More Fighting Curbs Concussions

Fighting and concussions have been a couple of the NHLs hottest topics over the last few years. While they have been debated plenty, these two words have not been used in the same sentence as much as they should.

The concussions that have caused so much buzz have been almost uniquely a result of hits to the head. From Matt Cooke to David Steckel, players have been getting away with too much. The league’s officiating has taken most of the heat for this alarming trend, especially after Zdeno Chara’s perceived cheap shot that went unpunished outside of a game misconduct, and another Matt Cooke incident.
 

But some have linked the infamous instigator rule to the lack of respect players are showing. Many pacifistic members of the hockey world have scoffed at this logic. You can't fight fire with fire, right? The reasoning does seem odd at first glance, but a thorough look reveals that fighting is, in fact, the perfect combatant against concussions.

The one thing everybody can agree on is that respect is at the root of the problem. Don Cherry'll tell ya, the kids today got no respect for the head. It is certain that there were less cheap shot artists in the days of Syl Apps, and it is even more certain that those few guys were dealt with much more harshly.

Hockey is a unique sport, because it has always been governed not only by regulations, but by a code. The unwritten rules established by players, and enforced by players. The threat of violence was enough to force tough guys to control their aggression. This system has balanced rough-and-tumble with civil for over a century.

The balance was disturbed when the league limited the enforcer's role, via the instigator rule in 1992. There was nothing more to repel dirty hits. So the NHL tried to counter the effect by imposing today's "zero tolerance" officiating. But calling games more strictly has failed to put a serious dent in the dangerous plays causing brutal injuries.

Instead, this movement has only succeeded in removing physicality from the game. The role of the grinder is diminishing, and even clean hits are not as prevalent as they once were. What once was a selling point is now discouraged. Is hockey without hitting and fighting a desirable product?

Not only have these limits watered down the game, but has made it more hazardous for the players. Preventing players from starting a fight has in turn made it impossible for them to stand up for their teammates, and for themselves. Hockey needs fighting to keep the rats in check.

More fighting leads to less cheap-shots, which reduces the need for "zero tolerance" rule enforcement, creating a more physical, entertaining game, and happier fans. It is exactly what the critics say it is, fighting fire with fire. A crazy idea at first glance, but in practice, it works.

Canucks Choke-Bound

The buzz in BC is whether or not this is finally “the year” for the Canucks. Most of the media raves that this is Vancouver’s best team ever, pegging them as Stanley Cup favourites. But many fans, however, are skeptical of their home team’s chances.

Most of these pessimists (or realists, depending on who you ask) prophesize another Luongo meltdown, or preach about the lack of grit that will eventually lead to Vancouver’s doom. But we laymen often forget the most ominous omen, one that has continued to plague teams year after year.

The President’s Trophy curse.

Really? The Canucks most challenging obstacle is nothing but a bogus superstition? In a sense, it is.  Every year the team with the best regular season has an uncanny habit of busting early in the playoffs. There obviously is nothing mystical about this chunk of metal; it is how you win it that jinxes your playoff run.

Vancouver has been the best in the West for virtually all season. They lead the league by a fairly comfortable margin. The divisional race was over before it started. It has been a dominant season like no other in franchise history. Up to this point, the Canucks have beaten every obstacle that has come their way.

But the opponent that might do the most damage is Adversity. The Canucks have yet to face any sort of resistance this year. They have relatively cruised to where they are now. Never has there been a sense of desperation, or a must-win game. The trouble is, both of those scenarios will undoubtedly come up in the post-season, and the Canucks will not be ready.
 

This effect is not a tangible one, but it has been proven time-and-time again to “choke” powerhouse teams out of the Cup chase. San Jose Sharks, Washington Capitals, Buffalo Sabres, San Jose Sharks, Boston Bruins, and let’s not forget, the San Jose Sharks. The only exception post-lockout is the Detroit Red Wings, and their roster had enough playoff experience to fill an encyclopedia or two.

It’s like the saying goes, adversity builds character. There is no doubting that the Canucks are a heavy Cup favourite. But when the situation demanding great character arises, they will be the underdogs.

"Shoot from Anywhere" Still Works

Recently, The Hockey News blogger Justin Bourne wrote an article dispelling the “shoot from anywhere” strategy preached by so many coaches, either from the bench, or the couch. Bourne wrote it off as an outdated philosophy, and went so far as to say that the “shots on goal” statistic is no longer a valid way to judge which team was dominant in  game. He makes the point that goalies let in fewer weak goals then they used to in the eighties etc. While that may be true, taking lots of shots is still crucial to any team’s success.

Although today's butterfly goaltenders may not concede as many goals from outside shots, taking those shots can still benefit the offense. Long range attempts still create deflections, rebounds, and yes, even the odd goal. It may not seem worth it to some, but a chance at a fluke goal is better than ragging the puck until it eventually gets stolen. Just one good bounce could shift the momentum drastically, which in hockey is paramount.

If you want a real world example, look no further than the Detroit Red Wings. Justin Bourne argues that in a modern league, peppering the net does not work. One of the Red Wings’ trademarks, however, has been to do exactly that, and they have been one of hockey’s most successful franchises, both before and after the lockout. Detroit has been to the Stanley Cup Finals twice since 2005, and have been champions once. Try telling them “shoot from anywhere” is obsolete.

 You can even take a look at the daily box scores for further evidence. If a team, like the Chicago Blackhawks, for example, blows out another team, like the Edmonton Oilers, the obvious example, the Hawks probably out-shot Edmonton badly. Very rarely do you see a team score six or seven goals with less than thirty shots. To control a game, you must control the shot count.


Of course, as with any rule, there are exceptions. "Cross blue line, shoot, repeat" will only succeed in turning the puck over. But if you have a decent shot opportunity, and no quality passing lanes available, letting fly is a better option than holding on to the puck, or continuing to pointlessly cycle it around the side boards. Just like many other aspects of hockey, it may not be modern, it may not be pretty, but it works.

Smaller Goalie Pads, More Goals

A recent focus of the NHL promoting goal scoring. The mission made sense. The Dead Puck Era was producing just two or three goals per game, it was clear that this was a valid concern. Hockey was struggling down south, more scoring would grow the game. The cause was just, but the solution was flawed.

Since the lockout, the league has introduced several outlandish rules, the puck-over-glass penalty and the trapezoid among them. While these changes did usher in more goals, they did hockey more harm than good. The owners got one thing right, however.

Just before the lockout, in 2003/04, goalie pad length was limited to 38 inches. Prior to 05/06, pad width was cut from 12 inches to 11. Further restrictions were put on gloves, shoulder pads, and most other aspects of the goaltender apparel. This is one of the few steps the league made in the right direction, as pad size reduction is the only way to hike up scoring without compromising the game.

If you look back to the eighties and earlier, one of the most noticeable differences from that era to today is the goalie equipment. 'Tenders back then had dramatically less bulk (ignoring their bellies,) and as a result, depending on the decade, goal frequency was greater than or equal to the post-lockout NHL. What's more, that scoring came without the need to strip defensemen of their rights.

But an the years went by, more goaltenders switched to a butterfly style, and leg pads began to swell. The balance of power shifted toward netminders, and goals became increasingly rare. The trend continued on until the turn of the millennium, when so few goals were scored, soccer started to seem mildly intriguing.

So the lockout came around, and executives are searching for an answer for this conundrum. A sane person would figure,"we have this problem because goalie pads became too big, so the logical answer is to make them smaller again." Then there's Gary Bettman.

"Let's bump up scoring by creating these nonsensical rules that render defensemen helpless." What we have now is this peculiar quadrilateral behind the net to cage in the goaltender, and a culture where forwards can run circles the 'D, or plant their asses right on top of the crease, and their is not a thing the blueliners can do about it. That's practical right?

Instead of tampering with hockey's framework, the simple act of shrinking equipment can add excitement without ruining the game. After all, they are supposed to be pads, not shields. Unfortunately, the odds of the league taking this route are slim; common sense is not their strong suit. But if they happen to smarten up and make these changes, it would be a win-win situation.

More scoring would make hockey more popular in the States, and longtime fans would not have to deal with anymore strange rules. Everyone's happy! Except, of course, the goaltenders.