Sam Bennett Value: Have the Flames held on TOO long? OR is he awesome?

[Tron_fdc]

I'm not arguing for or against hitting. I tried to be as clear as possible with my post. At no point did I argue whether or not the hit was clean or dirty either. IMO it is not dirty based on the rules today. However. If you want to clean up head injuries then "committing to hits like that" is what the league needs to change.

I'm trying to articulate the other side of the fence, which is what the body check was originally intended and used for, encouraging people to give it some thought.

Drive by's don't help either, so I certainly see Jiri's frustration. It's annoying and doesn't add anything.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Relax, that wasn’t a drive by. Claiming that body checking was never used as intimidation doesn’t help anything either. What evidence is there for that? I highly doubt, when the game was way scarier and more violent, that players never used a body check or physicality as intimidation.

[Strange Brew]

I personally don't buy the argument that Bennett couldn't stop himself from hitting Compher. I'm not saying he should have, but there were options beyond following through with a massive hit. IMO and easy for me to say since I've never played at that kind of pace and skill.

[Hockeyguy15]

I think you're unfairly assuming that this hit was to 'hurt' rather than separate player from puck.

Players are fast, there is no obstruction anymore so they don't get slowed down. Faster player + bigger player = bigger hits.

Again, I don't know how you can remove a hit like this without removing all hitting. This wasn't an open ice hit, this wasn't a charge, it was 100% legal. Unless you can tell me what rule you would impliment to remove this hit and keep other hits?

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I personally don't buy the argument that Bennett couldn't stop himself from hitting Compher. I'm not saying he should have, but there were options beyond following through with a massive hit. IMO and easy for me to say since I've never played at that kind of pace and skill.

Bennett is a stick length away from Compher when he starts to get rid of it. Bennett already has his feet planted and is bracing himself for the hit. At that speed there is zero chance he can bail out.

If you expect players to bail out that close you are going to see a lot more blown out knees from accidental knee on knee hits.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Do tell.

FWIW, one of the reasons sometimes given on why the Lady Byng Trophy exists is that the Lady Byng was dismayed by how violent hockey was, and wanted to encourage more sporting/gentlemanly play. That dates back to the 1920s. Hockey was, in fact, a rough, brutal sport in those days. Also, guys like Black Jack Stewart (a star defenceman of the 30s and 40s) earned their nicknames as a result of how violent they were.

The post war years - where hard, bitter men came back from the front lines and returned to the NHL - saw the rise of the enforcer. But, the peak came in the 70s as the massive talent dilution of major league hockey's expansion from six teams in 1966 to 28 by 1972 resulted in a lot of players who had no other skills suiting up. Especially in the minor leagues where hockey got its Slap Shot reputation.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Back in the days of yore that's exactly what the bodycheck was. It was not used as an aggressive or intimidating play (from what I understand) until the 50's/60's. The Broad Street Bullies then took it to the next level, and everyone followed suit. Hockey evolved into Don Cherry rock em sock em, and the question being raised is "Has it gone too far"? It would appear the league is saying yes (in MOST instances, because we all know what the wheel of inconsistent justice is doing these days).

If by days of yore you mean the 30s-40s, maybe that's correct on checking. They didn't wear helmets, players were smaller and slower and there were no slapshots. But there was a ton of stickwork, fighting, and other dirty plays. Look at Lindsay and Richard.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Bennett is a stick length away from Compher when he starts to get rid of it. Bennett already has his feet planted and is bracing himself for the hit. At that speed there is zero chance he can bail out.

If you expect players to bail out that close you are going to see a lot more blown out knees from accidental knee on knee hits.

I see a difference between bailing out and following through. But like I said, I'm not suggesting that's what he needed to do. If Compher hangs onto the puck, the result of the hit is the same.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I see a difference between bailing out and following through. But like I said, I'm not suggesting that's what he needed to do. If Compher hangs onto the puck, the result of the hit is the same.

Maybe you can try and explain what you mean differently because I'm not sure what you mean?

You wanted him to hit him but less hard?

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Maybe a better solution is a bigger ice surface without a change to the hitting rules. I think there would be fewer hits (= fewer traumatic brain injuries) especially as you get to younger leagues with slower non-professionals, but you wouldn't be redefining a hit.

Whoever would wanna fund that throughout North America, though.

I think this is a decent idea, which has been discussed for years.

They could do a trial in Ottawa, eliminate a few rows to increase their sellout percentage at the same time.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Bennett is a stick length away from Compher when he starts to get rid of it. Bennett already has his feet planted and is bracing himself for the hit. At that speed there is zero chance he can bail out.

If you expect players to bail out that close you are going to see a lot more blown out knees from accidental knee on knee hits.

That's not what I'm saying. The "big hit mentality", should you want these types of hits removed and players protected, has to be changed.

In this instance players wouldn't even be looking to hit anyone, and are more concerned with where the puck is going.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

That's not what I'm saying. The "big hit mentality", should you want these types of hits removed and players protected, has to be changed.

In this instance players wouldn't even be looking to hit anyone, and are more concerned with where the puck is going.

But then in what situations is a hit allowed? How do you define a "big hit"?

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If by days of yore you mean the 30s-40s, maybe that's correct on checking. They didn't wear helmets, players were smaller and slower and there were no slapshots. But there was a ton of stickwork, fighting, and other dirty plays. Look at Lindsay and Richard.

Sure. But we're not talking about stick work. We are talking about the bodycheck. I'd like to know what it was originally intended for. Intimidation? Retribution? Change of momentum? Or to simply separate player from puck.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

But then in what situations is a hit allowed? How do you define a "big hit"?

And that is EXACTLY the crux.

Big, strong player separates small weak player from puck, and it results in a massive collision. With the size difference small player is injured.

I don't know how (or if) you can regulate that or prove intent.

But it's still a discussion, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Maybe you can try and explain what you mean differently because I'm not sure what you mean?

You wanted him to hit him but less hard?

Yeah, let up so Bennett takes most of the impact, flips upside down and throws his own head into the ice. Or dodge him and runs into the glass full speed.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Yeah, let up so Bennett takes most of the impact, flips upside down and throws his own head into the ice. Or dodge him and runs into the glass full speed.

You are still totally missing the point.

Players (not just Bennett) in this situation wouldn't even be looking to hit anyone, because the game has evolved away from the big hit mentality. They wouldn't be lining guys up in the first place.

Should you want to totally (or more so) remove head injuries, that's where the game is going.

[Scroopy Noopers]

I’m not missing any points here.

I don’t think the “big hit mentality” is the main cause. The game is faster than it has ever been which has resulted in hits being significantly more violent.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

And that is EXACTLY the crux.

Big, strong player separates small weak player from puck, and it results in a massive collision. With the size difference small player is injured.

I don't know how (or if) you can regulate that or prove intent.

But it's still a discussion, and there is nothing wrong with that.

See but you are saying you aren't for or against removing big hits. I was asking Strange Brew his thoughts as he said there is a difference between bailing out and following through.

In my mind you can't take a hit like this out of the game unless you take out all hitting. Basically the only way to remove hits like this is say you can't hit anyone travelling a different direction than you, and you are left with players being rubbed out along the boards.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I'll wade back in as it seems like folks objected to me bowing out which wasn't my intent.

I think the Sam check is an important part of the conversation as it really pushes to think about what checking is now and what it should be. And the ramifications of evolving the game.

For me, a lot of what I want to do is simply provoke that conversation. How far should the sport re-define the concept of body checking with what we now know about concussions. A hit like this, is not illegal at all, so it provides an important example to debate. The stuff that is way over the line is easier, as the debate is more about how to eliminate that stuff. The stuff that is in the squishy middle is hard.

My view is that concepts like "finishing your check" need to be removed. That the entire sense that intimidation and violence is part of the game, is what needs to shift.

How you go about doing that though is very hard. What would this check have looked like if Sam had just intended to do enough to take the puck? I don't know for sure, but those are the questions I'm interested in posing and discussing.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I'll wade back in as it seems like folks objected to me bowing out which wasn't my intent.

I think the Sam check is an important part of the conversation as it really pushes to think about what checking is now and what it should be. And the ramifications of evolving the game.

For me, a lot of what I want to do is simply provoke that conversation. How far should the sport re-define the concept of body checking with what we now know about concussions. A hit like this, is not illegal at all, so it provides an important example to debate. The stuff that is way over the line is easier, as the debate is more about how to eliminate that stuff. The stuff that is in the squishy middle is hard.

My view is that concepts like "finishing your check" need to be removed. That the entire sense that intimidation and violence is part of the game, is what needs to shift.

How you go about doing that though is very hard. What would this check have looked like if Sam had just intended to do enough to take the puck? I don't know for sure, but those are the questions I'm interested in posing and discussing.

Anyone who thinks the Sam Bennett on Compher hit needs to be removed from hockey needs to find a new sport to watch...