Are Hockey Pundits Operating under a False Assumption When It Comes to “Dirty” Hits??
Lately, sports op-ed after sports op-ed has opined about the need to punish “dirty” hits more frequently and more severely in the NHL, or at least add “safety measures” like, I guess, wrapping the players in bubble wrap. (For instance, look at this one from THN’s Adam Proteau who refers to those of us who lobby for the need for hard hits in hockey as “militaristic war generals” with “bloodlust.”) It’s odd that hockey pundits should hold this view. Are they not fans like the rest of us? Do these “pundits” not understand that hits are a part of strategy and that most if not all of them are not meant to inflict the kind of damage that at times is the result? (And along those lines, do those calling for the eradication of fighting in hockey not understand that fighting is a noble thing and that if you remove it the game is that much less fraternal and heroic for it?) Perhaps what is most bothersome about this nanny-hockey twaddle (which you would expect from PTA moms, not sports writers) is the supposition that the injuries are due to the “dirty” hits and not some other cause. (more…)