Hockey culture, headshots and no solutions

Concussions are far from a new topic in sports. The concern is particularly pronounced in the National Football League and the National Hockey League, two very physical, violent professional sports leagues.

Both leagues are trying (belatedly) to curb “head shots”, an obvious root cause (but only one cause) of serious concussions.

The recent injury to Pittsburgh Penguin superstar Sydney Crosby, on the heels of a seemingly innocuous nudge from an opposing player during a recent game, has only served to heighten the debate in the hockey world.

Did the player mean to run into Crosby as he did? Was it intentional, or an accident? As “hits” go it was seemingly insignificant.  However, it led to a serious injury.

Unfortunately, the issue, as I’ve discussed in the past here, goes well beyond an occasional hit to the head in the course of a hockey game, for example, which can lead to a serious injury. Moreover, I sense it goes beyond the much-discussed “lack of respect” that players are said to lack for one another in the modern era. Both of those things are concerns, to be sure, but there have been hits to the head, concussions and a lack of respect for as long as I can remember in hockey. (I well recall vicious stick-swinging incidents in the 1960s and ‘70s, and those types of incidents occurred well before my time, as well.)

We can throw in hitting from behind, late hits after a pass is made (also called “finishing your check”), as well as  excessive boarding.

Given the speed of hockey (and football, for that matter) nowadays—and all of the above as a backdrop— it’s actually shocking that more players aren’t seriously injured

The underlying concern, for me, as a lifelong observer, is the culture of these sports, the mentaility that seems to be imparted into young athletes from a very early age.  Players are expected to be tough, very tough. If they miss time because of injury, others question their commitment.  In hockey, every pro team has “enforcers” or “policemen”. They are needed, we are told, to keep the other team “honest”.

And it’s been this way for generations.

What is the line between a “hockey play” and a penalty? What is the line between a “good, clean hit”, or body check, and a dirty play? The NHL, for examplel, keeps changing the rules in an effort to decrease the number of injuries.  Fair enough.  But how does a player, moving at full tilt (and trained to behave this way) and “lining up” another player, ensure in a split second that he doesn’t strike the head of another player—who is also often moving at high speed?

Youth hockey, for example, has taken progressive steps in recent years, adding the “STOP” sign on the back of jerseys to remind players not to take liberties with other players in terms of hits from behind.

However, the culture still remains the same after all these years. Yes, hockey is about skating, passing, shooting—all the wonderful artistic, skill-oriented things that we all admire.

But if most people are honest, it is also about, for many of them— as administrators, coaches, players or fans— violence. That violence comes in the form “clean” hits, which can still knock someone senseless. Hits against immovable boards. Hits throwing players into unbreakable glass. Crosschecking (within "legal" limits, or until a referee has seen enough in front of the net). Slashing.

A year ago (January 2010), former NHL’er turned TV analyst Nick Kypreos spoke with the Toronto Sun. At the time, the suspension to Quebec junior player Patrice Cormier was a hot topic, as his hit on an unsuspecting opposing player caused a major injury—and a season-ending suspension for young Cormier.

“I’m not proud to say it, but I felt like if I could kill somebody with a legal check, I would do it,” Kypreos said, reflecting on his career during a discussion on vicious bodychecking — whether clean or illegal — on The Fan 590.

“That’s how much emotion, and outside the norm (of society that a hockey player) can get ... there is no rhyme or reason.

“I have been out there and looked at another guy’s eyes and I thought ‘I could kill you.’”

“Bodychecking is so much more than just getting the puck,” Kypreos said in an interview following the Hockey Central broadcast.

“It can involve drawing some emotions that you’re not proud of.”

We’ve managed, in society, to create greater awareness around all kinds of important issues: environmental sustainability; the dangers of cigarette smoking; cultural and religious tolerance and respect; drinking and driving; equality regardless of gender.

These are major attitude shifts that took time to become “mainstream” and went against the traditions and comfort zones of many people. Nevertheless, most would argue it was worthwhile because the end result was a more compassionate, healthier, fairer society for all.

In sports, and certainly in hockey, is it even possible, I wonder, to move away from the macho, “tough” culture which has been a part of the game for as long as anyone can remember?

I don’t know. Many will argue that too much will be lost if such a “fundamental” part of the game is eroded.

Still, unless and until that cultural shift happens, we can change rules, we can suspend players, we can talk about respect, and we can put signs on the back of jerseys, but until there is a fundamental sea change in attitude from administrators, to coaches, players and those responsible for youth sports organizations, things won’t really change.

Body checking in youth hockey: No right answers?

I must acknowledge that I have been a passionate hockey fan all my life. I love the skill on skates, the vision that good players demonstrate, their ability to think ahead, the artistry and yes, the power that players can exhibit in making moves while making a play or a good, clean hit.
However, like many others, I’ve grown increasingly concerned about the state of the game, including at the youth levels.

The issue of “body checking” at the youth levels has been hotly debated now for many years across Canada. Some believe allowing it at the so-called ‘rep levels’ (very competitive) is a good idea, because it gets players to learn how to “take a check”, and makes it safer for them in the long run.

Others suggest that it takes some of the the skill out of the game (because small players may be fearful), causes unnecessary injuries and actually pushes a lot of talented kids into other sports.

It’s a difficult issue.

When I was a kid fifty years ago “hitting” was barely part of the discussion. I learned to play the game on frozen ponds in the dead (cold) of winter in the small town where I lived. The game was fun and it was largely about skating, competing with friends and staying out on the ice until your feet were so frozen you couldn’t bear it any longer.

Things have changed dramatically, of course, and in many ways for the better, I suppose. Organized competitive hockey has pretty much ended that bygone era. That organized aspect brings many good things for kids and families, but it, not surprisingly, has eventually led to a host of other issues.

I read recently where a young Canadian player was injured in an NCAA college game. A big hit that he took caused a broken neck, and it took some time for the young man’s injuries to stabilize in the hospital afterwards. It was a very sad event, and horribly frightening for any hockey parent to contemplate.

I didn’t see the play so I can’t comment on whether it was a “dirty” hit or not. (The offending player was given a major and a misconduct penalty.) But the point, for me, is that we have reached a stage in hockey, even at the pro levels, where hitting has become too pervasive a part of the game. The NHL, all the way down to youth hockey, is trying, they say, to crack down on “head shots”, for example. This follows a similar focus on “hits from behind”.

But the culture of the sport is a concern. The macho sense that a player must be “tough”—and I acknowledge I like a good clean hit at the pro level— seems to be permeating the sport to a worrisome degree.

This is not entirely new, of course. The actions of the “Broad Street Bullies” (the Philadelphia Flyers in the 1970s), set the game back for years. Young players copied their brawling, fighting style.

But in this day and age it’s about not just fighting, but hitting.

That pressure to “hit hard”, from management, coaches and fans alike, combined with the ever-increasing speed in the game, conspires to make a bad cocktail. Throw in the hard, large equipment that players wear and is it any wonder we have concerns about serious injuries— including life-altering concussions—right across the board in the sport of hockey?

The only way this really gets solved is if certain aspects of the sport are somehow de-emphasized, and that would take a major shift in attitude.

And I don’t think that is forthcoming.

Hockey violence: where does it stop?

There’s no point shying away from the word. Hockey is working its way back—or has never really moved away from—violence.

Eddie Shore ended Ace Bailey’s NHL career in the 1930s with a vicious hit.

In the early 1970s, I recall watching Wayne Cashman of the “Big Bad Bruins” swing his stick over his head violently and just miss hitting Minnesota’s Dennis Hextall in the head during a brawl between the two-teams. The NHL did nothing. It was just “part of the game”.

Later that decade, the “Broad Street Bullies” won two Stanley Cups. The Ontario legal system tried to jump in, and many argued the courts had no place in hockey rinks, because the sport ‘regulated’ itself.

Really?

We all remember the Todd Bertuzzi incident of a few years ago. Steve Moore has never played again. Last time I looked, Bertuzzi was still making millions, playing in the NHL. He represented Canada at the Olympics (selected by Hockey Canada), did he not, after that awful act?

A few folks say, “Oh, that’s terrible”, a player gets a slap on the wrist and we move on.

Has our mentality changed at all?

Last week, a well-regarded junior player in the Quebec League elbowed an unsuspecting opposing player, leading to convulsions on the ice. A suspension “announcement” is due shortly.

That same player displayed on-ice behaviour at the recent world junior championships that should have been punished. Hockey Canada did nothing.

Does the NHL, or Hockey Canada, set the “attitude” tone for hockey behaviour?

This past November, in an earlier post, I wrote the following:

Players can say they don’t hit to injure, but they certainly hit to hurt, and given the reality of the human body, that’s really no distinction at all.

Players are bigger and skate faster than ever before. The huge equipment players wear is a big problem. It makes players feel they aren’t vulnerable, yet they are, in part because of the equipment they wear.

Football and hockey were both probably safer (still “hard-hitting” but safer) when players dressed more like rugby players than gladiators.

Think about: fans -and the media - have spent countless hours in recent years discussing the apparent epidemic of serious injuries—head shots (many still “legal” in hockey terms); hitting from behind situations; concussions; knee injuries and more.

It really does have to stop.

When you have 16 year-old playing against men, the risks are already there. Unless hockey authorities begin to absolutely, once and for all, outlaw hitting from behind or even the side, this problem will continue.

NHL GM’s met this week, and reports suggest movement was made about creating new rules to reduce dangerous hits. Too often in the past the league talked around the real issues. They can’t seem to decide what types of hits should be “legal”.

To me, the question is not what is legal in hockey terms, but what is dangerous.

The game has changed. Rules, and what is—and isn’t—allowed, should evolve as a result.

It has taken generations to get people to recognize the problems associated with smoking, for example, and to change behaviour. And still, probably 20% or more of people smoke in Canada and the United States.

Changing the mentality around hockey won’t be easy. You don’t want to lose the great parts of the action, but surely protecting the basic safety of vulnerable athletes—especially at the younger ages—must be a priority.

Again, let’s not pretend we’re making a big deal out of nothing. This is a big deal. Hockey is a great game, but has always experienced players who go way over “the line”.

We’ve talked about hitting from behind, for example, for years. Youth hockey has those “STOP” signs on the back of jerseys. Yet, watch almost any NHL game these days and you see guys throwing other players into the boards from behind.

Why?

We demand that players be rough and tough, and in the middle of intense competition, when athletes have heard this all their life, this is what you’re going to get. Violence.

It’s hard enough to made smart decisions in the middle of the day in a relaxed and comfortable environment—when you have time to make the best decision you can.

In sports, and certainly in hockey, players have a split-second to decide. Their competitive instincts, and the values they have been taught since they were kids, take over.

So you don’t want to dull the competitive instincts, but we better do something about the values were are installing in our young people when to comes to competition.

We can talk all day and junior hockey commissioners can use nice, thoughtful-sounding words about what’s not acceptable, but at the end of the day, nothing is actually changing.

We all realize professional sports is about winning—full stop. Big business. People talk about the importance of character but if, at the end of the day, a Sean Avery helps you win, he has a job. The same attitude is pervasive, not only at the Junior levels of sport, but all the way down through the minor/youth levels.

A visit to most any youth hockey rink on any given night, and listening to parents yell at opposing players who may be all of 10 years old, tells us all we need to know.

It’s sad, just really sad.

When Leadership Doesn't Lead, This is What You Get...

In early April, local newspaper stories reported that a 15 year-old high school hockey player from New Brunswick scored a goal in double-overtime to help her team win a high-school playoff game.

While she had her hands raised in celebration, an opposing player allegedly cross-checked the young girl.

The 15 year old has spent time in hospital, suffering from a lacerated spleen.

The 18-year old senior who evidently pushed, shoved or hit the younger girl has been suspended indefinitely.

Unfortunately, these incidents, while relatively isolated, are not all that rare, and they speak to a disconcerting attitude that afflicts ‘competitive’ sports, including youth sports.

We all say youth sports should be for the kids; should be about having fun; should be about getting a chance for all kids to play, regardless of ability.

Perhaps we are simply fighting human nature, as many people tend to be competitive to varying degrees, but the moment we “keep score”, playing a game for fun becomes almost impossible.

From supposedly casual so-called recreational or house-league sports programs to the various levels of competitive ‘rep’ or ‘elite’ sports, the demands and expectations placed on kids, teenagers and young adults is sometimes overwhelming.

As adults, we offer conflicting messages. We encourage our kids to have fun, and some people even suggest winning is truly unimportant, and mean it. Yet we put our kids in games, leagues and situations where there are so-called winners and losers.

In a society where we unfortunately still put a significant emphasis on who is bigger, faster, stronger or tougher, the moment a youngster shows a bit of skill, they are often encouraged to try out for a ‘higher’ level of competition. Pressure grows as expectations rise. (For some, it leads to the use of performance-enhancing drugs, but that’s a story for another day.)

Where does all this come from?

Well, we as parents certainly are part of the problem. Hockey Canada aimed a series of public service announcements at parents over the last couple of years, dealing with this very issue of parents taking youth sports more seriously than their kids do. The leading hockey organization in Canada was seemingly hoping to encourage people to look in the mirror and do a little self-reflection, and perhaps recognize that certain behaviours as parents and spectators were in fact harmful to kids. All this in the hope that we may all start to put the emphasis back on fun.

Yet in the same breath, Hockey Canada bent over backwards this year to ensure that Todd Bertuzzi was named to Team Canada for the 2006 Winter Olympics—despite his alleged assault on Steve Moore in an NHL game two years ago, an unquestionably dirty hit from behind that has been seen countless times by millions of kids across the country.

Bertuzzi can do that, and still be granted the greatest honour available to hockey players in this country, less than two years after the incident.

What messages does this send to parents—and to their kids?

If that kind of behaviour – and Steve Moore still is not healthy enough to play hockey to this day-- is not only tolerated and goes virtually un-punished by Hockey Canada (the NHL purports to have “punished” Bertuzzi with what amounted to a minimal suspension), what should hockey parents think?

Is it any wonder a youth hockey coach was allegedly grabbed around the neck in the fall of 2005 by an angry parent? Is it any wonder a young girl is hit violently enough after scoring a goal that she is seriously injured? We can talk about these things being isolated incidents, or suggest it’s just a matter of a few adults or kids with anger management issues. But it goes deeper than that.

Yes, parents have a huge role here. Parents teach and model the values of ethical thought, sportsmanship and acceptable social behaviour. No question.

Many people don’t like to lose. And many people spend a lifetime learning to accept defeat in life’s many forms, whether sports-related or not. Many never do adjust.

But reacting violently to the success of another is never acceptable, and it certainly isn’t acceptable in a youth hockey game.

You can spend millions of dollars on advertising in an effort to spread a positive message. But as many have said before, words are just that-- words. It’s what a person -- or in this case an organization in a position of leadership-- does that actually matters.

Hockey Canada dropped the ball on the Bertuzzi matter, when they had a chance to really send an important message. Instead they decided that trying to win an Olympic medal was more important than doing the right thing.

And they are the ones in charge of hockey in this country?

With that kind of leadership, should we wonder why we face the problems we do in the youth hockey world?