reducing dangerous plays in hockey

Every so often, some NHL player does something unbelievably stupid and seriously injures another player. These dirty shots are often just sickening to watch -- for example, Marty McSorley clubbing Donald Brashear in the head in 2000, or Todd Bertuzzi sucker-punching Steve Moore in 2004. The world is shocked, hockey gets on the front page for all the wrong reasons for a few days and the player who delivered the shot expresses his profound regret. Usually, though, it's not much more than a blip in the career of the injurer, but the injuree often has to live with the consequences indefinitely.

Hockey has become much more cognizant of the long-term effects that head injuries can have, which is a good thing. They are currently working on a plan to discourage headshots in particular, though frankly I was underwhelmed by the plan recently announced: they can call penalties. Holy moly. That'll learn 'em!

May I present my suggestion: the You-Don't-Play-Till-He-Plays Rule.

It's pretty straight-forward: a player who is deemed to have committed a wantonly reckless act that was clearly intended to injure another player and results in a career-threatening (or worse) injury, is suspended until the injured player is also able to return to the game. Yup, that means that if you end a guy's career with a a$$*@&# play that if committed anywhere else would result in jail time, you'd end your own career too.

Sure, there are definitely some areas open to debate here. First and foremost, nobody can prove beyond a doubt what a player's intent was; that would have to be left to the league's discretion. But that's already the case anyway -- nothing new here. And there would have to be an appeal process, since we're talking about a very, very serious punishment -- but again that's nothing new. And I'm not talking about incidents where the contact was accidental, or a nasty-but-routine play that happens to result in serious injury -- I'm talking about the incidents where the action taken can result in nothing other than serious injury, like the incidents mentioned above.

Why? Because I think that if you're willing to end another player's career, you are forfeiting your own privilege to play.

This rule would create a very strong disincentive for players to let their emotions run away with them during the game. Sure, there may have been a long history of animosity between Bertuzzi and Moore, but in the real world, you can't break someone's neck just because they've been harassing you for a while.

This would also create an incentive for the injured player to stay out of the lineup longer if the other player is a bigger asset to the team than the injured player. But would this really be a big deal?

• Most players want to get back into the game sooner rather than later as it's not good for their careers to stay out longer than necessary. As the saying goes, you can't make the club sitting in the tub. Of course, it's possible that management could take the decision out of the hands of the injured player, but most clubs aren't eager to pay guys to sit on the bench unnecessarily either, at least not for long. Historically, management has been far more likely to rush players back into the lineup before they were ready than to keep them out too long. Particularly if the injury is a concussion, this might actually be to the injured player's long-term benefit.
  
• It's unusual for a "skill" player (eg. Gretzky, Crosby) to injure a goon, but they are much more likely to be a goon's target. In other words, it's the skill players who need the league's protection more, and it's also in the league's interest to protect them, as they're the ones people pay to see. So the issue is more important when one goon hurts another and there's a significant difference in their importance to their respective teams.
• This is also more important when the teams involved are in the same conference or division and are competing for the same playoff spots. And these teams play each other more often, so they are more likely to be involved in these sorts of incidents. However, these factors are nothing new -- they're already reasons for a player to be more likely to injure someone in his own conference.

Under the current system, the player who commits an act like this is given a suspension and usually some kind of economic penalty as well. And sure, that probably hurts after the fact. But in the heat of the moment, competitive juices probably overwhelm economic considerations, so in the instant where the player is deciding to swing the stick or deliver the elbow to the head, a financial penalty is probably not as much of a deterrent as the knowledge that they might be ending their own career (which would be a bigger financial penalty in any case).

The biggest stumbling block to this rule would likely be the NHLPA, the players' union. It has a mandate to protect its members from unfair discipline, because historically sports leagues do not exactly have a great track record for looking out for the players. (Of course, the NHLPA has not always been great for its members either.) And I can see the union not liking the idea of indefinite suspensions, even though it's been done before.

But shouldn't the NHLPA it have a mandate to try and protect its members from each other as well? How can they justify standing behind, say, Bertuzzi (other than to make sure he gets his due process with the league) when Moore, who's just as much a member as Bertuzzi, has suffered a catastrophic injury at his hands?

I'm not saying this rule would eliminate career-ending injuries in hockey. It's a rough game and accidents happen. But it might reduce the non-accidental injuries, and would demonstrate the NHL's desire to foster some degree of respect between players, which is one of the reasons we want our kids to play sports in the first place.