Rule 48.1 states that a lateral or blind-side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principle point of contact is not permitted. How can such a small amount of words create such a big headache for everyone within the hockey world?
Well, don't blame the rule. Instead, give some of the blame to the people in charge of coming up with it and upholding the punishment for breaking the rule. Give some blame to the players as well for taking advantage of the rule and being hypocritical about it at the same time.
Alright, where to start...Well, It seemed like such a good idea at the time because the wording of the rule made it seem like such a black and white rule. However, the rule has proven to have so much grey area because the rule makers failed to take into account the speed of the game and the amount of bang-bang plays that we see in every single NHL game.
In some instances, players have mere milliseconds to come up with a decision. In such a short amount of time, players have to choose on whether to continue with their hit knowing that they could be crossing the line or to let up and risk giving the offensive player a scoring opportunity. Is that really fair? I don't think it is.
However, whether it's fair or not, it's up to the referees on the ice to punish those who violate the rule and if it's severe enough, it's up to Colin Campbell to give out a stiff enough fine or suspension to make players accountable for their actions. Doing that will give the rule some teeth that will scare players.
Uh oh! Am I really counting on the NHL to be able to handle the task of punishing their players in a competent fashion? Why did we ever think that the people handling discipline in this league would be able to handle the task of punishing players for violating this new rule? That's like putting faith in the girl that has cheated on you multiple times or faith in the smoker who says he's going to quit for the 100th time.
One of the first chances that the referees had to give this rule some teeth came in the Ottawa/Carolina game back early in October at Scotiabank Place. Nick Foligno was caught in a bang-bang play with Patrick Dwyer of the Hurricanes that resulted in Foligno hitting Dwyer in the head with a blindside hit.
Well, the referee failed to even call a penalty on the play. Alright, so the referee may have missed it, but with a thousand replays of the hit in about 12 hours, it clearly wouldn't be missed by Colin Campbell, so he'll punish Foligno, right? He punished him alright...with a fine. A fine? Way to put some teeth into that rule, Colin...
But then again, why did we ever expect his wishy-washy ways to stop just because of rule 48.1 being inserted into the rule book? I still have no idea how he comes up with some of the suspension lengths that he does. Since being with Lee on Sportscall, I've heard a whole bunch of different theories as to how Colin Campbell decides on suspension length.
Everything from picking a number out of a lottery drum to just deciding on it based on the first number that pops into his head. From my perspective, how can I argue that these people are wrong? None of us know what the process of determining length of suspension is, so it would be unfair to argue against those people despite the fact that their ideas are far-fetched and most likely inaccurate.
If it wasn't clear before, it's clear now that the NHL needs to have a concise and concrete policy on how suspension lengths are determined. It needs to be something that can be easily understood by everyone in the hockey world, whether it be the highest ranked management official to the fan with the cheapest seats in the arena.
Alright, so what about the role of the players in all of this? After all, weren't they all on board with signing off on this rule? They worked with the GM's to make sure that it was set to be enforced for the start of the year, so all that hard work to make sure it was in the rulebook means that they would be more willing to abide by it on the ice, right? Not so much.
We're still seeing guys taking cheap shots at one another and players taking advantage of their opponent in a prone and vulnerable position. The only difference is that referees are more willing to call them out on their nasty and dangerous play, which then turns into questions as to what they're being called for. A little bit hypocritical if you ask me since they wanted the rule in there, but I can understand the frustration since they're so invested emotionally and aren't really thinking about the bigger picture at the moment.
The one thing I don't think I hear enough about is the idea that players are putting their teammates into vulnerable positions to get violently hit because of the dreaded "suicide pass". Only a few years ago, players would be absolutely hammered by the media for leading a player into a vicious hit with a bad pass.
But somewhere along the way, there was a shift in the media from blaming the player for a bad pass/decision to blaming the hitter. It's probably because we've become so politically correct and worried about image as a society, it's hard to take the side of the person that's being villified for being violent and a cruel human being.
So, having said all that, I guess the blog can be summed up in just a few words. Don't blame the rule, blame all the people that have to enforce or adhere to the rule.