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.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The thing is, a lot of hits that are labeled as "unintentional" probably still meet the bar as far as "intent to injure" per the rulebook. There isn't a need for will on the part of the offending player, just that the act in a void is likely to cause injury.

For instance, if a player flailed their stick around on the ice and knocked someone behind them on the head, that probably meets that bar, even if the other player isn't injured.

I guess it just depends on what context they're using when they make rulings.

edit: My angle is that I'm not sure if they're making suspensions on the "emotional" aspect of intent, or if they believe that the action simply meets that lower bar in the rulebook.

Where are you getting that there’s no consideration of intent in the rulebook? The difference between a major and a match penalty is, essentially, one of intent. The rules around match penalties all use phrasing like “attempt to or deliberately injures his opponent by [action]”.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

Obviously, supplemental discipline is more complex than handing out a minor penalty

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

There is an acceptable risk threshold. Players accept that risk by suiting up and playing the game.

A clean hit will sometimes involve someone's dome getting rocked. There's no way to eliminate that without eliminating hitting.

 

[Juicy Pop]

Where are you getting that there’s no consideration of intent in the rulebook? The difference between a major and a match penalty is, essentially, one of intent. The rules around match penalties all use phrasing like “attempt to or deliberately injures his opponent by [action]”.

I honestly don't even remember what I was going at.

It's just that there are some sections in the rulebook where intent is just "a dangerous action."

In that case, if you do something like flailing your stick about and hit someone that you couldn't see, it doesn't matter if you did it with the express desire to hit someone or if you just did it out of anger, etc. ... it still happened and would probably meet the bar for "intent to injure."

I could be missing something, but I was questioning what exactly they mean when they talk about intent with suspensions, if it's the willful version or if it's just "a dangerous action" in and of itself.