December 17, 2009
Commentary: Hockey Needs to Be Tougher on Illegal Hits
by Virg Foss/Staff Writer
At the bi-monthly meeting of retired coaches, administrators and various others involved in sports through their lifetimes that I attend, a surprising voice brought up an interesting topic.
Considering that the man used to coach basketball and never taught violence to his teams, his suggestion was especially noteworthy.
"If I coached college hockey," he said, "I'd take my worst player and send him out to fight the best player on the other team, getting him out of the game," he said. "I'd take that trade-off any day."
He ignited a topic that has been boiling inside me for some time now, the relatively free pass given to players in college hockey who inflict grave harm upon an opponent.
It was that same anger that prompted this mild-mannered basketball coach to flip over the edge with his suggestion.
+ A few years ago, Denver's Geoff Paukovich delivered a pulverizing, illegal check from behind into the boards to UND's Robbie Bina. The hit broke Bina's neck, took him out of hockey for a year, and who knows what limitations he'll face later in life. ... Paukovich, who drew only a minor penalty on the play, was later given a game suspension by his school, one more by the league. Big hairy deal, I say.
+ Last year, Minnesota State's Trevor Breuss slew-footed UND's Derrick LaPoint into the end boards, smapping the leg of LaPoint and ending his season. Breuss received a slap on the wrist from the WCHA, much like Paukovich.
+ This season, St. Cloud State's Aaron Marvin tracked UND's Chay Genoway the length of the ice, delivering an illegal high hit, smashing Genoway's head into the glass and leaving him knocked senseless on the ice with a concussion.
Marvin got an additional game suspension from the WCHA. Genoway, one of the league's most dynamic players, hasn't played since the Nov. 13 hit. Coaches are not sure when — or if — his reported concussion will clear this season.
It bugs me no end that players such as Bina, LaPoint and Genoway can be knocked out of action for a spell, a season, or maybe forever and the players who inflict the injuries skate away relatively unscathed.
Something's wrong with the rules of college hockey, folks. That players can be seriously injured with little consequence to the violators alters not only their careers, but the fortunes of their teams.
A league championship, perhaps a national title, can be taken away in a blink by a reckless hit, whether intent to harm was there or not.
I use the examples of Bina, LaPoint and Genoway only because they are the players I'm more familiar with, seeing UND play far more than any other team. Similar examples can be found throughout college hockey.
I don't have a ready solution. I wish I did. But I do believe it's a matter that seriously needs to be addressed by coaches and administrators, and soon.
If Bina misses a season, should the player who injured him have to sit out a season as well? Should Marvin be put on the shelf until and if Genoway returns, for example?
That's a sticky issue, no doubt. It's impossible for officials to judge intent to injure. We all know our refs have a difficult enough time enforcing the black-and-white rules correctly. We can't ask them to be mind readers.
But clearly something is wrong when players receive broken necks and legs and serious concussions. It's unthinkable that the players who cause those injuries are being told nothing more than to go stand in the corner for a game or two.
Hockey is a physically rugged and at times dangerous sport. Players, coaches, fans, we all know that. Perhaps that's part of the beauty of it.
But when there aren't serious consequences for damaging, perhaps life-changing injuries, hockey is failing those who play the sport they love.
Of that I am certain.
Virg Foss, who wrote sports for the Grand Forks Herald for 36 years until his retirement, writes a weekly column for the Grand Forks Herald.
JeffDec 17 2009, 1:01 pm
Injuries should not be the determining factor in what punishment is handed down. A grossly illegal play should be punished severely whether the victim comes away injured or not. On the other side, it is not uncommon for a player to be injured on a perfectly legal check. Clearly there should be no punishment in that case... But when the play is egregiously illegal, like the Paukovich-Bina incident, that player should sit a long, long time. It's the only thing that matters enough to send a strong message. Once you set the precedent by ending a few players' seasons or college careers with lengthy suspensions you'll start to see players hold up from drilling that guy in the numbers along the boards.
landofthefreeDec 17 2009, 1:28 pm
Remember Mr. Foss, hockey is a rough sport and UND is not squeeky clean when it comes to illegal contact. I agree with Jeff's remarks that injuries alone should not define the punishment. But and blatant disregards for the rules should afford more then two minutes. Hits to the head and intent to injur should be an automatic DQ and possible series ender. Just like fighting. No place for either.
GreggDec 17 2009, 1:29 pm
The problem lies in the fact that players do not fear any repercussions from such hits. They have a false sense of security from the full face shields and since fighting has all but been abolished in the college game, there is no way for players to mete out their own retribution. Like it or not fighting or at least the fear that fighting is a possibility deters players from such actions. Just look at how many more instances of such hits and stickwork have increased since the advent of the instigator penalty and the elimination of fighting. Throw in the fact that players nowadays will actually turn into the boards to "draw a penalty" and the game is actually asking for such hits. Obviously there is no need for a rebirth of the Broad Street Bullies days, but if players had that fear of retribution and the ability to stand up for themselves and their teammates, you would see a marked decrease in such penalties. Look at the stats from before these rules were put into place.
CHN EditorDec 17 2009, 1:57 pm
The idea that fighting deters anything is a myth/wishful thinking on the part of people who simply like fighting for entertainment purposes, and want to justify its existence. ... I've written about this many times - but not enough room to go into it more now.
MelvinDec 17 2009, 2:46 pm
LandoftheFree -- that has to be one of the stupidest things I have seen written. I am surprised you didn't suggest that Genoway and Bina had it coming.
Dec 17 2009, 8:27 pm
Adam, if fighting is a myth, then how do you justify the fact that these "vicious hits" have increased exponentially since the tougher legislation on fighting? is it merely a coincidence? The biggest superstars in the game have said that their own numbers would have decreased if they didn't have the protection that fighting can bring. Fighting for the sake of fighting is not necessary. However fighting for the sake of protection and retribution does in fact clean up the game. Players and coaches from all levels have said it, but for some reason the new breed of hockey fan, who probably doesn't really even understand the game, all of a sudden have been force fed the notion that fighting is bad. Have you ever seen any fan at any game at any level ever boo the fact that a fight happens? Do people walk out of games because a fight happens? Fighting is not the sole answer to the problem, I'll agree. Players have lost sight of clean body checking and instead lunge and reach to hit.
uaafanblogDec 18 2009, 4:52 pm
The majority of injuries in our sport occur during "clean" plays. The number of "dirty" hits/plays has decreased steadily over the last two decades. Virg was inspired to write this as a result of a discussion with a basketball coach in a town that bleeds with their injured players? There is a consistent minority force in Grand Forks whose intentional and near constant refrain has for years and years now maintained a call for the strictest rules enforcement possible. This latest spike of concern is just another fruit of their labor on that front. And yes, no way should punishment in any way be linked to the presence of an injury. Suggestions otherwise are at best ill-considered and at worst duplicitous. With specific regard to hits from behind, in the WCHA; many more CFB calls have been called wrongly than have been missed in the last season and a half. Reduction of injuries is a fantastic discussion. Changes should be examined carefully instead of hastily as old Virg suggests.
uaafanblogDec 18 2009, 5:06 pm
As to the suggestions to allow fighting? Such ignorance of the long standing NCAA tradition with regard to fighting must be called out for what it is. It is ignorance. College Hockey's adherence to a higher level of sportsmanship that doesn't allow fighting is what makes it unique and for me more enjoyable than other leagues. It mirrors international rules. And let's face it, rules against fighting don't stop the fighting. Instead, they assure when it occurs it is a result of true passion instead of some coaching tactic. It seems to me that those advocating fighting are cut from the same cloth as the shootout crowd. And I have little doubt that many of them have followed the college game for more than 5 years.
MelvinDec 18 2009, 10:47 pm
So you say Donald. Do you think Portwood would have hit Leddy with his head down if he knew he had to drop the gloves and go with a Gopher player? Aw that right the Gophers only hit after the Whistle.
uaafanblogDec 22 2009, 9:26 pm
Melvin, You're looking a little Virg-like with that comment. Portwood's check was a spur of the moment timing play also know as finishing your hit. A fairly equal number of partial and impartial folks would tell you it was a clean hit gone bad. But that much of the responsibility for having it go bad was Nick Leddy's. At the end of the game, I remember 3 Anchorage Players on the ice versus 6 gophers and ALL THREE Seawolves virtually begging for an actual fight. The suggestions for allowing fighting all would lead to rosters with one or even two "goons". And I just don't want schollies going to guys who are only there to act as enforcers. It "lowers" the game. In addition, it is an amateur sport. These kids are trading their skills for an education. They are already risking injury and potential future earning from playing professional and you want them to be exposed to ones that virtually nobody is exposed to now? Yeah ... I'll pass on "goons" in D1.
Dec 27 2009, 11:39 pm
To those who don't agree with fighting: You do realize of course that the same players in the NCAA all play in leagues that allow fighting before they get to the NCAA. So to suddenly eliminate that, and force them to wear the full shields that they do not have to wear at some of the other levels before the NCAA, seems a bit distorted. Just look what has happened since the NHL clamped down with their instigator rule and no fighting in the last five minutes. More stickwork and bad hits because NO ONE FEARS ANY REPERCUSSIONS!! The players and coaches I have spoken to agree off the record of course. Throw in the fact that player stickcheck instead of actually throwing a clean body check and that only accentuates the bad hits when they happen. I have yet to ever hear the fans boo a fight happens at ANY hockey game including NCAA games. It does serve a purpose whether or not you chose to believe it. Next time you play and get hit, tell me you DO NOT want to pummel the guy that hit u
Comment on this Article
