When you cut the fat on the debate's politics, the argument over the check to the head by Raffi Torres on Brent Seabrook of the Chicago Blackhawks during their Stanley Cup Playoff series boils down to three opposing views: Whether it's a "hockey play" that should be legal; whether it's a check that should be illegal, and demands a rule change to make it so; or whether it's a check that is illegal under the current set of NHL rules.
Colin Campbell chose Option B, with a dash of Option A, in his decision not to suspend Torres:
"When Rule 48 (Illegal Check to the Head) was unanimously adopted by the General Managers in March 2010, there was no intention to make this type of shoulder hit to the head illegal. In fact, at that time, we distributed a video to all players and teams that showed a similar hit on a defenseman by an attacking forward coming from the opposite direction behind the net and stated that this is a 'legal play'.
"This hit meets none of the criteria that would subject Torres to supplemental discipline, including an application of Rule 48: he did not charge his opponent or leave his feet to deliver this check. He did not deliver an elbow or extended forearm and this hit was not 'late'."
Operative phrase: "There was no intention to make this type of shoulder hit to the head illegal."
As in, "I'm playing the cards I've been dealt here, folks … if you want it illegal, make it illegal."
So the buck was passed by the NHL's VP of hockey operations, and according to Larry Brooks of the NY Post, the NHL Players Association plans on taking him up on the offer.
The Raffi Torres Rule, c'mon down!
Slapshots has learned that the NHLPA is irate over Campbell's statement and the NHL's position on the type of play that resulted in a concussion for Seabrook. A well-placed source, who declined to go on the record, told us this week that no one within the union had ever heard of such a policy.
The PA intends to use its representation on the increasingly irrelevant competition committee to attempt to craft a rule this summer that would explicitly outlaw the Torres' hit that concussed the Blackhawks' first-pair defensemen.
Now, for the record, we supported Campbell's decision, and for the very reasons he stated: Under the current rules, Torres didn't (a) hit Seabrook with a blindside check and (b) hit him as the puck arrived. Much like the majority of his peers, Torres reacted as if he had no idea whether this type of hit was legal or illegal. For that, we can thank Campbell.
But our mandate isn't the same as the NHL's, which is to not only enforce the rules but ensure the safety of its product, er, players. To that end, Brooks draws a comparison that's a gut-punch to Campbell's legacy:
This is Matt Cooke-Marc Savard all over again. This is Campbell acting as an attorney for legal aid, combing the statutes for technicalities to free a client charged with a felony, rather than the NHL executive charged with enforcing discipline in the game.
Lost in technicalities, Campbell misses the larger picture. It is the league's responsibility to protect the greater good, not serial headhunters like Torres, who had just returned from a suspension for a headshot.
Remember that sit-down Campbell had with Mike Milbury on NESN after the Marc Savard/Matt Cooke hit? From our review of the video:
Campbell wanted nothing more than to find a way to suspend Cooke, if he's to be believed. "I didn't like the hit at all. And I didn't like the fact that I had to deal with Cooke before," said Campbell. "You lose sleep over it. You think about it. It's something that you wish you could find a way, but you have to stay consistent within the rules."
So with this Torres thing, once again we're seeing the NHLPA attempting to give the "tools" to the NHL in order to protect its players. Filling in the blanks. Closing the loopholes. Giving Campbell something black-and-white to point to when he's making a ruling.
They were the catalyst for the blindside hit rule, and may be the catalyst again for this one. Are they eventually going to be the catalyst for a total ban on hits to the head? Will either side go that far?