Headshots, Injuries and a Possible Solution

Very early in the 2009-2010 NHL season we have already experienced more controversy about head shots, more injuries to star players, and with that comes more speculation about what the league can do in order to protect players without sacrificing the excitement of the game.

The league’s players are getting bigger, stronger and faster at an astounding rate. With that, we look at the general principles of physics which says that Force equals Mass X Acceleration (F=ma).

Update: From Kevin in the comments

F=MA is the amount of force required to get an object moving, once the object is moving it requires less effort to keep moving (just like skating… it’s harder to start than keep moving). The real issue today is momentum: Mo=MaV. Mass times Velocity. Today’s players are both bigger and faster. So the momentum they generate is huge.

That’s just science, but it’s not rocket science, and this is hardly the first article to demonstrate this fact. However, what nobody is talking about it is the fact that these larger players, moving at higher speeds, are contained on an ice surface that has stayed constant.

To the previous point, if we now have larger objects (players) moving at greater speeds in a confined space, we are bound to have more collisions – intentional or not.

If we can now conclude that collisions in today’s NHL Are more frequent and are occurring with a greater force, can we not reasonably conclude that there would be more injuries?

Of course we must account for the fact that these larger, faster players should be in better condition to withstand collisions of a greater force. However, in the case of head injuries there is no way to “strengthen” the skull with increased off-ice training.

So, What’s The Solution

I think we would be naïve to believe that the NHL is not looking at every feasible solution to protect the players. However, this article will present a rather novel approach…use the existing rules!

If we take a look at the latitude/interpretation currently available in the following two rules in the NHL rulebook, we have our proposed solution.

1.) Rule 42 – Boarding

A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee. This could include a minor, major, and/or match penalty.

Of course this is a judgment call by the official.  But, so was hooking and holding prior to those existing rules being enforced in the ‘new’ NHL.
2.) Rule 43 – Charging

Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper 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.

Looking at the Charging rule, based on the judgment of the official, any bodycheck could theoretically be called ‘Charging’.

Applying the Current Rules

According to the NHL rulebook  a Minor, Major, Match, and/or Game misconduct can be called using either the Charging or Boarding rules. In addition, the current rules also allow for the imposition of fines, suspension and supplementary discipline based on either penalty.

Therefore, a more strict recommendation by the league to the officials with regard to the application of the aforementioned rules could encompass nearly all hits that are deemed to be too violent to have a place in the game.

Training the NHL officials to call the charging and boarding rules more stringently could provide a solution that is not as drastic as some other proposed solutions (like increasing the size of ice surface for instance).

This proposal would take no more effort on behalf of the league than the changes made to reduce the clutching and grabbing a few years ago. Yes, that certainly took some time to get used to, but most would agree that the game is now better for it.

The rules are already in place to protect the players from violent hits that have caused serious injury to so many, all the league has to do is enforce them.

As always your suggestions and comments are encouraged!

Niklas Kronwall Hits Martin Havlat

UPDATE: With the recent hoopla surrounding Martin Havlat and the Chicago Blackhawks, I thought it appropriate to show some evidence as to why the Blackhawks might have opted to sign Marian Hossa instead of Havlat. Havlat has a history of injuries and this concussion received from Niklas Kronwall could have future consequences. In fact, while both players are relatively 1pt/game producers – Hossa has played 380 games over the past four seasons and havlat has played jut 190.

Niklas Kronwall laid a huge hit on Martin Havlat in Game 3 of the Western Conference final.  Havlat was knocked unconscious momentarily as Kronwall stepped up from his blueline position to hit Havlat as he turned to exit the zone on the wing. Havlat did not return to the game.

Watching the review several times, you can see that Havlat did have the puck in his skates, did have his head down and Kronwall did, as all defensemen are taught from day 1 – stepped up and hit the winger exiting the zone with his head down.

Here is the video evidence.

The officials initially made no call on the play, but after consultation with the linesmen issued Kronwall a 2 minute minor, 5 minute major and a game misconduct for…interference.

Here is the portion of Rule 59 interference that refers to possession of the puck, which is the only way that this play could have been called under this section of the official rules.

Rule 59 – Interference- Possession of the Puck:

The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.

Some folks may argue that this could be considered charging.  By the working definition, charging is usually called when the attacking player leaves his feet, but the official defintion in the rule book leaves the officals wide open to call a charge on almost any hit!

Here is the “official” definition of Rule 43- Charging:

43.1 Charging – A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper 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.

Now if that doesn’t leave the interpretation of a call wide open for the officials, I don’t know what does! I’m not suggesting removing the rule from the book, but it certainly needs to be more well defined.

The NHL officiating saga in the playoffs continues as the inconsistencies abound from both on and off ice officials.