Okay, This is Getting Ridiculous

“You know, we ain’t hockey players. We’ve been clowns. We’ve been goons. We’re freaks in fucking sideshow. We’re nothing but a bunch of criminals, we oughta be in jail, that’s all there is to it. … Violence is killing this sport, it’s dragging it through the mud. If things keep up the way they are, hockey players will be nothing but actors, punks.”

I wake of John Scott’s hit on Loui Eriksson, the hockey world has been calling for Scott’s head the way Sabres fans have been calling for GM Darcy Reiger’s. Opinions have ranged from Scott should be banished for life to coach Ron Rolston should be fired. All are quick to find fault with one of two things: either John Scott as a player or the Sabres as an organization. Here's the hit again, in case you missed it.

I will do neither here. Yes, Scott is not the most talented player out there, but if you don’t think he’s put in an extremely high amount of effort to play in the NHL, I’m not sure you understand what is meant by ‘professional sports’. Likewise, the Sabres are not the only team employing a player we can term one-dimensional, with that dimension being that of the enforcer. Players such as Scott, Colton Orr, Paul Bissonnette, and George Parros are in the league because they are intimidating fighters. (Okay, Parros is in the league because he has an awesome mustache, but I digress.) So if we’re really looking for someone to blame, or for a cause to dangerous, dirty, and downright dumb hits like Scott’s, we need to look higher than the individual or the organization they play for. It’s the game.

Reg Dunlop, played by the late and great Paul Newman in 1977’s Slap Shot (one of the greatest movies ever), was onto to something. That's his speech above. Hockey is a physical sport; there is no getting around that point. The physicality is part of the appeal; we all love a good, solid, body check. But there is a difference between good, physical hockey and idiotic, violent hits that serve no purpose. There is a difference between a solid bodycheck that separates the player from the puck and the kind that results on players being taken off the ice on stretchers.

For example, Thursday night Chicago’s Johnny Oduya hit Tampa Bay’s Marty St. Louis in the corner. St. Louis was knocked down and lost control of the puck. It was an effective hit, serving its purpose of eliminating the player from the puck. Oduya didn’t hit him high, didn’t drill him from behind into the boards, didn’t through an elbow, didn’t hit him after he moved the puck, he didn’t do any of that stuff. Instead, it was simply a solid body check. There’s thousands like this during the course of the season. Also on Thursday night, Boston’s Zdeno Chara hit San Jose’s Tommy Wingels inthe corner. The hits were not the same though. The differences: Chara hit Wingels high, after Wingels had moved the puck. If we consider a successful hit occurring when the player is eliminated from the puck, Chara’s hit doesn’t fit that criterion. As for the high hit, Chara is 6’9” compared to Wingels 6’0”, but John Scott is 6’8” compared to Loui Eriksson’s 6’2”. I don’t have to be a math major to realize which one has the bigger difference. Eriksson was moving the puck when the clock read 14:20, he was hit when it read 14:19. Wingels moved the puck at 2:33, he was hit at 2:32. If there’s a lateness of hit quotient, they seem pretty similar. Neither Eriksson nor Wingels finished the game, though neither left on a stretcher. But the uproar and furor is much higher regarding Scott’s hit. Why?

Both hits made contact with the head. Scott has an in-person hearing with the League’s Department of Player Safety regarding his suspension, while Chara will not have a hearing. Could this difference, as well as the public outcry, be attributed to Chara’s role as an elite defenseman, while Scott is nothing more than a 4^th-line enforcer? I’d say absolutely. It’s a definite double standard. This is a problem that falls squarely on the NHL and the Department of Player Safety. But once again, we cannot confine ourselves to lay the blame at this level. We need to look a rung higher on the blame ladder.

It’s the culture of violence, and general acceptance of it, that has leeched into hockey, and larger society in general, that deserves the blame. Instead of a tactic to separate the player from the puck, some of these hits have turned dangerous, resulting in the rash of boardings and headshots we’ve seen lately. They serve no purpose in the game. There have been 14 suspensions this year, including the preseason, with John Scott’s being number 15. Counting Scott’s, 10 have been for either boarding or illegal hits to the head. Ryan Garbutt was officially suspended for charging, but his hit on Dustin Penner was also a blatant hit to the head, bringing that count to 11 of 15. And theoretically, 2 of those 15 could be discounted, as Paul Bissonnette and David Clarkson received automatic suspensions for leaving the bench to join a fight. If you do that, it makes 11 of 13 being boardings or hits to the head. And it’s still October. It appears to be that it’s the search for the big hit, which ends up going wrong, that has resulted in these suspensions and injuries. 

(A case could definitely be made that Zack Kassian’s suspension, for high sticking Edmonton’s Sam Gagner, could also fall into the category of big hit gone wrong, as Kassian missed his hit, but followed through with a reckless high stick to Gagner’s face. The final of those 15 suspensions was Phil Kessel playing lumberjack to John Scott’s ankles, which would be an outlier in this case, joining the leave-the-bench-to-fight group.)

The big hit gone wrong is a case of recklessness and definitely is the player’s responsibility. If we conclude that that plays a major role in these injuries and suspensions we keep seeing, as I am arguing, then we need to determine what place they have in the game. As I mentioned earlier, hockey fans love the big hit, so it is clear that there will be no elimination of that. Nor should there be. There is a difference between great hits and dirty hits. The Department of Player Safety has illustrated this. Instead, I think we need to realize where to draw the line. There is a difference between hits that serve a purpose (the Oduya example above) and those that, quite frankly, do not (the Chara example above).

For example, look at Kassian’s suspension for high sticking Gagner. Kassian went for the big hit, but Gagner got out of the way. That should be it. Kassian missed his hit. Players miss hits all the time. However, Kassian swings his stick hitting Gagner in the face. We’ve gone from the big hit (or at least an attempt of one) to the big hit gone wrong. Look at Scott on Eriksson. Scott comes across with the intent to finish a check. However, whether due to his size, Eriksson dumping the puck in, a change in angle or some other factor, this goes from an a big hit to a big hit gone wrong. Garbutt on Penner is the same thing. Garbutt comes across the finish his check on Penner who has worked his way to the middle of the ice, with plenty of space to make a move. Garbutt comes in fast and leaves his feet to hit Penner in the head. Maxime Lapierre and Cody McLeod are both chasing the play and attempt to finish their checks on Dan Boyle and Niklas Kronwall (dis)respectively in the corner. They end up catching the player full speed, from behind, and drilling them into the boards. Once again, the attempt is a big hit, but the result is a big hit gone completely wrong.

You may ask if this really is the problem, where do we go from here? I don’t know. I won’t even pretend to have all the answers. I’m pretending that I have one, that it is big hits gone wrong that are causing all of these suspensions and injuries. One thing that I’ve danced around though, is the idea of violence and it’s prevalence in the sport. Can we call the goods hits physical hockey and the bad ones disturbing cases of violence? I think that could be an appropriate distinction. So now, it could be said, that we know the problem. In a culture where violence is rather common in media, it has spread into the culture’s entertainment, and in this case, that entertainment is sport. Look how many people stand up and cheer when there’s a fight at a hockey game. It’s most of those in attendance. What was once physicality and been distorted into unnecessary, violent, dangerous hits. It’s partly the changing attitudes and knowledge of the hockey community. We know more about concussions and there is more concern for a player’s well-being after their retirement. What we used to consider great hits (Scott Stevens, anyone?), we now see as dangerous plays. Players search for that big hit, whether it accomplishes a role in the play (such as separating a player from the puck) or to fire up their team and home crowd. Sometimes, these hits are great hits. Other times, it’s simply a case of a player taking it too far. That is the big hit gone wrong. This is the violence that has seeped into the sport.

Now that we have determined the enemy, how do we go about rectifying the problem? I don’t have the solution. I’m just writing an essay that will probably be read very little, if at all. For better or worse, there are people involved with the game at a variety of levels that are charged with the responsibility of determining a solution. Maybe it’s longer suspensions, maybe it’s standardized, automatic suspensions, maybe it’s some sort of player education initiative, maybe it’s a rule change to legislate unnecessary hits out of the game, maybe it’s a host of other possibilities. I don’t know. What I do know, is that dangerous, violent hits are a problem, that, unfortunately, appear to be approaching the epidemic level. And for the interests of all involved, the players, the fans, the organizations, the league, something needs to be done.