The NHL’s Soft Response to Head Shots
By Stu Hackel
Slap Shot – News from the World of Hockey
New York Times
February 3, 2009, 12:37 pm
The Kings’ best defensive effort of the season must have taken place at the N.H.L. office yesterday during the hearing on Denis Gauthier’s head shot that left Montreal’s Josh Georges with a concussion. Helene Elliott reports in today’s L.A. Times that “Jeff Solomon, the Kings’ vice president of hockey operations and legal affairs, argued that Gauthier’s elbow was down when he hit Gorges and that Gauthier’s feet didn’t leave the ice until after the hit.”
Elliott also quotes Kings G.M. Dean Lombardi, who said, “We didn’t think it was a penalty at all. It wasn’t one where the guy jumps up, which is my understanding of what we’re after. He hits the guy with his shoulder and we felt there was no penalty.”
No penalty? Didn’t leave his feet? What does Gauther have to do for this to be called a jump? Fly like Dr. J used to do and land on top of the guy? Let’s look at it again, with more angles than we had yesterday. Here’s a clip from the RDS telecast, with the most telling replay coming about 1:30 in:
You can freeze the action and see his feet for yourself. Lombardi told the L.A. media yesterday that Gauthier’s hit could not have been a charge because his feet were on the ice at the point of impact. But when you stop the action that back foot is off the ice, meaning it was a charge. It was the right call on the ice.
So if, as Lombardi says, that’s “what we’re after,” well, that’s what they got. It demanded stern action from the N.H.L. but to assess only a five-game ban means the league is as dizzy as Josh Georges was and did not respond appropriately. When the N.H.L. decided in November it was going to come down progressively harder on hits to the head, the first suspension issued was for five games. Now, four head shots later, we get another five-game suspension — and to a guy who has three priors.
We can’t know what was said or decided that lessen the severity of the suspension Gauthier received. We do know, as Elliott reports, that Gauthier’s “absence comes at a dicey time for a team that’s about to play the second game of a five-game trip and try to make up a six-point gap to the final West playoff spot.” They’ve got injuries to their defense corps.
These are points Solomon was likely to have brought up in the hearing. He also represents one of the most powerful owners of the N.H.L., Philip Anschutz. In the olden days, powerful owners would call league execs and lean heavily on them if a particular suspension would put their teams in dicey situations. Presumably that sort of stuff doesn’t happen any longer.
The bottom line, however, is that the guys on the ice wearing stripes did their job, but the guys in suits did not. You want to stamp out what Mike Milbury calls “pansyfication” in hockey? Start by showing some guts in suspending players for as long as it takes to reduce head shots, so that we don’t have to see another one at least once a month.
Let’s review the memo Colin Campbell himself sent out on head shots:
“We cannot and will not tolerate blows to the head that are deliberate, avoidable and illegal. Furthermore, both the history and status of the offender (first time versus repeat) and the nature of the injury caused (if any) will be taken into consideration as they have been in the past. The length of suspensions for illegal blows to the head will be increased if these incidents persist across the League. Taking steps to maintain the safest on-ice environment possible for the Players remains our most important priority.”
1. Deliberate, avoidable and illegal? Check.
2. The history and status of the offender (first time versus repeat)? Check.
3. The nature of the injury? Check.
4. Have these incidents persisted across the league? Check.
5. So was the length of suspensions for an illegal blow to the head increased? Is the league really taking steps to maintain the safest on-ice environment possible for the players? Does it remain their most important priority? Fail.
There should have been no mystery here. But instead, the mystery is what somebody might have said to convince league officials that their eyes were lying to them.