Retaliation Justification Doesn’t Stand Up To Logic

There are very few moments in a game more exciting than watching one of your heroes lay out someone in enemy colours.

A good, clean hit can shift the momentum in a game, get the crowd rumbling, and create a spark on the bench.

Much to the misfortune of Joe Fan, these types of moments are becoming increasingly rare in the National Hockey League, as we are seeing numerous instances of hitters being mauled after throwing the body, and unjustly so. Already this year, highlights of the best hits are followed by a stoppage in play, not always because of injury.

Here’s a few recent examples of good hits that sparked a reaction:

Exhibit A:


Exhibit B:


Exhibit C:


All three hits were responded to because they were successful, and accomplished exactly what they intended. Unless the hit results in injury, play shouldn’t have to stop because someone needs to step outside of the rules to even the score. The Colby Armstrong hit is the most embarrassing example, as Lapierre jumps in trying to be the hero, wasting no time throwing his gloves off and landing a few cheap shots.

Some of the most entertaining stretches of hockey occur after a big hit as the play continues, watching both teams react to the hit and the response from the crowd. The automatic melee that seems to ensue more and more often puts a halt to any steam the hitting team may have gained. Though, maybe that’s the idea.

Players are trained to hit as youngsters, and for the most part, physicality is a well-taught facet of minor hockey. A hit is as legal as a saucer pass, yet good hitters are being forced to defend themselves, because at some point, instigating a scrap after a hit became the norm.

Just for the record, there are most definitely instances when retaliation is perfectly acceptable. As logic would dictate, any illegal or heinous body check should be equalized with a few shots to the jaw, as illegally as the hit itself. See below for an example, featuring the flowery Steve Downie.



Downie was in the air before he made contact, and was clearly aiming for the head.

The argument to cut out the retaliation will undoubtedly be opposed by many folks in and around the game, who believe that retaliation is the only way to deter headhunters.

Fair enough, but the point is not to give headhunters a free pass. The point is, a hit is legal, and so too should be the retribution. Rather than force the hitter into a scrap, why not catch him snoozing later in the game? If a player like Mike Richards knows he’ll be the target of a guided missile after leveling someone, it will affect his game more than will being bullied after making the initial hit.

There are legal boundaries in place that indicate what a player can or cannot do physically to gain an advantage over another — As such, hitting with the shoulder and your skates on the ice is absolutely classified as a legal maneuver.

If players continue to feel the need to instigate tussles with good hitters (and they will), perhaps the issue of what makes a legal hit should be re-examined in detail. After all, more often than not, a hit that is objected to involves contact with the head. The issue of making hits to the head illegal has been intensely debated over the past couple of seasons, and if these types of hits were indeed outlawed, this debate would be a lot simpler.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.