• Print

Dave Andrews’ Blog: Dealing with head shots and player safety

Dave Andrews hopes the head shot rules his league has instituted will help keep players like Lowell's Rod Pelley safe on the ice. (Photo By: Jason Kennedy)

Zoom Image

Dave Andrews hopes the head shot rules his league has instituted will help keep players like Lowell's Rod Pelley safe on the ice. (Photo By: Jason Kennedy)

Concussions in hockey have become a very serious concern for everyone in the game. There is a long list of players whose careers have ended because of recurrent concussions, and clearly there is an obligation on the part of the league, team management and the players themselves to actively address this issue.

One of the first steps in reducing the risk of head injuries is to ensure helmets are properly fitted and properly worn. In virtually every game at the pro level, I see players whose helmets fall off as the result of a solid bodycheck. Obviously, the point at which the helmet comes off is the exact moment at which it is most needed. Wearing the helmet properly should be mandated by every team and enforced by coaches and trainers. This includes wearing the helmet during warmup.

The next question is whether leagues should mandate the wearing of helmets at all times, with stringent penalties for removal of the helmet prior to an altercation. This approach will undoubtedly be considered at all levels in light of the recent tragedy in Brantford, Ont.

If protective equipment is worn properly and not discarded, the obvious question is how to eliminate concussions caused by “head shots.”

In the spring of 2004, the American League experienced an ugly on-ice incident that resulted in the lengthy suspension of Hamilton Bulldogs player Alexander Perezhogin, and the subsequent formation of an AHL Playing Standards Committee. I formed this committee to address what seemed to be a blurring in the lines of what was an acceptable standard of tough physical play as opposed to violent and dangerous conduct that disrespects our game and endangers our players.

The committee, made up of active players, coaches, officials and management, concluded that AHL players and coaches needed to commit to a higher standard of conduct and that stringent enforcement of the existing rules was one of the paths to achieving that standard.

One of the enforcement areas we focused on related to targeting the head of an opponent. Players and coaches were advised that any check in which a player was deemed to have targeted the head of an opponent would be treated as a deliberate attempt to injure and would result in a match penalty, suspension and loss of pay.

Related Links

The controversy over head shots essentially has two extreme positions. The first being that body contact to the head with a shoulder is part of the game and the player should have kept his head up. The opposing view is that any contact with the head must be penalized.

We believe there is a difference between incidental contact to the head as the result of a clean bodycheck and targeting the head as the object of the hit. Over the past five years, we have not found it particularly difficult to make that determination. This approach has had a very positive effect on the game in the AHL and enhanced the safety of our players without sacrificing the physical nature of the game.

As with the institution of mandatory visors, our standards on targeting the head are meant to prevent serious injury, while protecting the integrity of the game as it was meant to be played.

It is worthwhile noting that much of what has been accomplished in dramatically improving flow and offense in the game since 2004-05 has been accomplished not by introducing dramatic new rules, but by establishing stricter standards of rule interpretation of existing rules, specifically holding, hooking, and interference.

Similarly, while no single approach will completely eliminate the risk of head injury, applying our existing disciplinary standards more stringently will have very positive results.

Dave Andrews is the American League's CEO and president, roles he has held since 1994. A goalie during his playing days, his administrative hockey career has included stops as the Edmonton Oilers’ director of AHL operations, senior consultant with SportCanada, and head coach and director of hockey operations for the Western League’s Victoria Cougars. You can read his other THN.com Blogs HERE.

COMMENTS (11)

Sort: Oldest | Newest    Filter: All | Videos


Lusi Naturae Posted
(2009-04-30 07:39:46)



Does the league routinely review head shots and illegal hits, even those that were not penalized during the game? Does the league do so under its own initiative, or does it wait for a team to submit video for review? And is the hit at 0:33 of this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vgvLZBUxT8 what's meant by a head shot?
    0



juiceinla Posted
(2009-04-30 07:39:46)



I am thrilled to see this article and its topic is important. The reduction of head injury, concussion and career or life ending injuries that could be avoided by safer equipment and standards is an issue everyone from the lowest fan, like myself, to the top of the Hockey food chain, Mr. Bettman/NHL Owners, must address and agree that changes need to be made. Bravo Commissioner Andrews, and thank you.
    0



Rangers57 Posted
(2009-04-30 07:39:38)



Foodforthought - You really bring some extremely good points into this topic! However I have to ask the same thing that I have been saying for many blogs. WHERE is the concern/outrage from the NHLPA and the players? Answer - There isn't any. If they don't care, why are we the fans wasting time in saying that it's a problem? Hell everytime a player gets a HIGH HIT or a hit from BEHIND or worse a concussion, I don't feel a thing. Shouldn't it be the people playing this game that should be doing all the SCREAMING? JUST ASKING!
    0



Mike Posted
(2009-04-30 07:39:35)



I agree with foodforthought about how players carry themselves and their sticks, but there is another thing to consider with respect to the issue James brought up: As the game of hockey, and sports in general, became more commercial, a double standard was generated. Star players are over-protected when they are the victims, but they are also granted more leeway as aggressors, because they are the league's primary marketing vehicles. The NHL brass doesn't want to see stars like Ovechkin and Crosby in street clothes, and it certainly doesn't want to besmirch their reputations. The NHL needs every second of positive exposure that it can get, and as a result is willing to forgive or ignore a questionable hit by Ovie or Sid's punches below the belt. This is nothing endemic to hockey, of course. It wasn't long ago that Michael Jordan's lived under the "Jordan Rules", and a brushback pitch in baseball is going to get a heavier penalty if thrown at a superstar instead of a journeyman. Perhaps the situation is more dire in hockey because of its status relative to the three other major sports. Hockey doesn't have significant national exposure compared to the other sports. It needs to cultivate its stars and present them as packages suitable for national consumption. As the sport tries to attract new fans, NHL brass likely feels that suspending a marquee player would prove counterproductive. Of course, as food pointed out, the NHL wouldn't have to step in if players could still police themselves. Once upon a time, Ovie and Crosby would have had to take their lumps for their transgressions. The league may not have had to step in if the two were dealt with on the ice. In fact, if the threat of a response were what it was 25 years ago, they may have had second thoughts about committing the fouls in the first place. The trouble is, if the NHL is going to take the badges away from players so they can't police themselves, the league owes it to its players and fans to step up and do the job right.
    0



Pol Posted
(2009-04-30 07:39:32)



Food, you are pretty dead on. It really comes down to the youth levels of play. Kids nowadays learn bad habits young, and through a combination of mediocre coaching and officiating these bad habits are allowed to continue (high hits, high sticks). So the best way to curtail this problem in the future is to work with the next generation. Look, head shots are a problem, especially with guys as big as they are today, but the real problem is that it is getting confused with clean hits. If a guy has his head down and gets clocked, that is on his shoulders (no pun). It is the cases where guys are coming arms/elbows high against the boards, etc. that need to be stopped. As for the extreme suggestion on helmet usage and the constant debate on visors, I have this. Helmets do not need to be worn in warm- ups, and one common complaint throughout the league has been that players do not get enough 'face time' with the buckets on. So, yeah, putting them on in warm- ups will really help. Besides, I can not even recall a head injury during warm- ups. Taking the lids off for a bout, just seems honorable to me. With the amount of guys who wear visors these days they should have to remove the lid to tussle, if memory serves me, that used to be a rule. I understand that from time to time a guy falls awkwardly and hits his head, but a few scattered incidents mixed in with the thousands throughout hockey history should not be the deciding factor. Finally, visor usage should not be mandated. These guys know the risks involved when they play. They know the risks involved when the fight or do not wear a visor. That is their choice, and their responsibility. The only efforts I would support in regards to helmets or visors is to deem any time missed because of an injury sustained in a fight or a facial injury without a visor will result in a forfeit of the per diem that player would have made in games missed.
    0



Don Margeson Posted
(2009-04-30 07:39:27)



I agree with James and the perfect example was the incident recently between Jamie Heward and Alexander Ovechkin. While Ovechkin didn't intend to injure Heward, he clearly raised his elbow before the hit and a novice could have called elbowing on that play, yet nothing was called. That condones the borderline play and encourages players to test the limits. I agree that any shot to the head should result in a match penalty and that players should also be penalized for not having their helmets strapped on sufficiently.
    0



James Dunlap Posted
(2009-04-30 07:39:03)



The whole issue of whether a player has targeted the head of another is just another judgment call allowing on-ice officials to miss what can be a very dangerous intentional hit. How many officials really want to call a league star like Alex Ovechkin, playing before his home crowd, for driving Jamie Heward's head into the boards, laying him out on the ice from where he was strapped to a board for his trip to the hospital and subsequent diagnosis of a concussion? Should the deciding factor be that Heward shouldn't have lowered his head as Ovechkin bore down on him and fully finished driving his elbow into Heward's head against the boards? All head shots, judged intentional or not, should be treated at least as seriously as high-sticking. All head shots should be penalized and the sometimes dubious judgment calls eliminated for everyone safety equally.
    0



whatsthatsmell Posted
(2009-04-30 07:39:01)



Maybe there should be size and weight divisions like in boxing. Then all the little boys who want to dipsy doodle can go play there, with no heavy body checking, no fighting, no swearing, and you have to apologize and help someone up if you trip them. And all the men can play in the NHL.
    0



stupid Posted
(2009-04-30 07:39:01)



how does making all players wear visor help with the Alexander Perezhogin incident...
    0



foodforthought Posted
(2009-04-30 07:39:01)



I've been watching nhl hockey for 30 years. Headshots, were very isolated incidents, when players respected each other and were held accountable through on-ice pay-back (a simple fight). That was when hockey (1970's and 1980's) was a passionate, honorable and physical game. I've learned from older fans that the game was played the same way before that (as the 70's and 80's), but I will only account for what I've seen in my time as a fan. I know from playing the game myself that players that have played their junior years and college years wearing a cage or full visor, not only carry their sticks higher but commonly have blatant disregard for hitting opponents high, because that is what they are accustomed to doing. The NHL in the 70's and 80's had its share of problems (bench brawls etc.) but they took the appropriate steps to curtail that. I agree with controlling that aspect, its ugly, dangerous and bad for the game in general. But the best hockey I've ever seen was played during the early to late 80's, when the players held each other accountable and didn't grow up carrying their sticks like tomahawks and running at opponents heads. Say what you will about the instigator rule, but I do not recall players so eager to knock an opponent unconscious with a hit (clean or dirty) as I do now. Fines and suspensions are no substitute for a clean whippin in front of a near capacity arena and national television audience. Money, these guys can let go of. Ego's, they can't afford to lose.
    0




ADD YOUR COMMENT

Register or Login to submit a comment
Player/Injury News - Up to the Minute NHL Updates This Week - Subscribe Now

Which team has been hit worst by injuries this season?










THN Newsletter - Sign Up Now

“I don’t know if I’ll ever feel 100 percent this year.”

- New Jersey's Patrik Elias, who is recovering from hip and groin surgeries and has two points in five games this season.

Our Partners