One If By Land, Two If By Sea, Three If By Ice

I'm not a big fan of poetry but Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's famous line in the poem "Paul Revere's Ride", reflects the current situation the NHL bigwigs, Commissioner Gary Bettman, Chief Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly, and Director of Player Discipline Brendan Shanahan are in.  In Longfellow's ode to Paul Revere, the poet describes the warning system used to alert Revere of an inevitable incoming attack by the British.  Two lanterns were available.  One lantern was to be raised if the British attacked by land and two lanterns were to be raised if they attacked by sea.  The heads of the NHL are facing a problem not quite at the same level Paul Revere and the fledgling Americans faced back in 1775, but crucial to the growing success of the league nonetheless.

The battle the league is facing comes from within the league itself and can be seen on the ice.  The first part of the problem is well documented. It involves the growing number of head injuries to players, seemingly on a nightly basis. The main part of the problem though is more important, as it turns a basic league quandary into an all-out mess.  After the lockout in 2005, the NHL brain trust felt the current brand of hockey had become too dull and slow to attract new fans.  To use their language, there was too much "clutching and grabbing" and not enough scoring.  To fix this "problem", the league instituted stricter rules to combat the holding and hooking that was slowing down the game.  This consequently turned the NHL into a quicker-paced more fluid brand of hockey.  This is partly the cause of the concussion epidemic.

In the post-lockout goal-scoring boom a new generation of fans came in droves and the league considered the new and improved rules a success.  One thing they either ignored, didn't care about, or didn't plan for was what effect the new rules would have on player speed when it came to hitting, charging and body control.  In response to these effects, the NHL has gone on a hunt to stomp out hits to the head while at the same time promoting speed, hitting and fighting.  They have suspended players with no prior record for certain "dangerous" hits while maintaining the belief that faster speed  has been great for the game and attracted more fans.

If anyone thought the disciplinary system could not become any more arbitrary and tedious after Colin Campbell stepped down as head of discipline; I would like you to meet Brendan Shanahan.  Shanahan, the future hall of famer and one of my favorite post-lockout Rangers, took over as head of discipline early last summer and has turned the job into a show, with videos explaining all suspensions and stiff penalties for those willing to toe the line between a clean hit and a dirty hit.  I feel bad for Shanahan, he has a no win job. Bettman claims concussion numbers are down; I'm not sure where he gets his information from.  All I seem to hear about and read about is how players with no history of head injuries are now suffering from concussions or concussion-like symptoms.  If the numbers are down as Bettman claims, then many, many players have been playing with concussions the past few seasons as opposed to sitting out (that's a whole other problem in and of itself and I have neither the time nor the interest to delve into it deeper).

There will come a time when Commissioner Bettman will need to look in the mirror and ask why the disciplinary system isn't curbing concussions.  When that time will be is hard to tell.  Either way, it's pretty clear the players are incapable of entirely changing the way they play and I have a feeling that even those players like Matt Cooke, who seem to have changed their dirty ways, will eventually return to their earlier irresponsible selves and cause a head injury for another player.

I wouldn't have written this without at least suggesting some type of fix for the league.  I propose four league-wide changes, some more radical than others.

1) Reinstitute the Pre-Lockout Clutching and Grabbing Rules

Opposition to this rule-change would likely be strong.  The "consensus" among those involved in the NHL from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000's is that hockey had become low scoring and slow.  Hooking, holding and interference was going unpenalized  (as the Rangers were going through a decade of hell during most of that period I am probably not the greatest person to ask about how enjoyable watching the NHL was during that era).  The NHL changed the rules after the lockout and penalized any type of hooking or holding.  As the league continues to move further and further from the 2005 lockout, and new defensive systems are being put in place by coaches to defend faster and quicker opponents, I don't think there is that much of a difference between current and pre-lockout hockey.  While the NHL may say otherwise regarding the new rules, as long as the league maintains its current advertising and marketing tactics it should be fine even if the speed of the game is slowed slightly.  In addition, I have a feeling that the incessant discussion of suspensions and concussions will chase away more fans than allowing more hooking and holding and reinstituting the clutching and grabbing rules will.

2) Remove the Trapezoid 

The trapezoid rule was instituted to keep goalies from playing the puck in the corners and thereby allowing for more scoring chances.  It has not really caused that much change and would not be missed.  Removing the trapezoid would also enable goalies to help out defensemen on dump-ins and put defensemen in fewer potentially dangerous situations. 

3)  Limit the Size of Goalie Equipment

This would be done to placate those who worry the reinstitution of the pre-lockout clutching and grabbing rules would hurt scoring.  The change in goalie equipment does not need to be drastic but more oversight on the size of chest protectors and pads would certainly benefit scoring.  The argument that the bigger the pads are, the safer the goalies are, is a flawed one.  With today's advanced equipment technology, goalie equipment can be both light and highly protective.  

4)  Ban Fighting

The hypocrisy of promoting fighting, essentially boxing on skates, while at the same time trying to make the league safer with regard to head injuries borders on idiotic.  Personally, I have no problem with fighting in the NHL, but I also have no particular allegiance to the spectacle.  Banning fighting would have no effect on whether or not I watched or attended a game, and I doubt it would change the opinion of most if any fans of the game. I know no one who goes to games for the fighting.  If the NHL office wants to truly effect change it needs to do something drastic that will permanently alter the mentality of players and give them a black and white rule to follow rather than the arbitrary suspension rules.

Right now for example, if Mike Rupp of the Rangers skates down the ice, asks Islander Matt Martin to fight and the players drop their gloves, Rupp may punch Martin in the head as hard as he can as many times as he can until the players tire and he and Martin will only be penalized five minutes apiece.  They can then return to the game.  On the other hand, if Rupp were to skate up the ice and check Martin into the boards with his shoulder but first make contact with Martin's head, accidentally or not, Rupp would likely be suspended anywhere from one to five games.  The above example makes it hard to take the NHL seriously in their fight against concussions.

This a request to the league to be careful what they wish for.  More scoring is nice and good as long as it fills the seats.  What happens though, when radio and NHL shows become bogged down with talk of suspensions and concussions and people stop watching?  Stop the problem before it truly interferes with the growth of the game.  The attack against the league is coming from its own ice and its own arenas. Three lanterns are being raised and I hope Gary Bettman can see the warning.