Do you think "hockey guys" masturbate to images like this?
I’ll finish that thought in a moment. But first, let me say: I’m not a “hockey guy”.
That’s not to say I’m not a fan of the game. I love the game. I love watching it. I loved playing street hockey as a kid. And though its status in our national consciousness is usually quite overblown, I agree that the sport does hold an important place in our cultural history and landscape.
But I never played the game. The real game. Not at any level. So I don’t have the intrinsic sense of loyalty to its traditions — nor the complex, nuanced understanding of what happens out on the ice — as current or former players might.
But then, Don Cherry is a “hockey guy”, with a weekly pulpit to spout authoritatively about the game and its wider influence, and his big-league playing experience amounts to exactly one game (and counting). And he’s a barely-literate numbskull, who — for all of our sakes — I can only hope and pray is self-aware enough to be performing schtick (though I doubt it).
With this said, let me comment on yesterday’s announcement from the NHL of a new rule that will specifically outlaw and penalized blindsided hits to an opponent’s head. In fact, I can summarize my views in three words: about fucking time.
I can expand that into 18 words, actually: about fucking time, and if you disagree, shut up and go back to your cave, you mindless troglodyte.
It’s probably because I never played that I have no reverence whatsoever for all of these “codes” that you keep hearing ex-goon talking heads like Nick Kypreos chime on endlessly about. Hockey needs fighting. Hockey needs goons. Hockey needs enforcers. Blah de fucking dah. Hey, hockey has enforcers: they’re those dudes in the zebra-striped outfits. They’re called referees. What the “hockey guys” mean when they say “enforcers” are “unskilled, cement-handed fringe players, unable to survive in the NHL based on any skill other than their ability to goad another similarly unskilled dimwits into pointless fights.”
Hockey needs fighting, we’re told. Teams use it as an energy boost. Sure enough, if a team goes down by a few goals in a short period of time, you’ll see some combo of the following happen: their coach will call a timeout, they’ll switch their goalie and/or their “enforcer” will go after the “enforcer” on the other side and clumsily exchange attempted punches for 45 seconds. And this act of on-ice bravery — win, lose or draw — will supposedly act as a reminder to his teammates “hey, we’re supposed to play well! We’re supposed to score! Let’s all start giving some more effort!” Of course, everyone else on the team will have to give some more effort; the bench is a bit shorter for the next five minutes as the goon serves his penalty.
Hockey does not need fighting. Let me repeat. Hockey does not need fighting.
The Olympic tournament we just watched? Scintillating stuff, though it’s a bit of an unfair comparison, as it’s a short tournament featuring the world’s best players, so the skill level will obviously be high enough that fisticuffs are a non-issue. But what about the NHL playoffs? NHL teams, NHL calibre players… and yet, fights are incredibly rare. There’s gritty, tough play. But the goons generally stay stapled to the bench. And yet the arenas are full, people watch on TV, and the two-month grind to the Stanley Cup usually produces the best hockey all year long.
But what, you may ask, does this have to do with the new rule against head shots?
Well, sporting leagues at all levels are now aware that they must act to minimize the risk of concussions, as new evidence surfaces regularly to give us more insight into just how catastrophic these brain injuries can be. And there have been plenty of high-profile head injuries suffered out on the ice in recent years, the most recent being Boston’s Marc Savard suffering a potentially season-ending concussion after a late, dirty hit by Pittsburgh’s Matt Cooke in a game over the weekend.
It is irrelevant whether the recent rash of head injuries is a coincidence, a sign of less respect amongst players, or simply coming under the microscope because of what we now know about concussions. The truth is that hits like Cooke’s contribute nothing to the game, have no place in the sport of hockey and, as pointed out by Damien Cox, are now illegal under the new rule introduced by the NHL.
Good. Cooke should also be suspended for the remainder of the season. Hey, you’ve gotta make an example out of someone.
To bring this back to fighting… the troglodytes will argue (though they haven’t yet) that any attempt to crack down on bodychecking is going to lead us down a slippery slope to the pussification of the game. First they ban blindside headshots… then they’ll ban all shots to the head… then they’ll ban all bodychecks… and then it’ll just be figure skating with sticks. And our very Canadian manhood will be at stake! Don’t let these American businessmen dilute OUR rough, rugged game!
The better solution? Keep fighting in the game! Guys will keep themselves in check if they know that throwing a dirty check will get them in trouble with the other team’s enforcer!
Except, it doesn’t work that way anymore. The instigator rule took care of that. What happens when tough guys do try to exact revenge on opponents for supposedly dirty hits? We get Todd Bertuzzi going after an uninterested Steve Moore, and crippling him. Huh. Good advertisement for hockey.
The whole “bottom-up” method of enforcement, espoused by the troglodytes, simply doesn’t work. It’s an anachronism. It’s done. Their calls are no longer worth listening to. There is too much at stake. The players are too big and too fast. And with what we know about concussions, there’s too much at stake for these players as individual human beings.
In any game with this much speed and physical contact, there will always be tragic accidents. Guys will get hurt. Badly. No amount of rule amendments will ever eliminate serious injuries, including head injuries.
But continuing to cling to this outdated, Broad Street Bully notion of what hockey “should be” will only serve to increase the chances of such injuries happening, as marginal goofballs like Steve Downie recklessly throw themselves around the rink, trying to make names for themselves. Tough, gritty hockey is good. Tough, clean checks are good. But shots to the head? No. How do you eliminate them?
By growing some balls (NHL, I’m talking to you) and instituting tough rules across the board with actual strict penalties that will serve as a deterrent. No two-game, three-game bullshit. Ten games. 20 games. Half-seasons. Full season suspensions, without pay. And with fines to boot. Throw the prospect of permanent expulsion from the league in there too, as a last-ditch.
Players need to know they are responsible for their actions on the ice; and if they act irresponsibly, in a manner that could cause serious, life-altering injuries to another player, then they must pay the consequences.
That, methinks, will work a lot better than the worry that some goon might take a run at you.
(Oh, and for what it’s worth… Don Cherry thinks a five-minute penalty will do the trick as a deterrent. Hmm. Figures.)
As for the title of this post?
Hockey without head shots is like South Africa without apartheid. Eliminating them will anger the small minority of folks whose voices are disproportionately loud in the discussion — those who are happy with things the way they are, and have been — but ultimately, the change is needed, it is just, and it will produce a better situation for all.