NHL '11 - '12 Thread

[mithrilG60]

Originally Posted by icehog3

I disagree with some of your argument, let's take the case at hand as an example: The Canucks can replace Sedin in the line-up, so if he were to miss 15 games, then the Hawks should only dress 19 for 15 games while the Canucks dress 20? Players Union will never allow that to happen.

That's why I say it's not possible under the current rules, but the current rules are also obviously not discouraging enough to stop hits like this from occurring. As I mentioned above, $150K isn't exactly pocket change but it's also not a massive amount of money to someone with the salary of Duncan Keith. However $600K (to use your example of Sedin being out for 15 games + the 5 game suspension) is a significant hit.

If the Players Union was serious about protecting their membership then they wouldn't have a problem with implementing a clause like this in the next CBA. I know that Keith being out of the lineup is actually a bit of a problem for the Hawks, he's your ice time leader and due to injuries he'll be hard to backfill, but there is no real penalty imposed at the team level to act as an incentive to change the game's culture and ultimately that's what's needed.

Yes Keith received a suspension, and one that was harsh for a first timer, but the Canucks have lost their leading scorer (and the NHL's reigning Art Ross Trophy holder) for an indefinite period of time heading into the post-season. I'm not saying that it was Keith's intention to do that, but ultimately why should the Canucks or any other team be forced to endure a bigger disadvantage due to a blatantly illegal and dangerous hit? It's life when a player is injured via an accidental impact or play, when it's a hit like this the offending player's team should have to bear an equal or bigger disadvantage for as long as the injured player is out.

Originally Posted by icehog3

How about Scott Stevens' hit on Eric Lindros in the 2000 playoffs? By today's standards, it would be deemed illegal (targeting the head). If Lindros were concussed and could never play again because of ongoing problems, should Stevens be out of the league for life?

Or David Steckel's hit on Crosby in the 2010 Winter Classic....it could be deemed intentional, or unintentional, depending on perspective. Crosby has missed most of 2 seasons for the effects and after effects of that hit. Should Steckel be sitting?

It's impossible and pointless to play revisionist history, that's part of the reason why I get so frustrated with the Don Cherry mentality of look how great (or at least) ok it was in the "good old days". In the really good old days Gordie Howe had to have a hole drilled in his skull to relieve pressure on his brain and then he was expected back out on the ice. Now he's a recluse who is so damaged by the long term effects of head trauma that he wouldn't even attend his own son's induction into the Hall of Fame.

In the context of current knowledge, yes Steven's should have been banned for life many times over for his behaviour. So should have Bertuzzi for his hit on Moore, Moore should have been heavily suspended for his hit on Naslund and so should have Torres for his hit on Seabrook. Wendel Clark, Joey Kocur, Bob Probert, etc etc etc. The list is endless, but you can't penalize the past anymore than you can apply current values to it. The solution is to actually put in REAL penalties moving forward.

First leading hit to the head; 25 games. Second; half season. Third; full season. Fourth; here's your retirement papers. No if's and's or buts about it, those are automatic suspensions in the same way that high sticking is automatically 4 min if blood is drawn. If the player you injured is out for longer than the period of your suspension, your suspension is extended indefinitely until they are medically cleared to play. During the course of your suspension your team cannot call up or dress a replacement. I promise you that all of a sudden you'll see all the crap disappear from the game.

Originally Posted by icehog3

It's a fast game, played at a furious pace with decisons and instinctual moves made in fractions of seconds sometimes. Keith's hit was dirty and he deserves to be suspended, but what if Sedin is "softer" than some of the NHL players, and takes 20 games to recover from a hit that most would recover from in 3....you see where I am going, so I won't continue to belabor the point. It's not just "homer" logic either, as I sit watching Jonathan Toews miss his 17th game due to a head shot.

If Sedin is softer and takes longer to recover then tough titties for the Hawks. As I mentioned above why should the Canucks (in this example) be forced to play at a significant disadvantage for longer than the team of the offending player? The only thing is there would need to be league oversight of the medical clearance to prevent teams from using injuries like the one to Sedin in brinksmanship games.

The "it's a fast game" argument is bunkum, these guys are s'posed to be highly tuned professional athletes, if they can't control their appendages and/or instinctual hit in the legal manner they've been taught since they were in their early teens then they don't belong on the ice.

Look at the number of genuine stars the league has lost for significant periods of time to concussion and head injury. Crosby, Toews, Sedin, etc as a fan of hockey those are the guys you want out there every night showcasing their skills. It's want sells and grows the game. Even the NFL is getting serious about enforcement (albeit due to legal threats from players that have had their careers ended), what will it take for the NHL to finally step up and remove this crap from the game? A death on prime time network tv?