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.

Former CFL Commissioner: frank or remarkably self-absorbed?

Over the past forty years, especially, it is probably fair to say that politicians have, in the estimation of everyday people, dropped considerably in terms of esteem.

There was a time, long ago, when being an elected official meant something, maybe even something special. It was an honorable thing to represent the people.

There are many reasons for the decline in respect granted elected officials.  Many are perceived to say one thing and do another, or promise something and do something else.  Many vote like sheep according to “party” lines instead of personal principle.  Quite a few display vanity of a sort on a regular basis while mugging for ever-present television cameras.

So it’s perhaps little wonder that former Canadian Football league commissioner Larry Smith is only days into his political life, and he has already discovered what you say does actually matter.

Smith, a former president of the Montreal Alouettes, a former professional player and a successful business person, was recently named to the Canadian Senate by Prime Minister Harper. Within a day or so, he announced he was seeking to become the Member of Parliament in his riding.

When interviewed by a CBC reporter, Smith was quoted as saying he was not being cynical in using his Senatorial position to jump start his campaign.

A Canadian press article put it this way:

When Smith was asked by Solomon if he believed it was cynical political strategy to use his new profile to help launch his bid to become an MP, the political novice responded with a quick "no."

"You have to understand that I've worked very hard over my career and, to do what I'm doing now, I'm making a major, major concession in my lifestyle to even be a senator," Smith said.

"I'm not trying to be arrogant, because I'm not, but I made a commitment to get myself into a higher form of public service than the philanthropic stuff I've done for the last 30 years."

Smith, a former CFL commissioner and newspaper publisher, was then pressed further on the lifestyle impact. "In simple terms, the money I was earning in my last profession to where I would be in this profession is what I would call a dramatic, catastrophic pay cut," Smith said.

"And I have a family — I have obligations ... I am making a major commitment to do what I'm going to do so I don't look at it as being cynical at all."

His comments seems to have struck a nerve, in much the same way the former CEO of BP created controversy months ago by saying he just “wanted to get his life back” after his company had created environmental chaos almost beyond compare. People were shocked that the CEO’s focus was seemingly on feeling sorry for himself, as opposed simply apologizing for the disaster triggered by his profit-driven company.

In that same vein, people (many of whom Smith expects, presumably, to vote for him) will find it difficult to relate to a person who seems to be patting himself on the back by saying, essentially, “Hey, I’m being a good guy here. Look, I’m taking this big pay cut just to serve you. I’m only going to make $130,000 or so a year…” , not to mention huge allowances and benefits.

To say to everyday people (who work hard to earn far less than that) that you are making “major concessions to my lifestyle” will come across as outlandish at best to many.

So it was not a good start in politics for a supposedly savvy and experienced individual. It will be interesting to see if he will be similarly “candid” (some would say thoughtless) in the months to come—and how the voters in his constituency will respond.

Youth coach faces suspension because of principled stand

There is always an “accuracy” risk in writing or commenting about something without knowing all the facts.

I’m referring, in this instance, to recent published reports about a youth hockey team in Peterborough, Ontario. The reports indicate that a coach pulled his team in the middle of a game. Why? One of his players had been subjected to a racial slur and the other team (and player who is alleged to have made the remark) did not immediately apologize to the player in question.

There seems to be no debate that the remark was indeed made. The offending player/team did apologize afterwards, the player evidently showing genuine remorse.

In the interim, the Ontario Minor Hockey Association, pending an official hearing, has suspended the coach who pulled his team off the ice. The reason? Teams are not allowed, by rule, to pull their teams off the ice during a game—even in a case such as this.

As I mentioned earlier, I don’t know those involved and did not witness the incident. It’s always possible there are facts or factors that outsiders are simply not aware of.

The hockey authorities in question stand by their decision to suspend the coach, based on longstanding rules and regulations.

But it is difficult not to question an authority structure that suspends a coach, when, by all accounts, that individual is simply standing up for his players, his team, and an question of principle.

Were there other ways to protest the remark? No doubt. And it makes sense to await a thorough investigation to determine exactly what took place and why and whether the “punishment” is fair.

But this just seems to be, on the surface at least, a case where technicalities over-rule common sense. If the coach who was suspended was, in fact, simply protecting his player and his team from abuse and “taking a stand”, is a suspension really fair?

I’m sure more will come from this story, but for now, an indefinite suspension (it could be up to a full year) would seem to be a peculiar decision, since the coach did not initiate the offensive action. (The player who made the remark and his two coaches were suspended for three days and are all back in action already.)

I’m not sure this all sends a very clear—or good—message to our young people.

Notre Dame stands up and takes responsibility for tragic loss of life

A few weeks ago a young student at the University of Notre Dame died while on his part-time job— filming the school’s football practice.

The young man was filming from a hydraulic lift, which collapsed under extremely high winds.

It was a sad, tragic event for all concerned. The family has been very forgiving of school officials. They have a younger daughter who also attends the school, and a younger son who also dreams of attending Notre Dame.

The school can certainly be criticized for not taking the proper precautions to ensure that this kind of terrible incident never could have happened. They clearly failed in their responsibility.

Often times, a company or organization will stand behind legalities and say nothing, or very little, when such a terrible incident occurs. And certainly they say nothing in terms of responsibility, for fear of legal reprisals.

However, on this occasion, the President of the school, Fr. John Jenkins, said

"Declan Sullivan was entrusted to our care, and we failed to keep him safe. We at Notre Dame and ultimately I, as President are responsible. Words cannot express our sorrow to the Sullivan family and to all involved."

Companies and institutions are often told by lawyers never to take “responsibility”, because it opens legal doors that can be very costly. So it was revealing to see how school officials, perhaps instinctively as opposed to listening to legal “advisors”, responded.

No comment can not bring back a life, or make things right. Yet it was somehow important that the University officials, at the very least, took public responsibility for a grave error.

Communication has become far too easy

Like most organizations and big businesses, the National Hockey League likes to see itself as running a tight ship. Few, if any “slip-ups” is the expectation, when they handle any kind of public relations situation.

When a Vancouver player recently engaged physically with a fan in Minnesota, the league was quick to step in. They suspended the player and apologized to the fan for the behaviour.

The league is always very careful about what it sends out in terms of press releases. When executives representing the NHL are interviewed, for example, they tend to be rather dull and serious, not taking any risks and sticking very closely to their approved script. Image is very important.

Businesses always want to be seen to be doing and saying the “right” things. They go to extreme lengths to protect their credibility and reputation. And that is largely understandable, since losing those attributes can harm a business irreparably.

So it was a bit of a surprise this week to see that Executive Vice-President Colin Campbell finds himself in a mild controversy. The issue stems from some now three-year-old e-mails that he sent. The content of the e-mails seemed to lead some observers to question whether Campbell was as “objective” as he needed to be in his role as the league’s chief operating officer and disciplinarian.

While one can argue whether or not Campbell made a “mistake” by evidently being too flip and personal in some of his comments in a private e-mail about particular players or officials, there is likely a larger lesson for all of us, including those in positions of responsibility—and it’s not quite as simple as “be careful with your e-mails”.

The reality is that modern communication is everywhere around us. We are all part of it. When people with a reputation to care for (and that’s most people) are out in public, cameras are everywhere. You may well find yourself on “You Tube”. People watch and listen to conversations and the next thing you know, something you thought you said in private is posted on the internet.

The days of formal letters as the popular choice for inter-personal communication seem long gone. Most daily business correspondence is now indeed done by e-mail. As a result, the language many individuals utilize has slowly become more and more casual. The attitude around communication has become very relaxed. Fewer people make the time to check to ensure if they may have said something that they would prefer not be made available for public consumption.

Campbell faces scrutiny now because people are calling into question his judgment and impartiality, related to comments he made that he obviously never thought anyone would see, other than fellow NHL executives. While he is no different a person today than he was yesterday, and no more or less competent, e-mails he wrote several years ago, fair or not, are being used now to judge him through a different lens.

While communication has been made “easier” than ever before on the one hand, it has also led to problems that we couldn’t even dream of thirty years ago.

He’s not the first person to face rebuke (some have been fired in the media and business world for less) and surely won’t be the last. But every time this type of situation occurs, it should be a reminder that when we communicate in any fashion, we are almost always “on” and need to keep that in mind before we open our mouths in public places—or hit that ‘send’ button.