Puck Daddy - NHL

Frank Seravalli of the Philadelphia Daily News broke the news on his Twitter this morning that NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly had informed him that Mike Richards(notes) would not face any discipline for his hit on David Booth(notes) of the Florida Panthers last night.

(Before any outrage about the decision is directed towards NHL Executive VP for Hockey Operations Colin Campbell, it should be noted that because his son Gregory was involved in the game as a member of the Panthers, he recused himself from the review process.)

Booth was taken to a local Philadelphia hospital where doctors would get a better understanding of his condition sometime today and how much time he could possibly miss.

Now, to the hit. The NHL wants to eliminate head shots from the game but with each controversial hit being treated differently, it's hard to tell if any progress is being made with these decisions. Should there be a true definition of a suspendable headshot in the NHL or will we have to rely on the policy being different on a case-by-case basis?

While it may not have been Richards' intent to strike Booth's head, that was the end result. It also wasn't the first time Richards laid a hit on an opposing player in that sort of fashion as we saw in 2005 with Atlanta's Ronald Petrovicky(notes):

As recently as March, the NHL and it's general managers were discussing head shots and while he may not have been part of this specific decision, Colin Campbell's personal opinion on the topic was certainly a factor in Richards not missing any time:

"The one they are talking about that I think is a real slippery slope is when you are asking the referee to call a shoulder hit that hits the face," Campbell says. "You're taking a vital aspect of the game out, in my own personal belief."

"I believe there is a responsibility by the player getting hit by a legal check that he has to have his head up and avoid it," Campbell said. "In my day, if you got hit that way, legally by a player, your teammates would wonder what was going on, your coach would look at you and maybe not say anything, but your dad for sure when you got home would give you crap for having your head down."

"I'm certainly concerned about player safety, but I'm more concerned about taking a play out of the game that is a good, physical part of the game."

Like Carolina Hurricanes GM Jim Rutherford said last year after watching Brandon Sutter(notes) take a shot to the head from Doug Weight(notes) of the New York Islanders, the NHL saying it's vigilant on hits to the head is one thing, but using the "part of the game" excuse in instances like this should be left behind as players get bigger, faster and stronger.

digg delicious
more

346 Comments

Post a Comment
  1. Almost Lewboski
    1. Posted by Almost Lewboski Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:55 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Head shots, like high sticking should have a zero tolerance policy.
  2. Mike
    2. Posted by Mike Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:55 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    on the replay, its clear that the head is knocked back before the rest of the body. if that's not enough evidence for a "head shot" then what is?
  3. G
    3. Posted by G Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:09 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    What you guys are missing is that headshots are not illegal. Shoulder down, didn't jump, and wasn't late. No need for a suspension.
  4. stevejam20
    4. Posted by stevejam20 Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:26 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    How could that hit have been applied without a blow to the head? Richards made the same motion that Willie Mitchell did when he destroyed Toews earlier this week. With Booth looking down admiring his pass, the only way to avoid a hit in the head in that situation is to avoid making the hit at all.
    If the NHL wants to implement a no-tolerance head shot policy like the NFL does for hitting quarterbacks, that's fine. But until that happens hits like this are allowed.
  5. ranndino
    5. Posted by ranndino Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:28 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    While the hit is probably legal by the current definition it is definitely way late. This notion of "finishing your check" is what results in these devastating hits almost 100% of the time. How long is a player eligible to be hit AFTER he releases the puck? Is it 0.5 of a second, 1 second, 2 seconds? This is not clearly defined. Why not just make a very simple and clear cut rule? No puck, no hit. If a player has released the puck you simply can't go through with the hit. This is how it works in soccer. You can slide tackle if a guy has the ball (provided you actually get the ball first), but once the ball is released the tackle is deemed late and is a foul. Nice and simple.
    One more thing. If Ovechkin ever did something like this we wouldn't hear the end of it from the likes of Don Cherry and ironically Flyers fans and players including Mr. Richards himself.
  6. Scott
    6. Posted by Scott Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:30 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    The NHL touts their players as some of the fastest, strongest, most agile athletes in the world. Yet, when it comes to head shots, the NHL seems to believe the players have absolutely no control over their bodies. To think that way is an insult to these players' abilities. Either you readjust your hit when another player becomes vulnerable, or you're not worthy to play in the best league of the best sport in the world.
    Head shots should me an automatic 2 min penalty, accidental or otherwise with an automatic review by the league. The majority of the reviews will not require a suspension, but the automatic penalty will be in the back of the mind of players and shouldn't effect the game very much.
  7. Joe E-Devils onslaught
    7. Posted by Joe E-Devils onslaught Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:40 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I think the hit was a cheap shot, Richards did come up high and if anybody thinks that a shoulder to shoulder hit couldn't have been applied they have never played hockey before. Headshots are going to ruin the NHL and end players' careers. I agree that a defined rule needs to be applied as far as the headshot rule is concerned. I think Richards got off easy. If the NHL is trying to make a move towards a more finesse game they have to decide if people getting their bell rung and suffering concussions or worse is the way they want to go how is it going to be deterred. There is a retaliation rule but no definitive headshot rule, duh. I know about the leaving the feet and all that but the NHL has failed yet again on this issue.
  8. Joe
    8. Posted by Joe Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:46 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Well i was at the game last night. It looks a lot worse on video than it did live. Richards saw that Booth had passed the puck and he did slow down quite a bit, but it wasn't enough. It was just unfortunate that Booth had his head down. if it weren't for his head being down, he would have been perfectly okay. And yes it was a head shot, but Richards isn't that type of person to do that.
  9. Brian C
    9. Posted by Brian C Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:55 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    How is it not charging? Richards was looking at Booth the whole time, cut across the length of the ice and drilled him. That's one thing the NHL can do to cut out this sort of thing - loosen the rules on charging. The guy doesn't have to be pumping his feet, you can coast at high speed and cut across and level a guy. Two things the NHL can do to drastically cut back on injuries - loosen the rules on charging, and institute a no-head-shots zero tolerance rule. Should cut down on a lot of these reckless high speed hits where the hitting player is just looking to make a highlight reel and not actually make a hockey play. If the whistle hadn't gone, and the stretcher get called out, Florida still advances the puck and gets a decent scoring chance. Richards never made a hockey play, he was making a hit to a player he knew was going to be in a vulnerable position and he could really crank him.
  10. ack
    10. Posted by ack Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:56 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    IMHO, this is a classic problem the NHL has had for years. Are you punishing for the act (in this case a hit), or for the injury? If Booth were uninjured, got right up and skated off, would there be as much clamor about this? Nope.
    I'm not even sure the play was interference. I would love to hear from the NHL on that, but I expect we'll never hear that one.
  11. Guy F
    11. Posted by Guy F Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:57 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    @ stevejam20: "Richards made the same motion that Willie Mitchell did when he destroyed Toews earlier this week"
    Fail (on that point, I agree with the rest of your post entirely)
    Watch the replays again. Mitchell (who is 2-3 inches taller than Toews) lands his shoulder squarely into Toews' chest. No headshot whatsoever. Not saying Richards' hit deserves a suspension but it did warrant a review for sure. Mitchell's hit did not warrant a review and even Mr. Overeacter himself (Joel Quenneville) did not complain about it. No one except some casual Hawks fans were screaming suspension (most die-hard Hawks fans, although wanting Mitchell equally leveled next game, accepted that the hit was clean)
  12. Brian C
    12. Posted by Brian C Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:57 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    This ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeN3QTw8iz4 ) is a much better quality video, and shows Richards cutting across the entire width of the rink to crank Booth. He had him lined up the whole time, and knew Booth would never see him coming. Reckless and careless hit.
    Wysh - how about putting this video in place of the CBC vid? Better quality, better sound, and you don't have to listen to that moron PJ Stock.
  13. Guy F
    13. Posted by Guy F Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:59 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    @ ranndino : " If Ovechkin ever did something like this..."
    So, new to the NHL I see. Welcome.
  14. Brian C
    14. Posted by Brian C Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:03 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    ack - I think you punish the action, not the injury. People were saying "oh, Gomez wasn't even hurt, why suspend Kozlov" - injury or not a dirty hit is a dirty hit. Kozlov is lucky he didn't seriously injure Gomez, but he very easily could have with that play.
    In this case, I think you could make a case for "Intent to injure", but Interference was not the right call.
    The hit trots the line of legality in some situations, but there's no perfect ruling. The NHL can MAKE that the case, but they need to make those changes.
  15. habs1rule
    15. Posted by habs1rule Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:05 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    @12..That almost makes too much sense, and how do some fans know exactly what a players 'intent" is..Must be Dionne Warwickians!!
  16. decappa
    16. Posted by decappa Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:10 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    This is BS, the NHL wonders why fans come up with these conspiracy theories about the higher ups taking preference to Malkin, Crosby, OV, Richards (this is coming from a Pitt fan)..... anyone that at all can draw fans to buy a ticket will be given different treatment than say.... Derek Boogaard. Period.
  17. Tom
    17. Posted by Tom Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:10 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Contact sport, don't like it quit.
  18. BB
    18. Posted by BB Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:11 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Must be nice to play for the Flyers. You can bite people, hit them in the head, do anything you want and you never get suspended.
    What a joke of a team.
  19. Mike
    19. Posted by Mike Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:12 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Its a gray area. I'm a Flyers fan, and I WILL admit that it was kinda dirty. He did lift his shoulder a little but, and he definitely used force (hence falling after the hit). Then again, Booth needs to keep his friggin head up. Of all the times Lindros got his bell rung by Stevens back in the 90's, where was Lindros looking....AT THE ICE. Nobody fined/suspended Stevens then...and then shouldn't start doing it now.
    If you need to keep your head down to receive a pass or make a move, then maybe you need to do a little more stick handling training during practices.
  20. Mike
    20. Posted by Mike Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:15 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Oh and @ 20....the NHL and its executives did not find Scott Hartnell guilty of biting Letang so I don't know where you get this "biting people" thing....
  21. Paul
    21. Posted by Paul Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:16 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Absolutely ridiculous. Richards clearly leads with his elbow having full intentions on hitting him in the head. It blows my mind that a hit like Rutuu put on Tucker(caught him in an awkward position) can cause him to get suspended but a hit like this where the intent was to cause harm does not get the person suspended. By the way, this is not the first time Richards pulled stuff like this, he is a dirty player.
  22. Polaroy
    22. Posted by Polaroy Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:17 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Watta ya know ... he's got a "C" on his sweater and avoids a suspension for a dirty hit. Anyone want to join a "Justice for Tuomo Ruutu" group? Two equally dangerous actions a day apart -- two completely different rulings. At least Ruutu didn't leave his feet like cheap-shot Richards.
  23. Neil L
    23. Posted by Neil L Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:17 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    If you remember a few years back when Campbell destroyed Umberger about the same part of the ice. Campbell lined that hit up and I didnt here any one screaming about that one too much. Well just mostly "Hes a flyer and thats what he gets" comments. Hit was a reckless hit yes, but then again it wouldnt have happened if he kept his head up.
  24. ceasar1313
    24. Posted by ceasar1313 Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:20 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    to all you crying flyers haters wah wah wah

Puck Daddy

Add to My Yahoo! RSS

Greg Wyshynski

Puck Daddy is an NHL blog edited by Greg Wyshynski. Email him, and follow him on Twitter.

Teams

Customize to follow news and rumors on your favorite teams. [ Sign in ]

Related Photo Gallery

Y! Sports Blogs

Puck Daddy Recent Readers

Watch Live Hockey Online with GameCenter Live™