Prelude - Again this week, another horrific injury to an NHL player. The number of players suffering very serious injuries keeps rising. Each time, the debate on how to protect the players gets opened up. It's a key battling point between those who like the rough aspect that hockey offers and those that think simple rule changes, like no-touch icing, would be a simple rule to adopt and serve well in protecting the players. There is no middle ground amongst hockey fans. See where your sports fan sits on this topic.
Sport - Hockey
Event - In a game this past week between Minnesota and San Jose, a race for the puck, on a would-be icing call, resulted in the severe injury of Minnesota player, Kurtis Foster. He broke his leg, and will be out for the rest of the season.
Point to say - "Did you see the hit on the Minnesota defenseman?"
Follow up point - "Do you think the NHL should have a no-touch icing rule?"
Get out of the conversation - "Did you go anywhere for March Break?"
Backgrounder
What is "Icing" exactly? Check here for full details. But in short, icing in hockey occurs when a player shoots the puck across at least two red lines, the opposing team's goal line being the last. Icing occurs when the opposing team touches it first, whereupon a linesman stops play. Play is resumed with a faceoff in the defending zone of the team that committed the infraction. Icing is "waved off" if the team who shot the puck into the opposing team's zone, touches it first. That is why a race always ensues on icing plays.
What is "No touch Icing", or what is the difference between the two? In "No Touch Icing", it is exactly as it sounds. The opposing player doesn't need to touch the puck for Icing to be called. Instead, as soon as the puck goes across the second red line, the linseman stops play automatically. The big difference is the lack of need for a race towards the end boards.
The biggest advocate for No Touch Icing is Don Cherry. Never one to take want to take an edge away from the game, he is arguing that a player needs to be prepared for a hit. In the case of icing, the first player (usually a defenceman) is very vulnerable to being hit from behind. Such a hit results in the player losing his footing and going into the boards at full speed, resulting in horrific injuries in many cases.
Those against "No Touch Icing", deemed "traditionalists", argue that the game is inherently dangerous (that is, injuries are acceptable) and that contact, any contact is vital to heart of the way the game is played. They feel that by inserting a "No Touch Icing" rule would start the process of removing the edge found in the game. These "traditionalists" likely feel that implementing a "No Touch Icing" rule would pave the way for other "weak" rules such as making all players wear visors and neck guards, and that such changes would inevitably lead to the dreaded "no fighting" rule.
Editorial Comment
Traditionalists like the rough aspects of the game. They see hitting and all things related to it to stay in the game. But isn't it interesting that the best games ever played are deemed that way because of the back and forth play that includes passes, shots, saves, and great play making. My stance: enjoy the fluidity of the game e.g. Alexander Ovechkin, rather than the silliness of a team's fighter.
Links
Read about what happened to a player who suffered a career ending injuriy during a routine icing play.
Discussion over the particular injury in San Jose Mercury News.
A synopsis of the situation as written about in the Hockey News.
