Campbell's Cuts: Head-shot rule? Don't bet on it

Chris Neil's hit on Victor Hedman put the Lightning defender on the shelf with a concussion. (Phillip MacCallum/Getty Images)

Ken Campbell
2009-11-11 14:50:00

Throughout the continuing and endless head shot debate, one thing has become crystal clear: the most vital stakeholders in the game at the NHL level can’t get beyond the notion that if you remove some of the devastating blows we’ve seen lately it will remove the physical element that makes the game so appealing.

I couldn’t disagree with them more. I don’t think severely penalizing players for their recklessness will automatically transform the NHL into the National Ringette League. But they do. And they’re smart, passionate men who have an enormous amount of experience at virtually every level of the game.

So the news the GMs have deferred the issue to a to-be-named committee of seven GMs who will report back with recommendations at some point certainly won’t please everyone. But in light of the fact it has become increasingly clear there will never, ever be a blanket rule banning head shots in the NHL, it’s about as much as we can expect.

There is an appetite to have the blindside hits against unsuspecting players dealt with and the GMs held up the recent Mike Richards hit on David Booth as one that is currently legal, but might be a suspendable offense by this time next year. But how exactly do you remove those kinds of hits without taking a vital element out of the game?

“I don’t think any of us knows the answer to that,” said Nashville Predators GM David Poile. “That’s why we are where we are. It is certainly in our craw that if there’s a way to get rid of those 10 hits (a season), we’re going to do it.”

So, here’s the plan. Director of hockey operations Colin Campbell will soon appoint seven GMs to a committee that will form a breakout group at the next GM meetings in March. That group will monitor hits throughout the rest of this season and be provided with data from the league. It will then spend the first day of the March meetings discussing recommendations, which will then be presented to the entire group of GMs. If adopted by the GMs, the recommendations will then go to the competition committee, then to the board of governors for any potential change to the rulebook.

Doesn’t exactly scream a call to action, does it? Perhaps not. But there seems to be a resolve among this group to get rid of the Richards-Booth types of hits where a vulnerable player who couldn’t possibly see a hit coming takes one in the head and is carted off on a stretcher.

“It’s not easy, but if I were to characterize the group, I would say that it’s more serious than I’ve ever seen it before,” said Buffalo Sabres GM Darcy Regier. “It’s viewed as being more serious than ever before and more important to work on.”

Related Links

Recent hits such as the Mattias Ohlund hit on Phil Kessel, the Chris Neil hit on Victor Hedman or the Willie Mitchell hit on Jonathan Toews will never be outlawed by this group of GMs the way they might be if there were a blanket ban on head shots. Almost to a man, they view those kinds of hits as good hockey plays that are a deep part of the fabric of the game. And maybe they’re trying too hard to justify themselves here, but they are also quick to point out the types of hits that are most heinous are the exception rather than the rule.

“Over the course of a season, there are probably about a dozen hits that we can all remember that we all wish we could have back, so to speak,” Poile said. “Over the course of a game, there’s 40-plus hits and if you multiply that out, that’s about 50,000 hits in a season. To get rid of these 10 hits, what’s the right thing to do?”

It doesn’t help that all of this is so open to interpretation. A hit one person might view as a heinous crime could be viewed by another as a good hockey play that shouldn’t even be penalized. That was certainly the spectrum of opinion on the recent hit in the Ontario League on Ben Fanelli that earned Michael Liambas a season-long suspension.

Even the Richards hit on Booth isn’t entirely clear-cut.

“There was something about the Richards-Booth situation; it was a feeling that there’s just something that wasn’t right about that hit and we’d like to change that type of hit,” Poile said. “That one didn’t sit well with the managers.”

MEETING OF THE U.S. MINDS
U.S. Olympic team GM Brian Burke used the meetings as a chance to meet with assistant GM David Poile and advisors Ray Shero, Don Waddell and Dean Lombardi on the makeup of the team for the Vancouver Games.

Burke said the team would continue to work on its roster before meeting again in December at the board of governors meeting in Pebble Beach. But he gave the impression that a good number of the decisions have already been made.

“Then we’re going to chase guys,” Burke said of the plan after the Pebble Beach meeting. “We’re going to split up and chase guys. Hopefully, we’ll be down to two or three decisions to make because the bulk of the roster is coming together in our minds.”

Ken Campbell, author of the book Habs Heroes, is a senior writer for The Hockey News and a regular contributor to THN.com. His blog will appear Wednesdays and Fridays and his column, Campbell's Cuts, appears Mondays.

For more great profiles, news and views from the world of hockey, subscribe to The Hockey News magazine.

COMMENTS (26)

Sort: Oldest | Newest Filter: All | Videos

jazzbuff Posted
(2010-01-11 19:45:35)

When I played in the 40's the rule was if you took 3 strides and hit someone it was charging. Today they should have a stalking penalty. Several years ago I subscribed to Center Ice and every day watched an eastern game at 4:30 P.M. PST and a western game at 7:30 P.M. PST Scott Stevens perfected the stalking procedure. He watched the play develop as the attacking offense came up the ice and picked a spot where he figured the puck carrier would be and headed for that spot, usually at or just outside the blue line. The puck carrier was busy avoiding a check from his opposing winger and would not see Stevens coming usually from an angle and would not be braced for the hit. I can still see the hit by Stevens on Lindros which ended his career. I see the same tactic used today by some players. Hits when the player is not aware he is going to be hit are the most devastating whether at center ice or on the boards.. The rule I used was if you were being body checked, hit him harder than he hit you.

ethies Posted
(2009-11-20 01:22:19)

I think if boarding was called more tightly (read as: more like its written in the rule book) a lot of the forcing the heads into the boards calls would be taken care of, so I'm cool with that. I agree with your second point too, it has to be called when it is done regardless of the result of the hit. If injuries occur, the penalites should be more severe. I think, as our conversation has borne out, clearly identifying that .01% of hits is the challenge. Hopefully the NHL will get this figured out and prevent some of these serious injuries without sacrificing gameplay. Thanks Johnny.

johnny Posted
(2009-11-19 17:58:02)

Good suggestions. The only two things I would add to your plan are: 1- a rule to cover players being forced into the boards head first (Properly fitted space age helmets do not prevent broken necks), and 2-the penalty for head shots has to be as automatic as the penalty for high stick to the face. I would be happy if the intent to injure rules were extended to cover hits where the player was forced head first into the boards. If a player goes head firtst into the boards or is hit in the head there has to be a penalty, regardless of intent, just like with a high stick to the face. If the player is injured the suspension has to follow. I don't think we neccessarily need a "hit to the head" penalty. The NHL needs to force the hitter to care about how he delivers his hits. A player has to be as responsible for his massive body as he is for his stick. To require players to account for an 8 pound stick but not a 260 pound, armor clad body moving at 20 miles per hour is insane. I beleive it was Ken Danyko that said this week "99.99% of all hits are perfectly legal, we are talking about eliminating the .01%". I don't think that reducing hits by .01% should be a concern to any one.

ethies Posted
(2009-11-19 10:43:42)

I just don't know, Johnny. The Phanuef/Okposos hit compared to the Chara/Steen hit seems like a split second reaction from the player on the receiving end. I don't think that the player delivering the check can really asses that split second reaction from his opponent. Something like the Richards hit, where he comes from where he can't be seen and goes high is a lot easier for me to cry foul on. There are hits every game that if the player on the receiving end doesn't stand up into the hit, could turn into contact with the head. You're right about the murder trial, that is what will happen and how they will come after someone. I think I'd be most comfortable with a comprehensive package to help reduce head injuries. First, a better helmet. Second, players must wear helmets that fit and are adjusted properly. Third, if you hit someone who has no idea you're coming, it had better not be in the head or you're going to be suspened for 5 games and possibly another 5 depending on the severity of injuries. Do you think we could try that and see where we're at Johnny?

johnny Posted
(2009-11-18 14:07:03)

I watched the Chara Steen hit. I think that if Steen kept his head down it would have been Chara's responsibility to lighten up on the hit so that he did not kill Steen. I don't know how to work that into the ruling. I definitely do not want players keeping their heads down so they can't be hit, but I think if it came down to a head shot murder trial the question, "did you hit him as hard as you could knowing he was in a position where injury was unavoidable", is the question that will damn the hitter.

ethies Posted
(2009-11-18 10:30:46)

Water under the bridge, Johnny. I agree that forcing someone's head into the ice or boards should be penalized, I just am concerned about how we decide when its done. I greatly desire to be able to remove the most dangerous of hits from the game, but don't want to alter gameplay too much. The Richards/Booth hit looks to me as a more deliberate attempt to go upstairs, but the Phaneuf/Okposos hit is exactly the kind of hit that I am concerned about penalizing. Giordano bumps Okposos and Okposos comes in square to Phaneuf with his head low and leading. I would think it very difficult to NOT hit him in the head. Phaneuf had already changed course to intercept him, prior to the bump from Giordano. The only thing Phaneuf could have done to avoid hitting Okposos in the head was to jump/dive out of the way and simply let him pass. Hitting in the logo is the way to go, but when the logo is facing the ice and their head is facing you it becomes a challenge. Lookup a video of Chara hitting Alex Steen. This isn't necessarily a Chara specific thing, but watch him deliver the hit. Had Steen not brought his head up, he would have been out. Its a lot like the hit with Okposos but Okposos doesn't get his head up in time for the hit. The receiver of the hit has a responsibility to keep his head out of the way. If we could effectively eliminate head hunting, I'd be thrilled. I'm just concerned that lots of accidental hits to the head, where the 'hitter' has no control over the actions of the 'hitee' are going to end up getting penalized.

johnny Posted
(2009-11-17 18:56:24)

Okay Ethies, sorry if I came back on the defensive. I am sure the lawyers will write this rule to elliminate the possibiliti of the ruling being mis-used but I think that a head shot rule has to include hits to the head as well as attempts to hit an opponents head off something. The old saying goes weather the stone hits the vase or the vase hits the stone it is bad for the vase. Substitute human head for vase and start the head shot ruling from there. As far as the Chara discussion is concerned, Chara puts the force of his hits into his opponents chest and is mindful not to put his elbows out where they can kill someone. I mentioned in an earlier article on this subject that my coach, when I was playing, tought me to hit in the logo so that your opponent is shaken but not injured. There is an incorrect way to throw a body check and a head injury is a pretty good indication that the hit was thrown wrong. I understand that Chara makes contact with a players head, but it is with his chest not shoulders or elbows. Perhaps that is what my definition is missing.

doctorddaveschultz Posted
(2009-11-16 12:38:33)

Wrong, wrong, all wrong. But it's not like I respect Ken Campbell's opinion anyways. What needs to happen is a rule that outlaws head shots like Richards/Booth, where Mike got all head on a player who was relatively upright. Referees must use their discretion to penalize such incidents on ice, and the league has to fine AND suspend these players. But this only applies to pure headshots, not those awful examples Ken (who is an idiot) gave like Ohlund/Kessel, Neil/Hedman, and Mitchell/Toews.

ethies Posted
(2009-11-16 11:57:56)

@Johnny: Let's take this down a notch. I'm not attacking you. I'm also not looking for more fuel for my arguement. I asked for a rule that would work. You gave me a direct definition for a headshot. I simply pointed out that that your rule needs to be refined. As for my 'lame' Chara arguement, watch Chara play. He hits people in the head every single game. Does he hit them primarily in the head? No. That is why they aren't injured. He hits with his body and doesn't headhunt, but he frequently makes contact with their heads as well. Lets say Chara delivers a big hit and someone is injured. I think the real challenge with the headshot rule is that it is really difficult to eliminate dangerous headshots without removing other plays or sanctioning players unnecessarily. There is great disagreement among hockey fans, officials, and management about which of these recent big hits is illegal. This is because the rules are very grey and leave a lot up to the refs discretion. I don't want to see yet another 'grey zone' rule implemented, with inconsistant suspensions as the result (not that we don't have that now). I said this in my last post but I'm not sure it was read, so I'll repeat it here: "I'm not trying to argue against a headshot rule of some kind, but trying to find an acceptable solution that doesn't alter gameplay too much."

reelerotten Posted
(2009-11-15 18:18:51)

I absolutely agree... they need to put an end to these headshots... far too many guys are getting hurt... they also need to start using a nerf puck, that rubber one HAS to leave bruises... and they should line the boards with flowers, that way if you get checked into them not only will it cushion the blow but it will create a beautiful explosive display of flower petals floating through the air...