Puck Daddy - NHL

This hit by New York Islanders center Doug Weight on Carolina Hurricanes rookie Brandon Sutter was absolutely brutal. It was deemed to be legal. Now, the question is whether this hit to the head is immoral and should be outlawed by the NHL.

Weight's hit knocked Sutter unconscious, and the Hurricanes forward was still hospitalized on Sunday.

Jim Rutherford, Carolina's general manager, spoke out about the hit in an interview with TSN's Bob McKenzie today:

"The league should at least stop saying it's concerned with hits to the head, because it's not," Rutherford told TSN.ca. "I've had four players - Erik Cole, Trevor Letowski, Matt Cullen and now Brandon Sutter - get badly injured on hits to the head and only one of the guys who hit them was suspended. So don't tell me the league is concerned about hits to the head because it's not.

"I realize there are only two ways you can go on this. Either you have a penalty for head-checking, like they do in the Ontario Hockey League, or you don't and we don't in the NHL and I understand that and that's fine, I guess, but don't tell anyone you care about protecting the players' heads because it's not happening."

Rutherford isn't the only Hurricanes' loyalist raising hell; the question is whether they should be, and whether this hit will one day be outlawed by the NHL.

This is how Coach Peter Laviolette saw it, via Lord Stanley's Blog:

"That hit has to be removed from the game," Laviolette said. "Guys are really getting hurt.

"By the letter of the law, (Weight's) arm didn't come up. But they're trying to take away blows to the head and (Sutter) was in a vulnerable position and was knocked out."

The outrage from the Hurricanes comes from a very personal place. As Rutherford stated, the team has lost its share of players through similar hits. That Colton Orr/Cullen hit remains particularly vicious when viewed again.

It's understandable that Rutherford, Laviolette and fans like Bubba from Canes Country would be livid:

According to the rules it was a legal hit. But was it a "clean" hit? Was it really necessary? Weight made no attempt at all to play the puck, he lowered his shoulder and went right after his young, inexperienced target.

Many fans will have no problem with that play calling it, "a part of hockey". Sutter will certainly learn his lesson. He'll learn that he should never try that hard to make a play again, so that he won't put himself in a similar situation. Better to hold back and play it safe, then to try to make a hustle play and be vulnerable.

David Lee of Red and Black Hockey doesn't believe Weight intended to injure Sutter, and that "it was unfortunate that it played out the way it did." But he does think this is another example of a hit that should be made illegal:

Now the league will review the incident, and if they are serious about cracking down on head-high hits, Weight will serve a short suspension.  What has to happen, and what I've been yelling about for years now is that the league needs to call penalties for those hits.  Regardless of intent.  They do it in almost every other hockey league at every level.  They do it in the NFL.  It's not about turning the game into a no-contact sport.  It's about player safety. 

There are two issues at play here. The first is that no two brutal open-ice hits are alike. In the case of this Weight check, Sutter has clearly put himself in a prone position while attempting to skate through the neutral zone -- reaching with his stick to play the puck, ignoring anything steaming his way -- and Weight skated through him.

So if you wanted some sort of blanket punishment for hits to the head ... how exactly do you police this one? Weight's hit was legal. Sutter put himself in a position to be injured. Do you outlaw open-ice hits? Or perhaps open-ice hits on rookies?

But the real issue here is the constant harangue that the NHL has to "do something" about injurious hits. As Bubba from Canes Country wrote:

While the NFL has figured out that it doesn't do their league any good to have their stars carted off the field with concussions, the NHL doesn't care. Helmet to helmet hits are illegal in football. Taking another player's head off is a "good play" in the NHL.

Maybe it's the Scott Stevens fan in me, but at some point you have to draw the distinction between protection of players and what are, intrinsically, hockey plays.

For example, I don't believe you need two players skating at full speed after an iced puck, with one guy giving the other guy a shove into the boards and shattering his leg. Breaking up an icing through physical jockeying is fun, but it's not necessarily "a hockey play" and it's not worth that kind of danger. Rules that prohibit those plays, and no-touch icing in other leagues, are important.

Rules and suspensions that police hits to the head are important, too. The evidence has been massive for a decade that concussions and head ailments are prevalent in the NHL. The repercussions for an illegal hit to the noggin should be swift and harsh.

But the issue at hand is what should be considered an illegal hit. McKenzie writes about a "head-checking rule" and would define it as a penalty "for any contact to the head, accidental or otherwise."

If the argument is that Weight's check on Sutter should be outlawed, count this hockey fan out. It's a legal hit, there wasn't intent to injure, it's a hit on the puck-carrier and it was Sutter's unfortunate body contortion that resulted in his injury.

Plus, I fear if there's ever "head-checking" legislation passed, it's going to have to come with some consideration for intent. Which means we could end up with "head-checking" looking very much like "high-sticking": Just like the severity of penalties are determined by drawn blood, they'll be determined by how long a player remains flat on his back. We'll have majors that should be minors, minors that should be majors. It'll put yet another arbitrary decision in the hands of officials. This is never a good thing.

It's a worthy debate, but it always comes back to this thesis: Shots to the head are never cut and dry.

Eric Lindros retired in 2007. He had more concussions than all-star appearances in his career. But how many of those hits deserved a penalty, and how many resulted from the way Lindros chose to play the game?

Because I just don't see how this is an illegal hit and not a hockey play.

digg delicious
more

147 Comments

Post a Comment
  1. The Forechecker
    1. Posted by The Forechecker Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:06 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    i've said that just about every time this debate has come up in the last year or two; scott stevens used timing and strength to intimidate opposing forwards with thundering heat shots very similar to what weight did here, and ended up a hall of famer as a result. ask anyone to put together a scott stevens career highlight reel, and chances are it'll show him hoisting the cup, and laying someone out slava kozlov and eric lindros.
  2. Jimmy Jazz
    2. Posted by Jimmy Jazz Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:06 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    really? are we going to debate every little thing about the sport when someone gets hurt?
    he had his head down. he paid the price. it was a monster, legal hit. we might as well get started with padded boards and mandatory sumo suits if we're going to consider outlawing legal hits.
  3. jkrdevil
    3. Posted by jkrdevil Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:36 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    i don't understand what people wanted doug weight to do. to not hit him and let sutter get around him for a potential scoring chance? hitting sutter was the only play weight had. it's sutters fault that he put himself in that position. there has no be a level of personal resposibility in the league to not put yourself in a vulnerable position. and if a player, through his play, refuses to take that personal resposibilty they shouldn't be in the league.
    if the league wants to go back and fine and suspend players for intentional headshots on non-hockey plays, that is fine. but in the case of this hit that's not the case. it's a hockey play and the player himself put himself in that position.
  4. which one???
    4. Posted by which one??? Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:21 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Welcome to the NHL ........BEEEOTCH!!! its not like it was a scumbag like Sean Avery or Darcy Tucker or Tie Dummy that layed that hit...then i can understand an intent to cause an injury.....but Doug Weight has more class thna those douchys......(kinda reminds me of the James patrick hit on LaFontaine) GO ISLES!!!!!
  5. Tony G
    5. Posted by Tony G Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:02 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    It was a clean hit with no intent that happened in a split second. that's what's called an accident, and as unfortunate as it is that sutter was hurt, it's still an accident. if you take the hitting out of hockey, you are left with curling. good luck selling that to the fans.
  6. Chris M
    6. Posted by Chris M Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:26 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Agreed, that was a hockey play thru and thru. Hockey is a dangerous sport.
    A shoulder should not hit a player in the head unless his head is down. In almost every instance, it is when the head is down this happens.
    Part of the game.
  7. diehard_wings_fan134096
    7. Posted by diehard_wings_fan134096 Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:43 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I don't understand what the big deal is....this rookie just learned the most important lesson in hockey.......if you don't keep your head up when skating up ice, you're liable to get knocked on your @ss........it was a good hit and the canes need to quit b!tching about it and go play hockey...
  8. mutherpucker96
    8. Posted by mutherpucker96 Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:30 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Welcome to the NHL rookie.Keep your head up!!!!
  9. Scott C
    9. Posted by Scott C Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:29 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    the problem is that weight did intend to completely run through him, regardless of his positioning. weight's played for, what, a million years? he knew what he was doing.
    hockey is the only sport where taking off someone's head is a good play. i love hockey to death, but there is a blind eye turned when safety is sacrificed in the guise of a "good hockey play." there is no proof that instituting some kind of head-shot rule will diminish contact. watching the plymouth whalers and other ohl teams absolutely clobber each other (while taking some head-shot calls) is kind of proof of that. if nhl players can't adjust and not take off someone's head with a clean hit - ya, know, adapt to the game and such...well, then it'll be a problem.
  10. Scott C
    10. Posted by Scott C Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:29 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    i can see why this is such a touchy issue, though; the line is hard to draw, and getting some kind of litmus test for hits to the head will be near impossible. but something tells me actually trying to do something is better than letting hits like this keep happening. sooner or later, the safety of the players will no longer be a concern of the nhl (at least at this rate).
  11. jerseyj
    11. Posted by jerseyj Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:45 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I just went back and looked at the Orr/Cullen hit from last year and the difference is like night and day. Weight's hit on Sutter was one where he had his arms down, he may have "led" with his shoulder, but even though it was a brutal-looking hit, there wasn't any malicious intent, just hard playing.
    Orr, on the other hand, raised his hands and his intent was clearly to take Cullen's head off. That one deserved a LONG suspension because there is no place in the game for intentional head-hunting.
  12. Michael
    12. Posted by Michael Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:46 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    i agree that this would be a clean hit if it was a hit on the puck-carrier - going in with the shoulder without launching or raising the shoulder/arm. however, if sutter does not go down/forward reaching for the puck then the puck is long gone and sutter is no longer the puck carrier! this means that weight was going for a late hit (not a dirty hit, a late hit) that had unfortunate consequences because sutter reached for the puck. it should have been a penalty, but have no consequences for weight.
  13. Shawn
    13. Posted by Shawn Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:18 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Hockey is a full contact sport. While I can buy the argument about hits to the head in the NHL, the hit on Sutter was totally legit and a good clean hit with no ill intent on Weight's part. Sutter never saw him coming but is that a fault of Dougie Weight? Sutter will no longer be cruising through the neutral zone with his head down going forward...lesson learned.
  14. jkrdevil
    14. Posted by jkrdevil Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:36 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    "the problem is that weight did intend to completely run through him, regardless of his positioning. weight's played for, what, a million years? he knew what he was doing."
    yes, that's called bodychecking. again if weight doesn't him him sutter is gone the other way; it was his only play. the fact is sutter shouldn't have put his head down and lunged for the puck. the emphasis needs to be on the player going for the puck in that situation. unfortunatly the game has gone in other directions and players don't do what is necessary to keep themselves safe. the result is more injuries like we have seen the last couple of years. a player needs to be smart out there and assume he is going to get hit.
    bottom line is weight did nothing wrong.
  15. Michael
    15. Posted by Michael Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:46 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    jkrdevil, we agree that the hit was not malicious, but when you say that Weight had no other play and that the puck was gone, you are admitting that it was a late hit or interference, right? For a hit to be legal in hockey, it has to be either a play on the puck or a hit on the puck-carrier. The only reason that the puck was on Sutter's tape was because he lunged forward - this means that Weight should have been called for a penalty, right?
  16. big audio
    16. Posted by big audio Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:04 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Maybe if the Canes had an enforcer on the ice, and Mr. Weight was wary of himself being made to stand up against force for making hits like that.............
    but by all means, keep the instigator rule .... stupid league run by stupid people. That is the NEW NHL.
    YOU CANNOT EXPECT THE LEAGUE OR THE REFEREES TO PROTECT YOUR PLAYERS.
    YOU MUST PROTECT YOUR PLAYERS YOURSELVES. NOT HAVING ENFORCERS ON THE ICE IS THE TEAM ITSELF'S FAULT.
  17. tehchico
    17. Posted by tehchico Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:42 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    no way is this immoral or should be deemed illegal by the league. Just like in football you have protect you players the best you can, but you can't outlaw plays that are and have been legal in the sport. You end up getting a game that loses it's excitement and draw. We all know hockey doesn't need to lose either of those. It's a legit/clean hit, it's a young player with his head down and reaching for a puck, enough said.
  18. 85 WINNER
    18. Posted by 85 WINNER Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:40 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Hockey is a sport for guys who couldnt hit a baseball, I just dont get it, and if they couldnt hit like that the league would be bankrupt. Hockey sucks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  19. jkrdevil
    19. Posted by jkrdevil Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:36 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    mike b.- if the puck is on sutter's tape (as you said it was) it is niether iterferencenor a late hit. it was a good timed hit. what i am saying is if weight doesn't taking the body sutter then is able to tap the puck by weight and is gone.
    the general rule in hockey is the last to touch the puck is in possesion. sutter was the last touch the puck (as he was rushing up the ice with it) and he was touched the puck right befor weight hit him. all the way around it was a good hit.
  20. hockeytown blood
    20. Posted by hockeytown blood Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:23 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Seriously, it was a clean hit and very unfortunate that Sutter just happened to be extending himself lower and forward without seeing Weight. You can't have it both ways, supporting fighting in nearly ever post here and then crying about legit open ice hits - anyone who wants to play that hypocrisy game can go watch curling.
  21. Michael
    21. Posted by Michael Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:46 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    ted, you're an idiot. you can't have an enforcer on every line if you want to win games. the canes had two guys playing that night that could have retaliated if necessary (brookbank and lacouture), but we had a hockey game to win (and win we did, even though the officials almost took it from us with a ridiculous icing no-call at the end that led to the penalty shot).
  22. Michael
    22. Posted by Michael Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:46 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    jkrdevil, you can't have it both ways: a legal hit in hockey has to be either a play on the puck or a hit on the puck carrier. this means that either (a) weight was going in for a late hit because he knew that the puck was past him (and that sutter would soon be as well) or (b) weight was hitting a puck carrier in a vulnerable position (the only way sutter could have the puck was by making himself vulnerable).
    personally, i do not believe that it was a dirty hit, but i do believe that it should have been an interference call.
  23. jkrdevil
    23. Posted by jkrdevil Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:36 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    or how about this mike, the puck carrier (in this case sutter) shouldn't put himself in a vulnerable position. it's not weight's fault or problem in this case that sutter put himself in that vulnerable position. the emphasis should be on the puck carrier not to put himself in that postion. just be because sutter put himself in that position doesn't mean weight shouldn't hit him.
  24. Roh
    24. Posted by Roh Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:58 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I think it IS Weight's problem...he is skating towards Sutter, obviously SEES that Sutter is in a vulnerable position, and he makes the hit anyway. Its no different than a guy in the corner battling for the puck getting hit from behind. Players making hits are obviously watching who they're going for, and they can tell if the person knows they're coming or not. There's no reason to go for the head in that situation. I'm a Thrashers fan, so I am not too keen on the Canes, but I have to agree with their GM that the league doesn't care about head hits like it says it does. There's a different between getting hit and being hurt, and getting hit and ending up in HOSPITAL over night.
  25. 5 4 fighting
    25. Posted by 5 4 fighting Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:01 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I am not against this hit per se but I am against head hunting aka Orr's hit on Cullen or numerous hits of the same origin and result. Its one thing to take a player out of the play and its another to wipe out a player for a "look at me ESPN type of hit". There has to be some kind of rule against hits to the head and whether a penalty is called on the play or a subsequent suspension is issued after a game should be sufficient to send a signal.
    Then maybe a clean hit like this one is less intense and less traumatic to the receiver just because of the fear of suspensions and fines.

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™