Thumbs up on the new headshot rule

Given the Colin Campbell emails that surfaced today, it's probably not the best time to applaud NHL disciplinary action, but a NHL headshot rule has been overdue IMO, and we finally have one this season. It doesn't go as far as I would take it, but it's a start. As with any new rule, you expect growing pains of players, fans and coaches as everyone adjusts and tests the rule's limits, but you never know exactly how that will play out.

The rule is pretty simple;

48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principal point of contact is not permitted.

Two simple elements; 1) is the hit lateral or blind side, and 2) is the head targeted and/or the principal point of contact.

The league also released this video to demonstrate;

Put it all together, and it's clear the intent of the rule is to remove a particular hit from the game, a la boarding and submarine hits. Speaking of boarding, the NHL rulebook states the following regarding boarding;

There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.

The NHL may as well have applied this paragraph to the new headshot rule because the instructional video makes clear, for blindside hits, the onus is now on the checking player to ensure his opponent is not a vulnerable position.

So easy, right? The following complaints have however have been lodged so far surrounding the rule;

1) Any hit to the head to a player in a vulnerable position is now a penalty

This came up on the following hit;

After the game, Tortorella said "“Do I have a problem with it? Sure, why wouldn’t I? We get these (head shot) tapes sent to us during the summer and at the beginning of the year. Why send them? It’s a waste.”

I don't know how much of that is gamesmanship, and I don't know of any real definition for "blindside", but I can't see any way this hit qualifies as "lateral" or "blindside". It's doesn't come under the new rule, period.

2) It was a shoulder-to-shoulder hit (mostly)

See the Dustin Brown hit;

There are some varying opinions on this hit, and it is a close call. Initial contact appears to be shoulder-to-shoulder, but the follow through appears to be into the head IMO. The rule is not that the hit is directly or initially to the head, but that the head is "targeted" or the "principal point of contact". This hit is very close, and would be a subjective call. I would support calling a hit like this a penalty just about every time---the point of the rule is to put the onus on the checker to stop making these kinds of hits, and if the checker is concerned with making a hockey play, it shouldn't be hard for him to aim away from the head area and still eliminate his man from the play.

3) The checker was not suspended, therefore the NHL decided the hit was legal after all

(see the Brown hit again)

I've seen a lot of people claim that the fact that Brown wasn't suspended shows that the hit wasn't illegal. That is plain, flat out wrong. Nowhere does the rule call for a suspension. The rule simply calls for a major penalty and a game misconduct, which was given. Suspensions are discretionary, and subjectively based on the severity of the play, like boarding. If a player gets called for boarding and is not suspended, does that mean the league is saying it wasn't actually boarding? Of course not. More likely the league decided it was not an egregious violation, and therefore supplementary discipline wasn't necessary.

4) It's not my fault--I'm too tall, or I couldn't avoid it...blah blah blah

See the Joe Thornton hit;

Frankly I'm kind of amazed at how much dispute there has been over this hit. It's a textbook violation of the rule; it is lateral, it is blindside, and it is to the head. The fact that people even feel it's relevant to say that "Thornton is not a dirty player" is merely a sign of how messed up the NHL disciplinary system is. Penalties should be called based on the play, not on some balancing act where the player's rep and his action need to be weighed against one another.

Thornton's brother/agent has also risen to his defense, "I guess being 5'9" was Joe's only solution to avoid this suspension." Under the rule, for lateral and blindside hits, the onus is clearly on the checker to avoid going to the head. Deal wit' it yo.

I think overall the NHL is doing a good job with the new rule, getting most of the calls right. There will be growing pains, and as with any penalty, the refs on the ice will occasionally get it wrong. Still, the rule was worth implementing, and the suspension decisions thus far have been more or less correct.