Shanahan's Reign Begins

I was not a fan of how the NHL has conducted its disciplinary system the last few seasons.  It was arbitrary, mysterious, and lived up to the fan's mocking moniker "wheel of justice."  Perhaps the biggest indictment of the system was that it was wholly unpredictable, and lack of transparency and clarity are one of the worst criticisms you can level at an institutional system of justice.

When Colin Campbell left the office as head disciplinarian, things could only get better.  In steps Brendan Shanahan, a respected and well-liked former player who has been actively involved in rule tweaks the last few seasons.

Shanahan got things off to a good start, and even regaled those of us who lack the patience and interest to read a press release with a video;

Wow.  Transparent, clear, tough.  What a difference.

Jody Shelley has also found himself in the crosshairs;

I don't think Shelley's hit was as bad as LeBlond's, so Shelley's multiple suspensions last year and his "repeat offender" status obviously counts for a lot.

Given this positive start, the question still remained about the trickier case of illegal checks to the head.  Those incidents are much touchier, and there is still some resistance in the league to harsh penalties for such plays.  Also, late last season the GMs passed rule changes to toughen up boarding enforcement.  This included the language quoted in the videos about how the onus is the on the player applying the check to ensure the target is not in a defenseless position.  This language is not illegal check to the head rule.

It didn't take long to get a preview of how Shanahan will handle headshots;

Two games isn't very much, but that is explained by the lack of injury, intent, and previous suspension history of Boyes.  What IS noteworthy about this video is that Shanahan states that the onus was on the player delivering the check to minimize contact to the head, even though the onus language is not written into the headshot rule, as it is for boarding.

I think these rulings forebode very well for NHL disciplinary action this season.  Administratively, they are clear and transparent.  Substantively, they are tough penalties that place the onus on the checking player not to prey on the other player.  While the target still bears some responsibility for his position, it's a softening on the old school "keep your head up" attitude, which I think is the most important piece in reducing head injuries in the long run.

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.

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.