Tom Benjamin’s NHL Weblog: About the Donnybrook:

# Bill Masterton died when his head slammed against the ice. It could have happened to Chris Drury. The league has to quit dodging these bullets. We need a rule that says, “Players can’t play if their helmets come off. They must proceed directly to the bench.” The result would be securely attached helmets.

I agree with Tom in principle, but the reality is that in leagues where I’ve seen this rule in effect (for instance, the old, unlamented roller hockey international), strategic removal of a helmet became a continuing problem. Another option to accomplish something similar is necessary.

I’d suggest something like requiring a strap to be within 1″ of the chin, and if a helmet comes off, the player can’t return to the ice until the helmet is inspected and returned to play by the referee (i.e., after a TV timeout when the ref has time to inspect it); if a helmet comes off the same player twice in the same game, a minor penalty for playing with broken equipment is called, and the helmet is confiscated for the duration of the game, and the player can’t return to play until he’s inspected by the referee with a new helmet.

Will that stop players from screwing around with their helmets? no. Will it discourage them from going to excesses? yes. Especially after the first time the team is penalized for their helmet and the coach bag skates them to get the point across.

# The referees booted away a chance to defuse the entire situation. If I’m calling the game, I give Neil a penalty for charging or elbowing or intent to injure every day of the week. (It was a legal hit, you say? Fine, I’ll give Neil a penalty for hooking. What’s one more phantom hooking call?)

the problem with a phantom hooking call is that it’s a phantom hooking call. That mistakes are made other times during the game by the referees doesn’t make it acceptable. Neither does “making up” a penalty to fit the situation. that’s just falling back into vigilante justice mentality again, or perhaps you can call it situational reffing (so is swallowing the whistle in the third period, just as unacceptable). What you’re really saying, Tom, is that the rule book doesn’t matter. And once you head down that slippery slope, you’re taking hockey off in the direction of the WWE and roller derby.

Count me out of anything where the rulebook is thrown out as inconvenient. Either this is a league of rules, or it’s a farce. And yes, some nights, it’s a farce, but that’s no reason to encourage it to be more farcical.

These Two Teams Don’t Like Each Other:

However, I remembered a distinction you made a week ago between players who have a history of attempts to hurt (such as Scott Stevens) and players who have a history of attempts to injure (Bryan Marchment).

I guess my question is: Was Chris Neil attempting to hurt or injure Chris Drury?

Dave Comstock brings up a good point in the comments, that I felt ought to be part of a posting (and the RSS).

Now, my thoughts here: given I saw no sign of Neil leaving his feet, raising his elbow, using his stick — any of the normal “dirty” tactics, I’ll claim this as an attempt to hurt. Or more correctly, simply not pulling the punch and letting what happens, happens (which, FWIW, is what Bryan Marchment did 90% of the time; Mush normally had a very wide skating stance, powerful and stable, and that is the reason there was so much leg to leg contact between him and other players — that’s how he skated, and players trying to dodge or go around him tended to get caught by a leg. And then some of the time, Mush stuck out his leg as someone tried to go around him, so don’t start thinking I believe Mush was always a clean player. I don’t think he headhunted or knee hunted explicitly, but I also won’t pretend he was a clean player. Just not nearly as dirty a player as some fan groups want to think (hello, Dallas!))

the Neil his was, ultimately, the kind of hit Scott Stevens put people down with. the hit of a guy who knows he doesn’t need to embellish it, that it’s going to be quite good enough just through physics.

I could live very nicely, thank you very much, without this kind of hit in hockey. From an entertainment standpoint, I want the best product on the ice that I can get. From a compassionate human being’s standpoint, I don’t want to see careers ended or shortened by hits whose sole intent appears to be injuring another player.

I fall on the other side of this one; this is the kind of hit that defines hockey — the clean, solid bodycheck in open ice. It’s Scott Stevens. It’s Cam Neely. It’s — it’s the essence of power forward. And it sucks that Drury is concussed and out, but the reality is that Drury’s been concussed before, so that makes it more likely that he’ll get a concussion — the same problem that Adam Deadmarsh, Brent Lindros, Pat Lafontaine and many others have had to worry about. Would someone else have been concussed by that hit? Maybe, maybe not. Is it Neil’s problem to worry about details like that on the ice? No.

At some point, we DO have to remember that hockey is a physical and violent sport. Injuries are part of the game, and they’re going to happen. You have to legislate and referee the game for the safety of the players. You also have to realize that if you legislate and referee the game to GUARANTEE no injuries, what you have isn’t the hockey game we know and love today (you have rec-league no-touch hockey, or ringette or curling). A player who’s had concussions has to understand the risks of going out and playing again, and take on responsibility for some of that risk. it’s the League’s responsibility to make sure that players play in a safe environment for the typical player; it’s an individual’s responsibility to know whether their personal situation is safe enough under those conditions.

And it’s that personal decision that led Brent Lindros to call it quits, while Eric fought back, changed his game, and has been able to play concussion free (and good) hockey – but Eric Lindros isn’t nearly the physical power forward he one was and wanted to be, either.

The one person who has no respnsibility there is the person doing the hitting. If it’s a clean hit by the rules of the league, he shouldn’t have to worry about what players he should hold back on. It’s up to the player to be able and willing to take that kind of hit (and/or risk the side effects of it happening…).

I can’t see taking this kind of hit out of hockey any more than I can see eliminating the middle linebacker in football because of the way a guy like Dick Butkus played, or telling Mike Singletary to back off because the running back’s just coming back from a knee operation. It just ain’t gonna happen….

ESPN.com – NHL – Burnside: Day 2 of NHL GM meetings:

As expected, GMs voted to expand the threshold on suspensions for instigator penalties from three to five. That means players will now have to be penalized five times for instigating a fight before incurring a two-game suspension.

Some will view this as the league going soft on fighting, but there are so few instigator penalties called that it should have only a nominal effect on the game. As of Feb. 15, there had been 47 instigator penalties called this season in relation to 351 fights. Only Ben Eager of the Philadelphia Flyers has been suspended as a result of the rule.

If two players appear to consent to fight, no instigator penalty is called, director of officiating Stephen Walkom said. If, however, a player appears to be goaded into a fight or the fight appears to be some sort of payback for a previous incident, that’s when the penalty is enforced.

Some GMs believed it was important to increase the threshold because players were believed to be afraid to come to the defense of a teammate if they had two instigator penalties.

This may come as a surprise to some, given my previous comments on the instigator rule, but I think this is not a bad change.

Some commenters have even come out assuming that I’m against fighting in hockey; which anyone in the section where we sit can tell you isn’t true. I’m not against honest emotion in the sport, and I don’t mind at all when that emotion boils over. What I’m against is the ritualized fighting of the so-called enforcer and the thuggery you see in the game. You can have a solid, emotional, physical, intense hockey game without it.

It’s my belief, though, that at the root of the “people in the US won’t take hockey seriously” is this core belief that referees should allow teams to police the game and not be the police. That smacks far too much of pro wrestling or roller derby. My goal is to have the players play, have the referees referee, and the game will be healthier with the blood feud aspect. You don’t see a football coach put in his third string tight end and have him chase down and pummel a safety after someone runs the quarterback, right? But the equivalent happens regularly in hockey.

But it’s clear the time’s not right for the league to take a “referees are in charge”, at least to that degree. We’re still watching referees getting used to not swallowing the whistle in the third period without league offices bitching at them (the same officers that told them in October to call those things, of course…). So it’s changing, but hockey simply doesn’t seem ready to give up this part of the Wild West mentality.

So if you’re going to realize that some team enforcement is expected and necessary, I don’t want to see the instigator thrown out, because that would, I think, lead some teams to head back towards the Broad Street Bullies mentality; at the same time, I think they’re right that the instigator restricts things too much, fighters have to be TOO careful in “picking their spots”. The relaxation is a good tradeoff between my ultimate goal (referees meet out punishment, hockey players play) and the kind of chaos I worry about if the instigator is dropped completely. It gives teams the ability to make strategic decisions about when and how to fight and take the penalty, without having to be too paranoid about “saving” some penalties for key situations; but by not removing it completely, teams simply can’t choose to get aggressive and abusive — they’ll still get whacked if they do.

Works for me, in other words…

Burnside: What’s on the agenda for GM meetings:

In the second trade period of the new NHL, the marketplace has evolved quickly into a sellers’ market, where GMs looking to make additions for a playoff run will have to pay a premium price for what is always a premium risk.

[....]

Why? Simple. Because the new NHL is about seizing the moment.

Was it just a couple of months ago some media pundits were complaining that the new CBA had killed the trade market, and that the trade deadline would be a yawner?

[....]

Over the next few days, GMs will gauge their relative hunger for players such as Keith Tkachuk, Eric Brewer, Bill Guerin, Todd Bertuzzi, Gary Roberts, Jozef Stumpel, Martin Gelinas, Ed Belfour, Curtis Joseph, Fredrik Modin and Anson Carter.

Speaking for San jose, I’d be happy to take on Brewer, Roberts, Gelinas Guerin, Modin or Carter.

What else will be on the table during the meetings? Here’s a rundown of some things GMs hope will be discussed:

Another GM said he hopes his colleagues don’t do anything at all. Of all the pro sports, hockey is the one that seems determined to perpetually change itself. You don’t see baseball officials changing the size of the bases or enlarging the plate or moving the pitching rubber, he said.

football makes rule changes every year, many of them significant; look at the recent history of rule changes to change the balance between wide receiver and defender to encourage offense, for instance. That sport makes more changes, and many of them as significant as hockey, but nobody seems to complain. Maybe it’s because football is considered to be doing well and hockey is still (in the minds of some) struggling, therefore the changes are under a bigger microscope. The things the NHL are considering aren’t any more significant than the NBA outlawing the zone defense, or later removing that ban…

• It’s expected the GMs will at least debate the issue of larger nets and what the implications would be, along with no-touch icing.

One GM told ESPN.com he is all for an open discussion about a variety of changes, rules or otherwise, but thinks it’s imperative decision-makers use a wider lens on these issues, examining if changes will have the desired effect. Would bigger nets really improve scoring or would the same be achieved by further adjusting goalie equipment?

Another GM agreed, saying he thinks the move to lengthen the offensive zones after the lockout might have had the opposite effect. While more room was thought to mean more goals, this GM believes the larger space has made it difficult for forwards to get out to cover defensemen in the offensive zone. As a result, teams in the defensive zone tend to collapse into the middle of the ice, blocking a lot more shots.

You’d think the GM’s would learn. A few years back, they moved out the goal line, to give players more room to operate in “gretzky’s office” in hopes of generating more goals. What happened in fact was that they put enough room back there that a defenseman no longer had to risk the offensive guy slipping out the other side if he went back there — so instead, the defenseman simply joined the player behind the net and wrapped him up. oops.

After that, the NHL made a decision to test changes in the AHL first. Even taht’s not infallible, because the “no go” zones for the goalies seemed to work pretty well down there from all accounts, but NHL goalies quickly figured out how to minimize their impact, and they’re something that ought to be under consideration for elimination.

now, the move to increase the offensive zone seems to have the same effect as moving the goal line, causing more defense, not offense. I’d argue, actually, that the “collapse to the net” (or ‘sumo’) defensive style was coming on anyway, thanks to Minnesota and New Jersey and Calgary, and may be incidental to the change. it’s also a side effect of the changes to the contact rules in the slot, where defensemen no longer can “pull a chelios” on anyone who enters the slot, and instead actually have to play defense. And because they can no longer simply lumberjack anything within reach, coaches have figured out the most effective way to stop pucks is not to fight with the player generating the screen (which only makes the screen worse for the goalie), but to put their defenseman in front and have them block the shots before they get to the screen. End result: forwards in the slot aren’t bruised and bloodied, but shots are down, and shot blocks way up. and more defensemen likely wake up screaming in the middle of the night seeing pucks coming at their faces in their dreams…

So I’m not convinced it’s as simple as moving the line — but that wasn’t (as I remember it) tested in the AHL, either. It probably should have been.

From my talks to people recently, the bigger net is very unlikely to have much interest — of greater interest is to continue looking at slimming down goalie gear, but they have to decide what they can do while not reducing the goalies safety. There seems to be (gasp) a growing recognition that a goalie’s safety gear is there primarily to keep the goalie safe, not to stop pucks, and if the GMs actually can agree to that, goaltending will end up being much more of a skill position, rather than a positioning (and being hit by the puck) position.

The bigger net is being discussed, but I think the media is overplaying how high on the GM list it is, because it’s such a significant change to the game (well, in theory. I don’t think adding 2″ to the size of the goal is as serious as removing the red line or allowing the forward pass, or changing minor penalties to not be served the full 2 minutes after a goal…. The folks with their knickers in a knot need to look at the bigger picture and see the other huge changes the league’s done over the years…)

• There will also be some collective-bargaining housekeeping issues to deal with. A number of GMs would like to be able to make deals that allowed for teams to eat a portion of a player’s salary. For example, Colorado would love to unload Jose Theodore and his $5.3 million cap hit for this season and next, but aren’t likely to find any takers. If, however, they could absorb some of that salary and apply it to their own cap for next season, they might have more luck. GMs believe if this was an option, the stagnant trade market might open up more dramatically.

I think that makes sense.

I also think they need to revisit re-entry waivers, which was intended to keep a team from “parking” talent in the AHL to avoid the cap and move it in for the playoffs, and has instead meant teams like Vancouver and LA have goalies in the AHL they don’t dare risk bringing up, causing LA to instead have to deal for Sean Burke to cover their injuries.

Things I’d like to see the GMs take a look at:

1) Revisit the waiver rule: perhaps by allowing a player to be brought up as a designated injury replacement when someone is placed on IR, and to bring that player back OFF IR, the player brought up has to be sent back or pulled through waivers. That would eliminate the “parking” aspect of players in the AHL but give teams flexibility to cover legitimate injuries.

2) remove the “do not go” dodecahedrons for the goalies. Nice idea, goalies worked around them, just complicates things.

3) “over the glass”: I want to see them change the penalty for clearing a puck over the glass from a 2 minute minor to equivalent to icing, where the team can’t change players.

4) “no touch icing”: I’ve long been a proponent of no-touch icing. I’ve also spent a lot of time talking it over with people and listening to others who’ve studied this issue, and I’m now convinced we don’t need it, and it’d slow down the game and reduce excitement. What I do want to see, however, are strong sanctions against headhunting during an icing chase — so any penalty taken behind the goal line while an icing is called is an automatic major penalty. THAT will help ensure that the chaser doesn’t “not hear” the linesmen and goalies screaming “no ice” so they can take a shot and look surprised when icing is called…

5) smaller goalie gear — let’s see what we can do to safely reduce the gear, so taht goalies have to stop pucks, not “just” get in the way of them. (and yes, I’m trivializing how good even average NHL goalies here, but we need to rebalance their performance to the game some more…)

6) protect goalies — the NFL understands. you don’t sneeze on a quarterback without taking a penalty. the NHL needs to figure this out, too, because a hurt goalie can be the difference between a good playoff run and early tee time in today’s NHL. If we’re going to ask goalies to take on smaller gear and see their GAA go up, let’s at least try to protect them better… So let’s modify the goalie interference rule and the crease.

6a) First, go back to the semi-circle crease.

6b) Second, any player that makes contact with a goalie who’s skates are FULLY in the crease — automatic goalie interference. If a player from the goalies team is in contact with the player when he makes contact with the goalie, it’s coincidental penalties for both. By making it automatic, it’ll force coaches to coach players to STAY THE FREAK OUT OF THE PAINT. By making the coincidental also automatic, it’ll force defensemen to stop shoving guys into their own goalie hoping for an interference call. By making it automatic/no-tolerance for any action within the crease, it’ll cause the forwards and defensemen, and most importantly coaches, to adjust their play to avoid penalties, while avoiding long arguments about intent. In this case, we don’t care about intent, we’re giving the goalie the crease, and inside the crease, he’s untouchable (unless the puck is inside the paint with him. If it is, you can go in after it, as you can today).

6c) Third, outside of the paint, make it clear that the goalie can’t be checked, but incidental contact is allowed. If a goalie wants to come out to cut off an angle, players are allowed to make some contact with him. Goalie doesn’t like contact? stay in the paint. By making the crease a no-touch area, If we’re going to tell other players to stay out of the crease, tell the goalies to stay in, and give him incentives to do so.

6d) behind the goal line? if a goalie wants to act like a third defenseman, treat him as one. you can check him, and contact is allowed, since he’s not trying to focus on stopping a puck. Again, this is for a goalie to decide whether they want to do this or not; they can always stay in the crease. but the days of the “patrick roy floating screen and canival parade float” back there need to go away.

7) hits to the head: make any contact with the head by elbow or shoulder an automatic 5 minute major. make any stick contact with the head a major penalty. These days, players are willing to risk a “sloppy stick” because the penalty is most likely 2 minutes. Let’s give them incentive to care. hell, Scott Stevens wasn’t a small person, but he knew how to keep his elbow down. the “size difference” issue is over-used as an excuse for players not caring. use major penalties to make them figure it out.

Head-hunting a growing problem:

Detroit Red Wings defenceman Andreas Lilja elbowed Flyers star Simon Gagne in the head, so Philadelphia defenceman Denis Gauthier confronted Lilja, pummelling him to the ice in retaliation, while Gagne collected his senses.

It’s a hockey ritual that scores high on the sticking-up-for-your-teammate testosterone scale, but does nothing whatsoever to address the issue of dangerous hits to the head.

If this sort of vigilante on-ice, heat-of-battle response is meant to act as a deterrent, then why do we see the initial hits so often?

Because (hint) it’s not a deterrent. Because all it means to the person initiating the hit is maybe a sore knuckle and a five minute rest in the bad boy box.

It’s not hard to come up with examples, the most recent and vivid for Edmonton fans being Atlanta’s Andy Sutton catching Oilers forward Fernando Pisani with his head down, driving his shoulder into the Oiler’s left cheekbone, knocking him out and sidelining him indefinitely with a concussion.

Causing brain damage, in other words.

Primeau has said he thinks the NHL should address the concussion issue more aggressively. Just so. Starting with a continuum of penalties ranging from a minor to a misconduct or match penalty or, where warranted, suspensions for head hits.

It’s well beyond time; Primeau is just the latest in a long series of players who left the game long before their time, from Nick Kypreos to Brett Lindros to Jay More to Pat Lafontaine to…. the list simply keeps going. The list of players who’ve lost significant time to head injury should scare the crap out of any marketing person for the NHL: imagine the league without Eric Lindros or Paul Kariya, to name just two.

Listen, when you play a violent game like hockey, head trauma is a risk. But the question for general managers and governors is: are they managing that risk intelligently, given the toll concussions take on their prized assets – their players? Is there a way to minimize dangerous head hits without neutering the game?

The junior Western Hockey League and Ontario Hockey League think so. They have implemented rules intended to deter head hits and engender the kind of respect for the opponent that is much discussed in the NHL, but too little acted upon. Too often, the action taken is nonsensical.

What’s the normal action? The player that initiates the hit gets a roughing call. The player that jumps him from the team of the player injured does, too. Maybe they both get fighting majors. Almost invariably, there’s no power play.

Wow. Some deterrent.

In the wake of the Pisani hit last Sunday night, Oilers head coach Craig MacTavish denounced Sutton for trying to hurt Pisani. Probably, he was. Pisani had his head down, a bad idea to begin with, as any hockey player knows.

But Pisani was vulnerable and in that posture, any opposing player with any degree of body control and a modicum of skill can deliver a shoulder-to-face hit such as the one the 6-foot-6, 245-pound Sutton put on the 6-foot-1, 205-pound Pisani.

For MacTavish, the issue with Sutton seemed to be his reluctance to stand and fight, a common response among hockey people.

Ah, joy. “The Code”. Which is unwritten, rather flexible in interpretation, and usually involves a player on the opposite team doing something that harms himself or his team “for the code”, to the benefit of his opposition; who bitch and moan if he doesn’t willingly cooperate.

Anyone see the problem here? “The code” once again boils down to “we should be allowed retribution on our terms, or you’re a bad sport” and thsi is somehow “good for the game”.

And Raffi Torres has never ducked a fight calling on his honor after a hard hit “because of the code”, right? Oh, wait, that’s different. that’s a player who’s using the rules to benefit his team.

The bottom line on this, though, is that the problem is the league and the rules. “The code” comes out of the league not being willing to deal properly with hits that are intended to injure — and fight the entrenched interests that promote and celebrate “the code” because they get off on the lawlessness aspect (which they attempt to spin-doctor into “self-policing”).

We don’t want to take the hitting or the violence out of hockey; it’s part of what makes hockey hockey. But vigilantism isn’t the answer, either, and ultimately, “the code” is vigilante justice.

I think what the juniors are doing is a good first step — and it helps teach the younger kids when they’re open to being taught. But the NHL has to be the role model here, and set an example. How to draw the line in the sand without pulling the teeth out of hockey’s grit isn’t an easy decision, but it has to be done.

I’d suggest starting with this: any hit to the head of an opposing player is a four minute minor. Period. No more 2 minutes. If the referee considers it an intentional hit, it’s a five minute minor. The 2nd high stick of any kind by a player in the same game is a game misconduct, and as those accrue, the suspensions grow.

No more “drawing blood” for a double-minor, no more taking into consideration helmets or visors. If you get up past the shoulder, it hurts your team. The war room that’s watching all ogames from Toronto can also determine whether they feel a major was warranted; the first time they do, they issue a warning. The second time they issue a warning to a player, the player takes the next game off.

Players talk a lot about “respect for the other player”, and how it’s up to the player that hits a guy to pull up when they know he’s vulnerable. The problem is: ESPECIALLY if you’re a marginal player, that’s a great way to become an AHL player again. And, of course, for all players say this, what teams do is go out and sign players that are known for not showing that kind of “mercy”, because they know it can impact a game.

One of those guys who played for a while in San Jose was Brian Marchment. The name is pretty famous, and rather infamous in some cities (Dallas, you can stop booing now) — but the reality is, Brian could play some serious hockey, and he could also hit you and send you into next thursday. And did on a fairly regular basis. As Marchment use to say, he’s not trying to injure players, but to hurt them. the difference is crucial here — playing hurt is a way of life in any competitive sport. bumps, bruises, soreness — playing through that is part of what makes great players great. Injuries are things you can’t play through. In a physical game, hurting a guy is part of the game — slowing them down, making them lose that step, making them worry about a future hit, getting in their head. it’s part of gaining the edge.

Scott Stevens is a classic of the “hurt, not injure” mode. His hit on Lindros is a classic — and Lindros was in fact injured, but nobody considered Stevens a dirty player for it.

The key here is the difference between Stevens and Marchment. Stevens is what the NHL should be pushing for — that hard, physical player who knows how to put you into next week cleanly. Marchment, for all his protestations about “hurt” and “injure”, was wrong. It’s not that Marchment WANTED to injure people; that’s not true. But on the ice, having watched him for a few seasons, it seems to me that Marchment was oblivious to the hurt/injure aspect on ice. It was the hit that matters, and making the hit — and then let the chips (and knees, and suspensions) fall where they may. Stevens might make a crushing hit, but it was always a hurting hit, not an injuring one. Marchment was just about the hit. That’s the core difference the league needs to identify and rulemake over. Easier said than done, but we can start by simply outlawing any hit to an opponent’s head (when did you ever see Steven’s check someone to the head? He was always on the shoulder or chest).

There are relatively few players in the league I’d say are willing to injure opponents — Messier was one, Chelios is one. It’s interesting to realize that one of the louder proponents of “the code” was Bobby Clarke, who also saw no problem in consciously breaking the ankle of a russian opponent during an exhibition series…..

More common are those that simply don’t care, or don’t see the difference. Marchment, Kasparitis. To me, the guy who epitomizes this in the league is Jordan Tootoo, who is a welcome (but marginal) talent who probably won’t stay in the league if he ever stops playing that close to his particular cliff — he really seems to be the next Marchment.

The big push against outlawing head shots is “what if it’s accidental? what if he ducks?” well, those issues are true for high sticking today, and nobody seems to be pushing to remove that rule…. the players will adjust, a few will dive, but if the league would get serious about diving, too, that’d be a minor issue. Frankly, I’m not sure I want to win bad enough to want to duck INTO an elbow from someone like Rod Brind’Amour just to get my team a power play — but then, that’s probably why I’m writing about hockey, not playing it…

Off Wing Opinion: Grappling With “The Code”:

Eric responds to my comments on “the code” with some good questions:

What about Major League Baseball? Didn’t Ozzie Guillen blow a gasket just last season when one of his pitchers refused to retaliate in a beanball exchange? That pitcher, Sean Tracey, was demoted to the minor leagues after the incident.

If any hockey player failed to come through the way that Tracey did for the White Sox, I don’t have any doubt he’d be on a shuttle bus back to the AHL — perhaps even before the game ended.

Point taken, although “the code” in baseball is a fading relic. Guillen is definitely an old-style player-turned-manager, so I’m not surprised, but if you look back to how the league did things back in the 60′s, you’ll see “the code” is a whisper of what it used to be in baseball; chalk it up, among other things, to MLB putting the “warning both teams” with ejections into the rules and the designated hitter (one of the classic tactics of the code, throwing at the opposing pitcher who threw at you, can’t happen when they don’t bat).

Elsewhere in his post, Chuqui also mentions how offensive lineman won’t retaliate after seeing their quarterback suffer a late hit. True enough, we don’t see lineman taking things into their own hands like that. But do we really want to believe that nobody ever has?

Denver Broncos defensive tackle Gerard Warren prefers not to discuss the misery in those stacks of flailing arms and legs as players grab and grope for the ball.

[....]

In light of information like that, a stand-up fight can seem awfully civilized, can’t it?

Very true, and in reality, I worded that badly; I didn’t mean to imply that stuff doesn’t happen. It does. It does in hockey, too, with “careless” sticks and certain players who are masters of that technique, plus the normal whacks to the hands, whacks to the feet, whacks to sticks (especially composite ones, hoping to create a weak spot so it’ll break when put under stress, like during a slap shot), whacks to calves, elbows along the boards… There are lots of small things that go on on a regular basis in any scrum or group of players — think about how a glove smells, and how much fun it is to have one stuffed in your nose…

What I intended to say wasn’t that other leagues are clean. But what differentiates hockey from both baseball and football here is that hockey coaches, hockey players, various hockey influencers (like don cherry) — and even GMs and owners — will call for the referees to stop getting in the way and let the players “handle it via the code”. (in a mostly related aspect, you don’t ever hear someone talking about football and saying things like “if it’s holding in the first quarter, it should be holding in the fourth….” or “the referees should stop calling minor stuff in the fourth period and let the boys play”)

To a non-fan (and probably to many hockey fans), this isn’t “letting the boys play”, it’s formal encouragement of vigilantism and thuggery.

In baseball and football, the code exists, just as it does in hockey. But in baseball and football, you don’t see people involved in the league claiming that the sport would be better if the referees just got out of the way and let players enforce the code. In baseball and football (and basketball) fights happen, scraps happen. In hockey, they sign fighters to contracts.

And that’s a HUGE difference. And it’s the difference that keeps hockey on the 11PM local sports geek watch.

The instigator is a rule that is in many ways the difference between teams having someone like Dave Brown on the roster and having guys like Georges LaRaque.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not endorsing what we’re seeing here — something I thought I made clear in the last two lines of my first post on this topic. What I am trying to do is understand the game and see if for what it really is. And the conclusion I’m coming to, one that I’ve hinted at before, is that no matter what team sport we watch, we tend to sanitize what we see lest we realize just how horrible it can really be at times.

Perhaps hockey’s problem isn’t that it’s rituals and mores are more violent, perhaps it’s just that the folks who market other sports do a better job of bleaching that violence out in the wash.

The rituals exist in every sport. The code exists pretty much anywhere two or more people compete (even duels; especially duels). But in football, enforcement of the code is at the bottom of a pile where cameras can’t go. In baseball, enforcement of the code leads to a bruise on someone’s butt; in extreme cases, a rib. In hockey, enforcement of the code, it seems, means we have to stop the game while two guys take off their gear and beat the crap out of each other. And there are enough guy’s like Cherry out there claiming that’s how it OUGHT to be.

Me? I’m claiming the code needs to be enforced within the context of the game. You hit my batter, I hit you (or your batter). You clip my superstar, your superstar will find my elbow in his nose. you touch my goalie, I run yours. twice. I’m not suggesting any of the grit, intensity or emotion be taken out of the game. Just the gladiator contests. And that’s why the instigator is a step forward for the league; it’s a conscious move away from thuggery to hockey, because it’s designed to encourage teams to think in terms using the game to get even. Unfortunately, the “old school” types really prefer simply beating people up. After all, it’s manly. And a great way to get on the 11PM local news (while the local talking head smirks)

Off Wing Opinion: The Code On Display In San Jose:

After getting back up, Lindros called out Murray, skating over to him and delivering a forceful cross-check. Murray, not wanting to put up with it, turned, dropped his gloves and faced Lindros.

Which is where Krys Barch came in, dropped his gloves, and took on Murray himself.

After the fight ended with Murray wrestling Barch to the ice, here’s how it shook out:

Murray: 2 minutes for high sticking, 5 minutes for fighting.

Lindros: 2 minutes for cross-checking.

Barch: 2 minutes for instigating, 5 minutes for fighting and a 10-minute misconduct.

With Lindros in the box, you could hear one San Jose fan call him out and ask if he couldn’t fight his own battles. But as I’m finding out in Ross Bernstein’s book, The Code, things played out here pretty much as they should have. And the presence of the instigator penalty might very well have prevented justice from being fully served.

and of course, between this and the Penguins-Habs tiff, there’s now a new round of calls to do away with the instigator rule again.

Can anyone imagine a football coach telling the press “quit calling roughing the passer — my offensive linesmen will deal with the problem”?

No, of course not. And that is, I think, one reason why the NHL continues to marginalize itself in the American markets. Because deep down inside, hockey people and fans want to believe that the referee is somehow optional, that “real men” take care of themselves. That is the essence of “the code”.

Of course, the code, whatever it is, is a pretty slipper thing. You hear guys like, say, Matt Barnaby talk it up a lot — and turtle at every opportunity. Evidently “the code” is subjective to a situation and a person.

Frankly, the argument for removing the instigator rule is “we LIKE vigilante justice”. That’s bread and circuses, not, I hope, hockey.

And honestly? Where is the honor in “Murray hits Lindros. Lindros ducks behind Barch. Barch hits Murray. Honor is preserved” — not that I’m recommending that Lindros hunt his own heads at this point in his career, but where’s the honor in two teams sending out paid warriors to ritual battle each other? I’m sorry, I don’t see it. When Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton dueled, they had seconds on hand; they didn’t send seconds out to shoot each other.

To me, the folks calling for the removal of the instigator will guarantee that hockey will never be taken seriously if it succeeds. And it’s going about “preserving honor” ass backward.

The critics are focussing on the Koivu hit, and the Souray response, and his penalty. But right at the start of the game, Crosby got butt-ended by Laperiere. Now, according to the code, someone on the ice should have jumped Laperiere and risked an instigator and a 17 minute vacation (or a gamer). Instead, later on, Colby Armstrong returned the favor (in spades) on the habs top guy — and the habs responded and THEY lost Souray.

THAT, friends, is how “the honor of the code” ought to work. Don’t whine about the instigator. Don’t get mad. Get even. And do it within the rules. Find a spot and take it. run the goalie. Find their top guy and run him. Make THEM start taking the stupid penalties, and get your licks in along the way. (yes. yes. I am, in all honesty, calling for running the goalie. Hey, if they want to take liberties, take liberties in return. fair is fair, and, well, unfair deserves unfair. they started it…)

Teams don’t need to get rid of the instigator to “protect honor” and their elite players. they simply have to play smart instead of stupid. Don’t beat up on a 4th line player and take stupid penalties, take a number, pick your spot, and find one of their guys and give them a reason to encourage their goons to not be quite so stupid next time.

But no, once again, we see hockey rush into beserker “mongo hunt!” mentality, something you simply don’t see in ANY other major professional sport, except perhaps some fringes of NASCAR (eat paint, sucker! bwa ha ha).

And as long as so much of hockey’s elite pushes for the rules to be in the way of protecting their manhood, hockey’s going to be viewed by many americans as no better than the WWE. the hell with “the code”, let’s get back to gamesmanship. You can satisfy honor WITHIN the rules, if you play smart. Is it that canadian hockey players are too stupid to figure this out? Personally, I don’t htink so. I just think they’re swayed by some of their leaders (most notably, Don Cherry) into thinking with their testicles too much.

From the way I see it, Murray is a young kid who needs to control his stick no matter what. The Sharks broadcast team described his high stick as unintentional, but after looking at it a few times, it seemed borderline to me.

FWIW, as someone who’s watched Murray a lot, he’s one of the cleanest and hardest hitters I’ve ever seen.. He’s very much in the Scott Stevens mode; if his stick got loose, unlike a bunch of folks (many of whom hide behind guys like Darch when called out), he’s VERY careful about his stick and elbows. he knows, among other things, that he doesn’t need them to hurt you…

Sharkspage – San Jose Sharks, Hockey, NHL sports blog:

The defensive minded Dallas Stars outscored the Sharks by 1 goal in each of three periods on Thursday night. A 4-2 win over San Jose improved the Dallas Stars record to 3-1 at HP Pavilion. Tied at 1-1 in Dallas, the Sharks will travel to the American Airlines Center on February 18th and March 4th to close out the regular season series.

The Sharks looked bad; worse than the first loss earlier in the week.

I saw two key reasons:

1) Nabokov (again) gave up a soft goal early on the first shot. (see trade rumors below).

2) Joe “little joe” Pavelski was out of the lineup due to a lower body injury (aka an “owie foot” from a shot block), screwing up the top two lines again.

Wilson reacted to losing Pavelski by trying Mark Bell (see trade rumors below) with Joe Thornton again. It was as ineffective as Bell has been all season.

I know there’s still a call from some people in my section at the arena for a power-play-QB type quarterback, but I think the real problem is we only have five true “top six” players — Thornton, Cheechoo (okay, four and a half, although he’s improving), Marleau, and Milan Michalek. Pavelski has stepped in and taken Bell’s slot, which is nice. and Clowe has stepped into the Bernier role (also presumed to be a top 6 forward — and ended up in Worcester before a foot injury took him down). Grier has stepped in ably at times in the top six when a grit player is needed, but he’s not a top six guy.

Now, the Sharks have struggled a little when McLaren or Hannan are out of the lineup, but they’re dismal when they don’t have that top six group, and they keep proving they don’t really have an “extra” to fill in when one goes down; Bernier is out for a few more weeks, and it’s a reach to assume he’ll be back to potential when he gets back. It’s important to keep Grier on the third/checking line with Rissmiller and Curtis Brown. Niemenen has shown himself basically to be a spot-player on the 4th line this year, if that; his first game back from this most recent injury he was more than invisible, he was downright missing.

So I’ve decided the sharks are both a buyer and a seller at the trade deadline.

My shopping list: a good, solid, veteran forward who can play a top six wing position and apply some grit. If we can find one, a good, solid veteran Dman who can eat 18-20 minutes a game and is a plus player; offense is extra. When the top six forwards are clicking, we don’t NEED the offense. We won’t fix the top six forwards with a Dman — but I’d love to have a guy who can cut Hannan and McLaren’s minutes and take on some of the load so the younger kids don’t have to (even though they’ve played pretty admirably when needed — the playoffs are another level of crazy altogether). A cup ring on one hand or the other would be nice.

What I’m selling:

Evgeni Nabokov. I’ve talked about this before. I still think it’s a good idea. Nabby has a no-trade, but if it’s made clear he’s now the backup, he’ll take a move to a team where he can start. In the arena you can hear it; the fans have lost confidence in Nabby; when Toskala is announced, there’s a huge cheer. When Nabby is announced, it’s much more muted. Until Nabby makes the first few saves, the fans are hesitant to believe. And far too often, he hasn’t. If you compare Nabokov’s and Toskala’s numbers, they’re pretty similar, except for W/L and “goals scored for” — the sharks team consistently scores over a goal a game less for Nabokov, so his record is much closer to .500. Dan Rusanowsky and Jamie Baker can profess amazement at this “coincidence” all they want, but it’s simply not true: the team is playing much more cautious in front of Nabokov, more paranoid. they hang back to protect him, costing them offense. And he STiLL gives up soft goals.

And it’s now in the team’s head, and Nabby’s head. And bluntly – there’s not a damn thing wrong with Nabokov that would keep him from going to a new team and kicking a lot of butt. He simply hasn’t figured out how to get that “gotta make the first save OH DAMN” out of his head here, and the team’s playing down to that. And it’s a viscious little circle now.

So a fresh start works for everyone. Toskala can take over as top dog, Schaeffer comes up and plays every fifth game, and Nabokov can go play 65 games for someone else — and Nabokov has shown he plays better with lots of play, this season’s swapping notwithstanding.

So, who needs a goalie, and is willing to give up a top-six gritty forward with a cup ring (hopefully) to help carry the sharks forward this season? I’ll happily take a soon-to-be-unrestricted, because even if we lose them in the offseason, clearing out Nabokov’s salary off the cap is a win in itself, now that Toskala is clearly the first goalie.

How about St. Louis? Bill Guerin is soon to be unrestricted. He’s close to perfect for what I’d like right now.

How about Nabokov (and his salary) and Rissmiller for Guerin and a draft pick?

Or maybe Gary Roberts?

Just thinking, ya know?

update: Tim Kawakami of the Merc helps GM Doug Wilson chime in… (personally, given what Doug says, I don’t think his thoughts are incompatible with mine… I think there’s a deal in the works, personally).