GMs Lay Down the Law

Right on the heels of Bettman's 5 points, the NHL GMs remind everyone of who are the real gatekeepers for change in the league. Bettman is no Woodrow Wilson I suppose.

The three main points are 1) there will be no ban on all contact to the head, 2) stricter enforcement will be applied to charging and boarding, and 3) longer suspensions for headshots, with much longer suspensions for repeat offenders.

I think as a whole this shows the GMs clinging to an old school attitude of "keep your head up" and that the puck carrier still carries a lot of responsibility if he gets clobbered. Particularly if you look at point 3--it's almost as if the NHL is saying headshots are still hockey plays for which we can only half-heartedly go after offenders, and it's only when someone does it over and over that we are going to take a stand.

Apparently, boarding penalties are up this year statistically. I couldn't pinpoint why that is happening, and I hope this increased vigilance on boarding is more in response to that statistic rather than appeasement to the furor over the Chara hit. I say that because I think it would be very narrow-minded to focus rule changes on a rare circumstance because of public outcry in Montreal, while ignoring the all-too common plays that repeatedly cause injury. Total cop-out.

The only thing that could prove to be interesting from this is the expanded use of a charging penalty. The existing rule;

42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner. Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A 'charge' may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

Could expanded use of the charging penalty ultimately include unnecessarily predatory hits to the head? There's probably too much grey area there in the end, though Bettman's blue-ribbon committee is supposed to look into it and maybe they'll come up with something worthwhile.

It is somewhat curious to me however that the GMs are relatively open to cracking down on boardings because of the threat to injury and vulnerability of the puck carrier even when a lot of boards are a "hockey play" gone wrong at the last moment, yet the GMs staunchly defend a shoulder to the head as a valid "hockey play". I'm sure they would say a shove from behind to the boards was always dishonorable, while a open-ice hit is just hard play, and if it results in a headshot so be it. I'm not convinced.

We won't get a substantial change on this issue until a strong leader emerges on the issue, and it's certainly won't be Bettman. FWIW, Jim Rutherford, Hurricanes GM, on a ban on all headshots; "We may get to that point, but I'm satisfied with what we've done here this week."

Also of note, the GMs voted 24-6 that the Chara hit on Pacioretty didn't call for supplementary discipline.

Back to the Flyers

A win is a win yesterday for the Flyers. Not the prettiest performance but the Flyers yielded very few scoring chances against, which will get you points more often that not. Probably not a bad idea for Laviolette to shake up the lines too.

Other thoughts;

-I'm really leaning towards Boucher for the playoffs at this point. He has been pretty good, and more in control than he was last year. Also, with Bob I feel there will inevitably be one 10 minute stretch where he lets in some bad goals.

-There was some talk after the game about Pronger's absence meaning the dressing room will be much quieter. Maybe that's not a bad thing right now. Laviolette has definitely been quieter too recently too after losses. Honestly Pronger hasn't been very good this year. If his name wasn't Pronger and he didn't have such a history of playoff success, a lot more questions would be asked of him. As it is, just wait until the playoffs to see what he does then.

-The Flyers have 7 out of a possible 8 points in their last 4 games. Would be nice to blowing out bad teams, but dominance over bad teams in the regular season isn't too great an indicator of success against good teams and in the playoffs (ask the Caps).

Today

Some topics in Flyerdom;

-The Flyers allegedly played a game on Saturday night, though I still can't confirm they actually showed up and played. Kidding aside, it was good to see Leino get a hat trick. He's been laboring since a mid-February groin injury, and his line has been in the tank since. Hopefully he is getting healthy again. Since missing a game February 16, Leino had only 3 points and was -4 over the next 10 games. He previously had been one of the best +/- players in the league, and the fact that his whole line fell apart at the time underscores how valuable he has been to the team all year.

-Pronger is having surgery today and is out 3-4 weeks. No word on if Pronger verbally attacked his hand for being unreliable and quitting on him in the locker room after the Atlanta game. A full four week recovery would have him returning simultaneously with the start of the playoffs.

Bettman's 5 point plan

Gary Bettman released a 5-point plan to address concussions, as seen here. Briefly, I feel like it's mostly PR, though maybe the idea of penalizing coaches and players can have some positive effects.

Stiff seemless glass doesn't help, but most concussions are a result of open ice hits away from the glass. Also, the idea of reviewing rink safety certainly isn't a bad idea (and probably should be done anyway), but to imply that rink safety is a leading factor in concussions in the NHL is a total sideshow.

None of the points directly address the real cause of the vast majority of concussions--the conduct and actions of players on the ice. That's somewhat understandable to the extent that you can't make a sea change at this point of the season, and hopefully the blue ribbon committee will be progressive and make an impression on the real arbiters of rule changes in the league, the GMs.

IMO, the only meaningful way to reduce head injuries in the NHL is if the players stop playing search and destroy and the ice and being opportunistic on really clearing out a guy with a high hit. That respect could even extend to plays like the infamous Chara-Pacioretty incident where the players know where they are on the ice and adjust their actions accordingly (it almost feels like Pacioretty and Chara were playing chicken on who would flinch first and give space). It appears that the only way that will happen is for significant suspensions to happen frequently until the players change their actions, and I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Baby Steps

Put the Chara hit aside for a moment, which has everyone hyperventilating, and last night was a good step in the right direction for the Flyers last night. Second win in a row, after a fairly sleepy win over the atrocious Oilers.

More importantly, the Flyers were skating harder for the entire game. It was still a close game where the Flyers benefited from a garbage goal, but the Flyers generated more chances, hit a few posts, and looked a little more purposeful on the power play.

Individual player thoughts;

-Really could stuff from Carter, using his speed and size, and evidently filling a need the Flyers have really missed recently.

-Carcillo has likely earned his spot in the lineup for the time being, as there's no reason to take him out for Nodl or Zherdev.

-I'm not really pleased with Richards offensive zone play. Overhandling the puck, and constantly trying very low percentage diagonal passes, especially on the PP.

-No Pronger, and apparently he let loose after the Oilers win, not being satisfied. Apparently Giroux was one of his targets? Not sure. I wouldn't say Giroux was bad against the Oilers, though he did pass up many good shooting opportunities for bad passing decisions.

Chara

The Chara controversy is still boiling. Probably influenced by the fact that it happened in Montreal to a hometown player, the PM of Canada is commenting, Air Canada is making threats about abandoning the league, and there is an open police investigation.

People need to simmer down. My opinion of the hit hasn't changed since my last post, where I said Chara bears some responsibility for not better recognizing his surroundings and letting up, but there just isn't much evidence of intent on a freak occurrence. In particular, a criminal investigation where the police would have to show Chara did something well beyond the type of contact a hockey player accepts the risk for AND that Chara intended to injure, seems like a complete waste of time. Still, the NHL doesn't look good by giving him no suspension whatsoever, and Bettman makes d-bag comments responding to Air Canada.

As lawyers say, bad facts make bad law, ie if we attempt to tailor rules to a freak or unusual circumstance, the rule ultimately doesn't work very well when applied elsewhere down the road. The NHL has to take a hard look at many things revolving around league discipline, head injuries, and IMO Bettman's leadership for on-ice issues, but this is not a good hit to make a rallying cry around league actions for head injuries. That said, no one is happy with league discipline actions, and it should be addressed in a meaningful way in the offseason (IMO house cleaning of leadership positions, but that's a topic for another day).

The Shoe on the Other Foot

Devastating result to a hit that started out innocuously. The million dollar question is what should the league do to Chara? There are about a million views on the issue.

I think a nominal suspension is all that is called for. The main reason is that there is no evidence of intent by Chara. By that I mean it started out as a routine rub-out in the neutral zone, not a physical play at all. Yes, the play was illegal as interference, and yes Chara needs to be aware of his surroundings, but there just isn't much evidence there that he finished the check with much vigor. Perhaps he can be blamed for not lightening up more given the dangerous spot on the ice, but I don't think there is enough blameworthiness there to warrant a long suspension.

It would be one thing if Chara came barreling in or with elbows up in an "intentionally" violent collision, or preyed upon a vulnerable player. As it was, it was a routine non-violent play (such neutral zone obstruction is typically among the least dangerous plays in the game) that became a freak accident at the last second.

What is the league supposed to do? Ban hits at the benches? Should we have expected Chara to recognize the danger and just let him go?

Perhaps Chara could've finished more gently, but given the way the play unfolded, he can only shoulder so much blame.

I also found it ironic to see Bergeron coming to his defense.

Boston's Patrice Bergeron, who has suffered two documented concussions in his NHL career, called it a "flukey play." "He [Chara] just tried to buy himself some time and kind of push him out of the way and his head got caught," said Bergeron, who missed the majority of the 2007-08 season due to a concussion.

Bergeron of course was on the receiving end of a Randy Jones board, that similarly was a routine hockey-play that went very wrong at the last second where the checker probably should've let up a bit. Of course Boston fans portrayed Randy Jones, a guy who's not physical at all, as the devil incarnate, and Bergeron refused to accept Randy Jones's apology for the hit. Things look a little different now guys, huh?