From the Pressbox

Simple, "keep your head up!"

Head hits are certainly an issue in this 'new NHL', and I agree with the previous poster that the crackdown on hooking & interference has led to more violent hits due to the increased speed in the game. This is exactly why a checking to the head rule is necessary. Some of the hits this year may not have run afoul of the current rules (although I think charging could have been called on several of them), but certainly were dangerous nonetheless and seem to reflect an erosion of the respect players have for each other.

For what it's worth though, I'm not sure this particular Armstrong hit falls into this category...it wasn't a blow to the head and Armstrong didn't run at Eaves or leave his feet. And as this post points out, Armstrong didn't even deliver a blow to the head. Sometimes clean hits cause injury, and that will never change.

I totally agree with Steve from Whitehorse. This issue is, and has been since Drury cameback, a dead horse. The game is fast, the players are big, and if you run around with your head buried you're gonna get it knocked off. Eaves had his head down and Armstrong hit him like he would anyone else. If Eaves could play game 4, he wouldn't make the same mistake twice.

Players are freer to move with less clutching and grabbing, but thats not the reason for more concussions. The reason is that since anyone actually considered a concussion an actual injury, and not calling it getting yer bell rung, the game has gotten a lot quicker, and the players a little bigger. There have always been concussions in hockey, just as there are in football, rugby, and perhaps even the odd time in soccer and baseball. ITS A PART OF THE GAME.

Hitting is hard in the NHL, especially in the playoffs. Keep your head up or its comin off. If you don't like it, I hear that the Swedish Ice Dance Federation is holding open auditions.

the hit looked bad but that is hockey .what they need to do is get the hitting from behind out of the game and kneeing which was both done by the sens .but know one talks about this this is what is wrong with the sport.they only talk about it when some one gets hurt .and that is so sad .

I love hard core hockey, unfortunately this frequently results in injuries. When is there going to be mandate from the league to equipment manufacturer's to make a more impact absorbing helmet. While this will not cure the ills of the rogue players who attempt to injure it should help to reduce the time lost to playing and quality of life these players endure while recovering. Also is there really a need for two referees in the game? I continually see poorly officiated games. Why can't we use an official in the pressbox who has a much better view of the overall action? Given todays technology this shouldn't be too difficult to implement. Lastly I hope the league will do away with the current scheduling, enough of playing conference games. Is it a wonderr the Sabres have the best overall record, if you played the weak teams they do you'd be expected to be at the top of the standings as well. We'll see.

why don't we discuss limiting the body armor under their sweaters, as we have limited stick curves and goalie pad sizes. That way players can hit all they want, but they will not be able to barrel over other players with the same ferocity

Force=mass x acc. If you come from around the blue line and accelerate to hit another player doing such thing as a wrap-around (net obstructing said player's visibility as well), the outcome can't be good for the wrapper. Armstrong knew this. Being yound, impetuous and wanting to prove himself, he did not apply measured 'Force' given the situation. This was a bad hit and the fact that he was not called for it shows that the Refs severely lack in judgement. The sad thing as well is that, given the lack of concerns expressed by the CBC commentators, coaches, etc; hardly any lessons will be learned out of this event which could have been devastating for this young player. Elliot: The height of the individual had nothing to do with where he was hit given the extension and the lowering of the upper body he had to adopt to effect the wrap-around. Good excuse but it is not good physics!

Elliotte, I totally agree with hockey experts, such as Don Cherry, who advise that the players have got to learn to keep their heads up. However, this hit was different. I usually agree with Don Cherry but he is so wrong this time. Look at the play again. Eaves was being checked from behind and his lower back was pushed and held down--and not lightly. Role play this out with someone and and see if you would not instinctively use your head for leverage to try and get up and out of that hold. I am not saying that Armstrong did this on purpose however, Patrick was NOT to blame either. It wasn't as if he was skating around choosing to skate with his head down and just not watching--he was being forced down by a check from behind. He was PUT in that position to be hit by Armstrong. If I just listened to you and Don Cherry and relied solely on your reporting capabilities, I would never know that someone was even behind Eaves and physically on him and I would have thought Patrick was skating head down foolishly. Shame on your poor reporting skills. You did not present a clear picture. I am glad that I saw the game myself. I could also see that Armstrong had a clear view of the hit from behind and knew that Eaves was not in a position to control his body position. What happened to Eaves is no different than someone being held back by one person so he can be punched in the face by another. I agree with Greg who wrote this in his comment about Armstrong's appearance of remorse "but when he has already done it twice this year, he can't be too concerned, more worried for his own safety I would think.

The guy runs goalies on a regular basis, so it may be that he was thinking about the growing number of players who will not let up when they have him lined up for a huge hit."

Watch out Armstrong!!! If not in this series, another one. Get the stretcher ready.

If you're saying, "why worry about 'accidental' hits to the head, these guys know the rules when they sign up", then why worry about any rules at all? I'm just waiting for a sport that specifically allows doping. Maybe rugby on drugs. Nothing better than watching guys jacked up on steroids running around bashing the heck out of each other.

Seriously though, if the goal of hockey is to see a lot of fast action with a few solid hits and a few good goals, then design the rules to fit that. In this case, it means adding a rule similar to Hockey Canada's checking to the head.

And by the way, I love the new rules. I don't know about the goal scoring, but most games are far more exciting with, in general, a lot more skating time between whistles.

I believe that the league does not have to impose new rules with shoots to the head. Players simply have to show respect for each other. It appears to me that respect is absent and that players just have to regain it back again with regards to that it might be their teammate or opposing player might be the one seriously hurt and thats something we do not want to see as a fan. Its fine to play tough but play fair. Also, the equipment has to be downsized and manufactured more like it was in the 80's. It was small, protective and appeared to work as well or better than today's gear. Lets not forget that these players are fathers, family men, role models and humans, I am sure that nobody wants to see anyone hurt. Finally bring in the enforcer rule because the players today who are "tough" would never be 10 years ago, espicially whne they have to deal with a BoB Probert or Joey Kocur.

"Should be bodychecks to the head be penalized?" That was the question posted as a poll on TSN.ca. Let's looke at the main word in that question, bodycheck. A bodycheck is a clean, hard hit, which has always been a part of the game, which normally involves the shoulder. At the beginning of the season it sounded like the league wanted to outlaw hits the head, not bodychecks specifically, and this I agree with. If a player leads the hit with his arms head level with his opponent, or leads with his stick at head level, then by all means, call a five minute major and a game misconduct. But, if it is a clean, bodycheck, which the shoulders, nothing more, nothing less, than there should be no penalty what so ever. Concussions are part of the game, and I do feel for Mr. Armstrong for feeling absolutely devastated by wha he did to Eaves, but it was a clean shoulder check, which is part of the game. Concussions do happen, how they happen varies, but the same result comes out of them, the league wants to penalize something that has been part of the game since the beginning. I have been worried since the first time that this discussion came around that the league wanted to make sure that the NHL, stood for, "No Hit League", something that the fans, and I'm sure the players don't want. Bodychecks are part of the game, and concussions are going to happen, whether we like it or not.

The size of the players does have a major role in the concussion department, we see a lot of the smaller players heads line up perfectly with the bigger enforcers' shoulders. However, even the smaller guys know that bodychecks are part of the game, and it's up to them to make sure that they don't suffer the same fate as Eaves and the many before him. Even before they make it to the NHL, every single player knows what to expect, fast paced action, and fast paced action, means fast, hard hitting checking, and with that, comes risks of becoming a star in the NHL.

The issue is still complicated by the fact that almost none of the players wear the helmet properly with the chin strap taut. Any dangerous job is made significantly more dangerous by not wearing the proper personel protection equipment.

"Just a note, the sport of auto racing is very dangerous, usually someone dies every year from accidents but do we here that there should be a debate over the speed and maybe there should be a reduction in the speed to make everyone safer?"

Erm, in the 1960's and erly 1970's there where a lot more injuries and deaths in auto racing than there are today. Since then pretty much every pro series has introduced numerous safety measures (including limiting the speed of cars through technical regulations and track design). Most of these innovations are based on what auto racing has LEARNED from past injuries and fatalities.

I don't think the NHL should change the rule book every time someone gets hurt, but head injuries are a real problem in the leauge right now. I have no interest in seeing NHLers ending up 'punch drunk' like boxers. I don't think an incidental blow to the head should be an automatic penalty (for one thing we'll start seeing some players going in head first looking to draw the power play) but there has to be more research from the leauge and the NHLPA into how they can cut the number of concussions down in pro hockey.

I'm not an expert on hockey, but I love watching it. I saw the hit that Armstrong gave Eaves and I agree on what Kevin wrote on his comment. Now if that is true that these players like Armstrong and Neil being paid to hit and hurt other players to give their team advantage then that is not PROFESSIONAL hockey! That shouldn't be allowed. As John Garret said on hockey panel Armstrong have this pattern of hitting players. Well, shame on you Armstrong!

love you on the "ONLINE" show elliotte! My wife says that youre a WEB BABE!

If you like Ottawa it was dirty. If not it wasn't. The Hit on Eaves by Armstrong was hard, but clean. Like when Pat Quinn hit Bobby Orr, or Eddie Shore hit Ace Bailey. All will be debated, all are part of the game.
Now , what about the one by Shubert on Scuderi? The was clearly Illegal. Let the debate continue!

If it's unfair, it should be a penalty. If it's dangerous, it should be a penalty. Does no one get the point until someone gets a concussion? I like a good fight and a good hit, but not I never like to see someone out cold on the ice.

I found it quite ironic that Chris Neil criticized Armstrong for a "late hit". This coming from the chief head hunter from the Senators.

I agree with Robert Slaven. Hockey Canada also makes it clear that it is up to the player delivering the hit to make sure he does not hit the head. If you are taller, you have to be careful when hitting. If you hit someone in the head, sit for 2+10 or 5+GM and take your medicine. I tell kids I coach its ok if you get a penalty for playing hard. That happens. Its not Ok to get a penalty for a stupid play (not skating, retaliation, intent to injure, etc.)

Head shots should be penalized regardless if it is incidental or intended.

Who cares if this results in the loss of "clean hits" of the type that laid out Patrick Eaves.

These types of hits rarley result in anything other than a negative such as a scrum, penalty, fight and or instigating penalty. Rarely if ever do these type of hits result in continous play and or a goal.

So why keep them in the game? Penalize the hell out of any head shot.

I agree with a few things said here. Firstly about the press rehashing this. Too right! Give it up! We watch the game to see the pace, the action and yes the hitting. No fan really want's to see players get hurt which leads to the other points. Set the rules for head hits like stick cutting hits; automatic regardless of how it happens. Fair or unfair it would force players to be more consciuos(pun intended) of how they hit. With a stiff enough penalty (5 and a game?) it would reduce the head injuries and/or create more power plays. Players would get used to it just like they have with the high sticking. Despite the fact they get paid a lot they deserve to be protected as much as a full contact sport can allow. A simplistic solution perhaps but one that I think would work.

First of all, "Kalcon" you obviously don't even like hockey. Do you know what "no fighting, no checking, no slap shots" would do to the game??? It would be BORING! I certainly wouldn't put all Saturday night plans on hold until the off-season if I was watching hockey with "no fighting, no checking, no slap shots". I might as well watch curling (I can admit that curling can be fun to watch sometimes - national pride and all - but I don't see a regularly scheduled "Curling night in Canada" anywhere in the near future). Or I could just go hang out at the local rink and watch a recreational game… yawn.

I don’t think anyone should be penalized because of their size, However, a shot to the head is a shot do the head and it can seriously injure someone. And since a person is generally the same size everyday, they should be aware of how big they are and how they’ll hit the other players. Accidents can happen, but the players spend hours studying the other team's players and stats and are well aware of just how big everyone else is as well. It’s a dangerous game, but players know it’s a dangerous game – that’s why we pay them and that’s why the majority of us love watching them. If your stick accidentally rides up and cuts a guy’s face you are penalized – regardless of your intent to injure or whether it was an accident or not. If a guy on the opposing team takes another guy out of the game completely by running him, the least they can do is give up a 2-minute penalty, one team is still out a guy – the opposing team will only be handicapped for 2 minutes. Barely a fair trade, but fair enough.

I love seeing good clean body checks, but I don't think head shots were ever intended to be part of the game.A headshot is synonomous to deliberately intending to injure another player. Rule 43a addresses this but the refs and the league do not enforce it.

On the surface I have to agree that Colby Armstrong's hit on Patrick Eaves doesn't seem like a "dirty" hit...although one replay did show he came in there like a freight train..you have to know to hit catch someone flush with speed with that you are going to hurt him.
But I think the REAL issue on the cause of Eaves's injury is mostly being ignored. It is mostly ignored because it is hidden..and that is Armstrong's shoulder pad. One of you media guys should go to his locker before tomorrow's game and check it out. I will bet dollars to donuts that it has a hard plastic cap on top....(and maybe still has an impression of Patrick Eaves face there too.) This is what is causing shoulder to head injuries, this rock hard plastic shoulder pad..and I dont understand why the NHL doesn't do something about it. If a player lowered his head and drove into another players face with his helmet, you would expect him to get hurt wouldn't you? Same thing here..same hard plastic. The only thing is, its covered by a jersey, so the visual is not the same. Don Cherry has been preaching and begging the NHL to ban these hard cap shoulder pads and elbows pads for years, but they do nothing ...and the injuries pile up. Of course a player probably wouldn't drive into another's face with his helmet, because he knows he might risk a neck injury, but a shoulder..why not! The players these days wear equipment that is like body armour ..the effect is makes them feel invincible...why not plough into anything you see at full speed. The NHL is so quick to make rules that limit the size of goalie equipment so there are more goals scored, but wont make changes to limit head injuries.. I just don't get it!

This is a tough call either way, it's hard for anyone to see someone be injured like that because it could have been anybody on the ice laying down there.....yes I'm sure Armstrong did feel bad, these guys do have a ton of respect for one another and don't want to see one of their coleagues get injured. But this is a contact sport, and just like it was said before, you can't punish someone for being taller or stronger than the next guy. Also whos to say it isn't sometimes the victims fault it was a head shot, if the guy has his head down or tries to duck out at the last second it is impossible to change your decision to hit that guy with only a half a second to think. This kind of rule would be also impossible to call and monitor, when its obvious that it was intentful then yes call it, but that isnt always the case. When there are 10 guys skating at that kind of speed on a sheet of ice....these things are bound to happen.

Don Cherry put the right twist on the problem, today's equipment. Elbow and shoulder pads that are not padding but rock hard, and potential weapons when used on an opponent. Maybe you should replay some of the segments from Coaches Corner that Don and Ron did on equipment. Some of our woes with Minor Hockey are directly related to equipment. Today's kids are encased in armour.

i completely disagree w/ Randy's comments. it was a clean hit. eaves was bent over and had his head down.

maybe they should penalize players for putting their heads down!

The research is still being done but early results seem to be indicating that "hits to the head" can cause long term problems, especially in younger players.

If there is a problem, then it will need to be controlled. No parent will want to take a risk with their kid's long term health for the sake of a game.

Currently there is little control of "hits to the head" in minor hockey. In Peewee, for exmple, you can have kids less than 5 feet tall playing kids as tall as 6 feet or more. A lot of the contact is deemed natural, accidental, or the result of a "clean hit."

If there is a problem with long term damage then "hits to the head" will have to be strictly controlled in younger players and in older players as well.

We teach our Pee Wees' to skate with their heads up. Apparently this guy never learned. I'll bet he does from this point on!

Bottom line, hockey is a rough sport requiring skill, mental and physical toughness not to mention a laundry-list of other attributes. A player's physical stature matters to a small degree. However, a player's awareness of his surroundings aids in his keeping his head attached to his shoulders. Malkin, for example, is a Penguin who, through the course of the season, has almost gotten into violent collisions because he tends to skate with his head down. When you are the puck carrier, you need to be accutely aware that people are coming after you and it ratches up a notch in the playoffs. Most agree Armstrong's hit was clean, which is not to take away from Eaves inury. However, the officials in the 3 previous Sens/Pens games have left questionable hits in the back go on both sides. With all of that being said, the players and on-ice officials need to adhere to the regulations that have been put in to protect players.

There was nothing wrong with the hit Colby Armstrong laid on Patrick Eaves. Colby Armstrong made a smart play by trying to cutting off Patrick Eaves before he got to the net. There was no attempt to injure, rather, there was an honest attempt to dislodge Eaves from the puck so that he could not score.

As the puck carrier, Eaves ought to have expected a hit coming, but for some reason he chose to lower his head and try a wraparound. Smart hockey players know that you have to look after yourself and take your own safety seriously. That means recognizing that when you're the puck carrier, you're a legitimate target for a bodycheck, and you need to be aware of your opponents location. You can't do that by gazing at your skate laces and hoping for the best.

And you certainly can't blame Armstrong for hitting a guy who "wasn't looking". Just because Eaves had his head down, or to the side, doesn't give him the right to waltz out in front of the Pittsburgh goal and expect to be left alone.

Here's a thought. Take the bullit proof shoulder/elbow pads the players are wearing now away from them. This would make it a lot easier to take one in the face in my opinion. Might make a guy think twice about ramming his shoulder into a speeding players helmet if he thought it might hurt a little as well. Also might open up a shooting lane or two if it could actually hurt to take a shot in the chest or arm. Instead of lying down in front of anything coming in from the point.

Just a thought

Should Eaves had had his head up. Yes. But ... Over the last couple of decades, NFL football (yes football) has instituted several rules to protect the players (i.e. assets) - especially with regards head injuries. This is a sport where collisions are more integral to the game than hockey! Significant game impacting on-field penalties and automatic fines are handed out. Have these rules been successful in reducing injury? Largely yes. Do you hear the football community complaining that their sport is for sissies? No!!! The NHL will still be a very tough league with lots of hitting - 99% of the hits will still be entirely legal. But it will finally get hockey out of the 19th century mentality of what doesn't kill you makes you tougher (just talk to Pat Lafontaine, Mike Richter, Brett Lindros, Jeff Beukeboom and Keith Primeau.)

I totally disagree....the NHL has a whole fist full of "automatic" penalities. If you draw blood with a high stick, the gate is open for you. Why should this be any different. The player is responsible, not only for wher his stick is, but also where his body is. A concussion is a serious injury, sometimes even career ending. Let the penalty fit the infraction.

Why doesn’t the NHL just institute recreation hockey league rules? No fighting, no checking, no slapshots; and then the injuries would be reduced to an acceptable level.
What the hell is the matter with everyone? This is professional hockey we're taking about here people!! They get paid millions of dollars to play a game the rest of have to pay to play. They know what’s at stake when the sign their fat contracts.
Its funny how all this 'head shot' debate has come to fruition since the NHL instituted their new rules. Everyone agrees the players are bigger, stronger, and faster than ever, so why introduce rules which make it easier for them to inflict harm on each other? It’s not that the players have less respect for each other, it’s because they are free to do so. I think the league has brought these incidents on itself. They totally abolish the hooking, holding, clutching and grabbing so players can skate more freely and unimpeded in order to produce more scoring. This also makes them freer to hit! The scoring hasn’t increased much from the new rules, but the head shots and concussions sure have!

The idea that there's "No Intent To Injure" when someone hits a player that's not looking is ridiculous. Why then would you hit someone and nearly break their necks? Players like Colby Armstrong and Chris Neil are paid to purposefully hit other players and hurt them to give their teams an advantage. Your comment about Colby Armstrong being devistated about seeing Patrick Eaves being taken off the ice is garbage. He should learn to either be a stone cold fool like Claude Lemieux and have a long career being one or grow up and play the game with sportsmanship because no-one cares wether Colby Armstrong feels bad... except you Elliot.

I still think that the NHL should adopt a "checking to the head" rule similar to that of Hockey Canada. Yes, as a referee I've assessed penalties for hits that otherwise would be "clean hits". On the one hand, you can say it's not fair to the taller guy who dishes out the hit. On the other hand, the existence and enforcement of the rule is making EVERYONE in the game far more aware and conscious (no pun intended) of the dangers of concussions.

The Hockey Canada rule provides for two possible penalties: a minor plus a misconduct (2 + 10), or a major plus a game misconduct. Perhaps the NHL could go with a double minor or major plus game misconduct, as with their rules for butt-ending or spearing.

Incidental contact by the stick to the face is a penalty most of the time, so there is no particular reason that an intentional shoulder to the head should be exempt.

I imagine Armstrong might be mildly bothered about the injury, but when he has already done it twice this year, he can't be too concerned, more worried for his own safety I would think.

The guy runs goalies on a regular basis, so it may be that he was thinking about the growing number of players who will not let up when they have him lined up for a huge hit.

Enough already with the re-ignite stuff. There should be no debate, This is a dangerous sport and everyone involved knows the risk when they play. These are grown adults capable of making their own decision on whether or not they are willing to participate. The only debate we should be having is limiting the press to discussing an issue ONCE. And not dragging up issues over and over again. Just a note, the sport of auto racing is very dangerous, usually someone dies every year from accidents but do we here that there should be a debate over the speed and maybe there should be a reduction in the speed to make everyone safer? Yes it would be tragic to see anyone be fatally injured but that is the nature of the sport and there is risk involved. But to keep trudging up the same issue every time we see a "good, clean" Check is getting a bit tiring. That is why the first rule one the ice is to "keep your head up"