OK, my first post was about hockey, so maybe it's time for another one. First, let me say that I am a huge fan of hockey and have played it most of my life. I also follow the professional game quite closely, so I'm not some newcomer to the sport. As I mentioned in my first post, I'm a big fan of the New York Rangers.
You probably know the old joke where someone says they went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out? Hockey (when I say hockey I mean ice hockey) is the only major professional sport where violent fisticuffs are not only allowed, but are actually sanctioned and codified within the rules. You'll here endless talk from hockey commentators, some of whom I would call "old-school" types (think Barry Melrose) about how fighting is a part of the game, and we could never think of trying to remove it. Indeed, it's fair to say that most of those involved today with managing and coaching the professional game are probably content to see that fighting remains "a part of the game." While the National Hockey League (NHL) has made great strides in promoting the game to a broader audience it will, in my opinion, always remain a second tier professional sport, and the butt of many a joke, as long as such violence remains within the game.
Indeed, there is almost a "professional wrestling" aura surrounding fighting in hockey. Some people who are not familiar with the game may even think that fighting is somehow staged. While there are unwritten "rules" surrounding fighting in hockey, I can assure you, when two players drop the mitts they are swinging for real, as a few of the images here will attest. While many fights end with no real injury to either player, there are also many where someone is not so lucky.
An important point to consider is that fighting has largely been removed from the game, it is only tolerated at the professional level, and in Canadian junior leagues, which feed many players to the professional system! When I played youth and recreational hockey, fighting was not allowed anymore than it would be in a little league baseball game. So, why can't the NHL take the high ground and lead by example? Consider the dilemma that the NHL faces if it continues to ignore this problem. The league has spent a lot of resources in trying to develop the spread of youth hockey, but how can the league expect to reach parents whose kids can tune into an NHL game and see this. How does mommy explain to her young hockey playing son Johnny that hitting and punching is never allowed, oh, except when you're playing hockey! How can the NHL expect to have any credibility with parents when fighting in hockey HAS BEEN eliminated at most every other level, except for the "professional game." It's simple, they can't, and they don't (have any credibility). Indeed, the fact that fighting is not tolerated at every other level (youth hockey, college hockey, etc.) means that eventually the NHL must go in that direction. It's simply a matter of when.
The video in the link in the previous paragraph shows highlights from the NHL's latest "black eye." The recent meeting between the New York Islanders and the Pittsburgh Penguins descended into a nasty slug-fest as the Islanders attempted to find some "frontier justice," after a previous meeting between the teams had resulted in several injuries to their players, including facial fractures to their goaltender Rick Dipietro in a one-punch fight with opposition goalie Brent Johnson, and concussion symptoms to forward Blake Comeau. So, how do such situations come about?
An argument often given in support of fighting is that it is a way for players to "police" themselves, to maintain a sort of crude balance of power on the ice. What it comes down to is this, if you are going to "mess" with one of my teammates, then you best expect to be "messed" with in return. A related argument you will here is that if fighting is removed, then players will resort to retaliation with their sticks. You will also here talk about a players "honor code," meaning you only fight when challenged, etc., etc. Now, at some level this might make some sense, there is a deterrent effect if you know that an opposing player will retaliate if you cross some perceived line. But thinking about this a little further leads to the conclusion that this is certainly not what you want. You do not want players deciding on and dispensing perceived justice because it is a perfect recipe for escalation of the violence (the Isles - Pens matchup is a glaring example of this), and secondly, each team is not exactly impartial in their assessment of what constitutes justice! No, just as in every other major sport the league and its officials, that is the referees in any particular match, need to "police" the game. To those who insist that the "players can police themselves," I would simply ask, so, it seems to be working well?
This is the fundamental problem with excessive violence in the NHL, it is the league's unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of the problem at the level required. Now, there are a number of factors involved, but in my opinion the most glaring problem is the unwillingness of league officials to seriously crack down on illegal (meaning against the rules of the game) hits. This also has the most serious implications for the concussion epidemic in the sport. Here are some recent examples (a warning to the squimish, some of these hits are indeed brutal and not pretty to watch); Cooke on Savard, Talbot on Comeau, and Richards on Booth.
The 2nd of these examples was the one that led the Islanders to attempt retribution on the Penguins, and thus was the principle cause for the escalation of the recent violence. Now, those were just some recent glaring examples, but I'm sure you could find more with some easy searching on the internet. All of these hits were in my opinion illegal, and I will explain why in a moment, but only one of these hits actually drew an on-ice penalty (the Richards hit on Booth). Now, why were the other two hits not even penalized? Actually, at present they probably would be because of new guidelines involving hits to the head, but the real problem with these hits is that they were all late, meaning they occurred after the player had already given up possession of the puck. The NHL rule book is clear, although you have to look under "restraining fouls (Interference)," rather than "physical fouls;"
Possession of the Puck: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.
According to the rule book a player can only be checked immediately following loss of possession of the puck. In each of the examples above the hits were well after immediately. After a player passes or losses possession they are not expecting to be checked and often are not protecting themselves as much as if they sense a check coming when in possession. This is when concussions frequently happen, when players are hit when they don't expect it. Again, you will hear old-school types arguing, well, Cooke or Talbot or Richards were just "finishing their checks," but there is nothing in the rulebook about "finishing checks." No, the rulebook is clear, such a late hit is sanctioned as an interference penalty, and indeed stiffer sanctions can be enforced if such fouls result in injury to the opposing player. Others may argue that there was not time enough for the player to "ease up" from the check, but this is also nonsense, as anyone who has played the game at a high level could attest. Players make split second decisions routinely all over the ice. They know when a player has passed or lost the puck. In particular, Cooke's hit was illegal, not to mention dirty, in that it was late (after loss of possession from Savard), and he stretched with his elbow and lower arm to hit Savard in the head. I think the same can be said for the Talbot hit, it was late, such that Comeau was not suspecting a big collision and was in an awkward position. When players "get away" with these illegal hits, then the opposing team is rightfully angry and within the current framework of the game, there is a perfect recipe for escalation of the violence. The lesson? The NHL needs to enforce its own rules!
The NHL has begun issuing suspensions for hits to the head, but so far these have not been strong enough to act as a sufficient deterrent. Consider the case of Cooke, his hit knocked Savard out for essentially the remainder of the season. Savard returned briefly in last years playoffs, but he is clearly not at the level he was, and after suffering yet another concussion this year his career appears to be over. Meanwhile, Cooke is still "stirring" things up for the Penguins, and he's a multiple offender, having been suspended several times for illegal hits. So, to cut to the chase, why is Cooke still playing in the NHL? Suspensions of 2-5 games are not sufficient, in order to show that it is serious about protecting its players and getting the mayhem out of the sport the length of suspensions need to be much longer. At a minimum, if an illegal hit results in injury and loss of playing time, then the culprit should be suspended for at least as long as the other player is out of action. But the nature of "late hits" still seems to be unclear and should be clarified by the league. There is, and should be no such thing as "finishing your check," you are either late or not, and this cannot be an excuse for leveling an opponent who is not prepared to be hit. Unless the league does this, then such hits will continue and teams will retaliate, as the Islanders did, leading to such "wild west" games.
In the wake of the Isles - Pens dust-up the NHL quickly issued its version of discipline. The Islanders were more heavily sanctioned, with two players receiving suspensions and the team being fined $100,000. However, the principal initiator of the mayhem, Talbot's late hit on Comeau went unpunished! So what signal is the league sending? That late hits are still tolerated, but that the subsequent retaliation--that they know will come--will be sanctioned. So, this is an admission by the league that such situations will occur again, it's just a matter of when the next one happens. The NHL seems willing to admit that sometimes violence in the game gets out of hand, but there seems to be no willingness to effectively reduce the kind of dangerous violence that can lead to, for example, serious head injuries. Probably this is so because the league recognizes that at some level violence sells tickets. And it's true, crowds tend to erupt at the outbreak of a fight. But isn't there enough action, speed, and yes, physicality in the game already? We don't need to see players knocked unconscious and blood on the ice to know that the game is rough and tumble. It is exciting enough already, the spectacle surrounding the violence of fighting just detracts from the game more than it adds to it. Maybe a minority of fight-loving fans would walk away from the game if fighting were eliminated, but it's hard to see this being anything but a minority. Are these the fans that the league desperately wants to keep, rather than the many more fans that could be attracted to a game where fighting was marginalized rather than glorified.
Another issue with fighting is that it sets up a tier system amongst players. Let's face it, currently teams still have to keep "enforcers" on their rosters, tough guys, "goons" in the old days. These guys are ostensibly supposed to do the fighting and "dirty work," to protect a teams more skilled players. But the lines can get blurry, and sometimes the "skill" players who recognize that they are more protected by officials, can decide to get into the rough stuff a bit. Then, to coin a phrase, "all hell can break loose." Wouldn't it be better if teams could actually fill out their entire roster with the very best players, not the very best fighters? Again, the physical nature of the sport would not have to change, big talented players could still use their power, etc. but the overall quality of the game would improve. Isn't that what the league should be about?
So, here's my recipe for how the NHL can reduce and eventually wean itself from fighting and dangerous violence in the game;
1) SERIOUSLY sanction dangerous late hits and hits to the head. SERIOUSLY means suspensions that run to a significant fraction of a season, particularly if the hits result in the opposing player missing games due to injury. Similarly enforce other dangerous acts such as using the stick against another player with the same level of seriousness.
2) Officials need to re-enforce the rule around hitting after a player gives up possession of the puck. The notion of "finishing ones check" needs to be eradicated, particularly in the minds of "old school" types (again, think Barry Melrose).
3) Increase the sanctions against fighting. I'm not suggesting an immediate outright ban. Some suggestions; fighting results in a 5 minute major penalty and a 10 minute misconduct penalty. Second fight in a game is an automatic match penalty with review toward possible suspension in subsequent games. Sanctions against fighting have increased compared to 20 years ago, this just needs to continue.
4) The League needs to understand that there is much more to be gained in eventually eliminating fighting than by keeping it.
And in case you think I'm alone in these sentiments, this is what Mario Lemieux, the co-owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins, and arguably one of the best players in the game, ever, had to say about it;
“Hockey is a tough, physical game, and it always should be. But what happened Friday night on Long Island wasn’t hockey. It was a travesty. It was painful to watch the game I love turn into a sideshow like that. The NHL had a chance to send a clear and strong message that those kinds of actions are unacceptable and embarrassing to the sport. It failed. We, as a league, must do a better job of protecting the integrity of the game and the safety of our players. We must make it clear that those kinds of actions will not be tolerated and will be met with meaningful disciplinary action. If the events relating to Friday night reflect the state of the league, I need to re-think whether I want to be a part of it.”
Now, maybe Mario was upset that the League was not harsh enough with the Islanders, but the statement does not specifically refer to that, and overall, his comments are pretty much in line with what I discussed above. Predictably, the League essentially ignored Lemieux's statement, saying it was completely satisfied with the way the situation was handled. Of course they were, because the present leadership is completely blind to the problem. What, we have a problem? There's nothing wrong with our league. And with attitudes like that, the NHL will continue to be the butt of jokes, and will always struggle for mainstream acceptance. It doesn't have to be that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment