Why does "intent" seem to matter so much for disciplining hits to the head

[SnuggaRUDE]

It's because the "Hockey Guys" who stay in hockey after their playing career weren't the stars on the receiving end of this nonsense.

Think of it like a bizarre extended workplace hazing, except the truly successful don't stick around because they're too wealthy to care. There are obviously exceptions, but I believe that to be the root cause of the political cover.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

It's because the "Hockey Guys" who stay in hockey after their playing career weren't the stars on the receiving end of this nonsense.

Think of it like a bizarre extended workplace hazing, except the truly successful don't stick around because they're too wealthy to care. There are obviously exceptions, but I believe that to be the root cause of the political cover.

Yeah it's not like the legal system takes intent into account when assigning severity of charges and punishment or anything...

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

Yeah it's not like the legal system takes intent into account when assigning severity of charges and punishment or anything...

Hockey doesn't have anything resembling a legal system.

 

[AlexGretzchenvid]

The League has an obligation to protect its players from head injuries and their chronic effects. This means trying to reduce (impossible to eliminate) hits to the head from elbows, body checks, boarding, etc

One way to do this is penalties and disciplining players that cause an opposing player to sustain a head injury. But it seems the decision to suspend a player, which would be one of the biggest deterrents, is often based on the "intent" of the hit.

I think this introduces too much subjectivity during disciplinary reviews and misses the bar. Yes, intentional hits should be more severely punished. But unintentional ones should still be subject to discipline if we are serious about changing behaviour and reducing head shots

Almost no other penalty on the ice depends on whether it was an accident or not. A trip is a trip, a cross check is a cross check, and a high stick is a high stick (unless it's a follow through, but otherwise intent does not matter)

What are peoples thoughts on the topic? And why does the league approach disciplining head shots in the way that it does?

Because drama sells, common sense doesn’t.

I applaud your effort though, if more people in this world had your type of integrity we wouldn’t have these issues.

 

[AlexGretzchenvid]

The League has an obligation to protect its players from head injuries and their chronic effects. This means trying to reduce (impossible to eliminate) hits to the head from elbows, body checks, boarding, etc

One way to do this is penalties and disciplining players that cause an opposing player to sustain a head injury. But it seems the decision to suspend a player, which would be one of the biggest deterrents, is often based on the "intent" of the hit.

I think this introduces too much subjectivity during disciplinary reviews and misses the bar. Yes, intentional hits should be more severely punished. But unintentional ones should still be subject to discipline if we are serious about changing behaviour and reducing head shots

Almost no other penalty on the ice depends on whether it was an accident or not. A trip is a trip, a cross check is a cross check, and a high stick is a high stick (unless it's a follow through, but otherwise intent does not matter)

What are peoples thoughts on the topic? And why does the league approach disciplining head shots in the way that it does?

Because drama sells, common sense doesn’t.

I applaud your effort though, if more people in this world had your type of integrity we might have less injuries.

Also, why does drawing blood mean 4 minutes when MUCH MORE ruthless plays DONT end
In injury and are only penalized lightly?

 

[Golden_Jet]

It's because the "Hockey Guys" who stay in hockey after their playing career weren't the stars on the receiving end of this nonsense.

Think of it like a bizarre extended workplace hazing, except the truly successful don't stick around because they're too wealthy to care. There are obviously exceptions, but I believe that to be the root cause of the political cover.

What your basically asking for is the NHL to change to IIHF rules, I don’t think there is much interest in that from players or fans.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

What your basically asking for is the NHL to change to IIHF rules, I don’t think there is much interest in that from players or fans.

I’m not suggesting the NHL do anything. I’m saying they use intent as a cover because of who is in charge of making the determinations and their likely motivations.