Specifically with respect to the recent "rash" of questionable hits that have been occurring all over the ice this season. Whether it is Matt Cooke, James Wisniewski, Alex Ovechkin, or Mike Richards, there has been a glaring lack of consistency in how and when the NHL decides to dole out penalties for "illegal and hazardous" play.
Take Wisniewski's hit on Brent Seabrook (seen here). Illegal? Indeed. Suspension-worthy? Absolutely. Was it worth 8 games? Good question. Was it the same as Cooke's hit on Marc Savard (seen here)? No. Was the outcome the same? Yes. Was it cheap and dirty and dangerous? Without a doubt.
But the NHL's response to both situations was completely inconsistent. Let's look at the initial differences: Wisniewski was called for a penalty on the play. Cooke was not. And that's pretty much where the differences lie. Wisniewski is a repeat offender, and so he deserves a harsh penalty? What, and Matt Cooke isn't a repeat offender? We know, Cooke's hit was not deemed to be a hit by an elbow (even though it was), but that doesn't matter. This isn't Scott Stevens on Paul Kariya (seen here), which while also being a charge and interference and without any repercussions, was a "clean" shoulder-to-body check. Mainly, in the way that there was no unnecessary extension of the arm toward the head. Cooke's hit was a sideswipe that landed nowhere else on Savard's body but the head. You can't punch someone in the head in hockey unless both players have dropped their gloves (or unless you're Scott Walker... seen here). So why can you take a run at a player and hit them nowhere else but in the head... And only sometimes?
In a way, you can see where the NHL is coming from. They would rather not dilute the competitive nature of the game (how about stopping league expansion then?) and this is the reason why the institution of fighting still exists in the game despite repeated and enduring calls for its removal. NHL management would rather than not give in to the media frenzy that many have coined this recent wave of NHL backlash against inconsistent rulings on so many vicious hits. However, the NHL has always, especially in recent years, been open to modifying their stance. Again, take fighting. The penalty for a fight used to be two minutes. Meaning that the token goon could come on the ice, levy "justice", and be back on the ice only 2 minutes later to do it again. Now, fighting is a major penalty and will cost a player (at least) 5 minutes of ice time which has reduced the existence of such goonery, and actually reduced the instance of fighting in the NHL... Meaning, fewer opportunities for players to get hurt.
Yet, with this new issue, it is not just about goons fighting and goons getting hurt and/or suspended. As we've seen recently, one of the league's best players can be seriously hurt, and arguably the league's best player can be suspended, so why not get it right? And ALL the time. This isn't a call for an NFL-like blow-to-the-head penalty which has ultimately been completely laughable in its implementation. This is a call for the NHL to acknowledge the situation as it stands. The league has been content for the last few decades to allow players to be as brutal as they wanted to on the ice; late hits, headshots, and anything goes philosophy down in the front of the net. And we all accepted it, because well, it was entertaining and honored some misplaced notion of tradition by respecting the noble savage that is the hockey player. Well, this "backlash" is what they are reaping for their willful ignorance of what was occurring around them.
Discourage headshots and discourage late hits, call more penalties, open up the ice with more power plays, but most importantly, be consistent. Namely, by protecting your investment. While the NFL has surely gone overboard, their hearts and minds are in the right place; their wallet. And if the average NHL player can't cope with the changes, then there's the door, only no paycheck will be in the mail waiting for them. But for the players that can adapt and evolve, hitting will still be a part of the game, but so will restraint as well as the lost notion of "playing the puck." As long as my favorite player isn't unconscious on the ice after a completely unnecessary cheapshot, then all of this will work for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment