B2

David Ritchie

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

Speak Up

It might not look 'cool' on the back of the uniform, but there's nothing 'cool' about being knocked out 'cold' in a hockey rink either.

Remember when minor hockey instituted a "stop sign'' strategically placed on the back of the hockey jersey with the message being: if you can see this sign when about to check an opposing player, then 'stop' to think about the potential repercussions of such a hit.

It might only be one 'steamboat' in terms of time, but seeing the stop sign as you're about to drive a guy into the boards can't help but serve as a reminder that checking-from-behind is not a cool thing to do. And maybe players will be inclined to let up at the moment of decision.

Seems like a great idea and if you talk with minor hockey people, it works.

Why not implement the "stop sign'' as mandatory reminder on the back of every jersey for every level of hockey?

I mean, everybody seems to think the game is going to hell in a handbasket and players are out to kill one another, and that they need protection from themselves.

How many times in the course of a week during hockey season do we hear of another incident of a player getting conked in the head, or taking a particularly vicious blow to the back?

Just the other day, Saint Mary's Huskies coach Trevor Stienburg was screaming bloody murder over what he saw was a check-from-behind to one of his players that appeared to be missed by the referee in an AUS game at the LBR. The linesman did eventually make the call, but Stienburg was annoyed that a player would do that in college hockey.

You know something? It's happens just about every night at the NHL level and all the way down the line.

There's been so many discussion points articulated about how the game has degenerated and that we ought to be banning this or that. It's to the point now of where people are no longer paying attention any more.

Talk is cheap.

Hockey, by its very nature, is not a game for the faint of heart. Players gliding up and down a compressed space of ice surrounded by reinforced boards and glass moving on razor-sharp blades wielding a stick in their hands. Gladiators on skates? Perhaps.

What makes the game 'cool' apart from the obvious is the body-checking and physicality that goes with it. The idea is to control possession of the puck and players learn early on part of gaining control of that little disc is knocking the other guy away from it. Sometimes that's accomplished by an open-ice hit. Other times, it's a matter of banging an opponent into the boards. Bottom line objective: gain possession.

Rules are in place that for players to do that, the opponent has to playing or be in position to play the puck. Otherwise, it's interference and the offending player is levied a penalty.

Pretty basic stuff, right?

Sometimes in the course of trying to gain possession, tempers get frayed, and fights occur. People have argued for years whether "fighting'' is actually part of the game of hockey, or whether it's an unnecessary repercussion of the physicality and should be banned. The people who run the NHL feel it has a place. Other leagues have said no. However feels about it, the basic premise of the game remains. Get the puck, and score more goals than the other guy.

It really is that simple.

If you believe in the basic tenet of the sport and the rules of engagement relative to hits, then why not simply apply common sense to dictate what is tolerable, and what is not.

Hitting an opponent in the head does not adhere to the basic tenet of puck possession but more to inflict pain on a player for whatever reason, maybe in retaliation or simply because he's an open target.

Regardless, it's been deemed an unacceptable act, and countless case studies relative to the negative effects of concussions support that notion.

Compounding the issue, too, is the equipment. Players are now sporting reinforced elbow pads that are more lethal than ever before. The pads are supposed to protect the elbow, not be used as a weapon to knock a guy senseless. The rules need to reflect that.

So if it's so obvious and the effects of such hits are so devastating, why are we getting so much dithering among the powers to be when it comes to legislating against blows to the head? Common sense. Where is the debate?

Same thing with the checking-from-behind phenomenon.

No less an authority than Claude Lemieux, of all people, was saying on television the other day when he was learning the game at an early age, he was taught never to turn his back on an incoming opponent. The common play would be to back into the boards and always have sight of vision for an incoming hit.

Lemieux's view is that in today's game, players are being taught to "protect the puck'' at all costs, so they're following the puck into the boards, all the while focusing on maintaining possession and disregarding a potential hit from behind.

He knows from first hand experience, of course, the damage such a hit can inflict. It was his hit on a defenceless Kris Draper of the Detroit Red Wings in the 1996 playoffs that resulted in severe injury requiring plastic surgery to the face of Draper.

Lemieux is no different from players nowadays taking advantage of defenceless players and laying the big hit. It's happens all the time in the NHL, with often-time serious repercussions. Patrice Bergeron of the Boston Bruins took a hit-from-behind from Philadelphia's Keith Jones and spent the better part of a season trying to keep from getting dizzy.

Again, where's the debate here?

If it's agreed that checking-from-behind is dangerous and can have tragic consequences, why, again, are the rules so ambiguous?

People talk about "accidental'' opposed to "intentional'' hits from behind. They talk about players "turning'' into a hit from behind trying to draw a penalty. They talk about degrees of the infraction.

Years ago, rule-makers bought into that thinking and implemented a two-tier system regarding checking-from-behind penalties. There was the two-minute "accidental'' hit and the five-minute "intentional'' blow to the back. Each carried an automatic game-misconduct penalty.

Again, how about a little common sense here?

If, as we all agree, a checking-from-behind penalty is about as serious as it gets and warrants a game misconduct, then there shouldn't be any degree of intent factoring into whether it's a two-minute minor or five-minute major. Call it five minutes every time.

And if the referee in his judgement feels the hit was accidental, then simply levy a two-minute minor for boarding, cross-checking or roughing.

Pretty basic stuff.

David Ritchie can be contacted at ritchie.david@dailygleaner.com or calling 458-6484. His weekly column appears on Wednesdays.