and explicitly discuss dangerous/vulnerable situations that should and can be avoided without “pansifying” the game. But it reminds me of the obstruction scourge of the late ‘90s, early ’00s: Everybody sees it and knows it’s affecting the game, yet it took a league crisis for them to actually sit down and explicitly do something about it.

Meanwhile, it’s been documented (as it is again in that GQ article) that concussions can have far more serious long-term consequences than just your favorite player missing a few months. Far more serious than a permanent limp or bum shoulder in life after hockey. We’re talking about people’s brains here. But it’s hard to even discuss this aspect without being shouted down by the “oh, you just hate fighting” or “you’ll take the physical side out” chorus.

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

by Dominik on Oct 7, 2009 1:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree

One of the places the NHL should really look at is helmet technology, and making sure players have their helmets on rather tight.

I love Ryan Smyth, but his helmet strap was so loose he may as well have not been wearing a helmet at all. These are small things that will help reduce concussions and affect game play 0.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 7, 2009 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As noted in the GQ article (thank you for linking to that, James), helmets have limited value in protecting against concussions. They only protect the brain to the extent that they slow down the velocity with which it hits the inside of the skull. It can only do this by cushioning the blow and reducing the acceleration/deceleration of the head when it runs into something. More, the helmet does very little to protect against whiplash.

Helmets are good and useful things, but they can’t be the solution to the concussion problem.

by J. Michael Neal on Oct 7, 2009 6:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree

I was saying it’s a nice place to start, not the end all solution.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 8, 2009 8:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another big factor is mouthpieces. Some players use them, most don’t. And some that do only use them as a remedy for oral fixations (I’m looking at you Brett Clark).

They’re the “real men don’t wear helmets” of this generation of players.

2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Nothing Inspirational Comes to Mind

by Mike @ MHH on Oct 8, 2009 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

even though I understand not using them. It’s pretty difficult to talk with a mouthpiece in, and hockey is extremely dependent on oral communication. I remember playing soccer with a mouth guard in to protect my teeth (braces) and I tossed it after about 45 seconds because I couldn’t talk.

Finding a type of mouthpiece that doesn’t hinder communication should be a priority to the NHL.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 8, 2009 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve gotten a concussion from hockey and it sucks. It felt like I had a really bad hangover for a couple days (forgetful, tired, grouchy) but I didn’t know I was acting that way. It’s like your brain is too busy thinking about how much it hurts to focus on anything else.

There was a similar tag team hit in last night’s Kings game against Davis Drewiske but he was luckily unhurt. I don’t think there’s much you can do to change the player’s behavior (since they’ve been raised to play that way since the time they were little), but you can change how they’re punished. Why don’t more people get thrown out of games? Some guy does something unsafe like hit an already tied up opponent, give him a penalty for roughing or interference and then kick him out. It doesn’t have to be a major to be a misconduct. I think players would hate not playing so much that they might show a little more caution.

The West Coast is the Best Coast.

by RudyKelly on Oct 7, 2009 2:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

When Pat LaFontaine was making the promo rounds for doing the NYC marathon, he talked about how he was in a funk for six months after one concussion, how he wasn’t himself, was depressed — and didn’t even realize it. His doctor basically told him after the second major bout with PCS, “You came back once, but you can’t do it again.”

I think you’re right about unlearning things the players have been raised to do. A big part of changing things would be refocusing how hitting is taught at the youth level, where pubescent rage reigns.

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

by Dominik on Oct 7, 2009 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two words: Corey Koskie

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ge-koskie022409&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

by J. Michael Neal on Oct 7, 2009 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is this way of playing still taught in pee-wee and bantam leagues in Canada? If not, when does it start? In juniors? (I live in the States, so I see very few games below the AHL level.)

I really think that hits after a player no longer has the puck should be outlawed and a serious penalty (jn game, suspension, whatever) should be levied. I understand that the game is fast and decision-making needs to be lightning fast, but these are the best players in the world, and they’ll be able to adjust.

Two of the best players of the 80s/90s had their careers shortened by this (LaFontaine and Lindros). Is it going to take someone even bigger (though Lindros was as big as it got) today to make a change?

by RCheli on Oct 7, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It sounds as if Tim Tebow is planning on playing football this weekend. I hate to say it, but he could be the example.

by J. Michael Neal on Oct 7, 2009 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tim Tebow is a huge difference, because college sports are a different animal.

You’re more likely to see pro sports teams actually err on the side of caution these days to protect their investments, especially monetarily.

Tebow, on the other hand, I highly doubt the coaches and fans even care about his future (limited as it is) in the NFL. All they care about is beating LSU this weekend, and they can’t do that without Mr. Tebow.

by Afino on Oct 8, 2009 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re more likely to see pro sports teams actually err on the side of caution these days to protect their investments, especially monetarily.

That’s not the impression I get. Coaches in sports still seem to take the view that a player just got his bell rung, and he should go back in as soon as he can. I think the only solution to getting players off the field is to have independent doctors (certainly not employed by the teams, and possibly not even by the leagues) evaluating every head injury.

My guess is that the reason the NFL is so resistant to admitting that there’s a problem is that football simply couldn’t exist in its current format if they did. I can’t figure out any way you could have line play without cracking heads against each other on every play. Look at the problems they have just trying inadequately to protect quarterbacks. Now try to impose those rules on everyone else.

by J. Michael Neal on Oct 8, 2009 8:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

hate to be the doom-and-gloom guy here but

As with the “obstruction” stuff, the NHL has pretty conclusively demonstrated (a) that they think plays like this are an issue, but (b) they won’t actually do anything to make them less of an issue.

I’m speaking as someone who really likes the grinding, physical side of hockey, but unfortunately, we all know what will ultimately make the NHL do something about this. It will probably take a player getting killed by one of these hits. I believe that day is coming, and that it will be the last straw for the casual fans that the league needs to survive.

Just my 2 cents, anyway.

P is for Latrobe.

by holiday park on Oct 7, 2009 2:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Whatever you do, holiday, don’t ever stop being cheerful. I don’t know what we’d do without it.

Good point though about the league saying “We know we have a problem” and then not doing anything about it. If the PA could get a cure for their collective case of rectal-cranial inversion, this would be a worker health issue that they could effectively force-feed the NHL.

2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Nothing Inspirational Comes to Mind

by Mike @ MHH on Oct 8, 2009 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Assuming they were the ones interested in forcing it in the first place. It’s always been my understanding that it’s the other way around. Figure that out.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.

by Doogie2K on Oct 8, 2009 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like I said, rectal-cranial inversion.

"II know everyone has their own opinion, but your opinion is wrong. "

by Mike @ MHH on Oct 8, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Being a successful big time hockey player requires having an irrational willingness to risk physical injury. You’ve selected 600 people in part by finding those who don’t think about the dangers of a concussion.

by J. Michael Neal on Oct 8, 2009 8:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Time to reconsider 'finishing your check'

Remember this article from Dryden years ago:
http://battleofontario.blogspot.com/2007/03/finishing-your-check.html

Some key points:

Finishing your check" is so familiar a phrase it seems it must have been part of the original game. It wasn’t. It means, as a checker, going after the puck carrier so that even if he makes a pass, you keep going and run into him, too late to stop the pass, but not too late to stop him from continuing up the ice with the play. This is allowed. Indeed, it’s a strategy coaches insist upon. Yet if a player is hit before a pass gets to him, this is interference, and everyone agrees.
…..

What would happen if “finishing your check” was understood as interference? If a checker faced the challenge of getting to the puck carrier in time, or risking a penalty? If a checker was made responsible for his speed, if he had to have it under control, able to go in fast enough to make the hit but slow enough to stop or veer off?

……

by Don @ BoO on Oct 7, 2009 3:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

So, to draw an interference call, all you have to do is see when the guy is coming and then dump the puck somewhere before impact? ;)

by Malurous on Oct 7, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Heh, sarcasm taken. But to that point:

all you have to do is see when the guy is coming

I love a good hit when the puck-carrier does see the hitter coming and is forced to get rid of the puck — maybe even take a penalty himself — to brace for it. But how many dangerous hits happen because someone has no idea the hitter’s coming?

I don’t argue for protecting players who turn a blind eye to obvious dangers (like turning into the boards to create a checking-from-behind situation), but I also don’t really respect players whose trick of the trade is to catch only the unsuspecting victim. That seems to be the parlor game of the unskilled skater: “I’ve no chance of catching the puck carrier in a reasonable amount of time, but boy if I can get there when he doesn’t see me, I can really clean his clock.”

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

by Dominik on Oct 7, 2009 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree that blindsided hits are the worst, and the guys who do those for a living are some of the biggest wimps in hockey.

by Malurous on Oct 7, 2009 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They’re not wimps, Mal. They’re douchenozzles. I believe the French call them Phaneufs.

2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Nothing Inspirational Comes to Mind

by Mike @ MHH on Oct 8, 2009 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So, to draw an interference call, all you have to do is see when the guy is coming and then dump the puck somewhere before impact? ;)

In a word, yes. That means that you’re either good enough to make a good pass quickly, or the threat of the check did its job and made you dump the puck and disrupting your offense.

The real value, though, as Dryden says in the excerpt posted, is that calling this tightly means that checkers are going to have to do their hitting at a speed low enough that they can pull off if the puck gets passed before he gets there. It’s this secondary effect that would do the most to reduce injuries. There is no solution that does not involve making the collisions less violent.

by J. Michael Neal on Oct 7, 2009 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So what constitutes a “good pass”? Or is randomly giving up the puck, timed just before impact, enough to draw a penalty?

I wholeheartedly agree with the part that you bolded. But frankly, the questions I have posted also need a good solution or it will lead to either significantly less physical play or totally reckless penalty drawing abuse by pussies.

Everyone forgive my sensitivity in this matter, I’m a Finn so if I want to watch a game in an arena that means watching a league that has automatic penalties for hits from behind (leading to “let’s turn to face the boards at the last split-second before impact to draw the penalty” situations) and automatic penalties for headshots (leading to “let’s crouch at the last split-second before impact to draw the penalty” situations). I just really, really, really don’t want to see the NHL becoming anything like that.

by Malurous on Oct 7, 2009 7:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Referee’s judgment is important here. However, I think that stopping concussions is so important that, even if all of the things you fear come to pass, it still needs to be done. I’m not interested in watching a sport that leaves its players in the condition that the NFL does. I will stop watching if it reaches that level.

by J. Michael Neal on Oct 7, 2009 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But on the other hand (just playing devil’s advocate), when the obstruction craze was being hashed out during the lockout, many people were complaining that it was the referee’s discretion that was at the root of the problem. The NHL already had rules in place regarding obstruction, but every zebra called them differently. The emphasis coming out of the lockout was supposed to be to remove judgement from the refs on that issue and make it a clear cut case. Are headshots and dangerous hit’s that clear-cut of an issue that it wouldn’t degenerate into some refs letting stuff go and other calling everything?

2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Nothing Inspirational Comes to Mind

by Mike @ MHH on Oct 8, 2009 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If they are, then we get rid of ref’s discretion and live with the game that way. It’s better than the alternative.

by J. Michael Neal on Oct 8, 2009 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would argue that a player should still be given some time for error, because in some situations, even if they try to get out of the way, they’re just too close, and do more harm than good in trying (i.e. knee-on-knee collisions), but what if it were half a “Mississippi”? That seems like enough time to bail on a hit without creating a dangerous situation.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.

by Doogie2K on Oct 8, 2009 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I keep laughing at the thought of a guy with a mouthguard in his mouth pronouncing “vwon Mishishhippi” as he goes in for the check.

Anyway, enjoyed this discussion. The points about necessarily reducing the violence of impacts and reducing the amount of ref discretion are pretty big, I think. With some good thought and debate, I bet a good solution is out there.

You’d think if we can toss around reasonable points and counterpoints in a quick online forum like this that the NHL and NHLPA could sit down and … naah. Crazy talk.

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

by Dominik on Oct 8, 2009 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, that is crazy.

"II know everyone has their own opinion, but your opinion is wrong. "

by Mike @ MHH on Oct 8, 2009 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Finishing your check is one thing. Checking from behind is another. And that was a clear check from behind.

by Resolute on Oct 7, 2009 3:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes, this case belongs to the checking from behind category, but there have been numerous concussions not caused by a check from behind. Those high flying checks where the hitter launches himself into the opponent with a rising shoulder/forearm probably caused as many if not more concussions.

by SJKel on Oct 7, 2009 5:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Those high flying checks where the hitter launches himself into the opponent with a rising shoulder/forearm probably caused as many if not more concussions.

Bobby Orr has been pointing out the rise of this type of check, which is greatly increasing head injuries in hockey. He argues that youth hockey are being taught to “jump” into your hits to maximize impact, rather than aim straight as in the past. Just as the uppercut punch serves to knock the head back, hits that angle upwards are the main concerns with concussions.

Supporter of the Sergei Berezin "Give and Go" - You give me puck, then you go to hell

by bkblades on Oct 7, 2009 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m no doctor but I’d even argue that this type of hit could be more dangerous than the elbow to the face variety. Anyone who’s gotten himself knocked out by a high check that targets the chin and goes up to knock the head backwards with such a low (as far as head goes) point of impact knows how that feels. Sure had me holding back vomit for a couple of weeks if I tried to exert myself.

by Malurous on Oct 7, 2009 6:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

To add, those high-aiming checks are currently legal, unlike checking from behind. In this particular incidents, Hordichuk should have let up after his teammate had already hit Boll, causing Boll to face toward the boards. I call that dirty play even though I’m a Canuck fan.

by SJKel on Oct 7, 2009 6:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great post, James, and good discussion from everyone.

I’ve got a brief piece going up tomorrow on Silver Seven about how I’m blown away that only 11 NHL players (that I’m aware of) have adopted the M11 helmet. Such a simple step to take to help avoid concussions, and few are doing it.

by DarrenM on Oct 7, 2009 8:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

This is kind of what I was talking about with helmet technology. NFL players (who have bigger risk of concussions, are slow to adopt the Riddell Revolution, and the Schutt Ion 4 is almost non-existant on NFL, College and HS sidelines.

I think requiring these types of helmets is the first step

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 8, 2009 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The danger with the NHL putting a band-aid on the problem by requiring a certain type of helmet and not addressing the larger issue is that it will give a green light to the douchebags of the league to hit higher and higher because now they think everybody is protected. The players have to get involved and self police this thing if any solution is going to stick. Unfortunately, it will take an Ovechkin or Crosby getting laid out by some anklebender before the players likely get fired up about it. And knowing the PA, it will take several such instances in close proximity for the message to really get through.

2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Nothing Inspirational Comes to Mind

by Mike @ MHH on Oct 8, 2009 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs