I don't usually like to post controversial opinions on my blog because I feel as though I am preaching instead of sharing information, things I find interesting, or what's new in my life. However, this is just sports. There is no real controversy in sports as far as I am concerned, because it is just a form of entertainment. Therefore I don't mind throwing my two-cents in to the pot of this pseudo-controversy. Enjoy!
Sad State of NHL Violence
I don't remember the last time we went through a hockey season without some kind of violent controversy in the NHL that ended with much debate in the media about if the punishment fit the crime. The truth of the matter is that the punishment is not fitting the crime. When the punishment fits the crime it will deter others from committing the same unlawful acts. Instead, we find players intentionally trying to hurt other players and claiming it is part of the game.
Now I understand that there is a violent aspect to hockey. In fact, I think it would be a mistake to take the hitting and fighting out of the game. What I don't like is how we are now seeing players using their sticks as weapons, or coaches putting out entire lines of goons for revenge(Buffalo I'm looking at you!) with the intent on hurting players on the opposing team!
The three big incidents that automatically come to mind are,
1) McSorley hitting Brashear over the head with his stick from behind,
2) Bertuzzi punching Moore in the back of the head (more on this one later), and
3) Simon slashing Hollweg across the face.
McSorely was suspended 23 games, Bertuzzi 20 games, and Simon for a minimum of 25 games.
There are many others with similar suspensions, such as Brad May, Dale Hunter, and Gordie (good hockey name) Dwyer just to name a few. This is obviously a problem that is not going away with the current punishments.
My Idea!
I have an idea that might start to deter these emotional acts of violence. It involves looking at intent and punishing the whole team.
Intent: Intent is a huge factor in these situations as far as I am concerned. Here are a couple of examples:
Simon hitting Hollweg with his stick:
I don't believe that it could be argue that Simon did not intend to hurt Hollweg more than he actually did. He took his stick and swung it like a bat into the face of an opposing player. By luck he only hit Hollweg's chin and damage was kept to a minimum.
Bertuzzi punching Moore in the back of the head:
As cowardly as it was for Bertuzzi to sucker-punch Moore from behind, it is without a doubt in my mind that he did not intend to break Moore's neck. Moore knew that Bertuzzi was trying to fight him. Bertuzzi was tugging in Moore's jersey and yelling at him. Trying to goad him into battle. Moore, having already fought earlier in the game, decide to ignore Bertuzzi. Not wanting to be ignored Bertuzzi decided to take it to the next level by throwing a punch. There is no way Moore could ignore that, and then would have to fight. Unfortunately Moore fell to the ice and broke his neck somehow. Whether it was the punch, the fall, or every player on the ice piling on top of him, the bottom line is that Moore's neck broke because of Bertuzzi's actions and therefore punishable.
Now if we look at the intention of these two players it seems almost criminal to me that they received similar punishments. Now, I'm not saying that Bertuzzi shouldn't be punished for his actions just because he didn't mean to hurt Moore, I'm saying that there should be degrees of of punishment. Kind of like the difference between manslaughter and murder.
Punishing The Whole Team: For most penalties in hockey the entire team suffers. Should somebody throw an elbow, they sit in the box for 2 to 5 minutes. The team then has to play short handed for the duration of the penalty and work extra hard to prevent the other team from scoring. With this system we have the team suffering for individual offences. This gives us incidents known as "stupid penalties", and if you take a stupid penalty the whole team could be angry with you. This is a great deterrent.
My idea is that for every game that a player is suspended for a violent act with the intent or cause of severe injury, then their team should start each period of the suspension games with a 5 minute major penalty. So if it is a 5 game suspension the team will start every period for all of those 5 games short handed for 5 minutes. Just watch how fast players get their emotions under control if a rule like that ever came in to the game. I'd bet that using an excuse like "he didn't know what he was doing because he had a concussion" wouldn't apply any longer.
This way you punish the individual player with the suspension (lost money) and the whole team gets punished with the penalty every period! Now you could argue that missing the player for the suspension term also punishes the team. But let's be honest, most of the players that get these types of suspensions are goons who really wouldn't be missed that much. For example, the Islanders are probably not going to miss Simon all that much. He only had 27 points this season. Hardly a finesse player!
To Recap
In conclusion, I feel that the NHL is not doing enough to deter the extreme violence that is becoming more prevalent in the game today. I feel that they need to start looking at the intention of the offence and decide on what the punishment should be based on their conclusions. If a suspension is issued for a violent act, then the entire team should be suffering more by having to play short handed for the first 5 minutes of every period of the duration of the suspension. It is my opinion that these actions will truly stop these stupid acts of violence from occurring as often.
