Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Raiders' GM Begins The Purge

Targeting Injured Players Hurts Everyone (But it Hurts the Injured Player Most of All)

One of the fine bloggers over at Nucks Misconduct recently noted that Jonathan Toews may be suffering from a shoulder injury, and suggested that "the Canucks should be running him more, much like they did to Al MacInnis a few years back."

To target an injured player in hopes of aggravating their injury and rendering them ineffective (or removing them from the game entirely) is not unheard of in the NHL or other contact sports -- in fact, it's a commonplace tactic that is tacitly encouraged -- but it still strikes me as inherently irresponsible and unsportsmanlike.

Admittedly, there are those whose opinion on the matter differ -- I'll assume this group likely includes Bobby Clarke and John Ferguson, who don't even think that deliberately injuring a healthy opponent with a cheap shot is inappropriate. Most hockey fans, however, will admit that if Brooks Orpik were to lay a two-handed slash on Alexander Ovechkin's ankle, that would be dirty and unacceptable in hockey, even if it would work well in the Penguin's favour. So why is trying to target a known injury in hopes of removing that player acceptable?

It's a curiously thin line to be drawn: what's the difference between attempting to injure an opponent with a dirty play to gain an advantage, and attempting to capitalize on an existing injury and aggravate it with otherwise "clean" hits for the same reason? In my opinion, there isn't much: even though the means are slightly different, the anticipated end is the same.  Someone else doing the groundwork does not give you the right to exploit the injury to reap the benefits. In other words, just because someone robs a lady and then drops her purse at your feet, it doesn't give you the right to keep the money inside of it simply because you weren't the one who mugged her.

I seem to be in the minority with this opinion. Most sports fans seem to see existing injuries as an ethical loophole, a get-out-of-jail free card that allows them to render an opposing threat useless because their plays to further injure that player appear clean.

Now, we know that if Orpik really did pull a Clarke on Ovechkin, he'd be thrown out of the game and then suspended. But if the Canucks players repeatedly work Toews with an unusually large number of punishing body checks and rough stuff after whistles -- even if they are "clean" -- should these plays be penalized?

Interestingly, the NHL Rulebook seems to suggest that they should, regardless of if Toews actually sustains a game-removing injury. Looking to the wording of a Match Penalty (Rule 21):

A match penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who deliberately attempts to injure an opponent in any manner.

As you can see, it's deliberately attempting to injure an opponent in any manner. Let's face it, if in Game 3 Jonathan Toews is hit twice as often as he normally is, then half of those hits likely have an intent to injure, whether they are clean or not. Not all injury attempts are slashes to ankles or hits to the head -- some are seemingly normal hockey plays where you are honing in on the Achilles' heel of an opponent, hoping that his currently somewhat-useful shoulder will become a somewhat-useless one. Which is, for the record, an injury, even if you try to sugarcoat it as an existing one.

I'm not stating that all players who hit injured players should be given match penalties, because that is absurd and hardly a palatable solution. Nor am I suggesting that teams give the injured player a "free ride" and avoid hitting him, because hockey is obviously a contact sport where physical play is necessary. What I am suggesting, though, is that fans (and coaches) of teams like the Canucks should not be advocating for further injury, and the team should handle an injured player the same way they would even if they did not suspect he had an injury. Hit the player as often as you normally would, no more and no less: his injury should simply not be a factor in the equation. Earn the Cup through your team's skill and determination rather than another team's pain and misfortune. As important as winning is in sport -- and it certainly is -- health and integrity are even more valuable.

Comment 11 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Deen there, didn't do that

I agree with you. I was seventeen and remember my coach telling me to take a hit on an injured player whenever the opportunity presented itself; even if I would be out of position, I should still “go with the hit.” I refused to do either; my partner counted on me to be in position and I felt it was dishonorable to run somebody just because he was already hurt.
When I told my dad what my coach said, my dad said that “Real men are never bullies.”

I don’t believe in pulling punches; if I have a hit to take, I will take it regardless of how bruised or battered you may be. But any team or player that encourages poor play just to hurt someone even more needs to rethink its game strategy.

by russellguldin on May 5, 2009 9:25 AM EDT reply actions  

It's "*Been* There...

Sorry for my lack of editing. My students would enjoy that faux pas too much.

by russellguldin on May 5, 2009 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

I agree; specially targeting an injured player because you think he’s vulnerable is dishonourable, and when teams do so it’s as if they’re saying they can’t win except by taking liberties.

It’s further complicated, though, by the argument that an injured player who continues playing is putting himself in an especially vulnerable position.

by Peter Raaymakers on May 5, 2009 11:09 AM EDT reply actions  

I agree that he’s putting himself in a vulnerable position. But it’s the damn playoffs, and everyone would be pissed off at him for not playing and would be ridiculing him.

If the injured player gets hurt through the normal course of hockey, then so be it. It’s a shame, but that’s what often happens in hockey. But if he gets injured because the other team deliberately targeted him in hopes of that result… I’d argue that’s different.

by DarrenM on May 5, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

If he plays injured then the player and team are taking a risk. You can’t count on the opposition to play nice, you should not expect the opposition to be nice because you are taking a risk on playing injured.

If you are playing to win, you do as russel mentions in his first post: Play your game solidly, don’t go out of your way to injure, but you never pull your checks on that player. If the opposing team is getting a free ride on their risk you are failing at your own game strategy.

by rsm on May 5, 2009 6:14 PM EDT reply actions  

I’m not advocating for a free ride – I explicitly mention that you shouldn’t do so in the last paragraph of the piece. If a player is playing with an injury, he should be treated like he normally is, because it is his choice to play injured. Go ahead and hit them. All I’m saying is that you shouldn’t be giving them extra punishment because they are injured (with the hope of injuring them further).

So basically, we agree.

by DarrenM on May 5, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree too and I’d hate to see any Clarke behavior in today’s hockey. But I think from a historical perspective there was real hate for the Russians. Clarke was certainly dirty/physical in Philly, but using a Cold War perspective I find it more excusable than if he were advocating that type of thing today in the NHL.

by cavicsux on May 5, 2009 7:00 PM EDT reply actions  

Oh, that makes sense.

Xenophobia and widespread fearmongering is an excuse to injure players? Well, I’ll be.

So it’s okay for me to point at every Muslim I see and call him a terrorist, right? If I’m using a “war on terror” perspective it’s excusable, right?

NOW STOP IT RIGHT HERE

by mjthor on May 6, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Only if the terrorist is named Martin Havlat

or Dustin Al-Byfuglien :-)

I remember several years ago the Canucks were playing the Red Wings in the playoffs, and Steve Yzerman’s knee was hanging on by a thread. I was shocked that no one seemed to hit him, even when he had the puck. Not that I really wanted to see one of the all-time greats get seriously injured, but for cryin out loud it was obvious he was playing on one knee!

Perhaps it speaks to sadism in my personality, but when opposing players get injured, I’m pleased that they will no longer be able to help their club defeat the Canucks. Is it just me, or isn’t that normal? Does it even matter if the player is injured in the first place?

by Temujin on May 6, 2009 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not everyone will admit it; but yes, that's normal.

If an opposing player tragically dies or something along those lines — hell no I’m not pleased. But if they tear a tear a ligament or break a bone while playing a sport? Oh, please, allow me to express my deepest condolences for your temporary disfigurement, athlete who makes millions of dollars to play a game. If the injury takes place as a result of “normal” gameplay and not a cheapshot or anything like that, then yes I will inwardly feel relieved. As a Bulls (NBA) fan, I was thrilled that Kevin Garnett was injured for their series against the Celtics (that and I have very little sympathy for Kevin “Thuglife” Garnett, but that’s an entirely different story).

I think it’s natural to exploit an injury or a weakness, but trying to take a player out of a game by trying to worsen an injury is a different story. If I’m playing a game of 1-on-1 basketball against you and I know you’re recovering from a sprain in your left ankle, you better believe I’m going to your left almost every time. And just the same, if I know your D-men are slow and my forwards are fast and hit hard, you better believe I’m going to have my team dump-n-crash a lot — there’s no difference.

However, changing my style of play to purposely injure someone — previous injury or not — is still playing with the intent to injure someone. Sure, I’ll exploit the hell out of your sprained ankle which renders you slower than normal, but I’m not going to slash at it every chance I get in an attempt to re-injure it. That’s bullshit.

My philosophy? Just play the game. Yes, an injured player is taking a risk by playing, and if he worsens that injury during the course of regular gameplay, so be it. But it’s not the job of opposing players to make sure he worsens that injury. As the great Ivan Drago once said, “If he dies; he dies.”

NOW STOP IT RIGHT HERE

by mjthor on May 6, 2009 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Great another person that wants a wimpy NHL! Or you getting OLD and turning into a Fart!

by Woodn on May 8, 2009 1:27 AM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The unofficial Ottawa Senators blog

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Img_5710_small
Silver Seven group outing - March 10 against Buffalo Sabres
Small
Senators at the Deadline, my thoughts
Bosch_small
Big Rig 1000
Small
Leafs Taking over Sens Scotiabank Place
Small
On rumour saying that Sens targeting Ruutu of Hurricanes
Bosch_small
If you were team president...
Small
Sens Deadline Talk
Small
Centers and Defence
Small
Sens of Fairness
Small
Sens should go after Lightning's LW Ryan Malone

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Heritage_small Peter Raaymakers

Hutz_small DarrenM

Editors

Sens_small Mark Parisi

Sens-suicidebooth_small Ryan Classic

Karlssonpoint_small Adnan

Authors

Small DaveYoung

Small Varada

Bobby__small bobbykelly