Headhunt Witchhunt?

I'm getting fed up with the cliché "admiring a pass." Mac-T used it three times in his refusal to condemn hits like that delivered to David Booth by Mike Richards over the weekend. Keith Jones also used it on their panel discussion about the issue on Wednesday night hockey last night on TSN.

Come on! Why does it always seem that it is former 3rd/4th liners that are getting to opine on these kind of things (Cherry and his lackeys too). These are the people who, in their conservative ways, feel like hockey is going to be ruined by making the game safer. They want fighting and hitting and running the goalie and brawls, just like the good old days. Hell, they even have the ability to come to a consensus that a fighter knocking a ref down trying to stop a fight shouldn't be suspended! What the fuck do you have to do nowadays? But such is the place of fighting in the NHL.

Hockey is hockey. And though I enjoy it's current form, I wouldn't enjoy a reformed hockey any less. It just seems too simple to me.

The hit in question:


First, these blindside hits over the middle of the ice. These are professional hockey players. They don't admire passes, it's a stupid saying. They fucking look to see how the play is going to develop. Does a player on a two on one pass the puck over to his linemate and then put his head on a swivel. (Well maybe he should, since hitting from behind is legal in the NHL, but I'll get to that later). No! He looks for the return pass / rebound. Is this what we want hockey to be? Guys shooting the puck away, scared about what's coming from the other direction. I guess that's what Booth should have done: passed the puck, come to a complete stop, and then proceeded when it's safe. It's like crossing the street, kids!

Solution: Fucking outlaw hitting players who do NOT have the puck (AND outlaw headhunting which is exactly what this looked like to me). I'm always astonished as to how glorified Scott Stevens was for his ability to deliver cheap shots. And that's what the Booth hit was. Anyone can go and find a guy who got rid of the puck and who's not looking and absolutely cream him. Mike Richards is 5'11 195lbs. He's about the size of Wayne Gretzky. If Richards can do it, anyone can. The fact Stevens dwarfed Paul Kariya and Ron Francis makes some of his hits even cheaper.

So, (as the hardened hockey crowd will easily be able to pick out) I've never played hockey. Which means I'm clearly out of my league here. But somebody please explain to me what purpose the rule of allowing players to be hit within a second after they get rid of the puck has? Is it for entertainment? Is it so that the NHL can showcase it's third line checking talent? Seriously. It is legal interference. Wouldn't the game be better served if there were less interference? Oh, but who likes skill when we can watch grown men assault each other!

Most of the time, you see a defenseman in his own end play an outlet pass or rim it around the boards, with a forechecker coming in, and then stand there waiting to absorb the hit. Now clearly this defenseman needs to play the puck quickly or he's going to get hit and potentially lose the puck. So what effect does allowing the forechecker to hit after the puck's gone serve? Seems to me it serves the forecheckers team by allowing it to punish the other team in the form of injuries. And hockey is a physical game right? So therefore trying to injure/punish opponents is a winning strategy.

I guarantee you if Crosby is the one hit (or Ovechkin, as Richards tried a repeat hit Tuesday), people would sing a different tune. In that case, "we need to protect our marquee players." Hypocrites.

Take hitting after puck's gone out of the game! It serves little, if any, purpose and only encourages devastating hits.

And what about fighting? Entertaining? Not really. Maybe back in the days when guys fought through emotion. Now it's either fighting because you have to (aka, someone broke "the code" of running the goalie, hitting a star player, etc.) or it's two 4th liners trying to make themselves useful (aka, earn a paycheck).

I say toss the fighters from the game, just like in World Juniors, which I must say, is some damn fine hockey. But wait! They'll say enforcers are needed in there so ensure things don't get out of hand and they can police the ice. Right, because when those guys are in the box for 5+ minutes after fighting each other, it's utter mayhem on the ice with guys karate kicking each other and shit. Tossing them from the game would just mean more time for actual hockey players and, you know, actual hockey playing.

Hitting from behind. Legal? Sort of. It's OK as long as you don't do it very hard and they guy doesn't fall and break his neck. Otherwise, HO HO (think Costanza)! You're in deep shit, buddy.

I'm pretty sure I'm not dumb, so why can't I figure out why I'm wrong on this one? Why not penalize any hit from behind as long as the hitting player isn't stationary. More penalties? Yes. But the reason you have penalties is to discourage behaviour. And allowing 90% of hitting from behind into the boards isn't discouraging any behaviour, it is ENcouraging it.

Also, nearly every big hit I see in hockey is borderline charging.

That's about all the hockey bashing I have for today.

Nope, there's more. Apparently this is illegal:


Not sure why. It looks like a hipcheck coming in from the front. But again, the theme here? It's a late hit, which is purely unnecessary. If there is a rule against this type of hit, I'm unaware of it.

And if you ask Nick Kypreos (hey! another 3/4th liner at the analyst's desk), this one is bad because he can seriously injure Colaiacovo's knees. But throwing your shoulder into someone's head is ok. That's not liable to ruin anyone's career.

Thank God there is some sense out there in Jim Kelley and Bob McKenzie (note: neither is a former 3/4th liner!).