Golden Knights @ Maple Leafs - Nov. 20th, 7:30pm - SN, Fan 590

[Arn]

I played rugby many years ago as a kid. We were taught to tackle “low”. Basically to take players out below the waist. “Cheek to cheek” was how my school coach described it, so your face basically alongside the backside of the tackled player. Then you kind of slid down and held the legs so tripping the player up.

That was probably just before fright became professional. As it got professional the players got bigger, the tackles became “hits” and “collisions” and provided a lot of spectacle. Then we begin to see the concussions and players knocked out etc.

At amateur and junior level in England there is a lot of argument about actually changing the rules to make any tackle above the waist illegal. They’ve gone with the sternum as the upper limit.

Obviously that’s an extreme level, and couldn’t really apply to hockey. But it just shows how seriously they take it. I think it is partly on the back of some lawsuits also.


(Story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/65354774 )

 

[bustaheims]

The IIHF's rules are different. Any contact with the head is 5mins. The NHL doesn't want to lose big hits so that's why their rule is the way it is.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1859435650023305644

https://twitter.com/x/status/1859423064104071251

I think the problem is that the distinction between legal and illegal head contact still leaves too much window for serious head injuries. Any avoidable contact with the head should be illegal, regardless of intention, targeting, etc. As cw points out, we're learning more and more about the long-term consequences of blows to the head. and steps need to be taken to minimize them.

The only legal contact to the head should be clearly accidental (no accidentally on purpose BS), not incidental - and repeat offenders should be heavily disciplined. The onus needs to be on the players throwing the hits. No more telling the victims they should keep their heads up, etc.

 

[cw]

I played rugby many years ago as a kid. We were taught to tackle “low”. Basically to take players out below the waist. “Cheek to cheek” was how my school coach described it, so your face basically alongside the backside of the tackled player. Then you kind of slid down and held the legs so tripping the player up.

That was probably just before fright became professional. As it got professional the players got bigger, the tackles became “hits” and “collisions” and provided a lot of spectacle. Then we begin to see the concussions and players knocked out etc.

At amateur and junior level in England there is a lot of argument about actually changing the rules to make any tackle above the waist illegal. They’ve gone with the sternum as the upper limit.

Obviously that’s an extreme level, and couldn’t really apply to hockey. But it just shows how seriously they take it. I think it is partly on the back of some lawsuits also.


(Story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/65354774 )

Aside from hockey, I played football and both 7 and 15 a side rugby. We had fewer and usually less severe injuries playing rugby (without pads) than football. Some of that is football pads give a player armour and he can hit with more reckless abandon. Back then, there were not many boys rugby teams, so we played bigger mens teams like the police (and beat them). Tackling in rugby was more of an art form. Some of the guys I played rugby with were handily better tacklers than any on the football team (try as I might, I can't describe my tackling was as good). More precision and techniques.

 

[Arn]

That’s another aspect of the likes of the hits where shoulder connects with head - the pads are pretty solid. But I suppose a shoulder is pretty solid too.

Let’s just make hitting heads a thing of the past.

Anyway this is why I enjoy this site. I’ve enjoyed this discussion and we’ve had a bit of depth to it and people have engaged and discussed.

 

[L K]

I think the thing is that even on that hit head contact was avoidable. You can still drive a hit upward but engage the chest while elevating. When you elevate before the contact you are more likely to go through the head

 

[Bender]

I think the thing is that even on that hit head contact was avoidable. You can still drive a hit upward but engage the chest while elevating. When you elevate before the contact you are more likely to go through the head

The more I watch the replay the more I agree with Boudreau. It looks to me like he leaves his feet and drives upward into Knies head before the hit. Even if some claim it is follow through there's no conclusive evidence of that. So why are we erring that it's a good play instead of it being a bad one? It clearly isn't for player protection.

 

[princedpw]

I think the problem is that the distinction between legal and illegal head contact still leaves too much window for serious head injuries. Any avoidable contact with the head should be illegal, regardless of intention, targeting, etc. As cw points out, we're learning more and more about the long-term consequences of blows to the head. and steps need to be taken to minimize them.

The only legal contact to the head should be clearly accidental (no accidentally on purpose BS), not incidental - and repeat offenders should be heavily disciplined. The onus needs to be on the players throwing the hits. No more telling the victims they should keep their heads up, etc.

We have a rule that says flipping the puck out of the rink in the d-zone is an automatic penalty, even if by accident. And of course, flipping the puck out of the rink is no where near as consequential as hitting someone in the head. We could make a similar kind of rule for hitting guys in the head. It would sometimes result in penalties that seem ridiculous but it would cut violent hits to the head way down and save a lot of long-run trauma, even death for these guys.

 

[bustaheims]

We have a rule that says flipping the puck out of the rink in the d-zone is an automatic penalty, even if by accident. And of course, flipping the puck out of the rink is no where near as consequential as hitting someone in the head. We could make a similar kind of rule for hitting guys in the head. It would sometimes result in penalties that seem ridiculous but it would cut violent hits to the head way down and save a lot of long-run trauma, even death for these guys.

For sure. Would rather have a situation where excessive calls help protect players. At least that can be justified.

 

[Arn]

We have a rule that says flipping the puck out of the rink in the d-zone is an automatic penalty, even if by accident. And of course, flipping the puck out of the rink is no where near as consequential as hitting someone in the head. We could make a similar kind of rule for hitting guys in the head. It would sometimes result in penalties that seem ridiculous but it would cut violent hits to the head way down and save a lot of long-run trauma, even death for these guys.

100000000% this.

I’m surprised the NHLPA doesn’t push it

 

[cw]

Most NHL players did not wear helmets until Bill Masterton died from massive head injuries caused by a hit.
Adam Johnson's death brought neck guards in his UK league.
Sadly, sometimes tragedies like that are what it takes to convince people to protect themselves.