Tyler Myers - Notre Dame Hound, Buffalo Sabre, Dirty Player?

Just a quick post this time readers!

Monday night this week, Tyler Myers of the Buffalo Sabres laid a hit on Montreal's Scott Gomez. He would later receive a suspension from the NHL of 3 games. In Brendan Shanahan's explanation, they took into account that Gomez was injured on the play and that Myers was not a repeat offender and that his 3 seasons in the NHL had passed with out previous incident. This got me thinking again.

Does it really matter if someone is a 'repeat offender'?

Myers Suspension Explanation Video:

Would the NHL seriously consider the fact that someone has never been suspended before if the hit were more serious? or is that just an excuse put forward to reduce the suspension of it's players? Now, i know the NHL wants to protect their players all while giving the fans the experience that brings in the big money, but does that really outweigh player injuries and suspensions? No, I dont believe so.

Having gone to school with Tyler Myers, and seeing him play many home games at the Duncan McNiell arena in Wilcox, SK., I know that Tyler has a difficult time hitting players at a level where the hit is "shoulder-to-shoulder' so to speak, when hes a whopping 6'8". In fact, he received many penalties for head-checking when he simply put his body into another player. However, this is no excuse for the blatant nature of the hit in question.


This brings me back to my main argument. The fact that Myers is not a repeat offender was taken into consideration by the NHL when determining appropriate action for the hit. This is something I dont particularly agree with. The NHL should take each hit as it comes. Determine the Principle Point of Contact (PPOC) and the intent of the hit, and make a ruling form that point. The fact that someone has never done something like this before should not be so heavily taken into consideration. If I were to murder someone, the jury and judge wouldn't stop for a second and say "Well, you know......he's never done anything like this before". Thats just foolish. Although the NHL doesnt have circumstances to deal with as heavy murder, what they do have to police should be taken just as seriously. If a player gets hurt under their organization, they have a responsibility to protect and work to bring justice to the situation. Same goes for if the player isn't hurt, but has still been violated under the rules of the league.

The NHL needs to stop using the 'repeat' offender connotation to reduce the impact and severity of its decisions. This goes both ways however. Even for players who ARE repeat offenders, meaning they have been involved or are continuously involved in this sort of behaviour, they need to have a dedicated ruling imposed on their incidents. If you can label a player 'not a repeat offender' then labeling a player ' a repeat offender' is not fair. How would you ever get rid of that title once you have 'offended'? You cant.

I know the NHL has a job to do, and im not saying im the person whose ideas will change the game, but im rather suggesting that the NHL step back and take a look at itself. When your responsible for 30 teams, with 25+ players, you need to be able to say that they are all protected equally under your rule system. If you can label players as dangerous and not dangerous, then you are doing something wrong.

What are your thoughts and feelings on this topic? Let me know!

Going Green? Gone Home....

Hey fellow readers. Today I have somewhat of a rant to go on and have decided to use the Mike Green incident from last week as my jumping point. The video is below for those of you who are unaware of the situation, so please take a quick look if need be.

Last week, Mike Green of the Washington Capitals, was suspended 3 games by the NHL's department of Player Safety. Green laid what was deemed to be an illegal hit to the head on Tampa Bay's Brett Connolly. Connolly was moving behind the net and had already been entangled with Dmitry Orlov when Green skated in to deliver a clear and blatant blow to the head of the Tampa Bay forward.

Watching this on TV as it happened really got me thinking. Why do players feel it necessary to take that 'enforcer' role to a whole other level? Why do players need to assert their dominance by hitting a player and 'laying them out'? Yes, im all for a physical game, but where is the line drawn? Does it even exist?

Players these days feel the need to reassure their teammates and fans that they can play a physical game. This is often done by cruising for big hits, fighting, and generally being a 'badass' on the ice. When this image is placed upon a player, it generally sticks. The focus then moves from gaining this image, to maintaining this image. The players merit is then judged on this image and any deviation from it results in negativity and general disapproval. In my opinion, this is then where the 'Line' of whats acceptable behaviour becomes faded or non existent.

As a result of Greens hit, he was suspended for 3 games, and as a result will lose more than $85,000+ in lost salary. All for this stupid hit. Orlov had Connolly out of the play and there was no need for Green to make the hit. Grabbing the loose puck in the corner was a viable option, and perhaps one that may have helped the team out more, however as I stated before, the mentality of maintaining his enforcer and aggressive image took over. Pointless and stupid.

So, my question and argument is this people: Why do NHL players feel the need to go out of their way to make big hits and why does that get viewed as positive behaviour? I know teams want their players to play aggressively, but when it comes to injuring players as a result, what the point? Its long been the hockey mentality that putting your body on the line for the team is something to be coveted, but why does injuring another player garner such respect from teammates and fans alike?

As I see it now, hockey is moving into the grey area that usually accompanies change. This is that area where everyone is just waiting around for something to happen and then reacting to it with dramatic or subsequently large change. Yes the NHL is moving towards suspending players for violations and blatant attempts to injure other players, but its only a matter of time before something 'big' happens that really shocks the league and has them reviewing all their policies and protocol with scrutinious resolve. Whether it be a serious and 'career-ending' injury or worse, a death, as a result of a hit, I feel that the NHL is just simply providing a 'band-aid' solution to these problems by handing out 3+ game suspensions to violators to show that they are concerned. I hate to say it, but that's just how I feel.

As always, feel free to leave any thoughts or comments below, and let me know what you guys are thinking. Im always open for a good debate and look forward to hearing reader response. Thanks for reading!

Here's Brendan Shanahan's suspension explanation video for everyone to watch :

Supplemental Discipline Opinion Video!

Hey fellow readers. Today I have a special YouTube video to share with everyone. Its not a particularly long video, but its one that I hope you will all enjoy. Basically I filmed myself in a "rant" style video just giving my thoughts and opinions on some issues facing the NHL these days. I hope you will all take the time to give it a quick look and leave your own thoughts and opinions on the topics and questions I am asking myself. As always, open debate is encouraged and I hope to hear what you have to say!


Supplemental Discipline Opinions Video

Been having some problems with this video on Youtube, but I think ive got everything resolved. It was working for me earlier, so ive got it posted now for everyone to enjoy as a link. It should be enough for you to click and get the the actual video, but I will get the embed up ASAP so it makes it easier for everyone! Let me know what you think! Enjoy!