The Kings and Rangers begin their season in Stockholm today with a OT win for Los Angeles while the Ducks faced off against the Sabres in Helsinki. Buffalo sailed to an easy 4-1 win. Other games today included the Lightning over the Hurricanes, Detroit over Ottawa, Nashville beating Columbus, and a Stars win against the Blackhawks.
I watched the Kings/Rangers game on Versus and had a few thoughts.
There was a penalty in the first as Mats Zuccarello (NYR) was called for boarding on Kyle Clifford (LAK).
The hit looks like the kind the NHL is trying to eliminate. The hit was from behind, though it didn't throw Clifford into the boards in a really really violent way. In fact, the hit was somewhat away from the boards, but the momenteum of the two players send him into the boards nonetheless. It was more of a hard shove from behind than a vicious hit against the boards.
So, will he get a suspension?
The commentators on Versus in this intermission report were about the drop the gloves themselves about this issue. Keith is saying it absolutely will result in further discipline. The other is, to quote him, "pissed off" about the way the NHL is becoming a bunch of wimps that won't hit.
His rebutal? The Kings' Simon Gagne roughing call on Ryan Callahan where Gagne took a swing and connected with Callahan in the side of the head. The two were face to face. Really? That's your counter argument? Saying that a punch during an argument is the same thing as pushing a player into the boards when he's not expecting a hit?
Weak argument.
There was no suspensions for the boarding call, but a 2,500 fine was assessed. There was no injury on the play. There wasn't an apparent attend to injure or anything. But it was a recklass play that could easily result in injury to a defenseless player.
I thought it looked like a boarding that the League was trying to eliminate when it happened, but it took until the first intermission for the commentators to start talking about possible second disciplinary action from the League. This indicates it wasn't one of those types of hits that demands action or response from the Shanahan, but should probably be examined further. It's been said before, but the League is trying to condition the players not to make plays like that. If you can only read his numbers and name, don't hit him. It would not have been surprising to get a video response, but I think the videos in the preseason and the lack of injury or obviousness of the boarding call left the NHL to decide a video response was not necessary.
Yeah, there will be a lot of these type of penalities, fines, and suspensions early on. That's the point. Players will have to learn not to do it and it will take time to relearn what they have learned. This is the first one with just a fine, and there is no video explanation to go with it. Hell, the commentators couldn't agree if it needed additional discipline or not nor did they say anything at the time of the hit, so I don't think the NHL thought an explanation video was necessary for just a fine. This is not like the hit Malone delivered. That got a lot of talk at the time and it required an explanation to show why there was no suspension or fine because it looked so close to the type of hits they are trying to remove from the game.
Hits will still be a big part of NHL hockey. That will not go away. But the sport must evolve to protect the players, otherwise it is just barbaric and irresponsible, especially given what we know about concussions today.
The change isn't that hits are being removed from the game (like one commentator suggested), but dangerous hits that are likely to result in injury (unexpected hits from behind against the boards and hits to the head) are being removed. The argument used comparing the Gagne hit and the Zuccarello hit are not the same type of play and shouldn't be used as direct comparisons. Both are certainly a penalty (you can't just punch a guy in the head, go sit down for two minutes), but an attack on a player's back as he goes towards the boards is dangerous and much more likely to result in serious injury.
My counter to the suggestion that eliminating blindside or head hits will eliminate hits altogether?
Jamie Benn.
In the Dallas game, Benn delivered an incredible hit on the Blackhawks' Niklas Hjalmarsson.
That was not a penalty. There's no talk of possible fines or suspensions. Nope. Just a hockey play.
Really the only thing wrong with that play is it put the Dallas Stars Ice Girls in danger of flying glass. And that's wrong.
A couple of other notes: the ice there in Stockholm is 3 feet shorter than NHL ice. That was taken out of the neutral zone and not the attack zones.
For whatever reason, I'm thinking about the jerseys right now. Actually, I'm thinking about it because of my disappointment with those Kings black and white jerseys. I want purple back on the sweaters! I know, I know. They are being used as an alternate, but it should be on the primary.
Anyway, I really started paying attention to the NHL right around the time the jerseys switched from white homes to dark homes. That switch happened in the offseason of 2003. The reason was the NHL wanted to make more money by introducing the third jerseys. And they thought that fans would not purchase jerseys that the home team didn't wear.
Well, I think in this day and age of exposure, I think that the NHL should allow teams to decide what they want to wear at home and it will not effect jersey sales. Home, white, thirds. Whatever. Keep the current system of requiring a minimum use of jerseys (13 is the current requirement, with some exceptions) to help ensure teams actual use the jerseys they advertise as being part of the team collection. That gives teams the option of wearing what they want to wear. Like they do in the NFL.
If that doesn't fly, I would switch back to home in whites. Because if you go to a lot of games, it's a little boring because it's always the home team in a color and the away in white. With a white home team, there would be a rotating pallette of colors coming into the arena, even without any thirds.
The NHL appears to be loosing up their restrictions on jersey colors. If you look at the third jersey schedules this season, some of the dark thirds will be worn on the road. I'd assume that means the home team will wear white.
Speaking of white jerseys, the Washington Capitals actual have a white third jersey and will only wear it on the road. It flies in the face of the NHL argument. A third jersey, white, never at home. That defies logic.
The other argument for having the away always wearing white is because it makes it easier for teams to travel. They can go with just one type of uniform and not have to worry about changing things. But how much more luggage would be created if teams needed to carry two (or even three) different jersey combinations?
The only things that change are the jerseys, the socks, and the helmets. Pants and gloves are generally the same for home and aways and everything else is covered by the uniform. Goalies sometimes change pad colors, so that would be a bit more. But considering most teams travel on a team plane with team buses and such, I just don't think it would be a really big deal. What, an extra package for the additional goalie gear and maybe another bag for helmets? Doesn't seem that big of a deal to me.
We shall see what happens as the sport evolves its looks, which really starts this season. There have been some teams that have worn white at home on select nights (like Montreal during their 100 Year Centennial Celebration), but there are significantly more teams doing it this year.
Finally, I'll wrap up with a video of highlights from 10/7.
No comments:
Post a Comment