| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 07:52:36
Was the hit by Matt Cooke of the Penguins that laid out Boston's Marc Savard a clean hit, dirty hit, or somewhere in between?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest6009 |
Posted - 03/13/2010 : 10:52:19
[quote]Originally posted by slozo
Was the hit by Matt Cooke of the Penguins that laid out Boston's Marc Savard a clean hit, dirty hit, or somewhere in between?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
[/qu
Just a satement on society.
Why is it in almost any issue not just this one the loudest and most persistent voices come from the minority.
89% who voted cosidered this hit to be grey or dirty and the 11% who thought it was have the most posts. |
| ryan93 |
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 20:15:05
While yes it does seem like that, it only stands to reason considering guys like Marc Savard are on the ice for 20+ minutes a game, where as your 3rd/4th liners generally only play 5-13 minutes a game & also do'n't have the puck nearly as much as the offensive guys. |
| Guest2114 |
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 18:13:38
I wanted to mention two things.
One a guest picked up on early, about the ratio being the same, but the impact or energy released not. For an analogy, consider running as fast as you could as a 7 year old kid, and as fast as you can now. Ratio might be the same, but the speed isn't.
Second, just an observation, but don't these big hits seem to happen to impact players a lot more than third line grinders? Sort of puts the whole intent to injury idea in a different light.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 14:27:53
Did i hear/read correctly that this new rule will not take effect till next season? If that's the case, i think they're making a mistake and i really hope we don't see another his like these before the end of this season! I know most things aren't changed mid season, but it can be done. I heard talk on the radio about this the other day how the NFL brought in / changed the "horse collar" rule after a player was tackled and subsequently injured in such a manner on a MNF game. The new rule took effect immediately and enforcement began with the following Sunday's sched of games! No reason the NHL can't enforce this immediately! |
| ryan93 |
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 12:46:22
I found this interesting...sure there has been the expected backlash from players around the league such as Tampa Bay's Vincent Lecavalier & Martin St.Louis, but here's the opinion of Matt Cooke's own teammate, Bill Guerin.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iGhL4qC5Eo3QTUn2ioEIWwVn2AHAD9ECINQ80 |
| Guest4339 |
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 12:45:40
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by Hugh G. Rection
"A lateral, back pressure or blindside hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and or the principal point of contact is not permitted. A violation of the above will result in a minor or major penalty and shall be reviewed for possible supplemental discipline."
Just terrible/confusing wording they picked here. After reading that, it seems you could make a case for most big open ice hits being illegal. Seems like it will still be the status quo, which is Colin Campbell flipping a coin or rolling dice and deciding whether or not to suspend, and how long the suspension will be.
I don't find it terribly confusing as it seems to me they're saying you have to hit straight on now. What i'd like to see is the NHL give some examples of what hits are good and what ones aren't? For example, we know the Cooke and Richards hits are now illegal. But, what about a hit like Willie Mitchell put on Jonathan Toews earlier this year. He gets him mainly from the front, but it could be argued he came somewhat "laterally"? It's a bit of a grey area. Have another look at this one and see if you think it'd be deemed legal or illegal under the new rules?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mTEzQ8vBps
The new rule wouldn't apply because Mitchell did not target the head nor was the head the principal point of contact. Even though you could say he was blindsided, but there was no contact to the head.
The rule only applies where the hit is both a lateral/back check/blindside hit and connects or attempts to connect to the head.
The rule would only apply if you could argue Mitchell was targetting the head, which I don't think was the case.
This would also not apply to open-ice hits unless you try to hit the guy in the head.
That's my understanding at least. |
| Gusteroni |
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 12:31:02
I have heard that there was a penalty that could have been called on Cooke's hit and that was the intent to injure call. I don't ever see that one being called otherwise you would have seen it on the Neil hit on Mitchell last week and many others. I don't think either hit was suspension worthy but at the very least make the intent call. These guys can't be skating around looking for a predetory hit and have no repercussions.
When Hell freezes over, I'll play hockey there too. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 09:37:03
quote:
Originally posted by Hugh G. Rection
I guess the existing rule already states something to the effect of 'where the principal point of contact is not permitted?' Thats really only the unclear part of the rule, in my opinion. It seems redundant to state that, since this is a 'new rule' after all. I'm taking that part of it to mean elbows/knee on knees etc. But why include it there?
I think the difference is that the current NHL rule has to do with supplemental discipline. The ref does not have any latitude to give a penalty for a this type of hit today. This will give the ref the option for a 2 or 5 minute penalty as well as the opportunity for supplemental discipline. |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 08:28:55
I guess the existing rule already states something to the effect of 'where the principal point of contact is not permitted?' Thats really only the unclear part of the rule, in my opinion. It seems redundant to state that, since this is a 'new rule' after all. I'm taking that part of it to mean elbows/knee on knees etc. But why include it there? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 07:53:16
quote:
Originally posted by Hugh G. Rection
"A lateral, back pressure or blindside hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and or the principal point of contact is not permitted. A violation of the above will result in a minor or major penalty and shall be reviewed for possible supplemental discipline."
Just terrible/confusing wording they picked here. After reading that, it seems you could make a case for most big open ice hits being illegal. Seems like it will still be the status quo, which is Colin Campbell flipping a coin or rolling dice and deciding whether or not to suspend, and how long the suspension will be.
I don't find it terribly confusing as it seems to me they're saying you have to hit straight on now. What i'd like to see is the NHL give some examples of what hits are good and what ones aren't? For example, we know the Cooke and Richards hits are now illegal. But, what about a hit like Willie Mitchell put on Jonathan Toews earlier this year. He gets him mainly from the front, but it could be argued he came somewhat "laterally"? It's a bit of a grey area. Have another look at this one and see if you think it'd be deemed legal or illegal under the new rules?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mTEzQ8vBps |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 23:49:58
quote:
Originally posted by Hugh G. Rection
Just terrible/confusing wording they picked here. After reading that, it seems you could make a case for most big open ice hits being illegal. Seems like it will still be the status quo, which is Colin Campbell flipping a coin or rolling dice and deciding whether or not to suspend, and how long the suspension will be.
Completely disagree. This does not take out the open ice hit or the punishment for a player coming across the blue line with his head down. This just means those hits have to be straight on.
It's seems pretty simple and logical to me, but yet rules like this can never make everyone happy.
Interesting story here from two guys that literally have no direct involvement.
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=313363 |
| Guest9698 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 17:41:55
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
The whole "bigger, faster" argument to lessen that argument doesn't hold water in my opinion, as comparitively, the ratios remained the same. A big guy in the 70s may have been just average size these days, but he was still a good size bigger then regular sized players back then, just like the ratio now. A very fast player back then would have been just average as well these days probably in terms of speed . . . but he was still faster than everyone else back then. The ratios remained the same, which means the impact would have remained about the same as well, generally.
Yes ratio may remain the same but impact is not.
Energy is the square of the velocity times mass (not exactly it is 1/2*m*v(squared)). So doubling your speed is quadrupling the energy. Also your mass has gone up. So... the math of higher speed and mass makes it much more dangerous to hurt someone. |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 17:21:00
"A lateral, back pressure or blindside hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and or the principal point of contact is not permitted. A violation of the above will result in a minor or major penalty and shall be reviewed for possible supplemental discipline."
Just terrible/confusing wording they picked here. After reading that, it seems you could make a case for most big open ice hits being illegal. Seems like it will still be the status quo, which is Colin Campbell flipping a coin or rolling dice and deciding whether or not to suspend, and how long the suspension will be.
In fairness, Campbell could have been 'consistent' and given Cooke one game, since Richards did get 5 and a game for his transgression. Kind of crazy he didn't even do that much, but under the current rules the refs shouldnt have given Richards anything either. Funny to think if these rule changes go into effect, how different would Scott Stevens career have been if he was a rookie right now? Guessing his effectiveness would be reduced by like 50%. That guy was the best at ending people's lives 'cleanly'. |
| leigh |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 17:19:53
The decision to not suspend is the right decision. Nothing was illegal so there is no need to penalize. If the rules need changing then change the rules but as it stands there was no infraction.
As Campbell put it in the TSN article posted above....
"No one likes when a player like Marc Savard goes down the way he did. No one likes when a player like David Booth goes down the way he did. But we have to be consistent," explained Campbell. I know Matt Cooke is a repeat offender, he's been suspended twice in the last year. I can't suspend Matt Cooke for being a repeat offender, I have to find a reason. Right now our rules say that shoulders to head are legal. Matt Cooke did not jump, and did not do anything that we found illegal in his actions even though again you don't like what happened," added Campbell.
Thank you NHL for getting this right. |
| Guest6186 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 16:28:43
It was a brutal hit to the head, there was zero reason why he could not have hit savard's shoulder.
For the record I thought Richards should have been suspended too. Both hits were aimed for the head. I understand that as of right now, that it is not illegal to hit to the head, bit at what point is it intent to injure?
I hear they are discussing penalties for hits to the head today at the GM meetings. |
| spade632 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 16:10:58
No suspension for Cooke. Campbell said that there was no suspension for "consistency" because Mike Richards wasn't suspended for the Booth hit.
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=313323
(edit: I know I'm a bit late posting - In any case, both Richards and Cooke should have been suspended for their hits)
As far as the bigger issue of hits to the head go, there's a difference between a good "hockey" hit where there is incidental contact to the head and leading with the upper arm, on the blindside, and hitting nothing but head.
Personally, I think that there should be VERY stiff penalties for the blatant headshots. Along the lines of : 1st offense: 5 games, 2nd offense: 20 games 3rd offense: rest of the season / until the guy you put out is back 4th offense: find a new career Players would learn real fast not to hit the head. (Again, this would be for blatant, leading with the arm/elbow, targeting the head hits - if a player is hit hard and clean and happens to be injured that's definitely unfortunate, but it's not dirty/illegal)
Also, the double standard has to go - the same action should get the same punishment whether you're Matt Cooke, Alexander Ovechkin, or PK Subban.
Finally, the recommendation going to the GMs on head shots is:
"A lateral, back pressure or blindside hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and or the principal point of contact is not permitted. A violation of the above will result in a minor or major penalty and shall be reviewed for possible supplemental discipline."
|
| n/a |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 15:09:47
Fat Elvis, you made me laugh out loud here . . . very funny stuff.
About the high sticking blanket penalty, Beans - the problem is, having a stick above the shoulders is in no way a "hockey play", other than swatting at a puck that has ricocheted and is floating downard. With hits to the head, we have talked about it time and time again how one can make a totally legal hockey play and because of the other players lack of ice vision, size or position, they get a head shot.
Well, I did just think of one . . . the follow through on a slapshot, the kind that put Berard's eye out almost. But still, I think there is a difference.
But like I said, your blanket penalty position is a fair point, and I wouldn't argue too vociferously against it myself, even if I don't totally agree with it.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 14:23:12
It's a cloudy area to say the least.
Does anyone remember the 2 games that Glencross got for hitting Drury for basically the same hit that Cooke layed on Savard.
I also call garbage as Cooke has 2 previous suspensions for hits to the head. Yet Campbell said there isn't a rule against hits to the head.
WTF??
Here is the TSN link. Unfortunately I can not access youtube at work, however I will try to post the other hits that Cooke did get suspended for.
Three head shots in 155 hits and 64 games. That's good for ahead shot every 50 hits or 20 games.
This guys is just a tool. Legal or not, he's dangerous. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 12:29:09
Not a whole lot to discuss, precedence set the case for this clearly and look no further than the Richards on Booth hit for an example. While the new rules are being passed to change these things, clearly this hit was within the rules no matter how cheap or dangerous it was at the time. Still shows the lack of respect that many players still have for their bretheren.
On a side note, looks like Ferraro lost his house? He told Don Taylor on the Team 1040 here in Vancouver yesterday that he'd give him his house if Cooke got off without suspension! On the downside for Don, he did warn him that he'd have to incure all the debts along with it!  |
| Guest9836 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 12:17:26
No suspension for the Cooke hit... discuss... |
| Leafs81 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 12:14:45
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
You do know it's not called the 'investigator rule', don't you?....
The investigator rule is the one that Slozo believes the league never uses...
The INSTIGATOR rule, is the one that I hope you are referring too.
Thanks... That makes more sens haha... I'm french. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 12:08:57
You do know it's not called the 'investigator rule', don't you?....
The investigator rule is the one that Slozo believes the league never uses...
The INSTIGATOR rule, is the one that I hope you are referring too. |
| Leafs81 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 11:45:28
This is a crazy idea but I wonder...
Can they leave the investigator rule but have a control over it. I explain, let's say the ref judges that the guy deserves a beating for something he did, like Lapierre did on Nichol, then somebody from the other team is allowed to go fight Lapierre. But if it's for no valid reason, just to get the crowd going, or retribution from what somebody said in the paper, and a guy start pounding at a guy randomly, then the ref can give a penalty for investigating a fight.
But if the beating is well deserve and after something that just happened then the ref just sits back and gives a couple of major for fighting. hehe...
I think this would control some headshots while not taking the investigator rule out completly.
Also I hope they do something about the icing, it's still beyond me why in the hell they still have touch icing in the NHL. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 11:38:15
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7752
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7752
What was even worse, and further confirms it was dirty was Cooke's comments at the end of the game.
He mentioned that "he too" was hit in a similar fashion earlier in the game...
That's more proof that it was a DIRTY and premeditated hit, with full intent of hurting someone.
7752....please re-read what you posted above and explain to me how in the hell this "confirms it was dirty"??? Because he said he was hit in a similar way makes his hit dirty? WTF? 
It's retaliation and premeditated.
WTF else do you need to confirm is was dirty!
While this clears up what you were saying at least a little bit, it still makes little sense to me. What you're saying then is that Cooke is admitting the hit was dirty. I mean, if he's saying he did this to Savard because someone hit him the same way, it's either both hits were/are dirty or both were/are clean. So, is Cooke admitting he cheap shotted Savard? If so, he should accept the penalty and the consequences. If he's saying that he was hit legally and that he did the same, well, that really doesn't prove in any way your original comment. Sorry, but you still haven't really made any sense have you? |
| Guest7752 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 11:09:16
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7752
What was even worse, and further confirms it was dirty was Cooke's comments at the end of the game.
He mentioned that "he too" was hit in a similar fashion earlier in the game...
That's more proof that it was a DIRTY and premeditated hit, with full intent of hurting someone.
7752....please re-read what you posted above and explain to me how in the hell this "confirms it was dirty"??? Because he said he was hit in a similar way makes his hit dirty? WTF?
It's retaliation and premeditated.
WTF else do you need to confirm is was dirty! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 10:43:49
Full Moon tonight??
Dead on Slozo. I agree that the playoffs are a better comparison.
However, the one piece I disagree with is the statement"
The part where I disagree with some of you, is that I don't believe in a blanket penalty, which would include legal hits such as this one.
I go back to the highsticking. Most highsticking call are not intentional and are mostly from a player not controlling their stick.
Same thing here, only the players will be held accountable to control their body. |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 10:33:01
And you're forgetting that there was a second head shot in the Olympics, they were discussing this on the FAN 590 a couple of days ago, debating this very subject. Can't remember what game it was, but there were two serious injuries due to head shots during the Olympics . . . and nearly half the competitors were not NHLers used to the rougher stuff, so again, not a fair comparison either as you have many different players from leagues where hard physical play is not the norm as it is in North America.
Beans, I think my comparison about the NHL playoffs is a better comparison, because it's the same league, rules and players, just with stiffer penalties, and of course more at stake.
This is why I have always been for actually game misconducts and suspensions for fighting, so the goonery would leave. You'd still have fights now and again, but it would only be for "good" reasons (very loose interpretation of the word good there).
Personally, if the head shot was deemed in any way a "non-hockey play" or illegal, I think there should be mandatory suspensions with specifically graded terms depending on how many offences in the past you have had, and how severe the hit is. For really severe illegal hits, I would agree with a suspension ON TOP of the allotted amount to reflect how many games were missed by the victim.
The part where I disagree with some of you, is that I don't believe in a blanket penalty, which would include legal hits such as this one. I still think there should be "hockey accountability" from players crossing the neutral zone and blue line carrying the puck, and I feel it is part of the game that makes hockey exciting and sometimes unpredictable. No, I don't think injuries are exciting, but I feel it is an integral part of the game to be able to knock a guy off the puck or make him rush his shot because of physical contact . . . it actually rewards the smarter, faster players in the end - which is what we want, right?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 09:13:25
Yep, good point Alex, but what happened to Tollefsen after that hit??
5 Minute Major.
Game Misconduct.
Had Norway not been elimitated, he would have been suspended for further games.
Point being is that the IIHF has recognized an issue and is making attempts at making things better. It's more than I can say for the NHL.
The reduction in head shots, regardless of the method that will be introduced (changes in padding, rules, penalties), will not be immediate. It will take some time for the changes to have an impact. Which is another reason why the 30 games during the Olympics is not a great picture.
However, not considering just headshots, I found the Olympics so much (light years) cleaner in all aspects.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 08:25:24
Personally i think it's extremely far fetched that Cooke will be gone for the year, but then again, stranger things have happened? Or have they? Prob not.... 
As for the argument that the Olympics proved how good clean hockey can be played, i don't think this is true. Yes, we saw many games that were played at high levels and obviously without the fighting, etc. BUT, consider this, there were approx 30 games during the olympics i believe? That amounts to roughly 2 Satuday night and one mid week night on the NHL sched, 30 games, right? Well, don't forget the brutal hit to Lubos Bartecko of Slovakia from Ole-Kristian Tollefsen of Norwary during their quarter final game. Bartecko was carried off on a stretcher bleeding from his head. Now, i know it was the contact with the ice after his helmut came off that caused the severe cut, but it was still a head shot! This is one serious incident in just 30 games. Yeah, the fighting was gone during hte Olympics, but lets face it, the hits like this, be them intentional or coincidental, were not necessariyly gone. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 08:16:46
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7752
What was even worse, and further confirms it was dirty was Cooke's comments at the end of the game.
He mentioned that "he too" was hit in a similar fashion earlier in the game...
That's more proof that it was a DIRTY and premeditated hit, with full intent of hurting someone.
7752....please re-read what you posted above and explain to me how in the hell this "confirms it was dirty"??? Because he said he was hit in a similar way makes his hit dirty? WTF?
|
| Guest8855 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 07:32:24
Cookie will be gone for the year, third offfense and it was nothing but elbow that he hit him with. see ya later Matty |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 06:54:21
Hey Leigh, as far as the 'blanket rule" I personally don't see an issue with it. I look at high sticking. In my opinion, most high sticking penalties are not intentional but there is still a penalty. The final result of the high sticking rule and the way it's designed is that players have a lot more control over their sticks.
I think that's what I would personally like to see as far as the headshots. I know they will still happen. And you are dead right in that these players are moving at high speeds and incidental stuff will happen. But does a guy like Cooke or Richards even lay that hit if there is an automatic penalty behind it??
All that needs to happen is some kind of control over the reckless hits. It doesn't water down or change the game for anyone. It simply reduces the needless injuries based on players having a lack of respect for each other and the game.
If the players won't police/respect themselves (as you and I would both prefer) the league must force it.
If this was some how introduced with some kind of change to the upper body padding, then I would think that's about the best that the NHL can do.
It will never eliminate the problem, but reducing it is very important.
Finally, the Olympic Tourney is not a great comparison to a full season and all the things that happen. However, it does tell us two things.
1) The game can be played to a high standard of 'cleanliness" without many dangerous hits or fighting every 3 minutes.
2) It also shows a snapshot of what the game would look like if they goon element was removed. Just quality hockey.
Now, I know that the NHL does not have the elite talent that the Olympic had over 30 teams, but it still is a picture of what can happen. It provides a goal for the NHL to strive for. The closer to the Olympic style of hockey that the NHL can create, the better the game will be. |
| Guest6414 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 06:12:11
[quote]Originally posted by slozo
Actually rross, that is a SOFT way to deliver a bodycheck.
There should be no debate as to legality if you know the rules and have eyes.
"Dirty" implies something that at the very least slightly contravenes the rules, but isn't something that is usually penalised. Again - it's a hockey play, the hit to the head doesn't seem intentional, and there was nothing illegal about it.
That to me says clean, but unfortunate.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Actually slozo, when I said debating about legality, or otherwise, I was implying that legality should not be included in this debate since by NHL rules, it is a legal hit. My point I was trying to make was made in my first sentence. Dirty, clean or otherwise. My opinion was dirty. Because Cooke new he had him lined up in a vulnerable position and instead of delivering a solid check to his shoulder, just skated by "hoping" not to hit his head. This is irresponsible in my opinion and a dirty hit. Perhaps a refresher course in bodychecking is needed at the NHL level?? And not just on how to deliver a bodycheck, but receive one as well. All to often I think players aren't receiving bodychecks as efficiently as they could, and this is leading to some injuries. I would not put all the blame on the person delivering the bodycheck, but in Cooke's case, I do. Just a thought. |
| Guest7752 |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 05:54:54
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Slozo, i think we need to start a new thread to determine the definition of "dirty" as far as NHL hits go. I agree with you on some of what you say, especially that this hit is actually within the current rules. I don't agree with your opinion of wanting to keep these hits in the game. My thing on this hit is this, he could have, as someone mentioned, bent down a little lower and hit Savard's body moreso than just his head. He also could have hit him a little more straight on and not just cruised by and hit the only thing sticking out in his path, Savard's head. Regardless, i agree with "dirty" being something illegal but at the same time, i would encourage the NHL to get rid of hits like this one. If he'd hit him straight on and the result was the same, then i'd prob be okay with it, but it makes me sick that the ONLY thing Cooke made contact with was Savards head!
What was even worse, and further confirms it was dirty was Cooke's comments at the end of the game.
He mentioned that "he too" was hit in a similar fashion earlier in the game...
That's more proof that it was a DIRTY and premeditated hit, with full intent of hurting someone. |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 04:51:53
I agree with you Leigh about a lot of concussions going unreported back in the 70s and early 80s . . . that's why I was focussing just on guys getting "laid out". Hits to the head via an elbow, shoulder or other body part (incidental or otherwise) that resulted in a guy splayed out on the ice.
There was a heck of a lot less of that then . . . and it was a dirtier, tougher time for hockey in my opinion.
The whole "bigger, faster" argument to lessen that argument doesn't hold water in my opinion, as comparitively, the ratios remained the same. A big guy in the 70s may have been just average size these days, but he was still a good size bigger then regular sized players back then, just like the ratio now. A very fast player back then would have been just average as well these days probably in terms of speed . . . but he was still faster than everyone else back then. The ratios remained the same, which means the impact would have remained about the same as well, generally.
Back then, a big guy was anyone over 6' and 200lbs . . . I even remember that in the late 80's, a guy like Bob Probert was considered a 'monster' - one of the biggest, strongest (and toughest) guys in the league. He was 6'3", 225 . . . a size and weight that is still considered large, but far from rare. In fact, most teams have at least one, sometimes two or three guys this size on their team, and often larger. And yet, we don't have the small slight players anymore either . . . so it's not as if just because the top end of the size chart has risen, that the bottom part hasn't risen as well.
I really do think it's mostly the padding - exchange plastic for fabric padding they had in the 70s, and make it across the board for all players. If you do that, an elbow to the head probably won't knock the other player out (it'll still hurt big time, of course) and the guy throwing the "dirty" hit will be on the ice clutching his elbow, yelling . . . because that also really, really hurts.
Maybe we keep the hard plastic for the knee pads . . . below the waist is fine as is. But shoulder and elbow pads need to change for the safety of all involved.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| leigh |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 16:57:30
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
First off, you can't compare a very short tournament with a heck of a lot of prestige to a regular season NHL game. If you want a closer comparison to the Olympics, compare series' that have happened in the finals of the NHL playoffs to the Olympics.
Oops, there goes your point.
I have a feeling that changing the equipment has another player involved behind back doors that has a lot of sway . . . and that is Nike/Bauer. It sure would cost them a lot of money to change over all of the equipment, and I bet they'd be very reluctant to lose all that money when it'd be so much easier to bribe certain GMs with different forms of greater corporate sponsorship and get them on board with just "changing the rules". It's a feeling I have that has absolutely no proof, other than my experience in the corporate world and how sickly it all works for the bottom line, ignoring anything that loses them money or shuffles the status quo.
Doesn't it make anyone wonder how many, many spokespeople in hockey have talked about the equipment, but that it is never followed up on above idle chatter? Or maybe I am wrong and there are greater movements afoot to bring in new equipment designs? I'd love to be wrong about this, because I feel it would eliminate so many of the concussions that just weren't there in the 70s and early 80s when you still had big guys, flying around, getting hit in the head HELMETLESS and not getting laid out like today.
Anyways, just some thoughts.
Hey Slozo, I don't necessarily take the equipment conspiracy point of view here but I do agree that it is an expensive endeavor and therefore is slow to take hold. Having said that, conspiracy is an interesting concept.
For the record, in the 70's and 80's, relatively speaking, there were great deal of hits laid out of this nature. The difference is that not as much was known, or accepted, about concussions so they went unreported and therefore out of the media. In addition, not all the games were televised so much went unnoticed other than in local papers. Add to that players were admittedly going a little slower. Also, the equipment was much smaller and lighter with much less plastic surface area. Take a look at Chris Chelios' shoulder pads if you want to see an example of pads from the 70's and 80's. Very light and small; today's shoulder pad designs are literally taken from Football. They are great protection for the player wearing them, but almost murder for the player taking them to the chin. Finally, because players wore less protective gear (mostly in the 70's), most were less willing to throw out massive body checks all game long.[/u] Don't get me wrong, it was a nasty and vicious game, but there were more repercussions to your own body so it may have manifested in what mistakenly appeared to be respect for other players. |
| Guest9494 |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 16:38:45
this is gonna continue to happen till bigger suspenions are given out he went out of the way to hit his head brutal |
| leigh |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 16:06:01
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15......
My point?? The NHL hockey hit can be done in a way where there is not direct contact to the head and using the speed of the game is a crutch. Simply put, the dangerous hit does not have to happen and players do have the choice if they want to make a hit or not.
--------------------
Oh...and you're dreaming my friend. Yes it CAN be done without contact to the head, but good luck doing it all the time. The game moves too fast (it's not a "crutch", it's a fact)
Change the gear, not the game. Problem solved.
Looks like the GM's don't exactly agree.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=520737
Don't oversell your point yet Beans, to be clear at this stage only 8 parties agree to take it to the Board tomorrow. I believe they will all agree that "intentional headshots should be made illegal"
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making blindside and/or vulnerable hits illegal (although I'd prefer if the league would let the players police it - but those days are behind us) I felt this way years ago when Moore hit Naslund when Naslund was vulnerable. But hits that involve contact with the head are much more difficult to take out without changing the game.
If you want to make hits that ONLY make contact with the head illegal then I would not have a problem with it...but you will end up penalizing the innocent in this case as well. This is a slippery slope, next you'll be penalizing players who glance off the shoulders and hit the head, and it will deteriorate from there. Given how politically correct our society is and is becoming, we'll soon be watching rec hockey and paying $100/seat so the players can risk nothing and rake in their paydays.
--------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I mean c'mon. These guys are the best in the world at what they do. Are you trying to say that they simply can not change the style to show so respect and have less players get injured?? It's unlikely to happen so do nothing about it??
These same "best players in the world" still miss the net when they shoot from time to time...what, they can't miscalculate a body check occasionally too? I'm not saying they can't respect each other. Let me make it perfectly clear Beans so that you can't misconstrue what I am saying. If you hear nothing, hear this....
1) The Cooke hit is currently legal.
2) If you want to change the rules to make it illegal then that is fine, but tread lightly and don't make a blanket rule.
3) Hits to the head will continue to happen regardless of the rules - see your elbowing example. See kneeing. See boarding etc.
4) I would agree to a "blindside or vulnerable" rule only if we can not bring back self-policing (insert instigator argument here) Player respect is a fine line and due to the many personalities in the league it will ebb and flow as it has for the last 40 years I've been around.
5) The speed of the game is not a crutch. Even Campbell says so in the article you cited, it's a fact. All your 2156 hits example proves to me is that this whole headshot issue is overblown. It's a bigger issue because of the media.
6) Soft shell shoulder and elbow pads make a hell of a lot more sense to me than any argument I have heard in this thread or in any of the other 100 threads about this subject on this site.
|
| n/a |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 14:16:44
First off, you can't compare a very short tournament with a heck of a lot of prestige to a regular season NHL game. If you want a closer comparison to the Olympics, compare series' that have happened in the finals of the NHL playoffs to the Olympics.
Oops, there goes your point.
I have a feeling that changing the equipment has another player involved behind back doors that has a lot of sway . . . and that is Nike/Bauer. It sure would cost them a lot of money to change over all of the equipment, and I bet they'd be very reluctant to lose all that money when it'd be so much easier to bribe certain GMs with different forms of greater corporate sponsorship and get them on board with just "changing the rules". It's a feeling I have that has absolutely no proof, other than my experience in the corporate world and how sickly it all works for the bottom line, ignoring anything that loses them money or shuffles the status quo.
Doesn't it make anyone wonder how many, many spokespeople in hockey have talked about the equipment, but that it is never followed up on above idle chatter? Or maybe I am wrong and there are greater movements afoot to bring in new equipment designs? I'd love to be wrong about this, because I feel it would eliminate so many of the concussions that just weren't there in the 70s and early 80s when you still had big guys, flying around, getting hit in the head HELMETLESS and not getting laid out like today.
Anyways, just some thoughts.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest8332 |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 14:02:19
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
[quote][i]
Oh...and you're dreaming my friend. Yes it CAN be done without contact to the head, but good luck doing it all the time. The game moves too fast (it's not a "crutch", it's a fact)
Change the gear, not the game. Problem solved.
See Olympics rules. That is what you need regarding hits to the head. Automatic 10 minutes and additional suspension if required. I don't recall Olympics hockey being boring or non physical.
Agreed change equipment too. |
|
|
