Growing up in the GTA, signing up for minor hockey in 1970, my favorite hockey player was Davey Keon. Not because he was the captain of my favorite team. Not because he was the best two-way forward in the league. And not even because my earliest coaches always told us kids to watch how Dave Keon plays the game and to emulate him.

David Keon was my favourite player because he played 'clean'. And though he amassed only 117 penalty minutes in 18 NHL seasons, Dave Keon was no wimp. He carried the puck into dangerous areas. He was a tenacious checker. He took out his man on a regular basis. But he rarely took a penalty and not once, ever, took a cheap shot at anyone. Dave Keon was pure class -- sportsmanship personified. Although he took one fighting major in his career, aside from that anomoly, I'm pretty sure the only penalties he ever took were for things like tripping, holding, interference, and I even remember one that he took for playing with a broken stick. But I never recall a single elbowing, roughing, slashing, etc... penalty.

And as a result, since childhood, I've always found that there are two types of penalties in hockey. One type (the 'clean' penalties) focus in on puck possession and impeding opponents from making a play (tripping, hooking, interference, etc...) and a second type of infraction (the 'dirty' ones) which sees players seeking to hurt other players (cross-checking, eblowing, slashing, etc...)

And I've always wondered why this second type of penalty -- the infractions that have a violent component to them -- are not treated more severely.

That why I think TWO MINUTE MAJOR PENALTIES should be considered by the NHL.

Existing Two Minute Minor Penalties can easily be reclassified so that 'play impediment' penalties remain 2 minute Minor Penatlies, while infractions that possess an intent to hurt or harm an opponent become 2 Minute Major Penalties, which must be served in their entirity, regardless of whether the opposing teams scores during the two minutes. (Blatant violations can still receive a 5 minute MAJOR and game misconduct.)

I believe that doing this will help to reduce some of the needless chippiness to a game -- the kind of nonsense that often escalates into nastier play.

I believe if 'dirty' play can be reduced, even slightly, a few teams may even stop dressing otherwise untalented 'enforcers' who are often iced to intimidate opponents from taking cheaps shots.

I also believe that a few extended powerplays will help add a bit more goal-scoring to this inflate-a-goalie league (where only Marty Broduer makes saves anymore, while everyone else just squats, unfolds their equipment and blocks shots.)

I do not believe that imposing 2 Minute Majors will reduce hitting, body-checking and balls-to-the-wall play. (I may be a Davey Keon fan, but a clean Wendall Clark bodycheck is also a thing of beauty to me.)

If this idea -- that there should be a Two Minute Major for penalties that possess a violent component -- has been considered by NHL, I've certainly never been aware of that. I wish someone in the media, or in the NHL would champion this idea. I realize 'traditionalists' will likely oppose it... but what is so revolutionary about it? In fact, I often side with the traditionalists -- forget that I despise Shootouts, I don't even like Overtime (nothing wrong with a tie). And besides, I'm a Davey Keon fan. If that doesn't make me a traditionalist, I don't know what does.