The Puck Stops Here
Next entry: Selke Leader
Previous entry: Brodeur Struggling
A Commitment To Stop Headshots?
by PuckStopsHere on 03/11/10 at 10:48 AM ET
Comments (7)
The major topic of discussion at the recent NHL general managers meeting was hits to the head. After several presentations and proposals, it was decided that headshots are a problem in the league. The following words were unanimously approved by the group:
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.
That two line statement is the most reported achievement of a three day meeting. It seems a little underwhelming. This two line statement must get approval from the NHL Board of Governors and from the NHL Competition Committee before it becomes law in the league. At best this could happen by the beginning of next season.
In the meantime we see another case study in why headshots are a problem in the NHL. On Sunday, the Pittsburgh Penguins met the Boston Bruins. Pittsburgh won the game 2-1. The major story from, the game was a headshot by Pittsburgh`s Matt Cooke late in the third period of the game. Cooke had a blindside hit on Marc Savard. Cooke appeared to hit Savard in the head with his elbow. Savard was taken off the ice on a stretcher. He has a concussion and will likely not play another game this season. This is a devastating blow for the Boston Bruins, who currently hold down the eighth and final playoff seed in the East Conference. Savard has the highest points per game on the low scoring Bruins (but has earlier missed time to injury limiting him to 33 points in 41 games). The loss of Savard could easily cost the Bruins a playoff berth.
In his infinite wisdom, Colin Campbell, the NHL`s senior vice president and director of hockey operations, who is in charge of handing out suspensions decided not to suspend Matt Cooke for the hit. Matt Cooke is a repeat offender. He had a two game suspension for a questionable (and similar) hit on Artem Anisimov of the New York Rangers earlier this year. It was argued that Matt Cooke did not break any existing rules with his hit. In other words, without the two line statement by the general managers it is legal to hit somebody in the head with your elbow from the side when they do not see you. This is apparently not an attempt to injure.
The precedent seems to be a Mike Richards hit on David Booth that kept Booth out for 45 games with a concussion. Richards was not suspended either. It seems that a poor call a previous suspension is used to argue that other players who have similar hits should not be suspended either.
What difference does it make to the situation if a rule change as suggested by the general managers comes into place? It looks like Cooke might have got 2 minutes in penalties for the hit. Possibly even five minutes. The possibility of supplemental discipline already exists, but Colin Campbell decided that even in the case of a repeat offender this hit is not worthy of it.
The problem of hits to the head in the NHL is a serious one. Players who get blindsided with a hit to the head often suffer concussions that keep them out for significant portions of the season. It appears that despite a short statement from the general managers meeting, there will be no major change to this problem. Player`s safety is not as important as keeping blindside hits in the game. If Matt Cooke can be a repeat offender and not receive a suspension when the topic is clearly in the media and the hit affects the playoff picture in a serious way, can we expect suspensions in the future? Does a new rule mean that Matt Cooke would get a two minute penalty for his efforts in the future? If so it is far too insignificant a penalty to prevent anything.
Filed in: | The Puck Stops Here | Permalink
Tags: Marc+Savard, Matt+Cooke, Pittsburgh+Penguins,
Comments
The Cooke hit looks like he probably led with his elbow and can be seen here.
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 03/11/10 at 11:18 AM ET
One has to wonder why it took so long and what the consequences for Mr. Cooke will be.
Too much hypocrisy in the game right now. Had that hit happened to Crosby instead of Savard (who I would argue is just important to Boston as Sid is to Pittsburght), what would the penalty be for the bum who delivered the hit?
Posted by Earl on 03/11/10 at 11:59 AM ET
The Cooke hit looks like he probably led with his elbow and can be seen here.
I’ve seen it before. Cooke’s elbow is the thing that’s touching his own ribs in every angle of the replay. The part that hits Savard in the jaw is called a shoulder.
The hit’s bad enough. You don’t need to make it worse by inventing an elbow that nobody but you and Jack Edwards seem to be able to see.
Posted by steve on 03/11/10 at 12:13 PM ET
I’ve seen it before. Cooke’s elbow is the thing that’s touching his own ribs in every angle of the replay. The part that hits Savard in the jaw is called a shoulder.
The hit’s bad enough. You don’t need to make it worse by inventing an elbow that nobody but you and Jack Edwards seem to be able to see.
maybe you need to watch it a few more times. Cooke clearly lifted his elbow just before contact was made, and then brought it back down as quickly as he could.
considering you can clearly see all of Cooke’s shoulder as Savard’s head snaps back, how exactly was it his shoulder that made contact?:
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/11/10 at 01:59 PM ET
oh, and btw…whether it’s his shoulder or elbow or his forearm or his upper arm…that’s all irrelevant. it was clearly a headshot that could have been avoided.
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/11/10 at 02:01 PM ET
considering you can clearly see all of Cooke’s shoulder as Savard’s head snaps back, how exactly was it his shoulder that made contact?:
This is the second time you’ve proven that you seriously need to go back and take a course on vectors and directional force.
That Savard’s head snaps in the opposite direction of the shoulder and down proves that it was the point of contact. If the contact was a raising elbow, his head would have snapped up and backwards, not down and to the left.
Also, in the second photograph, Cooke’s elbow is under Savard’s own arm, which means it cannot have been the point of contact.
Thanks for the screenshots to help me prove that point, though.
oh, and btw…whether it’s his shoulder or elbow or his forearm or his upper arm…that’s all irrelevant. it was clearly a headshot that could have been avoided.
Agreed. One wonders why some such as yourself and PSH need to pretend there was an elbow, when there wasn’t, in order to make that otherwise valid point.
Posted by steve on 03/11/10 at 05:45 PM ET
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Most Recent Blog Posts
Missing Other League All Star Games
Top Defenceman So Far This Season
About The Puck Stops Here
The Puck Stops Here was founded during the 2004/05 lockout as a place to rant about hockey. The original site contains over 1000 posts, some of which were also published on FoxSports.com.
Who am I?
A diehard hockey fan.
Why am I blogging?
I want to.
Why are you reading it?
???
Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
When learning from experts it’s best to learn personally from them, or from their blog. We can provide that with poker lessons blog, your home to learn poker personally.
Do you get shocked from the luck in the game of poker? Stop getting shocked and start being a Poker Shoker
Donate to Kukla’s Korner
In other words, without the two line statement by the general managers it is legal to hit somebody in the head with your elbow from the side when they do not see you.
This conclusion isn’t supported by evidence, as neither the Cooke or Richards incidents being discussed involved an elbow.
Posted by steve on 03/11/10 at 11:08 AM ET