Now Playing: Blind Melon – Soup
I really hope that after doing a second piece involving the Chicago Blackhawks and dangerous hits into the boards I don’t get pigeon-holed as a hockey blog writing equivalent of an ambulance-chaser, but as the resident “Voice of the Indian Head” here, I might as well weigh in on the subject.
Game 5 of the Nashville Predators and Blackhawks series was overall an incredible game. I know that it’s much easier to say that having ultimately come out on top, but as many hockey fans will attest to, there’s not much more thrilling than playoff overtime in hockey (sure as hell beats a shootout). Unfortunately, just before the nineteen-minute mark of the third period as the Blackhawks trailed the Predators by a goal, the action saw Marian Hossa and Dan Hamhuis involved in a collision that no one likes to see, no matter where your rooting interest lies. Hossa was tailing Hamhuis as both were chasing a puck in behind the Nashville net when Hossa made enough contact with the Predator defenseman to knock him off balance, causing him to slide into the boards violently. Hossa was assessed a 5-minute major penalty for boarding and Hamhuis left the ice under assistance not to return to the contest. Meanwhile, with the goaltender pulled and on the penalty kill, Patrick Kane shoveled home a rebound with 13 seconds left to tie it and force overtime, and, ironically, the penalized Hossa potted the game-winner 10 seconds after leaving the penalty box in the extra frame.
This makes any wedding better...
Now that the scene is set for those of you living in caves and under rocks, we can get to the issue at hand: the initial and supplemental discipline of Marian Hossa. The initial penalty was a 5-minute major for boarding, no game misconduct. There are many that feel that was an error on the ice. The play was also sent for review and Hossa had a hearing with the NHL‘s head disciplinarian Colin Campbell Sunday afternoon. The word was then sent down that no supplemental discipline would be enforced on the play and Hossa would be eligible to skate in a possible clincher for Chicago Monday night in Nashville.
As you should have picked up on by now, I’m not only a die-hard Blackhawks fan, but also a rabid fan of the game of hockey. I was watching the game at my folks’ place in between a wedding and a reception with a much different crowd than I usually do, but other than a couple people wondering why I had a puck in my suit pocket, most of them were very entrenched in the action. Then the play in question happened, and when the major penalty was levied on #81, everyone held their collective breath as they waited for me to take foul-mouthed umbrage with female members of the referee’s families and my parents braced themselves to lock me in a bathroom somewhere until I promised to behave. However, much to the relief of my parents and their guests, I admitted immediately that there was really no argument to be had with the call on the ice. It was a dangerous situation completely in line with what the NHL has tried to address recently regarding hits to the head, blindsiding, and vulnerable players. Many, including Nashville coach Barry Trotz likened it to the hit on Chicago’s Brian Campbell by the Washington Capitals‘ Alexander Ovechkin for which a two-game benching was handed out. Again, I have to admit, there are similarities in the two plays. Both involved players in pursuit of a loose puck in the same area of the ice, with the lead player careening into the boards in a nasty fashion. To refer to the “eye test”, both plays just looked similar, too. But [Colin] Campbell disagreed, and I have to say, I don’t mind, nor do I disagree.
The call on the ice I believe was correct. It was a dangerous situation, where Hamhuis turned a bit as Hossa was going in for the hit and the puck and Hossa made contact with his back sending him to a rough encounter with the endboards. The referees, coaches, and teams have all been made aware that this is a point of focus for the league and its officials, and I do believe it warranted a 5-minute major penalty. It is important to note here, that even as a Blackhawks fan, I made this exact statement before the Blackhawks scored the game-tying goal while shorthanded (the fact it’s easier to defend now that the game is over notwithstanding). Even during the intermission before overtime, I was cautious to note that the league would undoubtedly review that play and possibly mandate a suspension for Hossa, which made me uneasy to say the least.
It is also important to note that the new rule put in place by the NHL regulates that a penalty of that nature warrants a misconduct if a head or neck injury results, and while Hamhuis didn’t seem to be skipping off the ice hand-in-hand with the Predators’ trainer, there didn’t appear to be any blood or immediate trauma, which may explain the lack of a misconduct penalty. As for the league review, I’ll start with a direct quote from NHL’s [Colin] Campbell:
“This play is distinguishable from recent incidents by a number of factors, including the degree of contact involved; the fact that the consequences of the play do not appear to be as severe; that this was a hockey play involving a race for the puck; that Mr. Hossa is not a repeat offender, and that the call of a major penalty by the referee was significant and appropriate.”
When you read that, it almost seems that he’s comparing it directly to the Ovechkin hit on the Hawks’ [Brian] Campbell. I must say, while he may have not answered everyone’s questions to complete satisfaction, he did address them. He touched on 1: the hit; 2: the context of the hit within the play; 3: the consequences of the play and the hit; 4: the offender involved; and 5: the call on the ice. After taking all of that into consideration, he concluded that there was a significant difference between Ovechkin’s infraction and Hossa’s with regard to intent as well as the track record of Hossa himself. While I’m not sure I agree with grading these plays and handing out supplemental discipline based on the comparison to similar situations, because it’s such a recent phenomenon and concern, that’s how they will be inevitably viewed by coaches, players, and fans alike.
So it seems that the “Consistently Inconsistent Policy” seems like the one the NHL will be going with, and while it’s incredibly hair-raising, it almost seems like that’s what has to be done. It’s nearly impossible to make a blanket rule to govern all hits in every situation in such a fast-paced sport, and within the circumstances [Colin] Campbell laid out in his statement, I believe he assessed the situation to the best of his ability (I smell a new twitter hashtag here akin to #AreYouAnExpert) and made his decision appropriately. Objectively, however, I would not have lit (too many) things on fire if [Colin] Campbell would have decided that Hossa deserved to sit a game for his hit on Hamhuis, but I’m glad he didn’t.
All that said, I am advising Marian Hossa to have his head on a swivel for the rest of this series, whether it ends Monday night or it goes the distance and is decided Wednesday back in Chicago. Even though Nashville is in dire straits facing elimination and not wanting to give the Blackhawks any time on the power play, let alone five minutes, the next game is in their house, and a knockout punch (so to speak) on Hossa would be a significant energy boost to the crowd as well as the team whether Hamhuis is in the lineup or not. And to those who have referenced Hossa’s playoff performance in the past, while he may not have dented the scoresheet as much as some of us Hawks fans have liked with only four points, his #OneGoal is obviously in line with the Blackhawks marketing campaign and he’s made a decided impact in the series, for better or for worse, depending on how you choose to look at it.
As always, your comments are welcomed and appreciated!
You can find me regularly at NHLHotstove.com and ryanhackett.wordpress.com… What can I say? I am The Prescient One.
