How does this sound ?...

[bdcsports]

Lots of discussion here, which is what was looking for. As for the amount of games and severity of increases, that is what the league will HAVE TO DO if thet really want to get rid of dangerous hits to the head or from behind. These were the infractions i was mainly talking about here.
I realize "accidental" hits to the back and head WILL always occur. this is what the 2 zebras are for. A player can duck, turn his back or whatever to try to get a penalty given out. Then the officials would need to determine if this was the case. I'm getting a little long winded here, but as a reference, I remember when they brought in a penalty for checks from behind. I was watching a Penguins game, against whom I can'r recall, but, the opposing team player knew he was about to be hit and blatantly just turned his back and faced the boards at moment of impact. The player who was about to hit him?...Ron Francis, a gentleman in this game if there ever was one.
This is my point...the referees need some discression to make this kind of decision, but if deemed intentional or wreckless, the penalties must be severe. Only way to get them out.


sorry for the novel.

[Wickabee]

Regarding the checking from behind thing, in Minor hockey a CFB is a CFB, if the guy turns at the last second, too bad. The rule is a player needs to be in full control of himself and able to stop before hitting a guy from behind.
This isn't minor hockey, though, and a lot of "good" hits in the NHL would probably be called CFB in minor hockey. When it comes to placing this sort of a rule on head hits, you are putting guys like Chara, Myers and Gill at a disadvantage.

[30ranfordfan]

You make a couple of good, and one GREAT point in there.

First off, I agree 100% with the bolded part. I've always been a fan of fights... I'm not saying that I don't enjoy watching them. But you're right. If you put in a total ban on contact to the head, fighting would have to go (at least be met with an equal suspension).

Maybe what's more appropriate than a suspension for a head shot - is simply a penalty (though the Refs would actually have to call them for that to have any effect).

It's just the more and more I think about, I don't see any compelling reason to keep it. What is the point of 'allowing' fights anyway? (I use quotes because a 5 minute major says they're not actually allowed, they're just not punished all that harshly).

Most of the arguments in favor of fighting are weak. Most fights you see now are between two players that will spend less time on the ice than they do in the penalty box. It's got nothing to do with 'passion' or 'protecting' their teamates. It's just two guys that need to justify their place in the league. (Let's face it.... George Parros, Derrick Boogaard, Colton Orr, etc, etc will be out of work if a ban were to ever happen).

Every player is responsible for his stick. When a stick comes up and he high sticks another player, he is held responsible for it. It's not because anyone truly believes that the player (in 99.99% of cases) really wanted to high stick the other guy - it's because it's dangerous, and players are held accountable.

I'm not sure why players can't be held to the same accountability when it comes to their shoulders & arms. Yes that means life will be a little more difficult for guys like Chara and Myers - but I refuse to accept that a rule change can't happen because there are two dozen (max) players in the league that it would be too awkward for.

It's also very correct that a player of Nathan Gerbe's size would become much harder to hit - if you can't hit his head anymore. Other players would still be able to hit him, they'd just have to be more careful with him than they are with others.

It's a very small percentage of NHLers that are under 5'10" or over 6'5". Obviously their safety / ability to play the game has to be a concern..... but the league doesn't need to make its rules based on the extreme ends of player sizes. Besides, I'm fairly certain we'd still be having this conversation if every player were between 6'0" and 6'3"

Banning head shots does not necessarily lead to less contact. But telling a player like Chara or Myers to "be more careful" or risk suspension, will lead to less contact. And who is going to check Nathan Gerbe? At 5'6", his head is involved in every check. You cannot have a rule that is "automatic" with regards to contact with the head. And if you do, they will have to ban fighting. You cannot condone hitting the head in one way and strictly outlaw it in every other way. Especially when the intent is evident in a fight and harder to discern in a check.

[habsheaven]

There is a reason that fighting is still allowed in the NHL. That reason is simple. It's ENTERTAINING. Why would any league eliminate an action from their sport that brings the crowd to it's feet every time it begins? As for comparing sticks to shoulders, you just can't do it. A stick can be controlled and therefore MUST be the responsibility of the holder. How do you keep your shoulders out of harm's way when making a body check? IMO, to try and legislate that is insanity. I guess where I am coming from; headshots need to be eliminated and stiffer penalties are a good way to go about it, but we have to be careful and not over-react. And I think any call to "totally" eliminate contact to the head is a GROSS over- reaction.

You make a couple of good, and one GREAT point in there.

First off, I agree 100% with the bolded part. I've always been a fan of fights... I'm not saying that I don't enjoy watching them. But you're right. If you put in a total ban on contact to the head, fighting would have to go (at least be met with an equal suspension).

Maybe what's more appropriate than a suspension for a head shot - is simply a penalty (though the Refs would actually have to call them for that to have any effect).

It's just the more and more I think about, I don't see any compelling reason to keep it. What is the point of 'allowing' fights anyway? (I use quotes because a 5 minute major says they're not actually allowed, they're just not punished all that harshly).

Most of the arguments in favor of fighting are weak. Most fights you see now are between two players that will spend less time on the ice than they do in the penalty box. It's got nothing to do with 'passion' or 'protecting' their teamates. It's just two guys that need to justify their place in the league. (Let's face it.... George Parros, Derrick Boogaard, Colton Orr, etc, etc will be out of work if a ban were to ever happen).

Every player is responsible for his stick. When a stick comes up and he high sticks another player, he is held responsible for it. It's not because anyone truly believes that the player (in 99.99% of cases) really wanted to high stick the other guy - it's because it's dangerous, and players are held accountable.

I'm not sure why players can't be held to the same accountability when it comes to their shoulders & arms. Yes that means life will be a little more difficult for guys like Chara and Myers - but I refuse to accept that a rule change can't happen because there are two dozen (max) players in the league that it would be too awkward for.

It's also very correct that a player of Nathan Gerbe's size would become much harder to hit - if you can't hit his head anymore. Other players would still be able to hit him, they'd just have to be more careful with him than they are with others.

It's a very small percentage of NHLers that are under 5'10" or over 6'5". Obviously their safety / ability to play the game has to be a concern..... but the league doesn't need to make its rules based on the extreme ends of player sizes. Besides, I'm fairly certain we'd still be having this conversation if every player were between 6'0" and 6'3"