Head Shots

RGM81

Verified Trader
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
8,446
Reaction score
0
Location
Kelowna, BC
I love the game, I love my team, I greatly admire my team's players. There are, however, aspects of the game that I don't particularly like, particularly the increase in the frequency of hits to players' heads. I gasped in horror a couple weeks ago when I saw Andrei Kostitsyn get his head smashed into the glass and then, already unconscious and unable to protect himself, bounce off the ice. He didn't move for a good few minutes, and when he did he looked like death warmed over. Then, last weekend, we saw young Brandon Sutter, all of 19 years old, get his head blasted by Doug Weight.
Today, Habs coach Guy Carbonneau has spoken out about hits to the head and the need to eliminate it from the game. I wholeheartedly agree. It's always interesting to see the short-sighted mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers come out whenever this topic comes up. Inevitably they rely on the same tired cliches of feminizing players and all of that tripe. They want their violence and their blood and their guts, the consequences be damned.
The reality is that these are real people, I think that some folks tend to forget that, going out and playing a sport. Yes it's one that is renowned for its physical and mental toughness, but never, ever forget the human element involved. These aren't meaningless automatons being tossed out on the ice that are easily replacable once the current versions are too badly damaged to continue playing. Ask Eric Lindros--a player for whom I have incredibly little respect for his off-ice shenanigans--or his brother Brett the hell they've endured when suffering through their concussions. A lot of these guys have had their careers ended because of blows to the head and the dreaded post-concussion syndrome that lingers on long after the player has seemingly recovered and been able to resume a normal life.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying watching Mike Komisarek lay a wallop on somebody with one of his often-delivered bone-crunching hits. But watch him play. He's six-foot-four and has never once in his career put somebody out with a concussion as a result of a head shot. There's not a sane person alive who would question Komisarek's toughness. But there is a line. When you see a young person; in Sutter's case, barely a man at all at age 19, get knocked absolutely stupid and rendered unconscious, something isn't right about that.
The NHL has to do more to protect its most valued assets. It talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. One of these days we're going to hear that an NHL player has died as a result of a blow to the head. He may not die right on the ice but the trauma may be too much. And the knuckle-draggers will yell loudly that it's just "part of the game."
 
I love the game, I love my team, I greatly admire my team's players. There are, however, aspects of the game that I don't particularly like, particularly the increase in the frequency of hits to players' heads. I gasped in horror a couple weeks ago when I saw Andrei Kostitsyn get his head smashed into the glass and then, already unconscious and unable to protect himself, bounce off the ice. He didn't move for a good few minutes, and when he did he looked like death warmed over. Then, last weekend, we saw young Brandon Sutter, all of 19 years old, get his head blasted by Doug Weight.
Today, Habs coach Guy Carbonneau has spoken out about hits to the head and the need to eliminate it from the game. I wholeheartedly agree. It's always interesting to see the short-sighted mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers come out whenever this topic comes up. Inevitably they rely on the same tired cliches of feminizing players and all of that tripe. They want their violence and their blood and their guts, the consequences be damned.
The reality is that these are real people, I think that some folks tend to forget that, going out and playing a sport. Yes it's one that is renowned for its physical and mental toughness, but never, ever forget the human element involved. These aren't meaningless automatons being tossed out on the ice that are easily replacable once the current versions are too badly damaged to continue playing. Ask Eric Lindros--a player for whom I have incredibly little respect for his off-ice shenanigans--or his brother Brett the hell they've endured when suffering through their concussions. A lot of these guys have had their careers ended because of blows to the head and the dreaded post-concussion syndrome that lingers on long after the player has seemingly recovered and been able to resume a normal life.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying watching Mike Komisarek lay a wallop on somebody with one of his often-delivered bone-crunching hits. But watch him play. He's six-foot-four and has never once in his career put somebody out with a concussion as a result of a head shot. There's not a sane person alive who would question Komisarek's toughness. But there is a line. When you see a young person; in Sutter's case, barely a man at all at age 19, get knocked absolutely stupid and rendered unconscious, something isn't right about that.
The NHL has to do more to protect its most valued assets. It talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. One of these days we're going to hear that an NHL player has died as a result of a blow to the head. He may not die right on the ice but the trauma may be too much. And the knuckle-draggers will yell loudly that it's just "part of the game."

I agree that hopefully they can stop the headshots. However, I dont think you can use the Sutter hit as an example. He put himself in an aweful position and MY TAKE was that Weight sort of just drifted in his path. If Weight doesnt make a move, Sutter gets to the puck and has a great scoring chance. The definition of a No-Win situation Weight.

I know this problem won't go away over night, and hopefully someone doesnt get seriously hurt, but it they do, hopefully the $5 MILLION donation by Eric Lindros to London Health Sciences Centre will allow them to have top notch treatment options readily available...
 
You can eliminate MOST head shots, but the league has to be willing to lay down the hammer with suspensions and fines - and big ones too. Make them go home and say to their wives "I just lost 4/82nds of my salary because I gooned someone" - that'll change things quickly.
 
I agree that hopefully they can stop the headshots. However, I dont think you can use the Sutter hit as an example. He put himself in an aweful position and MY TAKE was that Weight sort of just drifted in his path. If Weight doesnt make a move, Sutter gets to the puck and has a great scoring chance. The definition of a No-Win situation Weight.

All the NHL would have to do to eliminate, or punish this type of hit is introduce a 'checking to the head' penalty like the OHL.

Its very similar to helmet to helmet hits in the NFL. They used to be considered clean, but devastating hits. Now? The NFL has recognized that they can cause a lot of injuries, and they are penalized. That's what the NHL has to do. Hitting someone in the head, whether with your elbow, forearm or shoulder (what would formerly have been considered a 'clean' hit) should be penalized. The glamour of a devastating hit is often negated when the target of the hit crumples to the ice unconscious and has to be stretchered off the ice.

Brandon Sutter didn't put himself in any more vulnerable a position than countless other players who turn their back on an incoming check when they are standing by the boards. A hit from behind is still called in these cases, and if the NHL is serious about reducing head injuries, a hit to the head could easily still be called in cases like Sutter / Weight.
 
i agree about the headshots but disagree about the Sutter hit also. Sutter was bent down and stretched out to reach the puck. if you rewatch the play, Weight hit cleanly with his shoulder at normal level. that's what happens when you have your head down on open ice like that. it's still a shame though, i hear he was really starting to turn it on too.
 
I too agree that something needs to be done about hits to the head, but not the ones like the hit on Sutter or even Kostitsyn. I think the checkee is to blame for alot of it because they are puttin themselves in akward situations. Kostitsyn was clearly admiring his pass and Sauer finished his check. Sutter was reaching out with his head down and like someone above stated if weight didn't hit him (which I don't think he could have without making contact with Sutters head) Sutter would have go the puck.
The hits that need to be eliminated are the ones like Pronger on Holmstrom two years ago, the hits along the boards with elbows and forearms high. The blindside hits with clear follow throughs like Neil on Drury.
To me the difference between the Neil hit and the Weight hit is Weight coasted in with his shoulder down and elbow tucked in, Neils elbow was down when contact was made but there was a follow through that to me made it look like there was intent to aim for the head.
I don't think you can fault a guy for making a big hit or finishing a check on someone because they got hurt, especially if the was clean ( no elbow, no hit form behind, no charging) The Weight and Sauer hits were none of these.
 
i agree about the headshots but disagree about the Sutter hit also. Sutter was bent down and stretched out to reach the puck. if you rewatch the play, Weight hit cleanly with his shoulder at normal level. that's what happens when you have your head down on open ice like that. it's still a shame though, i hear he was really starting to turn it on too.

This is what the NHL needs to step up against though. There shouldn't be any 'clean hits to the head.' If your shoulder (or any other body part) makes hard, direct contact with another player's head - it should be penalized. It will involve a rule change, and take some getting used to, but its what the NHL needs to do - if they aren't just paying lip service to the idea of reducing head injuries.

Vulnerable position or not - it shouldn't be allowed. Its the same as when checking from behind started to become a point of emphasis. Every minor hockey player knows its stupid to stand a couple feet from the boards with your back facing center ice. But players at every level still do it. They put themselves in a vulnerable position, but that doesn't mean Ryan Hollweg gets to put you into the 3rd row of seats. It should be the same for hitting to the head. Just because you can do it (and it used to be allowed), doesn't mean it has to be allowed in the future.
 
I too agree that something needs to be done about hits to the head, but not the ones like the hit on Sutter or even Kostitsyn
. . .

The hits that need to be eliminated are the ones like Pronger on Holmstrom two years ago, the hits along the boards with elbows and forearms high.

See, you completely contradicted yourself with these two statements. Do you want headshots like the one on Kostitsyn, or do you not? Sauer's hit on Kostitsyn clearly fits the criteria of "along the boards with . . . forearms high." His forearm went directly into Kostitsyn's head.
 
This is what the NHL needs to step up against though. There shouldn't be any 'clean hits to the head.' If your shoulder (or any other body part) makes hard, direct contact with another player's head - it should be penalized. It will involve a rule change, and take some getting used to, but its what the NHL needs to do - if they aren't just paying lip service to the idea of reducing head injuries.

Sometimes there is no choice but contact being made with the head. What should Doug Weight have done in that situation? I agree that malicious hits to the head need to be taken out of the game, but making contact with a guy who is leading with his head should not be against the rules. I don't think this is comparable to hitting form behind, I can see the similarities but I think it is quite different.

Its very similar to helmet to helmet hits in the NFL
Similar when it is malicious and there is intent to to target the players head, but the NFL does not penalize players for lowering their shoulder into a guy who is leading with his head. They don't penalize a safety who catches a reciever cutting up the middle looking behind him and crushes him without using his helmet. I think in both sports it is part of the game, playing it you know, I knew when I played, that if you have your head down you could get hit hard.

That doens't mean I like seeing guys get hurt, I think it is scary when you see a guy laying there but I don't think you can take away from the game like this. Focus on getting rid of the hits from behind and intentional head shots, don't bunch them all together as a single problem.
 
See, you completely contradicted yourself with these two statements. Do you want headshots like the one on Kostitsyn, or do you not? Sauer's hit on Kostitsyn clearly fits the criteria of "along the boards with . . . forearms high." His forearm went directly into Kostitsyn's head.

I guess I will have to you tube that Sauer hit again. When I originally saw it I did not think that Sauer brought his hands and forearms up. I will look and if he did I will be the first person to take back the Sauer hit as an example... back in a sec for an EDIT, maybe....

EDIT Upon looking at this hit a few times on you tube. I will take back my comparison using this hit. When I saw it originally on TSN I thought he got his forearms into the chest of AK, and will admit when I saw it again on you tube just now I still thought that is what happened. When I looked a few more times, I think maybe he did have his arms up a bit but still am not so sure he targeted his head. Too close to call, but not really a fair comparison. To me it looks like he has his forearms planted just below his neck and the follow through might catch him in the chin. At game speed I still think it looks like a clean hit though, there was no elbow to the head, definitely no charge. Just what my eyes see.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes there is no choice but contact being made with the head. What should Doug Weight have done in that situation? I agree that malicious hits to the head need to be taken out of the game, but making contact with a guy who is leading with his head should not be against the rules. I don't think this is comparable to hitting form behind, I can see the similarities but I think it is quite different.

Trip him. Put his arms out and give him a shove. Anything but drive his shoulder into another man's skull. Or, if that's what he ends up doing - he should have to suffer some consequences for it.

Similar when it is malicious and there is intent to to target the players head, but the NFL does not penalize players for lowering their shoulder into a guy who is leading with his head. They don't penalize a safety who catches a reciever cutting up the middle looking behind him and crushes him without using his helmet. I think in both sports it is part of the game, playing it you know, I knew when I played, that if you have your head down you could get hit hard.

The NFL looked at what was the leading cause of concussions and head injuries for their league (helmet to helmet hits) and did something to stop it. The NHL has said "We are concerned about head injuries" and then done nothing to back it up. The NFL has several new helmet models being used by players to see if they have any effect. The NHL has said "We are concerned about head injuries." The NFL recently fined a Jets safety almost a quarter of his annual take home salary. The NHL has said "We are concerned about head injuries." And caps fines for players at $2500 or so.

You absolutely cannot compare the measures the NFL has taken vs the ones the NHL has taken. The NFL has done something. The NHL has paid lip service to the problem. Guys still get knocked unconscious in the NFL - it happened last night. But they have removed & punished the most dangerous type of plays, whereas the NHL has not.
 
Trip him. Put his arms out and give him a shove. Anything but drive his shoulder into another man's skull. Or, if that's what he ends up doing - he should have to suffer some consequences for it.



The NFL looked at what was the leading cause of concussions and head injuries for their league (helmet to helmet hits) and did something to stop it. The NHL has said "We are concerned about head injuries" and then done nothing to back it up. The NFL has several new helmet models being used by players to see if they have any effect. The NHL has said "We are concerned about head injuries." The NFL recently fined a Jets safety almost a quarter of his annual take home salary. The NHL has said "We are concerned about head injuries." And caps fines for players at $2500 or so.

You absolutely cannot compare the measures the NFL has taken vs the ones the NHL has taken. The NFL has done something. The NHL has paid lip service to the problem. Guys still get knocked unconscious in the NFL - it happened last night. But they have removed & punished the most dangerous type of plays, whereas the NHL has not.

Trip him? In that case if they punish hits like this one then tripping should then become legal, but only if it is when you could have potentially hit someone in an akward position. And putting your arms out and shoving him would likely end up in a holding call, and with the way Sutter was he still would ahve hit him in the head.

I am not saying the NHL is right. I do think they need to do something about head hits. My point is and comparing it to the NFL not every hit to the head should be illegal. I think there is a difference between this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbcPXECpBbM
and this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxdE1zEhQTQ

You are right, forever the NHL has said one thing and done another. I am just trying to point out that you can't eliminate hits that make contact with the head, because sometimes that is part of the game.
 
Trip him? In that case if they punish hits like this one then tripping should then become legal, but only if it is when you could have potentially hit someone in an akward position. And putting your arms out and shoving him would likely end up in a holding call, and with the way Sutter was he still would ahve hit him in the head.

Sometimes players get themselves into a position where there is no legal way to impede them. How many times does a d-man trip a guy and everyone says "He had no other play there."? Penalizing hits to the head just adds one more type of play where you can't legally stop the guy. You can take the hit, or trip him, or hold him, sure. But you have to suffer the consequences of it. Why penalize the Hurricanes for getting it set up so that they potentially had a scoring chance.

If hits to the head were illegal, this would just be one more situation where a player got himself into good position and there was no way to stop him without taking a penalty.
 
The tripping and shove statement is ludacris, you cannot actually expect an NHL player to dive out of the way of a hit just because he may or may not hit a guy in the head with his shoulder. You won't know until it's probably too late if you are going to hit him in the head or shoulder or arm or whatever. It will make the players scared about giving a hit thus altering the game drastically.

We have been taught since playing timbits hockey, KEEP YOUR HEAD UP! If not, you may or may not accidentially get hit in the head, we know it can happen, learn to avoid it.

How about punishing the guy who gives the suicide pass or the guy who floats around with his head down? Look at it from the other side, we are taught to hit and keep our heads up and now some are asking for the opposite??

Jeez we are living in a world in which the UFC is one of the most popular things going and some people are complaining about a hockey hit?

For the record, I hate the UFC...I think it's a dumb sport

I was just using Weights hit for the above summary, I don't condone headhunting or hits from behind!

Oh one more thing....Keep your head UP



Trip him. Put his arms out and give him a shove. Anything but drive his shoulder into another man's skull. Or, if that's what he ends up doing - he should have to suffer some consequences for it.



The NFL looked at what was the leading cause of concussions and head injuries for their league (helmet to helmet hits) and did something to stop it. The NHL has said "We are concerned about head injuries" and then done nothing to back it up. The NFL has several new helmet models being used by players to see if they have any effect. The NHL has said "We are concerned about head injuries." The NFL recently fined a Jets safety almost a quarter of his annual take home salary. The NHL has said "We are concerned about head injuries." And caps fines for players at $2500 or so.

You absolutely cannot compare the measures the NFL has taken vs the ones the NHL has taken. The NFL has done something. The NHL has paid lip service to the problem. Guys still get knocked unconscious in the NFL - it happened last night. But they have removed & punished the most dangerous type of plays, whereas the NHL has not.
 
Sometimes players get themselves into a position where there is no legal way to impede them. How many times does a d-man trip a guy and everyone says "He had no other play there."? Penalizing hits to the head just adds one more type of play where you can't legally stop the guy. You can take the hit, or trip him, or hold him, sure. But you have to suffer the consequences of it. Why penalize the Hurricanes for getting it set up so that they potentially had a scoring chance.

If hits to the head were illegal, this would just be one more situation where a player got himself into good position and there was no way to stop him without taking a penalty.

You are comparing apples to oranges. This is not a situation where a player got himself in a good spot and there was no other play. If a forward beats a dman, and they only way to prevent him from getting a scoring chance is to trip or hold then fine there is a consequence. But sticking your head out and having your head down when someone could hit you is not the same thing. That player did not get himself in a scoring position, or a position where the player had no choice but to take a penalty, he left himself vulnerable in mid ice with his head down, and there should be no consequence for a hockey hit.
If the hit was intended to seperate the man from his head and not the man from the puck then yes. I don't think all "head hits" have this intention.
 
I find it interesting that there was no outcry regarding shots to the head when Sutter hit Cherepanov in the head in the Super Series... I just did a search, the general consensus in that thread was "it was a good clean hit".
 
The tripping and shove statement is ludacris, you cannot actually expect an NHL player to dive out of the way of a hit just because he may or may not hit a guy in the head with his shoulder.

Why not? NHL players are expected to do something else when a guy turns his back at the last second by the boards. If the NHL was serious about head shots - they could do something - penalize them the same way they penalize hits from behind. They have chosen not to do so.

As for the Sutter hit on Cherepanov in the Super Series - Sutter received a minor penalty for a hit to the head. Its the rule in international hockey, and also in the OHL.
 
Why not? NHL players are expected to do something else when a guy turns his back at the last second by the boards. If the NHL was serious about head shots - they could do something - penalize them the same way they penalize hits from behind. They have chosen not to do so.

If you asked, most people would think that there is a problem with that turning at the last second crap too. Another good reason not to add a rule against clean hits that happen to make contact with the head, because players will use it as a way to put themselves in danger because of the possibility to draw a penalty.
The other problem with that statement is that the majority of these hits, where a guy turns at the last second, still fall under another rule - boarding. What you are talking about is not the same thing, boarding is still a penalty.
I think stuff liek Hollweg has been known to do has no place in the game, but there are plenty of situations where a guy doesn't even have a chance because the player turns there back, this is the same accountability I think the guy who has his head down and leaves himself open for a mid ice hit needs to take.
Hockey is a contact sport so if you are trying to play within the rules I don't see why you should be penalized when someone puts themselves in a terrible position.
 
In the NHL if a player turns his back at the last second there is no penalty for hitting from behind. It's the refs discretion, as would a head shot be if deemed intentional. A clean hit is a clean hit, if not elbowing, charging etc can be called.

A player who turn his back to the boards at the last second has the same problem that a floater does with his head down, he can get creamed!

Rule 44

Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered
on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to
protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the
body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with
his back, no penalty shall be assessed.



Why not? NHL players are expected to do something else when a guy turns his back at the last second by the boards. If the NHL was serious about head shots - they could do something - penalize them the same way they penalize hits from behind. They have chosen not to do so.

As for the Sutter hit on Cherepanov in the Super Series - Sutter received a minor penalty for a hit to the head. Its the rule in international hockey, and also in the OHL.
 
In the NHL if a player turns his back at the last second there is no penalty for hitting from behind. It's the refs discretion, as would a head shot be if deemed intentional. A clean hit is a clean hit, if not elbowing, charging etc can be called.

A player who turn his back to the boards at the last second has the same problem that a floater does with his head down, he can get creamed!

Rule 44

Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered
on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to
protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the
body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with
his back, no penalty shall be assessed.

So, in the same way that players can't be expected to change their minds and not deliver a hit with the speed of the game, an official is expected to judge something much more nebulous like 'intent' at the same speed? I'll believe it when I see it.

Even if intent can be accurately judged, just because your intent isn't to create contact (you can turn to better protect the puck, or to reverse it) doesn't mean your intent isn't to draw a penalty. Its a dumb play to turn your back whether you are trying to draw a penalty or not. The NHL has recognized that it makes players vulnerable to injuries and has brought penalties into play to deal with it.

Why can't the same penalties be brought in for this? An unintentional hit to the head? 2 minute minor. Just like an unintentional high stick. Even with the devastating outcome of this hit, I don't think Weight's intention was to hurt. I think a 2 minute minor would be the right call for this hit. It was a confluence of circumstances. An unintentional head shot, as it were.

As far as having one's head up, Guy Carbonneau said: ""I hear people say (Sutter's) head was down; he didn't have the puck, I don't know if you guys play hockey, but it's very hard to play hockey without putting your head down at one point, because usually the puck is on the ice."

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/sports/story.html?id=1d318140-89ff-469d-b00c-90fe9278a218
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
389,449
Messages
2,232,652
Members
4,144
Latest member
Collector Driven
Back
Top