Recently, the rather violent preparatory matches of CH and several other NHL clubs have made us experience a range of emotions that are generally not very good for our health: anger, disgust, hatred…
Emotions that often have to do with a feeling of injustice caused by dangerous actions that have gone largely unpunished by the NHL.
So, as things stand, often the best a club can do when vicious blows are stupidly dealt to their players is to start picosser the criminal in a pack all evening as suggested by Denis Gauthier and Mathias Brunet, or even, to apply exactly the same medicine that Xhekaj served to Stützle to avenge the attempted injury on Dach by Ridly Greig.
Basically, it’s an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
The law of Talion.
I too got caught in the game of preaching the law of Talion (said in less academic terms) in front of my 8 year old boy when on Tuesday evening I saw Greig aim for Dach’s head, in his blind spot, a good moment after the latter passed the puck.
What do you want, in 2024 in the NHL, more than 3750 years (yes, yes!) after the first formulations of the said law in Babylon, it’s still the same way it works in the NHL, a multi-billion dollar sports company ahead, among other things, to serve as a model for our beautiful youth!
Obviously, on the NHL side, as long as it is people like the subtle George Parros who are knowingly placed at the head of the player safety department, we will not witness a great revolution from which we will care really about… player safety! #1984 #Orwell
The solution? Real dissuasive justice: mandatory minimum sentences of 5 or 10 matches.
However, the “normal” reflex of the very average fan that I was last Tuesday evening in the company of my son SHOULD NOT be that of the ancestral vengeful law of humanity, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!
The reflex that we should have – and have been for some time now – should be one that would rather make us formulate a slightly more civilized and simple idea like this:
“What an idiot!” He deserves at least the minimum suspension of five games without pay for such an action. »
Or 10, or even 20 matches, if the player is seriously injured in the head (concussion) or knee (sprain, etc.).
A repeat offender? We’re doubling down!
A suspension as long as the targeted and intentionally injured player cannot return to the game could even be considered in the most extreme cases…
And we should also think about imposing hefty fines on the teams of the offending players. For a five-game suspension, $250,000 minimum? 10 games, $500,000? It would make the players a little more ashamed and shame is a very deterrent factor…
Some examples
In the case of a double failure from behind like that of Domi on Hutson during the 3e exhibition game? Five matches minimum. In the street, we would consider it an armed attack!
Vicious and dangerous body checks like those of Greig and Xhekaj? Five matches minimum. Attempted injury. Five more if he’s a repeat offender for this type of offense. Five more if injuries. This is exactly the kind of shot that no longer has a place in hockey.
Without discussing the relevance of playing marginal players against NHL players in pre-season, a gesture like that of Paré on Laine’s knee? Minimum of five games, no matter what league he plays in and even if it wasn’t really intentional.
Serious injury? 10 compulsory matches. Too bad for Paré. You shouldn’t hit your knees, it’s too dangerous. Laine will miss at least 25-30, him.
As we wanted to protect the quarterback in football since he is often in a more vulnerable position, do we want to protect the disc carrier a little better or not? Do we want to try to stop the reflex of the knee sticking out or not? Do we want there to be a minimum of justice for the team that loses a player or not?
Of course, for longer suspensions, players could always appeal and their plea would then be considered before rendering a final verdict, but the general idea would be to establish a firm basis based on what the studies reveal. serious in terms of deterrence as follows, found on the website of the Department of Justice of Canada:
Research on the certainty of sentences as well as their severity is applicable to the issue of mandatory minimum sentences (MMPs). However, the results of this research considered as a whole suggest that severity could be less important from the point of view of deterrence than initiatives reinforcing the certainty of the sanction (Miller and Anderson, 1986; von Hirsch et al., 1999)
What is important and what would really become more dissuasive in the minds of the players would therefore not be so much the severity (the duration) of the sentence, but the certainty of receiving it!
Currently, it’s complete nonsense with nonsense like: “the initial point of contact was not the head so it’s less serious, less intentional! », which means that we go from no suspension to sometimes five matches, as was the case with Gallagher’s disgraceful test on Pelech.
But in many cases, like those of Greig and It was simply luck that both players did not suffer serious injuries.
Regardless of the purity of intentionality – which is always difficult to prove beyond any doubt – the important thing would be to send and implement a clear message and sanctions as soon as a dangerous action is not purely accidental.
The idea would be to establish the real bases of a certain and easy to understand deterrent justice, known to everyone when they lace up their skates.
Although there will always be thick and repeat offenders, even if nothing will ever be perfect in such a fast and imperfect sport, clear and civilized deterrent justice would eradicate a good part of the vicious and dangerous hits that have nothing to do with hockey, like those of Greig and Xhekaj , Domi and many others.
Of course, not always collaborative, nor very enlightened, AJLNH should also agree with such much stricter rules, subject to cuts from 6% (5 games) to 12% (10 games), or even a greater still percentage of the annual salary for repeat offenders and very vicious, dangerous and serious actions.
This would not be an easy part to negotiate.
But do you have a better way to empower players and help them help themselves?
A more intelligent and respectful contact sport
Quoi?
“Professional hockey is not ringette, it is a contact sport, a virile sport, it goes quickly and the game must not be distorted! »
No problem. There is no question of removing hard contacts, nor of distorting the game, and yes, players should continue to play with their heads held high.
It is simply a question of eliminating or reducing as much as possible the dangerous, dirty, stupid and useless shots that have nothing to do with hockey as such.
The “worst” that could happen is that we see more goals and great ones because fewer star players would get injured!
Anyone against it?
If the NFL, in a sport where there is even more contact by the very nature of the game, has managed to better protect its quarterbacks (roughing the passer rule) by a set of very precise rules, why wouldn’t the NHL be able to better protect the disc carrier (or the one who hasn’t had it for a while?) from completely ridiculous hits like those we keeps seeing these days?
For the moment, despite all the evidence that is accumulating, among other things, on the dangers to the brain of hits to the head, perhaps the NHL does not have enough will. Violence may be too profitable for the league, money talks.
But positions of this kind, in the wake of that of Ken Dryden which is not new, must continue to be conveyed and shared.
Revolutions often take place over the long term.
But right now, it’s starting to be too long. The players are getting stronger and stronger, the game is getting faster and faster, and the most basic civics, respect for each other, seems to be on the verge of extinction.
Take action!
