Ottawa Senators v Montreal Canadiens - Game One

The first round of the playoffs is peak season for controversial hits in the NHL. Teams, eager to set the tone and not yet worn down by weeks of pain and dread, play more aggressively than they did in the death throes of the regular season or will when the Conference Final is on the line. There are a lot of men skating around these days looking to send a message, and because half the teams are already gone, when they succeed, far more people are interested than would have been in January. This collision of incentive to hit big and attention to every big hit that happens is the perfect storm of hockey controversy.

It’s irritating, sometimes, this predictable April-May spasm of hand-wringing and hair-tearing over the bloodiness of the game, but it’s also important. The frame-by-frame analysis of specific hits and the intense debate over the language of rules is how we, collectively, make our peace with loving a sport that is directly based on the maiming of human bodies. We, the fans- but also the players and GMs and sponsors and league officials and everyone- can only enjoy hockey insofar as we can draw these ethical boundaries. No wonder we spend so many hours on the cartography of violence.

Of all the hits of the first round, none drew more attention and debate than Eric Gryba’s open-ice hit on Lars Eller in the first game of the Ottawa-Montreal series.  Eller was in a vulnerable position, trying to take a terribly-considered pass from teammate Raphael Diaz.  Gryba caught him unawares, his shoulder at more or less exactly head-height, and sent Eller spinning, unconscious, until his face smashed hard into the ice and… broke.  Badly.

This was not your average scrap of postseason dirtiness. It’s not a flying elbow or a leaping charge or a head-slam into the turnbuckle. Gryba isn’t making any deliberate gesture that violates one of the prominent contact regulations. He’s trying to throw a clean hit; he just ended up throwing it to Eller’s head.

Such hits- ones that are technically legal but nevertheless disastrous- are a problem for hockey fans. To a great many of our most knowledgeable tactical minds, this was exactly the right play.  Glorious Leader Bourne provided an excellent analysis of the reasons that such hits are expected and necessary, and he’s not wrong about that. The intention of the play was correct according to contemporary standards, it is what most coaches would expect their players to do, and it’s not a gesture so wrong-in-itself that it should be banned from the game.

However, regardless of the tactical value of the play or Gryba’s intent, Eller still ended up unconscious in a pool of blood large enough to drown kittens, and that’s a problem. Yes, as Greg Wyshynski pointed out, hockey has always been brutal, and that’s part of the charm, but there’s no getting around the fact that people find that brutality considerably less charming now than they did in the 50s. The concussion panic is one of the defining sports dramas of our age, and it genuinely terrifies people in a way that bloody noses and broken knees never have. The argument that any kind of concussive hit should pass not only unpunished but unquestioned is a losing one. Just accept it because that’s the way the game is isn’t enough anymore. If stoic indifference to brain injuries is where we try to take our cultural stand, it will be the hill that hockey dies on.

So we have a conundrum: we don’t want to ban that type of hit, because hitting is still a necessary part of the game and it was the right tactical play. But we also can’t just shrug our shoulders and say, awww, too bad, but whatevs when the spinal board comes out. Hockey cannot afford to either soften its play or harden its heart. What, then, are we supposed to do when good plays accidentally go bad?

We punish accidents.

This isn’t such a radical idea. Part of the reason everyone gets tied up in such knots over these kind of collisions is because we’re preoccupied with intent. We think it would be somehow wrong to punish something that wasn’t meant to be dirty. But think about high-sticking, and more particularly the automatic double minor for blood drawn with a high stick: that is a penalty that exists almost exclusively to punish accidents, and it’s universally considered a good one. Although sticks to the face can result from all kinds of good plays (the backswing or follow-through of a shot, a thorny battle in front of the net) and all kinds of pure chance (a fall, a collision, a guy coming up behind unseen), no one- player, coach, or fan- questions that you have to sit for that sort of mistake. We all completely accept that preventing sticks to the head is so important that it transcends concerns about intent and strategic value.

Once upon a time- and by “once upon a time” I mean “for about sixty years”- the NHL faced an epidemic of stick violence. A two-handed baseball swing was a relatively common retaliatory gesture, and stick duels were nearly as common as facepunching. Hockey is a game played with a weapon at hand at all times, and for decades those weapons were used quite freely.  As the game grew in prominence and the real world became a safer place, stickwork became less and less tolerable. Of course, the old-time players who had come up in the nineteen-aughts, when medical treatment in hockey consisted of grain alcohol and sarcasm, sat around telling everyone that it wasn’t so bad and if you want to see hard you should have seen what it was like back in copper country. But that did little to calm the shocked fans and outraged editorials, which only became shriller and more numerous with time.

The NHL tried different methods of quelling stickwork without punishing accidents or good plays. They tried going after only the most egregious offenders with big, send-a-message gestures (the massive suspension that precipitated the Richard Riots stemmed from the Rocket’s penchant for using his lumber to settle disputes). It didn’t work. They tried hefty fines, and those didn’t work either. They tried going after specific gestures- the NHL rulebook has featured literally dozens of different variations of high stick-related penalties over the years- and most of those failed as well.

But now, stickwork has almost entirely been eradicated. Why? Because in the late 80s, the NHL started punishing accidents. They started giving out an unconditional penalty for blood from a high stick, regardless of intention or purpose or effect. Now it’s just the way it is: if you fuck up with your stick, you sit. Period. End of debate.

Is there any reason we couldn’t have the same policy we have with shoulders and unconsciousness as we do with sticks and blood? Why, exactly, is punishing consequences acceptable for a cut lip but unacceptable for a night in the hospital? I’m not even talking about automatic suspensions. I- and I say this as a Habs fan- would have been comfortable with Gryba escaping the Shanaban. But the five-and-a-game he got on the ice was the right call, and I’d be happy to see that become the automatic, unquestioned, unarguable call for any play of equivalent injuriousness.

By all means, go out there, lay your big hits. Send your messages or finish your checks or whatever you feel is necessary to win. But heads are not fair game, and if you miscalculate your thwacking and knock a guy’s mind out of his brain, you’re gone and your team has to kill for a good long while. Even if it was an otherwise legal play. Even if it was a tactical play. After, it can be reviewed for suspensions, and the guys who go far beyond the rules to send a message can have a message sent back to them, courtesy of Mr. Shanahan. But if it’s just a hockey play gone wrong- well, it still went wrong. Sometimes things go wrong and there are consequences. That’s life. That’s also hockey.

Tactics cannot be considered an infinite defense. Yes, Gryba smashing Eller when he was in a vulnerable position was a good decision, in that it stopped the Habs from potentially scoring. But there are a thousand decisions a player could make that might stop an opponent for potentially scoring and we restrict most of them. You know what’s a great way to stop a guy from scoring? Wrestling him from the ice and mounting him from behind like a horny orangutan. That’s effective as hell, that is. Also, the aforementioned two-handers with the stick: terrific way to intimidate and send a message. Hockey used to tolerate both of those things. Coaches used to tell players that those were “good plays” under certain circumstances. They’re not anymore. Just because something is strategically useful doesn’t mean the game as a whole should embrace it. Just because a concussive hit “works” doesn’t mean the concussion isn’t a problem.

Some will say that there is no way to ask players to discipline their hitting in this way. The game is fast and bodies are big and the ice is small and blah blah blah, how can you expect a guy not to get his shoulder up into somebody’s orbital bones every now and then? It’s chaos out there! But the entire game of hockey is about being able to discipline your body amidst chaos. None of the penalties in hockey are absolute. We expect players to know that you can shove in front of the net, but not too much, or it’s interference. We expect players to know that you can whack the puck carrier with your stick, a little, but if you cross the line, it’s slashing. We already expect guys to go out there into that chaos and hit each other hard, but not with elbows or sticks or fists (except in the equally tightly-regulated context of fighting), not in the knees or face or ankles, not after taking this many strides or leaving your feet or within so many paces of the boards or from behind. Not one player has ever made the NHL without learning eleventy billlion ways to precisely control his body, nor without understanding that he’ll get in trouble- either from the coach or the refs, depending on the situation- when he fails to do so.

Adding an automatic five minute major for concussive hits is not going to be the straw that breaks the goon’s back and leaves him a quivering mass of tender sensitivity, unable to hit anyone ever for fear of getting- shock!- a penalty. It’s not going destroy, or even appreciably harm, the game. The vast majority of players the vast majority of the time are already able to lay hits without putting their victims out, under all kinds of varied circumstances, and they’re not going to do jack shit differently. Guys are still going to make the play that Gryba did. But, over time, the knowledge that any serious concussion will have serious consequences will force small changes in the way they make it. Maybe players begin to make a concerted effort to err low rather than high- that’s a desirable change. Maybe it increases the emphasis on separating puck from player and problematizes the ethic of finishing your check in spectacular fashion at all costs- that’s a cultural shift that needs to happen anyway. Maybe the value of players who are 5’10” blocks of solid muscle, who can lay monstrous hits without concern for their shoulder pads fracturing skulls, goes up, and the arms race for the largest possible fourth-liners slows down- that’d be an interesting evolution that would give opportunities to all sorts of good, tough, physical players who are overlooked due to the sport’s pervasive size fetish.

This penalty would likely result in all sorts of perfectly acceptable and even desirable minor transformations in style that would reduce concussions. And yeah, okay, maybe players will skate with their heads down. But players skate with their heads down now; if there’s one thing that we’ve learned from the rash of concussive hits in recent years, it’s that “keep your head up” is an ideal to which even the most elite of the elite cannot perfectly conform. Those guys are still gonna get hit, they’re still gonna lose the puck, and they’re still gonna suffer whatever other tactical disadvantages come from playing blind. People are not suddenly going to stop trying to hit puck carriers just because they might get a five minute major because, as we have already established, 90% of players 90% of the time are able to lay that hit non-concussively. They’ll still take the chance, they’ll just take it a little bit more carefully. And sometimes it’ll go wrong, and they’ll be punished- just like they would be if it went wrong with their lumber instead of their pads.

Comments (17)

  1. “Maybe the value of players who are 5’10” blocks of solid muscle, who can lay monstrous hits without concern for their shoulder pads fracturing skulls, goes up, and the arms race for the largest possible fourth-liners slows down- that’d be an interesting evolution that would give opportunities to all sorts of good, tough, physical players who are overlooked due to the sport’s pervasive size fetish.”

    I think that this, out of all the possible results, is my favorite and I’d love to see that actually happen. Let’s get some more undersized Pecas out there. As usual you make excellent, thought provoking points.

  2. Except that contact above the shoulders on the normal motion of a shot is considered incidental contact and not a high stick, this is a great article and I agree.

  3. Great article. I completely disagree with you. We ‘punish accidents’ that break the rules, but should not for otherwise legal plays that due to a combination of circumstances go horribly wrong. The behavior that you’re trying to control, open ice checks on vulnerable forwards looking to break out, would in effect reward the bad play that made the forward vulnerable. It is Diaz’s behavior that must change otherwise he’s going to run out of forwards who will play with him.

    Falling down your slippery slope, we should also then punish slap shots that are deflected into Crosby’s face.

    When the league instituted the boarding penalties, there was discussion that players would ‘play to the penalty’, keep themselves in the ‘vulnerable’ area a few feet from the boards to stop someone thinking of throwing a check.

    I consider Cooke’s skate to Karlson’s achilles more appropriate for such discussion, even if that wasn’t technically an accident, If someone’s skate leaves the ice and they get punished if said skate causes injury, what happens to the guys who gets tripped and while skidding uncontrollably into the boards they slice someone.

    • It only rewards the bad play if you accept that there’s no possible way to lay the hit without hitting Eller’s head that hard, which I don’t. Like I said, I don’t believe that this punishment will have any substantial effect on players decision to attempt a hit that’s that tactically sound, because most players know that most of the time they can do that without head-breaking. It just provides the extra incentive for restraint.

      And anyway, I’m not sure that using Eller’s suffering to punish Diaz’s error is an ethically sound argument, even by hockey standards.

      • The rules alreay punishes hits to the head anywhere on the ice. The rules also punishes hits when the players are in the danger zones by the boards.

        The only way to ensure absolutely safe hockey is to skip the mess and go straight to the shoot-out, and I think there’s an App for that. For what it’s worth, I LOVE the shoot out and I think they should have one every game

  4. Generally I agree with the argument about punishing accidents, but with the high-stick blood issue, it’s fairly straightforward: is there blood or not? With concussions, until you can establish an undeniable way of saying “this guy just got his head broked”, it’s just going to be subject to opinion. How many guys might feign a concussion to get a star player out of the game, then make a Paul Kariya-like comeback? (note: I am not suggesting Kariya was faking, more marveling at his in-game recovery.)

    • For now, my thought is that this more or less only comes into play when the injury is obvious and considerable- i.e. when the stretcher comes out (although I’d be open to different standards). It obviously can’t be used for all concussions, because on a great many maybe-concussive plays the victim returns to the game relatively quickly (although whether that should change is also an issue). But my point is that if you miscalculate a hit badly enough to severe, undeniable head damage, that should always be a major.

      • Well, this is kind of the big problem with your solution. The total number of hits that do cause preventable head injury is much greater than the subset of those hits that cause “severe, undeniable head damage”. I’m not so worried about players faking it, but if anything, from a player-health perspective, the opposite should be of greater concern: head injuries that are not immediately obvious. And this rule wouldn’t do anything about those.

        My other problem with this excellent article is that the parallel with high-sticking isn’t really valid, because in this case we’re not basing the punishment on the cause, but the effect. You lift your stick, it hits a guy, your fault. You did that. But what did Gryba do that was bad (strictly in terms of the hit)? I lay a perfectly legal hit on someone, he falls backwards and hits his head on the boards or something, gets knocked unconscious. I didn’t do anything “wrong”, yet the effect of my not-wrong action makes it wrong and punishable?
        We’re using penalties and suspensions to get players to play differently, and more safely, right? If the goal of penalties is to apply a disincentive to certain behaviours (I want to whack him with my stick, but I won’t because I’ll go to the box and my team will be short-handed), and if suspensions are to set a firm example against really bad behaviour (I want to hurt him, but I won’t because the league will come down on me like a ton of bricks and cost me playing time and money), what is the purpose of punishing the effect? Will a player think “I’m allowed to hit him, I have the opportunity and it seems safe to do so, but some freak thing might happen and he gets knocked out and there will be trouble for me and my team, so I won’t”? Either players will play according to the rules as they do now and take the chance that injuries do happen – which means nothing changes and no one’s safer; or they’ll stop hitting – which is a much more fundamental change to the game that no one wants.

  5. One of the best writers on this site! Keep it up, but maybe shorten it up a bit?

    • No! Don’t trade insight for brevity!

    • Emperor Joseph II: My dear young man, don’t take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It’s quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that’s all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.

      Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?

      From the movie Amadeus

  6. Although I think it would be difficult to apply on the ice, I agree with the objective. The night after the hit Paul Maurice made a great point on the TSN panel. He gave his opinion that the hit was legal but he also agreed with the suspension. Maurice stated that the league had to find a way to teach players to respect opponents when they found them in a vulnerable position. He felt that Gryba should have dialed back the aggressiveness and reduced the force of his hit on Eller. Ellen’s suggestion may have the desired effect and result in hockey getting back to the notion of removing the player from the puck versus the player’s head from his body.

    BTW I’ve recently written a post with suggestions on making hockey safer and reducing the number of fights. It steals some ideas from the USHL and addresses persistently poor behavior in an attempt to reign the rats, and the teams that employ them.

  7. Great article. Like many of the previous comments, though, there are problems with your line of thinking. I agree that the penalty assessed to Gryba was the right call, along with the match penalty (probably best for Gryba, too; someone would have wanted to hurt him bad), because of the fact that his shoulder did hit Eller in the head. It’s a penalty, but shouldn’t have been a suspension.
    However, not all cases will be as clear. Let’s say that Player A lines up a hit, and focuses on bringing his shoulder down, aiming for Player B’s arm, just below his shoulder, knowing that the hit will still be effective in removing Player B from the puck, but won’t kill him. As Player A leans into the hit, however, Player B drops his shoulder, or turns, in an effort to either play or protect the puck. Player A, coming in at the right angle, taking the correct path and everything, is already committed to the hit, and because of the sudden change in Player B’s positioning, Player A hits his head, or drives him from behind face first into the boards. Player B is concussed because he did something stupid. Player A, in complete control of his body, playing with the other player’s health (or his own paycheck) in mind, concusses the other player because of something he can’t control. Do you drop him a five and a match because of that? Gryba lined up a good hit, but he didn’t consider where his shoulder was. Player A, in this example, does. It’s the same outcome, but should both plays be punished the same way?
    The other issue is that, when it comes to high-sticking, the stick should never be near the face, ever. If a player hits another player in the face with his stick, whether it was accidental or not, is a penalty, because the stick should be on or near the ice. Your shoulder is already in the general area of people’s faces. You shouldn’t go hitting people with them, but there is less control, and comparing them is problematic.
    I think the better idea would be to have the officials review the play to determine whether it was a bad hit in game and assess the five and match during the game. Take the time and get the call right. It’ll slow the game down, yes, but that could be beneficial to keeping concussions down as well, as players wouldn’t want the game to be stopped continuously (I’m assuming), so even if they wouldn’t get a five and match, they would still, hopefully, rectify their hits to keep the hit from being reviewed in game.

  8. I wanted to type a word to be able to say thanks to you for
    all of the pleasant instructions you are giving out here.
    My considerable internet search has at the end of the day been compensated with brilliant
    tips to go over with my family members. I would tell
    you that most of us visitors are very blessed to be in a wonderful
    website with very many wonderful people with good solutions.
    I feel quite privileged to have discovered your webpage and look forward
    to tons of more entertaining moments reading here.
    Thanks a lot once again for a lot of things.

  9. Se você ama de frutos e também adora de plantar e jardins de modo geral, não pode deixar de conferir este excelente texto neste site especializado em jardinagem – jabuticaba.

  10. My spouse and i ended up being really more than happy that Michael managed to deal with his investigations while using the precious recommendations he gained while using the blog. It is now and again perplexing to simply choose to be making a gift of guidelines that many people today could have been trying to sell. And we acknowledge we’ve got the website owner to give thanks to for this. The type of explanations you made, the simple web site menu, the relationships your site help promote – it is mostly exceptional, and it’s really assisting our son and the family imagine that this situation is pleasurable, which is certainly rather mandatory. Thank you for the whole lot!

  11. That you are my function models. Many thanks for the article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *