Were headshots in the NHL ever considered a problem in the past?

Question

I've been following the Steve Downie situation and have been asking myself, 'If this had happened 10 years back, by a veteran player, would this be a big deal ?' Now, that's not to say that I don't think there should be a big deal made over this type of hit, any act that potentially jeopardizes a player's quality of life down the road can't be tolerated.
I am compelled to consider Scott Stevens' hits in particular. He was known for delivering "clean," heavy hits with the shoulder
and oftentimes to the heads of opposing players. In some cases, it caused career threatening injuries to players, take for example Eric Lindros.
So my question is, a player like Scott Stevens, one of this year's inductees to the hockey hall of fame made a living out of hitting people hard, and oftentimes to the head. Does the new stance being taken on headshots take away from the brilliance of his career? Should the behaviour that earned Scott Stevens an induction into the hall of fame be abolished?

Answer 1

The issue of headshots has always been considered a serious topic. A series of head shots in the mid to late 70s resulted in the NHL instituting a mandatory helmet rule in 1979. The NHLPA was adamantly opposed to this rule, which resulted in the exception that any player who had already played without a helmet could stay helmetless.

The issue was raised again in the early 80s when Tomas Jonsson and Pat Lafontaine suffered concussions in 1985.

In 1989, there was a two week conference involving all the teams to discuss hits to the head, without a resolution.

Over the last ten years the debate has raged on because players are getting bigger (averaging 19lbs more than in 1980) and the equipment is getting bulkier and harder (something Don Cherry has been chirping about since 1991).

Scott Steven's hit on Eric Lindros would still be considered legal. The player had the puck, the hit was not late, the checker did not leave his feet, the player was suspecting (a player with the puck is autimatically suspecting apparently). had Lindros had his head up.........the blow would have been shoulder to shoulder.

I've seen a hundreds of Scott Steven's hits...he rarely left the ice. He was plainly one of the great bodycheckers the game has seen.

Note: The NHL realizes that people like Zdeno Chara, Hal Gill, etc are at a height where it would be impossible to check the Paul Kariyas and Marty St. Louis's of the NHL without hitting them shoulder to head. This is something the Paul Kariyas of the world have to deal with

Answer 2

10 years ago, this type of thing happened but there was not as big of a deal made of it for a few reasons. The biggest reason is that, at the time, they were just starting to realize the long term effects of concussions.

Go back 25 years and this would have been even less likely to happen. Players in this day and age have spent their entire lives wearing body armor and seem to have much less respect for each other. Back then, they were wearing pads made of leather, felt and plastic. When they checked an opponent, they respected the fact that the opponent was not wearing a helmet and generally tried to avoid driving his head through the glass. If they failed to do so, there would be serious repercussions to pay from the other team's enforcers.

I am a Flyers fan so I believe I have some degree of objectivity on the Stevens subject. Stevens always hit hard but the majority of his hits were legal, I don't remember him ever making a run like Downie did. The hit against Lindros was clean and legal, it was Lindros who had his head down in Stevens danger zone. Anyone who steps on the ice with Stevens was well advised to make themselves aware of his location when they were entering the offensive zone.

Answer 3

!0 years back, in my thinking, is not long enough to go back. 20-25 years ago, yes.

Back then, if you took a shot at someone's head, you had better have your own head on a swivel, because you were going to get a payback hit at some point during that game. Those payback hits were usually packed with a bit of interest, if you get my drift.

Players seemed to police themselves back then a lot more than they do now, due to some rules changes, and the evolution of the game. I am not sure which era of hockey I like more, though.

I grew up in Boston, in the 70's, and hockey back then was way different than it is now. The players were much different, too. The equipment's evolution has a lot to do with the changes in the game as well. Stuff is better, and protects you more, and as a result, I think players tend to take more liberties when it comes to stick checks, hooking, and boards hits. The arenas have changed as well. Seamless glass seemed the way to go, but produced a very stiff, and unyielding boards/glass combo resulting in a rash of severe injuries. Since the realization of that fact, the newer arenas are moving away from them, and building super-flexible boards and plexiglass boards, like the very forgiving set up in Dallas's American Airlines arena. Those boards move in excess of 2 feet at the tops of the plexiglass panes!

Getting back to headshots. I think there is no place in any sport for anyonne to purposly go after someone's head. It simply shouldn't be allowed. But, good, hard, clean hits like the ones Steven's was known for is what the game is all about. Play within the rules, and play tough in your face hockey. forget about the cheap stuff, and go stuff that pill in the basket!

Hockey is the greatest game in the world, and we need to keep it that way!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for reading this---- Steve.

Answer 4

I'm glad you brought that up because it reminded me of something that I read in the early 90's. After the league made it mandatory to wear helmets and there were still perhaps a handful of players playing without them ( they were allowed to since they came into the league years before the rule was implemented ) I read an article that said the extra protection has made the players less fearful of being hurt hence the checking and boarding were becoming noticably more violent.

I thought of this the other day when Downie did his deed and thought that the rise in concussions has come about for two reasons. The most important one is that the medical field has given it top priority compared to the Dark Ages when nobody gave it a thought, but also because of the helmeted players and the advances in player padding.

I don't think anything about the game has contributed to it, its just human nature. Like when I played football I was a receiver and I noticed that I was less hesitant to go into coverage in full padding than I was while playing against my buddies at the park wearing sweats.

Answer 5

They we're still considered a problem in the past. I'm sure many have paid for Lindros pure retardation by now hahah. But seriously, the Downey case is different. It was a distinct charge. His feet left the grount creating an attempt to injure scenario. Besides Downey is known in the AHL to be just like that. So alot of it depends on the players reputation. Stevens always had a clean reputation for being a good strong physical presense on the ice and he was well respected because he didn't play dirty at all. He was a strong solid defenseman. Downey is not, nor will he ever be known for his skills. It was a cheap shot

Answer 6

I have been an avid hockey fan since the early 90's, so I cannot speak with any credibility before then. Since that time I don't recall head shots being any more or less of a problem than they are now. I think there is more media attention in the sport now and with the way they do highlights on national sports shows, if you see a single play, it is most likely a huge hit, regardless of whether it is a "clean" hit or not. In fact I'm willing to wager that "dirty" hits are shown more so than any other play, in any sport. Because of the increased publicity, it may seem to be a bigger problem. The Downie hit to which I think you are referring to was, in my opinion dirty (I believe that opinion determines whether most hits are clean or dirty). On the other hand, I think that McAmmond (the hittee) left himself in a vulnerable position and could have done a better job of protecting himself. On your other question, I don't think that the new stance on head shots diminishes any previous careers, nor should it. Hitting is an integral, and inevitable, part of hockey, and such, it cannot be abolished without altering the game completely.

Answer 7

You would not look down on past careers when the rules were different; If you go back far enough Goaltenders didn't even wear masks, which would be utterly unthinkable now. The game evolves and slowly removes those problems, head shots being one of the more recent, as players today are larger and faster than they once were and the threat more serious.

In the case of Eric Lindros; It was usually his own fault in my opinion. He never learned his lesson and always had his head down as he skated down the ice with the puck. Never saw it coming. 2 or 3 concussions later most people would have learned to keep their head up.

Answer 8

It's a different story though. Stevens hits hard and rough, but his intent is never to lose control and injure. I don't know what was going through Downie's Melon when he attempted his Bobby Boucher Waterboy Hit. That's not ok.

Answer 9

years back there was no worry about that. players didn't wear helmets and there were always one enforcer per team, at least. you would never see anyone attempt this on gretzsky. for example, sidney crosby now has georges laraque backing him up. plus they're really pushing rivalries between same conference teams. classics canadiens/leafs rivalry is being overshadowed by ottawa/philly. hard-hitting games are now being taken to the next level to try to assure themselves a place in the playoffs or even a place on the team.

Answer 10

It was a dirty hit, an elbow. Nothing felonious in my opinion.