Kukla's Korner

KK Members Blog

Is it time to eliminate hitting from the game?

With recent hits by Mark Stone and Dustin Byfuglien I think this is a good time to ask a question about body checking in general:

Should the NHL go back to the original rule?

In a recent Red Wings Broadcast Mickey Redmond pondered this very question. He spoke about eliminating the idea of finishing a check as most of those hits occur well after the puck has moved on and there is plenty of time to avoid the hitting the now puckless player. He stated the old rule was about separating the player from the puck, not simply throwing one's body around.

I searched for the NHL definition of a legal body check and found nothing. The NHL rule book is packed with infractions, but I could not find the official definition. I do remember hearing the definition ever since I became interested in the game, but I've never read the rule. I think that begs the question how can the NHL define an illegal hit if there is no definition of a legal one?

I did find a definition via the USA Hockey Rule Book:

The goal of the enforcement standard is to create an environment that enhances player skill development by reducing intimidating infractions designed to punish the opponent. This standard is designed to improve the proper skill of legal body checking or contact at all levels of play and will not remove the physical component from the game. A hard body check or using body contact/position (Body Contact categories) to gain a competitive advantage over the opponent should not be penalized as long as it is performed within the rules. The focus of the body check should be to separate the opponent from the puck.

The principles of this enforcement standard include the following:

  • The purpose of a body check is to separate the opponent from the puck.
  • Only the trunk (hips to shoulders) of the body shall be used to deliver a body check.
  • The check must be delivered to the trunk (hips to shoulders) and directly from in front or the side of the opponent.
  • Players who use their physical skills and/or anticipation and have a positional advantage shall not lose that advantage provided they use their body to check the opponent within the rules.
  • Players will be held accountable for acts of an intimidating or dangerous nature.

Notice the first statement in the list above: "The purpose of a body check is to separate the opponent from the puck." Also notice the rest of the clear definition of what is legal.

I would like to see the NHL go back to this clear cut definition of body checking. I would like to see all late hits called as penalties which are clearly defined as boarding and charging already.

I do not believe going back to this definition as a rule would eliminate the physicality in hockey, rather I believe it would eliminate the thugs who only make teams to "finish the check," words I grew up thinking were gospel to the game before I watched a classic game featuring the Broad Street Bullies in their most dominant years. I had heard about how they always finished their checks and made opponents afraid to go into the corners, yet there was Bobby Clarke with an opponent lined up along the boards. As I watched the play unfold, the opponent quickly passed the puck. Clarke was within inches of delivering a devastating blow when he quickly turned away, his attention on where the play was going, not on the player who was wide open for what today would be a legal finish of the check.

If the Broad Street Bullies could still be the most feared physical team in the NHL without the late hits many of us have grown up cheering for, why can't the hockey still be a physical game without those dangerous hits?

Those are my thoughts, what are yours? I yield the floor.

Filed in: NHL Teams, NHL Talk, | KK Members Blog | Permalink


Tripwire32's avatar

I agree that late hits should be eliminated and penalized accordingly. I would also like to point out there is a difference between finishing a check and a late hit. I think the use of the phrase is more liberally applied word smithing so coaches don’t have to say what they mean: hit late.

Posted by Tripwire32 from Kay He Mar Heart on 11/02/15 at 03:18 PM ET

Hippy Dave's avatar

No, they shouldn’t.  Ditch the instigator rule and let other players hold the bad guys accountable.  You didn’t see quite as much of that stuff when the dirty guy knew he’d get creamed.  Some things just can’t be regulated to death.

Posted by Hippy Dave from Portland by way of Detroit on 11/02/15 at 11:28 PM ET

Hippy Dave's avatar

(That being said I’m all for penalizing late hits, especially after the guy looses a tooth or two.)

Posted by Hippy Dave from Portland by way of Detroit on 11/02/15 at 11:30 PM ET

Bradley97's avatar

So what constitutes a late hit? Are we talking charging, or are we talking the description I gave above where the puck has been played and there is still time to not hit the player?

Posted by Bradley97 on 11/03/15 at 12:11 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.


Notify me of follow-up comments?


Most Recent Blog Posts

About KK Members Blog

If you want to be a hockey writer, be our special guest!

We’re giving the KK community a chance to add their two-bits. Sign up to be a KK member, write your piece, and be heard right here on one of the Internet’s most visited hockey news websites.


How to Post

More details here. But basically, just use the posting page to write anything you like on what's going on in the hockey news or your analysis of the NHL and your favorite team.

We only ask that you avoid profanity, and that you're careful to credit your sources -- news media or other bloggers -- and provide links to those other sites when appropriate.

Need help? Check out our help page.