I’m too young to have seen Milbury play, or to be personally familiar with the game the way it was played at that time.  However, my general impression is that Milbury is increasingly showing that the game has moved away from him; while the game and public perceptions have evolved, Milbury has not.  Maybe a Grade 2 concussion wasn’t his intent, but he had to know that a severe head injury could be possible with the type of action that he took.  Some of it is instinctual, of course - in some cases there are mere seconds to identify the opportunity and actually deliver a hit, but it’s on that level that action has to be taken.  The league has to take actions to change the thought processes and gut reactions of players.  Yes hitting is an integral and exciting part of the sport, but from a business and marketing perspective it’s bad practice to allow players to be sidelined indefinitely due to plays that could be avoided without changing the essence of the sport.  Particularly in a time when the major sport in the American scene is (at least publicly) taking a serious look at how to minimize head injuries such as concussions, the absence of a similar effort by the NHL will run the risk of making the league as anachronistic and irrelevant on the American sports scene as Milbury is.

Posted by Dan from Pittsburgh, PA on 03/09/10 at 05:12 PM ET

I love that the defense of headshots it “he’s just finishing his check.” So, he was going to elbow Savard in head when he had the puck, so he should be able to elbow Savard in the head after he’s gotten rid of the puck?

Posted by Garth on 03/09/10 at 05:24 PM ET

I love that the defense of headshots it “he’s just finishing his check.” So, he was going to elbow Savard in head when he had the puck, so he should be able to elbow Savard in the head after he’s gotten rid of the puck?

It wasn’t an elbow.

I don’t think Milbury is being decisive about the hit itself (would be more instructive to hear the whole interview instead of these pulled quotes).

This is such a hard thing to legislate.

Intent to injure is subjective and the same kinds of inconsistencies will occur, at least in fans’ eyes.

The NFL has done a ton to limit head/brain/spinal injuries.  But there is still nothing to prevent a defensive back from putting his shoulder into a player’s helmet, and they still routinely mis-call helmet to helmet hits.

Posted by HNBCTB on 03/09/10 at 05:32 PM ET

The point isn’t even whether or not guys “intend” to injure each other, any more. The point now becomes that the game is played so fast by guys that are so big and strong that clean, textbook hits can severely injure.

Injuries are a part of the game, and we can’t take hitting away from it. But removing “blind-side” hits from the game and punishing ALL hits to the head (whether elbow or shoulder) with a mandatory minor or double-minor penalty is the type of thing that can help players re-learn how to hit with just as much effectiveness, but far less danger.

It’s not about “sissification” of the game. It’s not about making it softer. It’s simply that the game has so much more power in it in all facets than it had even 10 years ago, and as a result, some regulation is necessary to keep the game from going barbaric.

I don’t know about everyone else, but I’m tired of there essentially being at least one game every night that involves a dirty play, or a bad injury, or a close call that could’ve been avoided with just a little bit of respect.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 03/09/10 at 05:33 PM ET

When I played minor hockey I was hoping the guy I hit wouldn’t get back up after the hit, then it happened and I became fearful and sorry for my actions. In the moment a cheer from your teammates and a woo from the stands is much more important than the well-being of your opponent. Instant gratification-long-term ramifications - I’ve heard this before.

Posted by Nathan from BC on 03/09/10 at 05:37 PM ET

The point isn’t even whether or not guys “intend” to injure each other, any more.

What kills me is that they were able to snap their fingers and decide that, whether you “intend to injure” or not, if you clip someone in the face with your stick, it’s a penalty.  And whether you intend to injure or not, if you draw blood it’s a double-minor.

Why is it so hard to decide that there’s a penalty if you give someone a head shot, whether you were careless or trying to hurt the guy?

It wasn’t an elbow.

Sorry, he was going to drill him in the head with upper arm.  Either way, it’s a head shot.

Good on you for understanding the point and not getting all tangled up in semantics.

Posted by Garth on 03/09/10 at 05:41 PM ET

“ and punishing ALL hits to the head (whether elbow or shoulder) with a mandatory minor or double-minor penalty is the type of thing that can help players re-learn how to hit with just as much effectiveness, but far less danger. “

Too many variables to outlaw ALL hits to the head. This can’t be taken out of the game.

Posted by Nathan from BC on 03/09/10 at 05:42 PM ET

I love that the defense of headshots it “he’s just finishing his check.” So, he was going to elbow Savard in head FROM THE BLINDSIDE when he had the puck, so he should be able to elbow Savard in the head FROM THE BLINDSIDE after he’s gotten rid of the puck?

Totally agree with a slight addition.

Also, RE: Swilbury’s claim that Cooke was “ready to finish his check with authority”—this looked a lot more like a drive-by shooting than an authoritative check IMHO. One thing I can’t argue with is the fact that Cooke certainly made sure he punished Savard when he got the opportunity. Sheesh.

Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 03/09/10 at 05:46 PM ET

and punishing ALL hits to the head (whether elbow or shoulder)

What about a fist? Are they okay?
Just asking.

Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 03/09/10 at 05:49 PM ET

Roughing. Taken care of years ago before it became epidemic.

Posted by Nathan from BC on 03/09/10 at 05:57 PM ET

It wasn’t an elbow.

Sorry, he was going to drill him in the head with upper arm.  Either way, it’s a head shot.

Good on you for understanding the point and not getting all tangled up in semantics.

Semantics as in whether it was a legal hit or not?  Elbow = illegal.  Shoulder = legal.

Not saying it’s right, but it’s the way things are and it’s why things need to change.

And good on you for getting snippy when you were the one that posted inaccurate information.

Posted by HNBCTB on 03/09/10 at 06:24 PM ET

I don’t know about everyone else, but I’m tired of there essentially being at least one game every night that involves a dirty play, or a bad injury, or a close call that could’ve been avoided with just a little bit of respect.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson’s ice cream truck on 03/09/10 at 04:33 PM ET

Hit the nail right on the head. Your take on the entire situation is well put and I have to agree.

Lets Go Red Wings!!!!!

Posted by Kate from Pa. on 03/09/10 at 06:34 PM ET

I don’t know about everyone else, but I’m tired of there essentially being at least one game every night that involves a dirty play, or a bad injury, or a close call that could’ve been avoided with just a little bit of respect.
Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson’s ice cream truck on 03/09/10 at 04:33 PM ET

+1 and the last word in that quote says it all. Respect for your coworkers, they are all union “brothers” afterall.
The players have pushed the league to do something & at least it MIGHT happen before someone suffers a career ending injury or worse.

Posted by MOWingsfan19 on 03/09/10 at 06:35 PM ET

Caps analyst and former player Alan May “Matt Cooke’s hit was perfectly legal. I’ve seen that exact play 100 times in my career and it’s always been legal, maybe they need to change it I don’t know but as it stands now that’s legal. People need to understand that if Cooke passes up that hit his coaching staff will get all over him. I don’t understand players today, you need to know who’s on the ice. When I played there was a guy named Brian Marchament and I always knew to keep one eye on him because he tried to hurt you. Usually legally but still it’s your job to be aware. Cooke will be suspended because the clowns in Canada on TSN will scream and hollar but it’s a joke”

Posted by eric from baltimore on 03/09/10 at 08:09 PM ET

In response to Alan May:

Yes, those hits have happened forever. I agree with what he says beside the fact that Cooke could have lowered his shoulder to go shoulder to shoulder. That statement is fact. There is no question about that. All his power came from his upper body/arms exploding through the hit. It should be the player’s core/legs that create the impact.

Posted by Nathan from BC on 03/09/10 at 08:26 PM ET

I find it kinda hard to take Milbury seriously after the Olympics.  Why should we listen to him on this topic when he condoned Boyle slew-footing Semin after Semin hit Boyle legally (Semin was given a penalty for knocking off Crosby’s helmet, not on the hit)? 

I think headshots should be called like high-sticking: 2 minutes, 4 if there is an injury (the injured player would have to stay off the ie for a period of time).  they should also fine- but maybe not penalize- players who try headshots and miss.  As I was typing and watching NYI-Philly, a FLyer came in leading with his elbow, going high the islander ducked.  I don;t think this should be a penalty (you would have players intentionally taking hits to the head otherwise), but if they started giving out fines, players would think twice about leading with their elbows

Posted by jon from prague on 03/09/10 at 09:16 PM ET

I think the league will eventually have to make all hits to the head illegal - other leagues have done the same, so it isn’t as though they would be breaking new ground.  The prospect of a player with an $80 million contract as the cornerstone of the team on the ice and the marketing efforts off it being out for a season, a calendar year, or longer, and never being quite the same when he does get back - or a career ending at, say, 24 years old, with all that money, the time, the effort on development, the horrible records to get that high draft pick gone and wasted in an instant of contact between a skull and one goon’s elbow will force the league to change.

Also the prospect of paying for long-term care for a disabled former player because he can’t take care of himself properly after he turns 55 years old because of the long-term brain damage will help change attitudes.  Forget the humanity or compassion of it - that’s a lot of money flushed down the toilet if a star player has his career ended very early because of a concussion.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 03/09/10 at 11:08 PM ET

Good on you for understanding the point and not getting all tangled up in semantics.

The hit was bad enough. That you invented an elbow deserves a response.

Instant gratification-long-term ramifications - I’ve heard this before.

that’s an argument for the removal of the instigator, which I also, tentatively, approve of. Who was it who said “there’s no better deterrent than giving a guy a beating in front of 17,000 of his friends?”

All his power came from his upper body/arms exploding through the hit. It should be the player’s core/legs that create the impact.

Not sure what you mean, here. Richards exploded from the legs and Booth was hurt worse as a result.

Posted by steve on 03/10/10 at 04:09 AM ET

the cornerstone of the team on the ice and the marketing efforts off it being out for a season, a calendar year, or longer, and never being quite the same when he does get back - or a career ending at, say, 24 years old, with all that money, the time, the effort on development, the horrible records to get that high draft pick gone and wasted in an instant of contact between a skull and one goon’s elbow will force the league to change.

Sadly, that already happened.

Posted by steve on 03/10/10 at 04:15 AM ET