Possible Head Shot Resolution Concept

[HammerHawks]

Thought of this tonight, let me know what you think.

For any hit deemed to be a head shot, the player that committed the foul will be given a five minute major penalty as well as being kicked out of the rest of the game.

If the player that was hit is able to return to play that night or the next game, the player that committed the head shot will be given a three game suspension.

If the player that was hit is not able to return to play that night or the next game, the player that committed the foul will be suspended as long as the player is injured.


For example, let's take Matt Cooke. His hit on Anisimov would get him a 5, game, and 3 games. His hit on Savard would give him a 5, game, and however long Savard is out.

What do you think?

EDIT:

I have changed my opinion from however long the player is out to a 10 game suspension. Reason being, as Sean has stated as well, what if Ovechkin takes out a 4th liner? Ovy is out for let's say three months (?). Caps fall apart and are eliminated early in the playoffs instead of potentially winning the Cup.

[MasonRaymond0320]

Sounds like a good idea. It would definetly prevent headshots, and it woudnt be such a problem around the league.

[CSSports]

I like the idea that they stay suspended as long as the victim of their hit is out of the game due to the injury.....
Bertuzzi would be retired but the punishment would have fit the crime......

[30ranfordfan]

You get a big 'NO' from me.

I haven't seen this latest Cooke hit on Savard, so I don't want to comment on it. I don't know how dirty (or 'clean' ??) it looked. Before anything is done regarding suspensions for head shots - they need to define what is legal, and what isn't.

What I mean by this...... I hate seeing blind side shots (which is what I'm under the impression that Cooke / Savard was) but I have absolutely no problem with guys laying people out like Scott Stevens used to. Cutting through center with your head down??? (Lindros, Karyia, Francis.... just off the top of my head) If someone lines you up, their shoulder is going to be at your jaw. What should they let up just because you can't keep your head up??

Now, if "any contact with the head" is ruled out of the game - I suppose I can live with it. I'm not trying to argue against a notion like..... but just wanted to point out that it is currently not the case. Rules have to change for that to happen.

But as for the idea of "suspended as long as the other player is out", it's a horrible idea, and I'll tell you why:

The NHL's biggest problem with their suspensions is that there is no consistency, and no real consequences for dirty plays. They need to impose set number of games for dirty plays, regardless of how injured the other player gets.

Why? Because there are too many instances of dirty hits where the other player does not get hurt. The hit in question results in 1 games, maybe 3 (like your suggestion) and this does absolutely nothing to remove the problem. 3 games when you could have seriously hurt a guy is too little (especially for the repeat offenders).

In addition.... you're going to see from time to time, typically clean players will lay a hit and hurt someone. If Pavel Datsyuk were to hit a guy funny, who ends up concussed and misses 35 games, you're telling me that Datsyuk should miss those same 35 games? Doesn't seem right that a normally clean player, who likely did something by accident, gets tossed for almost half a season - regardless of how clean / dirty it might have looked?

What do you do about a hit that happens in game 80 of the regular season, and the victim is ready to start the next season?? Only suspend the the other guy for 2 games? Do these suspensions run into playoffs? What if one team is in the playoffs, and other team is out?

What happens if the victim was 38, misses the last 15 games of the season, then retires? What if he was a fringe NHLer who was likely never going to play more than 20 games anyway?

Or here's one for you...... What if it was a player like Ovechkin (I'm picking him because he's a star player that hits).... concusses a 4th liner on the Devils..... and after 20 games that player is ready to come back. In the mean time.... NJ and WSH have now become tied for the division lead. You think their 4th liner won't need a few more games before he's actually ready to play?

My suggestion would be this:

The NHL (or some committee) needs to sit down, and make a list of every single infraction that is suspension worthy. Everything they can think of. Then assign a value for each of them. Be that 1 game, 3 games, 5 games, 15 games, just pick something that is appropriate for the infraction. A hit from behind would be worth more than slew foot, for example.

You'll need to add a clause that says "we can make up a number, and add it to the list if you do something so stupid we havent even thought of it".

Make it clear the players that there will be zero tolerance for any of these infractions. Refs miss penalties? Doesn't matter. If the NHL guys see you doing something dirty on a video, you're suspended.

Then, you multiply the value, by the number of times a player has been suspended. Hitting from behind, and this was your 5th infraction? That's 25 games. The other guy didn't miss a shift? I don't care. See you in a couple of months.

What this would do..... is quickly put the repeat offenders on notice. It would get to the point that dirty players would have a hard time staying in the game..... if they can't stay clean.

To give the players some lee-way, I'd also suggest this: If they can play 246 straight games without a suspension (that's 3 full regular seasons) I'd be willing to subtract 1 from their total. If they can keep that streak going, I'd subtract another 1 for every 82 games afterwards.

To sum it up: Suspend based on the action... and the recurrence of similar actions. NOT the consequences. A hit to the head is a hit to the head, regardless of how injured the other guy might be.

[RGM81]

I think that the discussion at the GM's meetings is going to end up revolving around the blindside/from behind blows to the head. The Richards-on-Booth, Cormier-on-Tam, etc., types of hits are going to be the ones they want to legislate out of the game. As Sean had mentioned, the Scott Stevens-type hits are likely going to stay a part of the game forever - that type of thing is very difficult to try and remove simply because of the dynamics of a game. Dion Phaneuf and Shea Weber are two of the game's premier body-checkers today and they make a lot of hits of that nature. Rarely do they make contact with another player's head, but try to envision a scenario in which Weber has Patrick Kane lined up - Weber is 6'4", Kane is 5'10" - there's always a potential that what is intended to be a perfectly clean check ends up hitting Kane in the head simply because of the size difference and speed involved. That type of open-ice contact, though rarely seen in the last 20 years, is and will always be a part of the game.

What isn't a part of the game and what I hope to see the GMs decide upon is to impose stiff penalties and suspensions for blindside hits to the head, hits where the player connects with the elbow instead of the shoulder to the head (be it blindside or otherwise), and try to determine what constitutes a "player in a vulnerable position" so that they can make strides towards having potential hitters "let up" somewhat and avoid doing what Max Lapierre did last week. That last one isn't directly related to the head shot issue, but it does have a connection as it puts limitations on what you can do to a player that isn't in a position to defend himself after the play has moved away from him. Much like you can't hit an NFL quarterback after he's released the ball, you shouldn't be able to drill a guy a few seconds after he's made a pass or shot and the play has moved on.

Interesting cannon fodder, here.

[HammerHawks]

But as for the idea of "suspended as long as the other player is out", it's a horrible idea, and I'll tell you why:

The NHL's biggest problem with their suspensions is that there is no consistency, and no real consequences for dirty plays. They need to impose set number of games for dirty plays, regardless of how injured the other player gets.

Why? Because there are too many instances of dirty hits where the other player does not get hurt. The hit in question results in 1 games, maybe 3 (like your suggestion) and this does absolutely nothing to remove the problem. 3 games when you could have seriously hurt a guy is too little (especially for the repeat offenders).

In addition.... you're going to see from time to time, typically clean players will lay a hit and hurt someone. If Pavel Datsyuk were to hit a guy funny, who ends up concussed and misses 35 games, you're telling me that Datsyuk should miss those same 35 games? Doesn't seem right that a normally clean player, who likely did something by accident, gets tossed for almost half a season - regardless of how clean / dirty it might have looked?

What do you do about a hit that happens in game 80 of the regular season, and the victim is ready to start the next season?? Only suspend the the other guy for 2 games? Do these suspensions run into playoffs? What if one team is in the playoffs, and other team is out?

What happens if the victim was 38, misses the last 15 games of the season, then retires? What if he was a fringe NHLer who was likely never going to play more than 20 games anyway?

Or here's one for you...... What if it was a player like Ovechkin (I'm picking him because he's a star player that hits).... concusses a 4th liner on the Devils..... and after 20 games that player is ready to come back. In the mean time.... NJ and WSH have now become tied for the division lead. You think their 4th liner won't need a few more games before he's actually ready to play?

I thought of this, and have changed my viewpoint. I think that now maybe like 10 games instead of however long the player is out.


Thanks for the input guys!

[gretzky99]

someone like cooke should get a stiffer penalty as he's done this a few times. the hit on savard was late, with an elbow and from the blindside.

i would come up with a degree of severity penatly. the penalty during the game is up to the refs and should have no bearing on the suspension. cooke wasn't even given a penalty on the savard hit. it was much, much worse then a hit in the kings game last night. it was borderline (against CLM Blundin) and even though he got thrown out i don't think it was suspension worthy.

first, decide degree of severity.

1st degree - not intention to injure/borderline hit
2nd degree - clearly head shot/blindside but debateable on intent to injure
3rd degree - clear intent to injure

then decide suspensions based on degree of infraction.
1st degree = warning, second offense = 3 games, etc.
2nd degree = 3 games
3rd degree = 5 games + out as long as injured player

and then punishments would be longer and more severe for repeat offenders. in the case of someone like cooke, if this was his second 3rd degree hit this year then a long suspension like 20 games would be in order.

the only way to get this out of the game is to punish those that clearly intend to injure with extreme suspensions. if cooke missed the playoffs because he's reckless that is more likely to make him think twice next time.

[Vaytch]

They need to ban a couple of players to get the others to realize that it's just not acceptable...

They don't care to sit 5 games in the nosebleeds, they still get a lot, a LOT, of money regardless so they don't give a rat's you know what about suspensions...

[CSSports]

If each infraction was given a value....I would think intent to injure should be a min of 20 games....THAT will hit their pocketbook much more than 3 or 5 games....
The intent to injury should be VERY strict and hold them accountable
and I wouldnt care if it was their first offense....

On the same note - The NHL has to crack down more on the refs for non-calls.....I dont want one every few minutes but they need to be more consistant.....

And get rid of that STUPID diving/penalty call...If the guy dives, why give the the other guy a penalty...A dive means they faked/embellished the penalty - STUPID!

[gretzky99]

well, a 10 game suspension would cost a player 1/8 of his salary. that's not a small amount of money. even for a guy like cooke, that could be $100,000-$250,000. i think that is a deterrant.