The Headshot Debate

Over the past month or so we have seen the start of hockey and football season. Sport fans around the world are ready to get their fix of smash mouth, hard hitting, and no wimps allowed athletic action. The same even goes for the athletes, who were diagnosed over the off season with a severe case of “the itch”. These testosterone filled athletes are ready to make an impression, to make plays that will be receipted with the roar of the crowd, and especially to treat their “itch” symptom with a good dose of an adrenaline rush.

With that said, players have been very physical in both respective sports and that has lead to some big time hits. Those big hits shouldn’t be frowned upon as both sports are physical sports. Such physicality is a part of both the sports’ cultures and part of what defines each respective sport. Furthermore, it is part of what has attracted their fan bases and what will continue to separate them from the competition (in sport and entertainment).

However, even though it’s a fine line, there’s a big difference between an aggressive hit and a dangerous one. More often than not an athlete could have been just as efficient with a legal hit. For example, if a defensive player’s intention was to prevent the opposition from receiving a pass then he or she could of made a shoulder to chest hit rather than make contact with an elbow to the head.

Now the argument to the above is that those are only the hits with malicious intent. The question that follows is; what about the hits that come about as a result of adrenaline and intensity? In such cases there might be a little more understanding; nevertheless, just like with breaking the law...negligence is not a justification. An acceptance for negligence will simply lead to more carelessness as athletes will be aware that there is a lack of accountability.

In the NHL there has already been several headshots that have been struck down with fines and suspensions. The majority of the punishments handed down were as a result of the new “blindside rule” that the league put in place over the off season. With that said, let’s review the current offenses that have made such a discussion a hot topic.

In the NHL...

Offender: Niklas Hjalmarsson – Chicago Blackhawks
Victim: Jason Pominville – Buffalo Sabres
Offense: Hit from behind into boards – Resulted in a concussion
Punishment: Five-minute major for board + game misconduct – Two game suspension


Offender: Patrick Kaleta – Buffalo Sabres
Victim: Travis Zajac – New Jersey Devils
Offense: Headbutt to the head
Punishment: Undisclosed


Offender: Nick Foligno – Ottawa Senators
Victim: Patrick Dwyer – Carolina Hurricanes
Offense: Check to the head
Punishment: $2500


Offender: Tom Gilbert – Edmonton Oilers
Victim: Matt Stajan – Calgary Flames
Offense: Clipping
Punishment: $2500


Offender: Shane Doan – Phoenix Coyotes
Victim: Dan Sexton – Anaheim Ducks
Offense: Blindside hit
Punishment: Three game suspension


In the NFL…

Offender: Brandon Meriweather – New England Patriots
Victim: Todd Heap – Baltimore Ravens
Offense: Helmet-on-helmet hit – Resulted in a concussion
Punishment: 15-yard penalty for unnecessary roughness - $50,000 fine
*Meriweather hit Heap with a similar helmet-to-helmet hit earlier on that did not draw a flag


Offender: James Harrison – Pittsburgh Steelers
Victim: Mohamed Massaquoi – Cleveland Browns
Offense: Helmet-to-helmet hit – Resulted in a concussion
Punishment: $75,000 fine


Offender: Dunta Robinson – Atlanta Falcons
Victim: DesSean Jackson – Seattle Seahawks
Offense: Helmet-to-helmet hit – Resulted in a double knockout and a self concussion
Punishment: $50,000


If you haven’t taken a quick look at each of the above videos, please do. A visual understanding of the offenses that have lead to such a discussion is necessary to form an appropriate opinion on the following argument. The argument at hand is: health vs. integrity of the game. Does one place value on the health of a human being? Or are the athletes self accountable for competing in their respective sport?

After all, these athletes are fully aware of the intensity of their sport and no less in the most competitive leagues across the globe. Also, it is these very athletes that are the biggest supporters of keeping the level of physicality that comes in their games. There has already been backlash from the NFL players as a result of the fines the league has laid down on the three players above. Ray Lewis (Ravens), James Harrison (Steelers), Joey Porter (Cardinals), Charles Tillman (Bears), Channing Crowder (Dolphins), Scott Fujita (Browns), and David Bruton (Broncos) all spoke out against the league’s stance. That’s a lot of voices speaking out.

Now take a second look and you will notice that all the above players are defensive players (linebackers, safeties and cornerbacks) whose jobs are to tackle down their opponents. Not only that, but it is an accepted and encouraged strategy to physically wear down your opponents and instill some fear in them. So to bruise a player and to scare them from another hit requires a high degree of velocity and impact. So do we go with the old adage of “let the game be played as it is meant to be” or does the game evolve overtime? Do we factor in equipment and determine that hits have a far less impact than before? Or do we factor in new fitness and nutritional technology that have made the players physical monsters?

There are a million arguments for each side and to be honest most of them are valid to some degree. Therefore, the arguments are not the hot topic; it’s the rulings and punishments that come about as a result. The current solutions that are of popular discussion are listed as follows. The first one is to be hard on the players with significant suspensions right off the bat. The second one is to be lenient with minor fines and suspensions. Both solutions are flawed as they are two extremes. Extremes have never been a good idea in any facet of society as they either lead to a dictatorship or a state where the inmates run the asylum.

The following solution is to focus on financial threats with big fines. Yes, no one likes to lose money especially five figured sums. However, such fines are short term setbacks for pro athletes. With six to seven figure contracts with multi-year guarantees, bonuses, endorsements and other forms of income these fines have no long term threat. In turn, it doesn’t create short term threat either. Just look at Chad Ochocinco who continued with his over the top touchdown celebrations despite continuous large fines. He was even quoted that he was paying off the fines with “straight cash”. Lastly, fines do not affect a player’s teammates unlike with a suspension. When players are suspended it can weaken a team. This will lead to upset teammates and sometimes to a locker room trial. In turn, the suspended player develops a level of guilt.

One more solution which is a clever and constructive one is to start punishing (and educating) athletes at the grassroots level. Every step of such an enforcement would be efficient as mature athletes would such rules a norm. As well, younger athletes would be more traumatized by such punishments as they are more emotional to discipline. Not to mention that children cannot be fined as they are not financially compensated. In the end, it’s a great idea other than one unavoidable flaw. It's the very starting argument about the intensity of the game, the “itch” of an athlete, and the competitive level of the pros.

That part of any sport cannot be taken away whether we like it or not. Athletes are passionate and competitive individuals, and that will never change. Now I’m not saying the grassroots solution should not be considered. I truly believe in it; however, there needs to be a control tactic to prevent the “itch” of an athlete from getting out of hand. That tactic is one that is currently being used in the NHL the league comes down hard on repeat offenders. If used right, it will work.

It is a fair method as any one human being can make a mistake. Any one human being can be in the wrong place at the wrong time. So negligence will not be the end of a first time offender but it will neither go unpunished. But if an athlete is head hunting a second or a third time then there is more of a case. In such cases, a player will either have to adjust their way of playing the game or they will have to meet severe consequences.

Below are ideal suspensions and rulings per offense within the NHL. Let’s take a look.
1st Offense: 1 to 5 games: 5 games = 6% of a season
2nd Offense: 15 to 20 games: 20 games = 24% of a season
3rd Offense: 50 games to a full season (including playoffs) + Review of Reinstatement

The above will work for the simple reason that the first punishment is lenient and reasonable. It does not affect a player or a team in the long term. However, the second and especially the third punishment will have a serious impact. These punishments meet the popular demands of the public and the media that are asking for higher suspensions. The one difference is that it doesn't fully apply to first time offenders.

Unlike fines, such suspensions will have long term effects and much like the grass roots enforcement it will leave an emotional hurt on the players. This is especially the case with the final ruling. The players will have to deal with the potential of a 50 game suspension or missing the remainder of the season (and possibly the playoffs). Let's not forget how much of a pay cut that comes with. Nevertheless, as bad as all that is, the players at hand will have to come face-to-face with the toughest of all punishments. A player will have to stand trial with their career on the line at which point they must plead and justify their case to a group of individuals who have previously warned them of their actions.

To conclude, there will never be a right or wrong solution and the debate may likely be never ending. However, the best logical approach is to focus on the malicious players. There is no excuse for being a repeat offender of a clear and strict rule. Of course, one cannot give a free pass to the negligent. A well balanced approach that may not fix the problem but minimize it while not taking away from the integrity of the respective sports.