Matt Cooke knocks Marc Savard out
Mike Richards DESTROYS David Booth (HD Multiangle)
Jeff Carter ANNIHILATES Anssi Salmela
Scott Stevens Hits Eric Lindros
OK what's with the NHL? Last year the NHLPA proposes rule changes to deter head shots - the NHL isn't interested. Well it's nothing new - see Scott Stevens vs Big E in 2000 above. Two more almost identical incidents with Richards on Booth and Cooke on Savard, both clearly shoulders aimed for the head. Head vs kevlar - kevlar wins. NHL poster boy Ovechkin with a much milder hit on Campbell, but Campbell's hurt, and we don't want to seem to favour superstars, so he gets suspended. Now the NHL wants to fast track rule changes on head shots?!?
Before this week, ask the NHLPA, ask Booth/Lindros/Salmela, it's long overdue. So why does the league not react until a high profile guy does something that (IMHO) is milder than some of these other incidents? Yet another example of how the league has its priorities completely off target...
5 comments:
To be fair Dan it wasn't Ovechkin's hit that got the NHL on the Head shot bandwagon, and yes it is LONG overdue, it was the Booth hit.
Something was going to happen there but to underline what was going to happen we have the Savard hit right before the meeting.
Everyone is on board now.
The Ovechkin incident was not the same thing, just around the same time and while it was not as dangerous it was, under the existing rules, a penalty (as evidenced by the fact he got a major and a game misconduct before we knew the extent of his injuries).
To be honest, I think Ovie got off lightly given his past deeds and what should be, IMO, a repeat offender status. (Don't get me started on Cooke). I would have prefered something in the 4-5 game range. Love Ovechkin's game but he is reckless and that puts people at
I agree with Doug, the cause/effect chain wasn't started by the OV hit but by the Richards on Booth blast.
In fact it seems a stretch to include the OV hit in the conversation at all since it was a clear boarding call and not one of the legal shoulder to head shots we've been looking to get rid of.
Besides if you want to get bent out of shape by how the 'wheel of justice' gets spun at the NHL look no further than Chris Pronger.
OK so it was the Booth hit - regardless the NHLPA wanted to do something about this a year ago and got turned away. So tell me why the NHL went from not caring to fast-tracking over the intervening year? 'Cause its not like these are a new phenomenon...
I'm not super pissed or anything, just frustrated with the inconsistencies of the league affecting the game...
Dan said: "the NHLPA wanted to do something about this a year ago and got turned away"
Not surprising for several reasons;
- Anything the NHLPA wants must be negotiated for. If it isn't obviously in the owners financial interests Bettman has no incentive to accede to NHLPA requests because if he simply waits long enough he can collectively bargain it with them, and get something he wants in return.
- The 'keep your head up' crowd, has been moderately successful in defining the Booth/Savard/Lindros type of hits as being part of the game. Until relatively recently (up to the Booth hit) I would have counted myself in this group.
- For the NHL to decide mid-season to create/re-interpret the rules regarding head hits is a bit like the FUNHL deciding mid-season that TG's no longer make sense. Its unusual to say the least, and a colossally bad idea at worst.
I know I said the Booth hit was the originator of all this controversy (as well that Richards wasn't suspended at all for it), but in truth it was also the Olympics that focused attention on hockey, as well as the brutal hit by Cormier in the QMJHL that showed how infected the game is with this dangerous kind of play. Taken all together it was like a perfect storm - several high profile injuries, the world's attention on the game, the timing of the hits, etc., and with the spotlight on them, its no wonder they scurry to get something, anything, done.
I posted LeBrun's Take, Above from today's ESPN.com...I think he puts the new rule proposal in good context...
Post a Comment