OHL going too far on major penalty for clean hits?

[Cams 7]

I understand, the league wants to protect it's players, but Dave Branch seems too concerned with making a name of himself, and taking out many of the key elements of hockey. The OHL is a developmental league that strives to put players in the NHL (and it, along with the WHL, and QMJHL, is still the best developmental league in the world). Players need to learn in junior, what they will need to be a pro. See the following link and video - the hit starts at 1:27.

Why is this called a major penalty - after the fact? See the article related to this. Of course, Kitchener scores on the PP.

This is NOT a penalty - or it SHOULD NOT be a penalty!!!! Penalizing plays like this is just sad, and on top of the OHL's new fighting rules, is detracting from the game at this level.

Any thoughts, comments????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ilBmvmoehs&feature=player_embedded

link to article:http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/jrhockey-buzzing-the-net/calgary-flames-pick-patrick-sieloff-delivers-massive-open-040409828.html

[chippa13 1844]

The replay doesn't show how many strides were taken prior to the hit and it is hard to tell if the hitter's skates come up prior to or during the hit, as well as the point of contact. I can see where the hit would be penalized and if a penalty was to be assessed and there was an injury as a result, then most leagues mandate that the penalty be a major plus the gate. That is from the NHL right on down.

[troy 12]

Like you said, it is a developmental league. In the physical contact sports like football and hockey these very aggressive and dangerous, but arguably "clean" hits, have to be mitigated for the longstanding health of the leagues and players. The OHL is going to see what type of effect on gameplay a rule like this will have.

[Chadd 916]

If this rule turns away people that want to see players leave on a stretcher, I don't see that as a bad thing. A penalizes play that results in an injury is an automatic major in most leagues, as Chippa said. I would like to see a better replay.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

Watch the video a fw more times he had no control of the puck at all and is clearly a penalty and the right call. There is no need to injure players that are not in control of the puck!

[IPv6Freely 2096]

I'm fine with the hit itself. It APPEARS that he didn't leave his feet (at least, no more than is natural from such a collision), and I don't think it was late. Nor was it blindside. So it's just a question of whether it was charging. Not a good enough replay to determine that.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[CommodoreColt 19]

The hit was made and called, I think the details and minutiae of the it aren't that important. The biggest thing to take away from situations like these is the fact that it can become a problem when players in developmental leagues create a culture of attracting attention by skating around looking to light everyone up to the exclusion of making a hockey play to gain possession of the puck. Those big hits take the puck carrier out of play, but it also takes you out of the play.

In other words: I, like most of us, appreciate strong, physical hockey. But I am not convinced that the big, devastating hit is always a better hockey decision than the more humble play to bodycheck and strip the puck. Once in a while it turns out to be a productive decision, but more often than not players elect to go for the big highlight reel hit.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

USA Hockey, and I believe Hockey Canada is doing the same, is look rid hockey of checking for the reason of intimidation. With that mentality, you will see this called more often. The point of body checking, per the rule book, is to separate the puck from the player. That wasn't the case in this hit. The referee gave the right call going off the rule book. I don't agree with it but that's what is being frowned upon.

[IniNew 53]

I know Chadd has said this before and I agree whole-heartedly. People don't check.. People hit, and they hit to hurt. No one body checks a player to separate them from the puck anymore. Most of the time you see a hit like this and both players are completely out of the play for a decent stretch. Maybe this is the kind of movement the game needs to get to the skill and speed they want to show on the ice.

[Cams 7]

USA Hockey, and I believe Hockey Canada is doing the same, is look rid hockey of checking for the reason of intimidation. With that mentality, you will see this called more often. The point of body checking, per the rule book, is to separate the puck from the player. That wasn't the case in this hit. The referee gave the right call going off the rule book. I don't agree with it but that's what is being frowned upon.

The problem I have, and this seems to be happening in the OHL a lot lately, is there was no penalty initially on the play - aside from the fight the resulted. It was after much consulting with the linesmen that is was called. Check out the link in my first post - there is another video of Yakupov getting nailed open ice - the player who threw the hit got 10 games!!!!!!

I'm all for safety first for these kids, but what would happen with a guy like Wendel Clark, Cam Neely or Scott Stevens in today's game? They wouldn't be able to play at all!

[chippa13 1844]

You're making a huge mistake lumping Neely in with Stevens. Neely crushed guys, sure, but only those who were between him and the puck or him and the net. To lump Neely in with a headhunter like Stevens is pure folly.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

The problem I have, and this seems to be happening in the OHL a lot lately, is there was no penalty initially on the play - aside from the fight the resulted. It was after much consulting with the linesmen that is was called. Check out the link in my first post - there is another video of Yakupov getting nailed open ice - the player who threw the hit got 10 games!!!!!!

I'm all for safety first for these kids, but what would happen with a guy like Wendel Clark, Cam Neely or Scott Stevens in today's game? They wouldn't be able to play at all!

I hear what you are saying but this is different game. They are trying to get rid of hitters like Stevens. This is getting pushed by hockey federations throughout North America. Since people now what to start paying attention to the damage of concussions, you will see leagues bring down the hammer on 'hits of intimidation.' It doesn't matter what you or I think, that's the way hockey is now. Officials HAVE to follow this new mandate or else they will be out of a job. Leagues are being scared straight by the lawsuits that have come their way. This is how hockey is now. Take it or leave it haha.

[Chadd 916]

I'm all for safety first for these kids, but what would happen with a guy like Wendel Clark, Cam Neely or Scott Stevens in today's game? They wouldn't be able to play at all!

All of those guys had offensive ability well beyond their ability to hit people. Of the three you mentioned, Stevens is the only one that would be impacted negatively by the rule and he had the ability to play a different style of game. To be brutally honest, we're in the position we're in now largely because of Stevens and his head hunting ways. Had he been punished for his actions, instead of lauded, we might not have anywhere near the number of concussions you see in the game at all age levels.

[Cams 7]

I agree with you Chadd - it is because of the Stevens-type hits. But....was he head hunting, or was it a hit of opportunity? Lindros (which time I'm not sure lol!) had his head down, and cutting across ice. That's an invitation to get destroyed. Players have to be aware of who is on the ice. Is Lindros ( in my example ) not just as much at fault?

I don't like the way the game has changed over the last 10 years. Can't clear a guy out of your teams crease like you could. Trapezoid rule is totally stupid. Among others.

[hampshirepuck 2]

As an American expat living in canada and have been watching major junior hockey for the past 3 years or so, I find that the officiating in the Q is pretty inconsistent, letting kids like oligny head hunt and try to take kids out with knee to knee hits is crazy.

[Chadd 916]

I agree with you Chadd - it is because of the Stevens-type hits. But....was he head hunting, or was it a hit of opportunity?

Every situation was different to some degree, but how many of them were to players already engaged with another defender, exploding up directly into the head, locked on from 20+ feet away, with no consideration for anything more than trying to do as much damage as possible? Remember, Stevens was 6', it's hard to make legal contact with the head of someone 6'4", even if they do have their head down.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

Chad is so very right on this point. If you really want to see people get "crushed" watch UFC. A good hockey game has people placing good clean checks seperating the player from the puck the other shit shouldnt be allowed period!

I had a kid get a 5 game suspension last year because they made a clean hit on a kid and the door flew open (the trainer on the other team actually opened it but wouldnt fess up) (oh and the lines called it not the ref) but you have to live with that stuff. It happens in every sport all day long. If we continue to over penalize will we hurt some games that are being watched sure.......however if that player gets to play even one more year of hockey then we have done the right thing!

[The MAD Line 2]

Though not "dirty" by old standards, it is arguable that the point of contact was near or at the head. Medical research has proven that continuous hits to the head have long lasting consequences mentally and physically.

Growing up in the '90's, hits like this were of the norm with guys like Stevens in the league, but I have no problem with leagues taking action towards hits like this. Science has brought forth facts that we were unaware of before and IMO those facts are scary when you realize the affects of hits at or near the head.

Could argue that hits like this show a lack of respect among todays players.

[Chadd 916]

Though not "dirty" by old standards, it is arguable that the point of contact was near or at the head. Medical research has proven that continuous hits to the head have long lasting consequences mentally and physically.

Growing up in the '90's, hits like this were of the norm with guys like Stevens in the league, but I have no problem with leagues taking action towards hits like this. Science has brought forth facts that we were unaware of before and IMO those facts are scary when you realize the affects of hits at or near the head.

Could argue that hits like this show a lack of respect among todays players.

Actually, those hits were really never the norm in the 90s, with the exception of Scott Stevens. They were far more common in the last ten years than ever before in the history of the league.

[Jordan 13]

It's funny.

These types of hits, they are very dangerous and only a relatively recent occurence in the history of hockey. By type of hit, I mean open ice, face to face, high speed hits.

If you go back and watch pre helmet hockey, you never saw this type of hit. Lots of hard battling in the corners, riding players off of the puck, shoulder to shoulder hits etc., but not this type. Anything resembling the type of hit in the video above would have been called charging.

So, we have had a sort of constant climb in violence in the game over the last 40 or so years. Why? Maybe helmets made players feel safer/tougher. Or maybe the bigger and bigger paycheques have made players willing to risk more to get ahead in the game.

Yet, any change to the rules that is meant to protect players is somehow seen as "pansification" of the game. Even in the world of the big bad NFL they realised that you needed to protect the quarterback to preserve the quality of play.

I know that plenty of you will disagree, but the players need to be protected or we will be losing far too many from the game due to long term problems from concussions.

[chippa13 1844]

I believe that the recent phenomenon of the huge head-on hits is a by-product of the advances in protective gear. Hitters are fearless about the high speed collisions because they know they are protected.

[zebra_steve 11]

I believe that the recent phenomenon of the huge head-on hits is a by-product of the advances in protective gear. Hitters are fearless about the high speed collisions because they know they are protected.

Having lived through the beginning of the development of body armour I would have to second this.and would add "ANY HIT" rather than just the huge head on hits. I grew up wearing the old Cooper "T-shirt with shoulder caps" level of protection. I'm telling you, it hurt you as much as the other guy to throw a big hit. Body checks really were just to seperate the man from the puck instead of his senses. I can remember when CCM came out with the Supra shoulderpads.... My first hit while wearing them would have been a highlight reel hit for the ages and all I remember thinking was "Damn, I didn't feel a thing and man did I really drill him"..... Then there was Donzis and Douglas..... Not knocking the products because it still come back to players having a lack of rexpect for one another and buying into the idea of intimidating the opponent... Been there, done that... not proud of it.

[stuie7 6]

it's hard to make legal contact with the head of someone 6'4", even if they do have their head down.

Not sure what is meant by 'legal contact to the head' exactly, but I'm going to have to disagree in that it's not really a challenge to make contact with someone shoulders (and head) if you're the shorter Defender and they're the taller Forward. I can cite a perfect example from my own personal experience, probably 6-9 months ago:

I'm a 6ft 0" Defender, playing against a much taller Centre (possibly 6ft 6"), he's coming down the ice on my opposite wing, reaches my blue line and cuts in towards the centre of the ice, loses the puck a little way out in front of him, stretches to regain it and it's at that point where I meet him. So because he's stretching he's in a crouched position, I'm in perfect level with his shoulders (and head).

No joke I think I must have made this hit maybe 20 times in training or in games in the past 7 years. You can call it 'headhunting' or whatever, but when your opponent cuts inside with his head down fumbling for the puck you've got two choices 1. make the hit to break-up the play OR 2. play the puck, he carries on with his momentum, hits you and you've failed as a defenceman.

I'm not advocating charging 10 miles to make a cross-ice hit, and to be honest I don't even go looking for the hit and I'm certainly not looking to seriously hurt my opponent (and touch wood, to this date I never have), but if the situation presents itself then I'll make that hit every single time. Forward should know better to keep his head up.

[chippa13 1844]

You can still get him shoulder to shoulder and not hit him in the head. The point is that it is ultimately up to the hitter to not blow up a guy in the head. .

[stuie7 6]

Oh yeah totally. I'm simply saying it's feasible to go in for a should-on-shoulder/chest hit as a shorter guy and end up taking a bit of the other guys head if he leans over or whatever.