NHL GMs "Hits to the head are OK"

[Chadd 916]

They might not have said it in so many words, but they see no problem with the players who are out there headhunting.

While endorsing one rule change and more aggressive use of the instigator rule, the GMs rejected or at least postponed an NHL Players' Association proposal from Monday to add a rule specifically banning shoulder hits to the head.Campbell said those hits have already been punished with supplemental discipline, such as the five-game suspension given to New York Islanders defenseman Brendan Witt after elbowing Toronto forward Niklas Hagman in the head Feb. 26.

"Our [GMs] didn't have the appetite to have that called on the ice right now," Campbell said.

Bear in mind, these are the same guys that draft or trade for players like Downie. It's also funny to see Colin Campbell say that he believes he actually addresses these hits. Sure, he does something about one or two a year, but those are usually less severe than the ones he lets go.

[chippa13 1844]

Outlawing shoulders to the head is a tough proposition. That would mean practically everytime Chara or Gill throws a check he will be in the box, based on sheer height differential.

[DarkStar50 679]

Read the Slapshot blog on NY Times Sports web page. Lots of interesting info there from many different sources about this issue.

[RiSeOnFiRe 0]

I don't think there can ever be a rule that says no hits to the head. Lets be honest, sometimes it just happens, whether one player is massively tall like Chippa said with Chara and Gill, or St.Louis getting checked by almost anyone. Toronto's war room watches every game, and should be able to hand out suspensions REGARDLESS of the call on the ice.

[DarkStar50 679]

The OHL has that rule! No hits to the head.

[tro 4]

The NFL has a no head shot rule, so don't tell me the NHL can't do the same.

The fact the players want something in place and the GM/Owners don't, is just crazy to me, maybe they like the pub a big hit, that takes a guys head off gets.

[pantherfan 0]

Outlawing shoulders to the head is a tough proposition. That would mean practically everytime Chara or Gill throws a check he will be in the box, based on sheer height differential.

Not that it's Chara and Co's fault their so freakishly tall but it IMO why should the smaller guys be allowed to take knocks to the head just because of this? If your gonna hit someone it's your responsibilty to do it safely, (obviously guys can turn on players and similar stuff so discretion is needed) doesn't matter what height you are.

Players jumping at each other in hits needs to be addressed more I think aswell.

[chippa13 1844]

Outlawing shoulders to the head is a tough proposition. That would mean practically everytime Chara or Gill throws a check he will be in the box, based on sheer height differential.

Not that it's Chara and Co's fault their so freakishly tall but it IMO why should the smaller guys be allowed to take knocks to the head just because of this? If your gonna hit someone it's your responsibilty to do it safely, (obviously guys can turn on players and similar stuff so discretion is needed) doesn't matter what height you are.

Players jumping at each other in hits needs to be addressed more I think aswell.

This is already considered as charging.

Basically, what you're doing with Chara is making it illegal for him to hit anyone. Try as he might to go shoulder to shoulder, it is physically impossible in a lot of cases and that number is growing as more smallish guys are making their way to the NHL.

[pantherfan 0]

I know that it's considered charging, just IMO not enough is being done to crack down on it. It happens alot in games and no penalty is called for starters.

I understand what your saying about Chara, but honestly as much as I think hes a great player and we shouldn't exactly put a height restriction on hockey I don't think he should be treated differently.

[Law Goalie 147]

Still my favourite Chara moment of all time - with his stick on the ice and his arms flat against his sides, he drilled St. Louis in the corner and got called for an elbowing penalty. His elbows could not physically have been any lower. He skated over so that he was alongside St. Louis, turned to ref and yelled, "His head is at my hip!" at which St. Louis started laughing hysterically.

This really isn't that hard: give the refs a little credit for discretion, and allow them to call hits that *target* the head, whether by charging, jumping, elbowing, leading with the head, whatever. You'll get far more missed or withheld calls than false-positives, and the league can *still* issue supplementary discipline.

[chippa13 1844]

Still my favourite Chara moment of all time - with his stick on the ice and his arms flat against his sides, he drilled St. Louis in the corner and got called for an elbowing penalty. His elbows could not physically have been any lower. He skated over so that he was alongside St. Louis, turned to ref and yelled, "His head is at my hip!" at which St. Louis started laughing hysterically.

This really isn't that hard: give the refs a little credit for discretion, and allow them to call hits that *target* the head, whether by charging, jumping, elbowing, leading with the head, whatever. You'll get far more missed or withheld calls than false-positives, and the league can *still* issue supplementary discipline.

In essence, call the rules as they are written, any hit that targets the head should fall under charging, elbowing, head-butting, or the catch-all, roughing. Don't change the rules, enforce them.

[Law Goalie 147]

Bingo.

Roughing is a great catch-all, but here's the kicker: intent to injure.

You can do whatever you want with that: 5, 10, match, anything.

[Chadd 916]

Bingo.

Roughing is a great catch-all, but here's the kicker: intent to injure.

You can do whatever you want with that: 5, 10, match, anything.

No you can't do what you want with "intent to injure". Attempt to injure is the definition of a match penalty, there are no other options. The intent can be inferred from the attempt, but the intent is irrelevant without the act.

In essence, call the rules as they are written, any hit that targets the head should fall under charging, elbowing, head-butting, or the catch-all, roughing. Don't change the rules, enforce them.

That has been the problem all along. The rules are not enforced as written and a large portion of the GMs (and fans) want it to continue that way.

[Law Goalie 147]

I stand corrected. I don't know why I thought the Intent rule had that latitude, but I did.

That lack of flexibility would make it more difficult to apply, but I still think it could and should be handed out for egregious headshots.

So what are a referee's mathematical options for calling a blatant headshot?

4min (double for rough, elbow, charge, whatever) + 10min (misc.)

4min + Match

Or a single 2min + whatever if it's not as severe.

Can they call a match for intent if the offending hitter misses, or doesn't succeed in hurting the guy? I don't recall what the requirement is here.

Is there any way to call a 5min major on a headshot, or is the ref limited to double-minors in terms of punishing the offender's team?

[chippa13 1844]

Intent to Injure can be called even if someone doesn't connect. Intent is the key. If, in the official's eyes, there was a genuine attempt to injure a player then he can assess the penalty, regardless of the outcome.

[Law Goalie 147]

Gotcha. I just wasn't sure if it was a kind of "thin skull rule"-esque add-on, in effect, or whether it was a genuine assessment of a player's intent.

I'm still not sure there's a way to pull off a rule that demands a suspension equal to the amount of time the injured player misses (unless the league wants to hire some very expensive doctors), but there really should be something like that to supplement an intent call: so, if you intend to injure someone and act accordingly, you're responsible for the full injury and not just the amount you intended to cause.

[Chadd 916]

If Campbell would just suspend the headhunters, guys would stop going for the cheap shots or they would at least be missing a large number of games and unable to injure anyone else. You want someone to blame, look no farther than Colin Campbell.

[Squashbuddie 0]

Still my favourite Chara moment of all time - with his stick on the ice and his arms flat against his sides, he drilled St. Louis in the corner and got called for an elbowing penalty. His elbows could not physically have been any lower. He skated over so that he was alongside St. Louis, turned to ref and yelled, "His head is at my hip!" at which St. Louis started laughing hysterically.

Haha, I would really love to see that. Got it anywhere?

[troy 12]

Malkin hit

Suspension worthy?

[RiSeOnFiRe 0]

Yes. 5 games.

[troy 12]

Well, apparently no suspension, only a fine. I'd love to know now what constitutes an intentional shot to the head.

[Chadd 916]

Well, apparently no suspension, only a fine. I'd love to know now what constitutes an intentional shot to the head.

He stayed on his feet and kept his elbow tucked in. Given the recent history of NHL suspensions and his stature, I'm shocked there was even a fine. As long as you don't do the other stuff, the NHL will let you go for the head.

[skeeter14 0]

Yes. 5 games.

if so, then what would this be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c09YfUlzSjE

i don't remember as much of a stink being made about this one, let alone a disciplinary hearing

[troy 12]

Well, apparently no suspension, only a fine. I'd love to know now what constitutes an intentional shot to the head.

He stayed on his feet and kept his elbow tucked in. Given the recent history of NHL suspensions and his stature, I'm shocked there was even a fine. As long as you don't do the other stuff, the NHL will let you go for the head.

From the angle in the clip it looked like Malkin jutted out his elbow just as Simmonds was skating by, who appeared to have no intention of making contact with Malkin. And from Simmonds' reaction it appeared it hit him square in the head.

[RiSeOnFiRe 0]

Yes. 5 games.

if so, then what would this be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c09YfUlzSjE

i don't remember as much of a stink being made about this one, let alone a disciplinary hearing

That should have been reviewed by the league. I think that the hit itself was less harmful than Malkin's, just unfortunate the boards created a more dangerous situation. Malkin turns, sees his head low, and drives into him. To me, its easier to see Malkin aiming for his head in that video, than OV aiming for Heward's.