thehockeynews.com

Last night during the Rangers 2-0 win over the Dallas Stars, Henrik Lundqvist was absolutely decimated by an extremely dirty hit from Cody Eakin (see below). Lundqvist left the ice for league mandated concussion protocols, but returned approximately five minutes later to ultimately finish the game and the shutout.

There does not seem to be much doubt around the league that the hit was deplorable and Eakin is deserving of supplementary discipline. However, it has again spurned the discussion of the Rangers’ response to the hit and the role of goaltenders and their safety outside the sanctum of their crease. I’d like to talk about both of those things today.

2016-12-15-20_59_02

Let’s begin by discussing the psychological component of a team’s response to a dirty hit. It is only natural to seek retribution when the most valuable player on your team falls victim to dangerous and illegal physical contact. The old adage in hockey is that you standup for your teammates and if a player knows that he is going to get pummeled, he will theoretically refrain from that type of decision-making. Numerous studies and empirical analyses have been done demonstrating the more or less complete lack of efficacy when it comes to using physical force as a deterrent during a hockey game.

However, it is human nature to seek revenge when one’s self, family or something of value is threatened. We crave the comeuppance we perceive as justice, without really looking closer at the goal underneath the anger. When I watched that hit last night, I was angry. I was disgusted and shocked that a player could take such a blatant disregard for the safety of their opponent. As the spouse of a goaltender, my wife was sick to her stomach. It’s like her worst nightmare before her eyes.

At the end of the day, we wouldn’t be human if we didn’t hope for Hank to be all right and angry at Cody Eakin for threatening the safety of our goaltender. However, we ultimately strive for victory on the ice, and I’m sure the players feel the same way. I’ve been in a similar position of being hit illegally during a game, and I want my team to take that powerplay and make them pay on the scoreboard. Had McIlrath or Glass or another tough guy type had been around and thrown Eakin a beating, but the Stars won 2-1, would you have been any happier this morning?

As to the protections or other accommodations afforded to goaltenders outside of the crease, there are a few moving parts here. First, I want to get an inevitable comparison out of the way. One of the first things I thought of with respect to this hit was the Ryan Miller/Milan Lucic incident from a few years ago.

I want to begin by drawing a few important distinctions. First, Ryan Miller had ventured out toward the circles to beat Lucic to a loose puck as he attempted to create a scoring chance. He was out in an area that can at least be reasonably argued to be the domain of the non-goaltender. Second, it was a footrace to the puck, with both players hoping to arrive first. Lucic ultimately lost that footrace and proceeded to lay a massive hit on Miller.   I felt Lucic’s actions were deplorable then and still do now, but I could have an adult conversation with someone about Miller’s role in the play.

With the Eakin hit, almost all of these mitigating circumstances are absent. Hank was within the confines of the trapezoid behind the net and was simply stopping the puck for his defenseman (on a powerplay, no less), when Eakin bore down on him. Additionally, there was no question about who was going to get to the puck first. There was no footrace. Hank had been holding the puck for a few seconds before Eakin even arrived. He then proceeds to leave his feet and follow through with the head as a principle point of contact. If I were running player safety, I would be looking at 10+ games to really set an example that this type of play will not be tolerated.

Which brings us to the concept of a goaltender playing the puck in vulnerable areas. Back in 2005, the NHL introduced the trapezoid to restrict goaltenders from going into corners to retrieve dump-ins and transition up the ice. From where I sit, I believe that if you are going to limit the goaltenders movements to a certain area on the ice, he should at least be safe from body checks in that area. I do not agree with what I believe to be an absurd assertion that goaltenders should be fair game anywhere outside the crease, but especially so in designated areas that they are expected to be in.

Now, I know a large number of people feel that goaltenders should be treated like anyone else should they choose to leave their crease. Let me explain why that is a horrible, horrible idea. First, the crease is way too small to contain a goaltender to for this purpose. There are many times per game that it is a necessity for a goaltender to leave his crease for the purposes of clearing the puck out of danger, covering a rebound, or leaving a short pass for his teammate. None of these functions are things a goaltender is asking to be hit for doing.

Second, the nature of the movements and functions outside the crease are so fundamentally different than what a non-goaltender is doing makes it completely unfeasible to subject the goaltender to the same rules of being hit. Forwards are not allowed to cover a rebound with their hands, for example. Additionally, goaltenders are responsible for cutting down angles and making saves on lateral plays. If a goaltender cuts down an angle outside the crease on a 2-on-1 and the trailer is able to lay him out because he is outside the crease, how is the goaltender supposed to do his job?

Third, the equipment is simply not built for it. The design of a goaltender’s equipment is specifically for stopping the puck. Any goalie coach worth anything will tell young goaltenders to always have their bodies facing the play, because the equipment is essentially backless when it comes to padding. Facing the shot head on is imperative to safety. The impact absorbing nature of the pants and chest and arm unit are specifically engineered to minimize impact in small, localized areas (where a puck hits you), they are not engineered to displace impact from an object the size of a players shoulder or entire body, for that matter. Take a look at the photo below:

As you can see, there is little to no padding on the side and back of this chest and arm unit. This is actually the exact unit (notwithstanding modifications) that Hank wears. This type of set up is not atypical to almost every goaltender in the NHL. There are no shoulder caps, there are no rib or kidney pads. They are simply not designed for that type of impact. Considering the small but vocal outcry when these plays happen for goalies to be “fair game”, are we supposed to have the equipment completely redesigned for the sake of being able to stop pucks and absorb body checks?

Some will also say that a goaltender should “stay in the crease” if they don’t want to be hit. So, we should rearrange the most basic of breakout schemes, potentially expose defensemen to blindside hits and create a whole new puck transition model based on plays that happen a few times per year? The only thing a player can’t do to a goaltender when they are playing the puck is physically hit them. You can pin them, stick check them and physically take the puck away. How is that not reasonable considering the vast difference in the function they are performing on the ice?

Obviously, I am a little biased on the subject as a goaltender. Why do they need to be “fair game” given the difference in their function in the game? I guess I just don’t understand the fascination with watching goaltenders getting hit.   Does the safety of a goaltender in playing the puck outside the crease offend you to that extent?   Would you really rather watch a game with the goaltender stapled to their crease for 60 minutes? Would the overall quality of play improve? The fix is simple; it is the current rule. Just don’t hit the damn goalie.

Share: 

Mentioned in this article:

More About: