Re: Time to eliminate hitting from men's hockey
I know, it's hard to admit. It's just too dangerous. The players are just too big, too fast, too strong. Just way better than their predecessors. It's just too hard to officiate, too hard to teach, and there is just no place for body on body contact. Players over 5'11" should not even be allowed to play in today's world. It is way more enjoyable to watch a player skate end to end without being touched. It's graceful and beautiful! There is no place for young players to look up to players like Stevens, Neidermeyer, Pronger or Blake. The facts are just overwhelming
I appreciate your concern with this issue. One of the biggest hurdles the sport faces with eliminating unnecessary and severely dangerous hits is the "Blow 'em up!@!!" culture, so the fact that more and more fans recognize the needlessness and danger of these types of hits is a positive.
However, I think you err in the conclusion that hitting must be eliminated from the game. There is plenty of room for physical play that doesn't fall into the space of unnecessary and reckless. Last night's game between MN and WI gives us some perfect examples to illustrate this.
Wisconsin's 2nd goal is a great example of good, tactical physical play. A hard forcheck and heavy hit along the boards to create separation between the puck and the puck carrier, and then a nice bit of vision and skill to convert that into a goal. The forcheck along the boards was heavy, hard-nosed and yet still didn't cross over the line into unnecessary and dangerous.
Compare that with Wittchow's hit on Tommy Novak. There was no tactical reason for the excessive force, and no tactical reason for the shoulder to land into Novak's jaw. Separation from the puck would have been achieved just as successfully with more controlled contact to the body. This is a prime example of unnecessary and incredibly dangerous play that has no room in hockey - just as you acknowledged.
These types of hits aren't potential "momentum swingers" or potential "game changers" - they are potential life changers. And when we consider we are talking about 18 to 23-year-old kids who will most likely spend more of their lives not playing hockey than they spend playing hockey, that's just not tolerable.
All athletes accept a certain amount of inherent risk when they step onto the court/field/ice. They shouldn't be forced to accept
unnecessary risk that carries devastating consequences while offering no additional tactical advantage.
Changing the culture not just of players/coaches/officials, but also of fans who crave excessively violent collisions for nothing more than the sake of excessively violent collisions, is key. So again, I applaud you for approaching this issue with the earnestness it demands.
