The Don of head hits
by James Mirtle on Dec 20, 2009 5:22 PM CST
50 comments
Ultimately, perhaps, the final word on workplace safety, specifically head injuries, won’t belong to commentators or even the NHL. TSN’s Bob McKenzie said during the Friday night show, "Whether the NHL likes it or not, it’s going to be dragged kicking and screaming into an era of legislation because this is becoming an athletic pandemic.
"What’s going to happen with (U.S.) Congress being involved, medical authorities being involved, it’s going to go beyond the game of hockey. It’s going to become societal, and, when that happens, people in hockey are going to lose a little control about how the rules are governed. It’s going to become illegal. Within five years, you are not going to be allowed to hit anybody in the head."
If you haven't been keeping up with Bill's new blog, I highly recommend it as he's been pumping out some good material and media commentary since his "retirement" from The Globe.
I've got a lot of time for Don Cherry — a lot more, I think, than many in the media — but I also always think of him in context of his era, of when he played the game. You can find Grapes entertaining and watchable and the like and still vehemently disagree with his views, as I do on head shots and all things in that vein.
McKenzie is right, of course. The game is going to be changed, if not by those in it, then by outside forces. The players themselves are pushing for more movement on these issues, and it's yet to come:
Glenn Healy can see another pattern emerging. As the former director of player affairs for the National Hockey League Players' Association, he tried last year to have league general managers push for stiffer penalties for players who blindside unknowing opponents in a vulnerable position.
"We said, ‘The players want penalties for hits from the blindside.' The GMs looked at us like we had three heads," he said.
Is Cherry part of the problem? Sure. But he's got so much company that it hardly seems fair to single out one voice from a united chorus against altering the rules for the good of its participants (once they're long out of the spotlight).
Maybe Charles Tator is jumping into the limelight here by calling out the NHL's most famous advocate, but so what? At least this is on the news agenda again, making headlines.
Tator, after all, has an important voice in the discussion. He's the man behind these numbers, data that didn't receive nearly the attention it deserved last year, and bringing Cherry into the equation is likely far more effective than relying on the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences to do it.
0 recs |
50 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
Yeah, cause it doesn’t matter if what you’re saying about a person is right, so long as it makes the news.
We require, as a team, proper levels of pugnacity, testosterone, truculence and belligerence.
by Belligerent Burkie on Dec 20, 2009 5:26 PM CST reply actions
When you’re defending David Koci, you’re not right.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Dec 20, 2009 6:10 PM CST up reply actions
As an Avs fan
I still agree with this. I can’t fathom how Koci didn’t get suspended. (Sacco did make him a healthy scratch the next game though, which may or may not have had anything to do with the hit on Green. Probably not)
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 21, 2009 11:21 AM CST up reply actions
Not a head shot though.
We require, as a team, proper levels of pugnacity, testosterone, truculence and belligerence.
by Belligerent Burkie on Dec 21, 2009 12:36 PM CST up reply actions
But a dangerous play and a dangerous hit that shouldn’t have been laid and should’ve been suspended. Same shit, different pile.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Well said James. It also doesn’t help matters when Colin Campbell doesn’t want to help punish those responsible for some of these hits as well. Slapping Ruutu on the wrist with a fine for gunning for Kaleta’s head is an absolute crock. This is one matter where the league can’t be talking out of both sides of their mouth.
It is amusing though that while Cherry is lauding Matt Greene in that video, there’s one shot of him hitting a guy up high in the head in the corner and then another of Greene boarding a player at center ice.
I would posit that, whether or not you are the only one, being the one who has a soapbox from which to preach the loudest and to the most people carries an enhanced responsibility.
I would agree in theory...
But I can’t support Tator’s assertion that Cherry’s influence is so great as to warrant blame for the supposed negative consequences of his opinions and yet its not great enough to effect the positive changes he supports. If his influence was so great as to assume blame for this systemic problem then why hasn’t it been great enough to push no-touch icing into the game? He’s been ranting about it for the better part of a decade and yet nothing has changed.
Cherry isn’t perfect but I have problems with anyone choosing to ignorantly scapegoat one individual, no matter how influential their profile, when the problem is so much greater than the words of one man.
I don’t know that I would scapegoat Cherry, but I think he has some responsibility. The problem is that there isn’t symmetry between his positive and negative effects. The positive things he advocates would all need be positively passed as rules changes. The negative things don’t; they just require the chance at fame through highlights to permeate throughout the game. They require positive rules changes to put an end to. We can just slide into the negative aspects, and that’s much more likely to happen.
by J. Michael Neal on Dec 20, 2009 11:02 PM CST up reply actions
Speaking of talking out of both sides of the mouth, I love how the NHLPA is fighting mandatory visors tooth and nail, but wants stronger rules on head hits. Seriously?
Houston greatly overstates the threat of outside pressures, however. The US Congress is very unlikely to ever care about the issue of head shots in the NHL because there is no political points to be scored there. This isn’t like “cleaning up” the “great American past time”. The pressure will come from fans and players, not government.
But it’s not only happening in the NHL. The NFL has its own concussion problems these days, and I can see there being some overlap in any look at Congress might take at the NFL.
There’s already been a Congressional hearing at which the NFL was raked over the coals. One of the more interesting comments (by Rep Dan Lundgren (R-CA) was that "the N.F.L. and its media partners had to discourage the celebration of overly violent play. "
No more Rockem-Sockem hockey, Don. In fact the whole intro to HNIC might have to be cleaned up.
But hearings are hearings and for those who look to the US Congress to actually do something meaningful on this issue, here’s a cautionary tale. In 1982, the AMA (American Medical Association) voted to work for a ban on boxing (after the death of a Korean fighter in a bout with Ray Mancini in Las Vegas). It took 14 years to get Congress to act and the result, the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, is so watered down and unenforceable that many states simply ignore it. Since 1996, John McCain has introduced a bill just about every year (including in this congressional session) to establish a Federal Boxing Commission. Every year its been shot down by lobbying from casino and tribal interests.
If the miserable, dying sport of boxing can muster enough support to block regulation, year after year, imagine what the NFL can bring to bear to stall, water down, or defeat any legislation that goes beyond the merely cosmetic.
by Big Picture Guy on Dec 20, 2009 10:04 PM CST up reply actions
Very true. However, it does have jurisdiction over the NHL, which amounts to the same thing in this one context.
by J. Michael Neal on Dec 21, 2009 11:06 AM CST up reply actions
While true, Rockem Sockem also is not a glorification of dirty play. The pussification of hockey is proceeding as planned, but as of right now, we don’t stick players in bubbles. No reason not to celebrate the aspects of the game that make it popular, including physical play.
My original comment was not to be taken seriously. As the rest of my post indicates, I think its highly unlikely that the US congress will ever do anything substantial about the issue of concussions in contact sports and even less likely that they would directly address the issue in the NHL: a politician gets no media face time in the US for going after hockey and Henry Waxman wouldn’t know the difference between a puck and a chicken salad sandwich.
It’s worth pointing out that some in the media and the league itself profit from “violence” in the game. I don’t begrudge Cherry that (and actually I enjoy him most of the time) since he “trademarked” that part of the game years ago. Others are more hypocritical about it, though.
I agree with JMN that the NHL would have to act in some way if a rights-holder like HNIC was violating a law in either country but I think its far-fetched to imagine such a law ever being written.
by Big Picture Guy on Dec 21, 2009 2:48 PM CST up reply actions
Horse crap. It is most certainly a glorification of cheap shots, which (to be brutally honest about it) hockey has glorified since as long as i have been on this planet. Face it – hockey is not truly a “warrior’s game”, if you get my drift, and it never has been. The only difference now is that cheap shottery carries a much heavier price, amplified as it has been by the increases in the factors of speed and mass.
Ad by the way, Res, using pejorative terms like “pussification” in an attempt to colour your argument are beneath you. Same for the euphemism of “physical play”.
Frankly, what is on Cherry’s DVDs is no different than what is on nhl.com’s highlights, TSN’s, Sportsnet’s, etc. It’s just too convenient to single out Cherry, as this doctor sure did. And while it may seem paradoxical to some, Cherry is someone I would actually plant firmly in the category of using his pulpit to advance the need for greater safety and respect in the game.
Highlighting big bodychecks and fights are not bad for the game. Some of what he shows on his tapes are borderline, but so to is every highlight package I’ve ever seen every team produce. So yes, I don’t see any reason not to glorify the physicality of the sport, because it does play a major role in the game.
As far as the pussification of the game goes, I fear the day that the NHL gets to the point of punishing any blow that involves the head, regardless of the circumstances. I’m not looking forward to the stories that will emerge when some idiot, thinking he has a protective bubble because of the rules, gets himself clobbered by suddenly lunging for a puck when someone is bearing down on him. The value of individual responsibility on the part of the player getting hit, while often mocked, simply cannot be ignored or someone will die on the ice.
The league absolutely has to work to take blatantly dirty hits out of the game. But when every single big hit results in calls for players to be massively suspended, whether the hit is dirty or not, then yes, I will refer to the movement in such a pejorative term. There is no more accurate way to describe it.
Describing the movement that way does nothing to advance the conversation. You do that, and you just end up with both parties having their fingers in their ears. You and Mike Milbury enjoy your echo chamber, okay?
…pull it off the guy’s foot and hit him with it?
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Frankly, what is on Cherry’s DVDs is no different than what is on nhl.com’s highlights, TSN’s, Sportsnet’s, etc.
Fine, but the question is which is the chicken and which is the egg, is it not? You are old enough to remember when sports highlights concentrated on goals. IMO, TSN et al followed the lead of Cherry, not vice versa and not simultaneously either.
I don’t see any reason not to glorify the physicality of the sport, because it does play a major role in the game.
“Physicality”. Now THAT is a word to be mocked. What a tidy little euphemism that it has turned out to be. It is so useful to justify any number of things.
Even using the little pet term of the moment, it has absolutely, positively ZERO to do with “physicality”. It has to do with viciousness and cheapshotting. Nothing more, nothing less. It certainly has nothing to do with manliness (as you seem to think it does by using a term like pussification).
Own your preferences, Res. You like your hockey to include viciousness and cheapshotting. Don’t hide behind pretty little terms.
I do love the idea that legislating against cheapshotting means that players will be LESS safe. Priceless.
The league has already legislated against cheapshotting. Enforcement is part of the problem. Pitiful penalties and suspensions for such plays has been a long term issue, especially under Colin Campbell. 20 games for a broken neck. 3 games to Hatcher for an elbow to the head of Matthew Lombardi that cost the latter nearly a full year. Ovechkin getting away with numerous dirty hits before the league finally does something. Ruutu deliberately injuring people without a suspension. Yeah, no, that is not what I want to see.
Equipment is another. And to bring us back to what Don Cherry encourages, he has been crusading against the type of equipment and padding players are wearing for years. Everyone is going around in steel-like armour that makes the threat to injure greater. So tell me, where is the league, the union and the equipment manufacturers here? The helmet that Messier is pushing is a great start, but the elbow and shoulder pads could use a serious look as well.
Ultimately though, the difference between you and I is that I believe in individual responsibility on both sides of the hit. If someone puts their head down in a dangerous spot and gets popped, it isn’t automatically a dirty hit. It isn’t automatically clean either, but the “guilty until proven innocent” attitude is rather interesting, and in your case especially, disappointing.
They’ve just got to get concussions down – and at this point, it doesn’t matter to me how they do it. I don’t think Stajan was making a particularly egregious play here; he obviously wasn’t attempting to draw a penalty.
It’s an interesting question how you protect his head on this play.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Dec 24, 2009 2:03 PM CST up reply actions
My clock just stopped
because I’m agreeing with Gerald.
Rock Em Sock Em is hockey violence porn. Cherry is the purveyor. CBC is his pimp.
When violence fetishists lack a reasonable defence for the latest on-ice incident, they resort to ad hominems like “you’re a p$ssy for hating hitting.” It’s school yard taunt learned at the foot of the master, Grapes himself.
by garth the hoser on Dec 21, 2009 11:08 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
While true, Rockem Sockem also is not a glorification of dirty play.
Maybe not; I don’t watch. What it is is a glorification of injury causing play. I guess you get your thrills watching someone stagger to the bench because his brain is no longer able to tell which way gravity is pulling, just so long as its within the definition of the rules. I don’t. If taking bodychecking completely out of the game is the only way to stop the escalation in injuries, then that’s what needs to happen. If you enjoy watching people hurt each other, watch UFC.
The pussification of hockey is proceeding as planned
What is it with this metaphor? “Pussification” is a bad thing? I happen to really like female genitalia.
by J. Michael Neal on Dec 22, 2009 5:29 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t know about the NHL being dragged into court or in front of Congress. I think all Leagues are going to react to however the NFL ends up deciding what to do about concussions and head shots. The retired football players with all sorts of brain damage and repercussions from years of abuse have been a growing black eye for them.
"So basically, the Stats make no sense whatsoever."
I thought the NFL's new policy was to fine the victim
Though I probably misunderstood what I read on the subject
I still dont see how this is defending Koci at all.
I see this as a safety advisory. Watch your ass when you are playing the puck near the boards. Don’t turn your back on charging players.
Had Green had his head up, he might have avoided the hit, he might have defended himself.
Don is trying to teach all the young hockey players out there that they have to keep their heads up and pay attention.
I dont see how that absolves Koci for the hit
Puns, Innuendo and Bad Spelling, Yes We Got That
by JaredFromLondon on Dec 20, 2009 9:50 PM CST reply actions
If Koci hadn’t been a jerkface, Green might have avoided the hit, too. Cherry went on and on about what Green needed to do to avoid the hit, and said squat about how Koci shouldn’t have hit him like that. If that’s not absolving Koci, I don’t know what is.
It’s – to use a cruder and much worse example – akin to saying that nothing would have happened to that woman, if she wasn’t in that part of town at 2am and wasn’t dressed the way she was.
But the blame where it belongs: on the perpetrator.
by dzuunmod on Dec 20, 2009 10:56 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Truth
But if what Ron mentioned, about Green being prone to “show the numbers” on more than a few occasions, then would it be that wrong to compare the situation to a girl who repeatedly attends frat parties, administering her own Rohipnol each time, then takes off her clothes and complains that she was raped on the fouth occasion?
We’re getting awfully far offtopic here (and I know I invited this to some extent) but I think if a woman is drugged to the point where she loses control over her faculties – even if she did the drugging herself – the thing to do is look after her and anyone who does otherwise is a pretty lousy excuse for a human being.
Sure, it’s not smart, but it doesn’t shift the blame at all.
All I’m saying is that, if MacLean’s characterization of Green is accurate, then he doesn’t make the best candidate to fend off the keep-your-head-up crowd.
With apologies to Cherry’s incomparable Stop-Sign campaign, I don’t want to see the league turn into a game of Red-Light-Green-Light, where intentionally turning your back at the last second absolves you of all responsability.
I’m not saying that that is what Green did here, but he certainly didn’t take any measures to protect himself. Just hug the boards and Koci bounces off him, back turned or not.
This is really not the best example for my argument, but there have been cases where a player seems to be putting himself in harm’s way in order to draw a boarding call.
Green was playing the puck
In the OPPOSITE direction.
Unless Green has eyes in the back of his head, how is he supposed to prepare himself for this hit ?
Some of you Grapes apologists are really out on a limb when you start making the claim that guys are intentionally trying to draw a penalty. I mean, give your empty heads a shake. You can draw a penalty by diving or faking a hook or any other number of harmless ways. Why would you put you head on the chopping block for a less than 1-in-5 chance your team might score on the ensuiing power-play (if one is called at all).
I mean, really.
by garth the hoser on Dec 21, 2009 11:13 PM CST up reply actions
If anything, call me a Ron MacLean apologist
I clearly said I do not think Green did anything wrong here. Only that if Green is known to use his metaphorical Grapes-issued stop sign sticker, then he makes for a less-than-ideal prosecution witness if I’m lobbying to curb hits from behind.
And spare me the trite eyes-in-the-back-of-his-head crap. Green knew Koci was there – he turned to look before he played the puck. So forget about Koci’s actions for a minute. Green could have sidled up to the boards in a safer posture, is all I said. That lesson is widely taught beginning Bantam, and if MacLean says the guy is known to be careless in this way, then maybe a minor cut to the face will wake him up.
Of course Koci deserved the penalty, the game misconduct, and even a suspension. Why would you even assume I felt otherwise?
I mean, really.
Take it up with Ron MacLean, dude. After all, he’s the one who promised video evidence, but couldn’t deliver. All I did was assume that Ron knew what he was talking about, and then posit that someone of your strong opinion might not want to keep citing the Mike Green hit, because you’d be wise to vet out a better poster boy.
As amazing as this sounds, Matthew Barnaby has been the voice of reason on this subject.
He made an absolutely fantastic point on Friday night; you can NEVER, not 100% remove the risk of a concussion from the game. Even if you removed all elements of body contact from the game, you’d still get the occasional concussion from someone losing an edge and crashing into the end boards, or two players running into another.. (Both things that happen frequently in the game, and result in concussions.)
You can, however, make the game safer by getting rid of the chickenshit head-hunting plays. Headshots should be a 2 minute penalty if it is an inadvertant hit to the head, and a 5 minute major, game misconduct, and minimum 5 game suspension (which escalates for repeat offenders) for an intentional head shot. Now of course, that does create the problem of differentiating between an intentional and unintentional hit to the head, but the replay technology we have at our disposal should make it pretty clear which was which.
The entire art of bodychecking doesn’t have to be thrown out the window, just because some people have no regard for the safety of their opponents (who just happen to be IN THEIR UNION) and throw dangerous and illegal hits to the head.
Resident Capologist
That’s the best line of reasoning in my book (you can’t get rid of concussions, but you can reduce them by making the game safer). Alas, acknowledging shades of grey never gets the attention that extremism does. Amazing how often “We have a concussion problem, we should look into it” gets translated into “YOU WANT TO TAKE HITTING OUT OF THE GAME!!!1” (I’ve yet to meet a hockey fan who has said, “Gee, this game would be great without checking,” yet that straw man is all over the place.)
But actually addressing the intricacies of the topic doesn’t make for good 60-second segments on Hot Stove or Coach’s Corner.
Lighthouse Hockey: Eyes on Tavares, mug full of Moulson.
I’ve yet to meet a hockey fan who has said, "Gee, this game would be great without checking," yet that straw man is all over the place.
raises hand
I’d phrase it, “This game would still be great even if you eliminated checking,” but I’m at least in the ballpark. I watch a lot of women’s NCAA hockey, and it’s fantastic. It’s a different game, but still a blast to watch.
Look, all things being equal, I love to watch good checking, too, but they aren’t equal. Players are getting seriously hurt the way the game is played now. It’s happening at a rate, and with specific types of injuries, that’s not acceptable. Cutting back, way back, on the number of concussions, has to happen.
by J. Michael Neal on Dec 22, 2009 5:33 PM CST up reply actions
James, how can a knowledgeable hockey person such as yourself have any time for Don Cherry?
His “time” passed on well over a decade ago. It’s a shame he still has a voice in Canadian hockey, and I cringe every time I hear him give an opinion.
There are a lot of player safety issues that Don Cherry has advocated over the years:
- no touch icing
- plexiglass over seamless
- making goalposts come off easier (preventing tons of broken legs)
- soft caps on elbow/shoulder pads
- stop stickers on the back of jerseys to prevent hits from behind
- skate/ankle protection (the kevlar socks in the segment posted above being one more example)
He’s got a right to defend himself from accusations like this. He likes tough hockey, and there’s some points he’s never going to be convinced on, but he’s definitely not a guy that doesn’t give a crap about player safety.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Dec 21, 2009 11:53 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Rounded caps on the boards with a little give, to mitigate injuries when guys are run from behind.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
It’s entertainment is what it is… there’s a shtick there that just works for whatever reason.
Some people take the guy too seriously.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Dec 23, 2009 12:49 AM CST up reply actions
So, does Hockey Canada take a stand?
Cormier with a blatant and dirty elbow to the head of his opponent, in a 4-0 game, nowhere near the puck last night.
Does Hockey Canada show a spine and kick him off the team? Some captain…
Don Cherry has set the tone for the debate and that’s the problem. How many times have I heard people parrotting the “logic” of Cherry – that fighting will increase “stickwork” or that players are getting caught “admiring their passes”. (Neither of which are even remotely true by the way)? He uses his bully pulpit to “teach” the “kids” about the “right way” to play hockey…and after 20 years of preaching it’s sunk in.
So yes, we can laud the few good fights he’s fought: no touch icing, softer pads, ankle protection. But let’s not forget the bad – that he’s a brazen bigot who mocks those who disagree with him, pretending that they’re homosexuals in order to denigrate their masculinity.
I suspect this will all be moot in a year or two anyhow…it has become increasingly clear that his mind is starting to slip – Maclean doesn’t even pretend to spar with him anymore, he’s there to remind Cherry about what he wanted to talk about next.
by Richard S. Argent on Dec 21, 2009 6:19 PM CST reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
On Facebook? Use Connect to join SB Nation. Share insights with fans and friends.- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanShots on From The Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Video: Sidney Crosby homers out of Pittsburgh's PNC Park
- Fantasy Hockey Philosophy: Rob Higgins vs. unbearable expectations
- Bourne Blog: At contract time, players roll dice on hockey future
- NHL 2010-11 Season Preview: Wrestling with Colorado Avalanche
- Pass or Fail: Buffalo Sabres' new road, alternate jerseys for 2010-11
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
