Incidental hits to head, responsibility in hitting.

Some people out there unfortunately don't understand that head contact can't always be avoided, here are several reasons why an automatic head checking rule would be out of line.

Player A = Hitter Player B = Player being hit

1. Player A and Player B are heading towards each other unknowingly; at the last instant Player A gets his hands/stick/shoulder up and purposefully decks player B in the head out of self defense, knocking him out

Comment: It is human nature to instinctively purposefully get your hands up to protect yourself in this situation, if the other player leaves them self open, it is merely their problem.Responsibly is to player B

2. Player B is set to catch a pass. Player A has player B lined up. As the puck reaches player B he sees player A and misses the puck, either purposefully to draw a call or accidentally because the puck bounced. Player A follows thorugh either A. crushing player B up high because player be tries to duck, or B. gets an interference call.

Comment: Outcome B, an interference call should never be used here, it is player B's responsibility. Outcome A, player B should not try to avoid contact even if he has missed the puck, responsibility is on player B.

3. Player B is waiting for a puck and Player A has player B lined up. At the last moment the puck hops over player B's stick and player A follows through.

Comment: Classic example of this is Kronwall on Havlat, it isn't a penalty, that call was wrong. Responsibility is to no one, it is merely an accident.

4. Player A is alongside Player B racing down the boards. Player B is carrying the puck. Player A goes to hit player B and player B ducks causing Player A to crash violently into the boards or smash player B in the head.

Comment: If a head hit is made in this situation a penalty is not needed, it is player B's fault entirely. If player A crashes violently into the boards it is equally both players fault. A for not being careful, and B for ducking. In this situation no penalty should be called but player B should be subject to the code of hockey and fight as an unwritten rule.

5. Player A is 6'9, player B is 5'4. Player A hits player B.

Comment: The inevitable head hit will occur in this situation. This is probably the most blatant example of why a head checking penalty is unrealistic in the context of hockey.

6. Player A has Player B lined up. At the last moment player B slips and trips. Player A knees or hits player B in the head.

Comment: Accidents happen, you can't punish a guy for nailing a guy in the head this way.

7. Player B and Player A are racing for a puck, as they reach it Player B is first. Player A goes for the puck, however player B stops causing A: Player A blasting player B in the head or into the boards B: Player B blasts player A in the head.

Comment: It happens, neither player is necessarily at fault here.

8. Player A hits Player B square int he chest, Player C then hits player B in the head due to proximity and vice versa.

Comment: No one but player A can be at fault here and as soon as they made the check they lost control of the situation, no penalty here.

Decoding the new headshot rule.

Hits to the Head

The new rule regarding lateral headshots reads like this: ”a lateral, back-pressure or blind-side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principal point of contact.” I agree with it, I think in most situations on the lateral hit, there is time for a player making the hit to aim lower. However there remain head hits that are lateral that are purely accidental. The rule would still penalize these plays, but only with a 2 minute minor, which may not be right but it is acceptable.

Here is an in-depth look at what will and wont be leagal. Of these hits 5 of them I believe to be 2 min type plays. The Richards hit on Booth is clearly not 100% to the head, the Stafford on on Keith is a reaction play and it sppears that Stafford is only backchecking hard, Carter on Salmela was shoulder to shoulder contact, Salmela was knocked unconscious when his head struck the ice, the neil hit on Drury whcih appears to be shouder to shoulder and again, Drury is knocked out when striking the ice, and the final one is Bell on Aldfredsson which was applauded as the hit of the year a few years back and is shoulder+head. The Matt Cooke hit is clearly an attempt to hit the other player solely in the head from his blind side and should result in a 5 minute major, game misconduct and supplemental discipline.


It is vital that clean, unintentional head shots not be removed from the sport of hockey. The onus must still be on the hittee when unintentional head contact is made with the shoulder. Examples of head contact that is also clean is shown in that video. Here are several other examples:



This hit is a clear example of where it is the player being hit’s fault that he is concussed. Doug Weight has 0 time to react and readjust his hit. He also cannot let Sutter past him, as it would be a clear cut break away.

Example 2:



Here are 2 situations where head to head contact is inadvertently made. In the first one Slater who is around 6 ft tall hits the gargantuan 6’8 in Myers, head contact is made due to a height difference. In the Oshie example he hits Jovanovski in the head with a surprise hit that catches him off guard.

Example 3:


Here is a situation where Phaneuf is knocked down and Winchester inadvertently hits him in the head.

Here is some more clarification on the new rules:




All in all I think the rule change will work, though it is a step towards no hit hockey, and as many people will consider this a hyperbole, let it be known that even the smallest change will eventually lead into something drastic. The NHL need to be very, very careful in regards to hitting.

Checked Through the Glass : A rebirth

I once had a poorly run blog with little content, all of my posts have been deleted. Now expect: More videos, more articles, more stories.