3/10/2011
The Death Knell of Rock'Em Sock'Em
The above is the hit by Chara on Montreal's Max Pacioretty.
However you look at it, its a pretty gruesome hit. Pacioretty suffered a massive concussion and a fractured vertebrae on the play.
As the refs saw it, it was interference (definitely - Pacioretty did not have the puck) as well as a misconduct and ejection.
The real question is the supplemental discipline. Is the hit just a 'hockey play' gone wrong? Or was Chara trying to wipe out a guy he'd had a long running feud with?
Well the NHL brass saw it as the former, but they may be the only ones who do.
Once upon a time guys getting ridden into the turnbuckle was cause for setting up the highlight reel - cue Al Iafrate getting smoked into the partition, or Joe Nieuwendyk having his head rammed into it.
Now though? Its a different game, and a different time. Once upon a time Wendel Clark blowing up a guy who didn't see him coming was cause for celebration. Now when Steve Downie does the same thing to Dean MacAmmond he gets suspended for a quarter of the season.
So the benchmarks for what is a 'hockey play' have moved - and I think obviously for the better.
The NHL though insists on trying to look at things 'holistically'. To the league, Chara is not a 'dirty player' (though presumably Downie is - and what they make of Pronger is anyone's guess), and thus his actions are to be seen in the light of a hockey play gone wrong, rather than an intent to obliterate.
It's about time that this attitude on the part of the league be jettisoned. Nobody can read Chara's mind post facto, but we can all see what his actions were. So in Chara's case, the intent is IMO irrelevant, he blasted a guy into the turnbuckle, and he broke his neck. To me, that warrants a suspension - whether he intended to do so or not.
The sooner the league starts to treat theses as acts instead of so-and-so star player, his whole history, and then reach a judgment on the level of intent, they will be lost.
It won't make for awesome Don Cherry videos, but it may mean we don't have to see guys lying on the ice with their necks broken anymore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Ok Cam. What does the rule look like that greatly reduces the subjectivity from the equation?
I am not sure that the the League was wrong with this one but I am open to looking at something more black and white but I would like to see what you think it would look like?
Analyzing Zdeno finishing his check recklessly versus max in that game may be a bit unfair considering chara being being at least half a foot taller in isolation...but the suspension part is fair argument.
But alas cameron, the nhl does not really care about headshots etc...
mario was condemned for calling out the nhl for for disciplne on these dangerous plays earlier in the year; was he ahead of his time when he called the nhl 'a garage league' in 1992 when he played, in 1994 again.
owners shrug but we've all seen the bad and ugly in this nhl we all long to see and love it when sedins are magical or ovi-wan is brilliant or when crosby 'used' to play his determination and passion...
concussions are not new - my 1st concussion c/o mike ricci, sent out of junior A...or then there is probert's brain.
at least junior hockey now takes it seriously as does the iihf but the nhl - well nyet...
OR NOT YET.
kinda like winnipeg not getting their team back...
a spinning pounding darkness
But for a blatant elbow and now 3 gm suspension, see kubina on bolland the other night...yikes!
Re Doug;
It seems to me the simplest solution is to penalize any headshot with a five game suspension regardless of intent, or who the player is, and add another five if the victim misses any games following the hit.
David Staekle on Crosby? 10 games
Kubina on Bolland? Five games, with five more likely.
Gillies on Clutterbuck? Five games
Chara on Pacioretty? 10 games
It may seem harsh but it sends the right message, and it stops the 'break a deal face the wheel' approach to justice the league has that nobody can rationally defend.
Completely Agree Cam...
I might go 3 and 5 with an escalator for repeat incidents but that works for me.
Post a Comment