When I saw the Ben Fanelli hit this past weekend, saw his team mates huddled together, visible shaken as they wiped away tears with thick gloves, watched as the young boy lay so motionless on the ice, I admit to being reduced to tears. As a hockey player, as someone who’s had helmets kicked off numerous times, been crushed into this and that, and as someone who provides first aid services to hockey teams, seeing such an incident hits far, far to close for home for comfort.
Now we have a 16 year old who’s life has been changed forever, to what extent we don’t know, and a 20 year old who is facing much the same future.
It’s been said over and over again, at every single level of hockey. Headshots need to be taken out of the game.No one’s ever going to question you on that. Not a single fan with their salt as a fan would ever consider headshot a necessary part of the game of hockey.
However, people at all levels of the game and those in the media are saying it wasn’t. So if Branch, like the suspension indicates, wants to set an example of the leagues intolerance to head hitting, wouldn’t it be wiser to chose an actual cheap intentional head shot to do it with?
Maybe its just the lawyer side of my brain that draws this conclusion but wouldn’t it be more reasonable to make an example of the person who with full cognition of the illegal nature and potentially physically devastating impact of their actions, continued to do so?
Most, if not all legal systems find some part of the theoretical basis upon which punishment is developed centering around the concept of punishing the actions and intentions of the person rather than the outcomes of those actions. The most clear example of this is the distinction between sentencing in murder and manslaughter. Murder and manslaughter result in the same outcome, but the punishment varies depending on the intention to commit the act which reasonably would cause harm or on manslaughter’s case the absence of this intention.
The same principle could be drawn here between Liambos and Fanelli. The hit, which arguable on its merits is far less “dangerous” than many we have seen in the NHL this season (Horidchuk’s hit on Boll is one that comes to mine in the vicinity of the glass), shows no intention to in any way what would constitute a headshot at Fanelli. If Fanelli had walked away from the hit, if he’d clambered to his feet and skated off the ice at most we would have seen two minutes in the box for a possible charge and even then that might be more reflexive than deserved.
If punished someone for manslaughter like we would murder in order to make an example of them, would there not be a public outcry about the illegality and unfairness of this?
There won’t be here though. In the OHL, regardless of logic, Branch is the law.
On reflection, the most substantial of injuries Fanelli sustained in the hit were not from the hit itself, but occurring when his unprotected head slammed against the ice. Over the years I have watched many, many helmets fly off, skittering across the ice on collisions in the boards and at center ice. Players of all ages are notorious for failing to adequately tighten helmets and chin straps and I know I’ve spent my fair share of time hanging over benches yelling at them to do just that.
Maybe it’s just me that feels like that in this instance, the major issue highlighted by the events is not that of headshots but of helmet safety and just what a necessity they are. It is so scary to realize, when watching the replays, that this could have very nearly been another Don Sanderson (an event we very nearly saw play out in the NHL already this season when Tom Sestito went down in a fight, smacked his head and fell unconscious).
In a situation where everything that could go wrong went wrong, the OHL felt the need to add another layer to the punishment I’m sure Liambos is already administering himself.
No related posts.
