Let's start by giving credit to Don Cherry for pursuing goals that would make hockey safer for children and professionals.
He's been right to advocate no-touch icing. And his campaign against hitting from behind was commendable.
It's also worth saying that the Don Cherry whom people know personally is a good person. He loves the game. There's nothing phony about his positions. He is a true believer and he's extraordinarily popular.
So, when Toronto neurosurgeon Charles Tator called out Cherry for being a "negative influence" on the game, it was hardly surprising that a large share of the Canadian media would rush to Cherry's defense.
The Hockey Night In Canada commentator got in his own licks yesterday by loudly dismissing Tator as a misinformed publicity seeker.
Earlier in the week, Cherry's supporters went on the offensive. This editorial in the Barrie Examiner, north of Toronto, under the headline, "Cherry promotes a tough, clean brand of hockey," was typical of many of the opinion pieces. Greg Wyshynski at Yahoo Sports argued that "Charlie Tator" had used Cherry as a pawn to publicize his crusade against head injuries.
But, before we organize a lynching, let's focus on reality. A "tough, clean brand of hockey" referred to by the newspaper cannot include fighting, because fighting is against the rules. A foul isn't clean. Arguing, as Wyshynski does, that Cherry's complaining about a lack of respect among today's players places him solidly on the side of the angels is pretty weak.
Over three decades, Cherry has promoted two things. He has promoted hitting and he has promoted fighting. Every once in a while he will air a clip and pay his respects to somebody who has made a skilled hockey play, but not very often.
The consistent subtext to everything he says is: No matter how talented you are, you're less than a real hockey player if you're not willing to drop the gloves or deliver a big hit. And it helps a lot if you're a Canadian.
Has he "changed the culture" of hockey, as Tator asserted? He has played a significant role in changing the culture of hockey. He is by far the most influential commentator in Canada. Hockey Night is the most watched sports telecast in the country. Generations of kids, future hockey players, have grown up listening to his message.
Today, the NHL workplace is far more dangerous than it was even 20 years ago. There are more cheap shots and many more fights.
When the biggest, meanest hits of a particular week are glorified, the impressionable will strive for even bigger and meaner hits, and maybe, just maybe, they will include hits to the head.
Tator, an expert on brain injuries, was attending a seminar on concussions when he made his comments about Cherry. He also stated, hopefully, that if Cherry "took a strong stand against hits to the head, it would help." The good doctor probably shouldn't hold his breath. Cherry wouldn't even take his calls last week.
And just to underline his position, Cherry aired a clip on Saturday after he denounced Tator. It was the one in which David Koci, whom Washington Capitals coach Bruce Boudreau described as a no-talent thug, delivered a hit along the boards to Mike Green. It was a classic cheap-shot. It was from behind. Green had his back turned. He didn't see the Colorado forward coming.
Who was to blame for this incident? According to Cherry, it was Green, the victim, because it was his responsibility to be aware that Koci was on the ice.
"It's absolutely ridiculous to do stuff like that," Cherry said.
Cherry didn't mean it was ridiculous for Koci to run Green into the boards. Oh, no. It was ridiculous that Green (a) was not aware Koci was on the ice (b) had his back turned and (c) apparently did not have eyes in the back of his head.
A sharp contrast to this lunacy was a segment on TSN's Friday night NHL game. The subject was Reggie Fleming, the deceased former NHL fighter who was found to have chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a disease that causes behavioral abnormalities and dementia.
Fleming was the first hockey player known to have been tested for the disease, which was also found in several former NFL players. TSN did its own research and discovered that Fleming fought far fewer times during his era than today's pugilists. He was always close to being the busiest fighter in the NHL in the 1960s, tossing them four or five times a season. But today's leading fighters will drop his gloves more than 20 times.
You will continue to hear the argument that fighting doesn't cause serious head injuries, although explaining that to the parents of Don Sanderson would be difficult. He was the amateur player who died from a head injury suffered during fight last season.
Ultimately, perhaps, the final word on workplace safety, specifically head injuries, won't belong to commentators or even the NHL. TSN's Bob McKenzie said during the Friday night show, "Whether the NHL likes it or not, it's going to be dragged kicking and screaming into an era of legislation because this is becoming an athletic pandemic.
"What's going to happen with (U.S.) Congress being involved, medical authorities being involved, it's going to go beyond the game of hockey. It's going to become societal, and, when that happens, people in hockey are going to lose a little control about how the rules are governed. It's going to become illegal. Within five years, you are not going to be allowed to hit anybody in the head."
For more blogs from William Houston, go to www.truthandrumours.net




Chris wrote on Jan 3, 2010
But history has shown that the players can't police themselves. Most of them are practically kids for crying out loud. You can't let the inmates run the asylum. The league cannot police itself in a fair manner either because its rules are tied to revenue and the league clings to the circus-like spectacle of fighting as a means of bringing in the fight fans. (In which case it should fall under the jurisdiction of sanctioning bodies (a la boxing) which will oversee the competition, rules, and the safety for the combatants.) In other words, the NHL doesn't want to play that game. It is easier to just give a game misconduct for fighting - even if only to give the illusion that the league cares. :)Chris wrote on Jan 3, 2010
Hi Topcat! I guess my argument is this: We know the players are getting larger and faster than ever. We know they are better protected than ever. We also know that the protection is used as a weapon when worn (for hits) and that it doesn't protect at all when taken off (during a fight). Thus, players remove protection when they need it the most and don't use it for its intended purpose when they use it. You could argue that players are more reckless today simply because of the body armor they wear. You could argue that it gives them a false sense of security which leads to more injuries... (to be continued.) :)Topcat wrote on Dec 30, 2009
And Chris, I like your penalty reforms by the way, to help eliminate fighting and hitting from behind. Insightful, but as hitting from behind will become even more penalized under your rules, you should add another rule or two for those players who try to "suck" in the calls by turning their backs at the last minute. This shouldnt be a 2 min minor\major under your rules. Should be 5 min major and a game also, plus a team fine. That will help avoid this "art" of turning and drawing the foul that is being taught by coaches at various hockey levels according to other blogs on this site. And how about a motorcycle-type helmet that wont come off easily(ie- the player CANT remove it himself) and covers the head and neck. And a multigame suspension (appealable)to any player whose helmet comes off for ANY reason during play. That could change the current attitudes and injuries too, without resorting to no-contact hockey.Topcat wrote on Dec 30, 2009
And your GRAVITY remark reminds me of the Ron White (Blue-Collar comedy)hurricane remark about the guy who tied himself to a tree cuz he knows that man can withstand 250 mph winds. As Ron says, the guy is absolutely right and proves it, but is kinda too dumb to realize that it isnt THAT the wind is blowing 250 mph that kills people, its WHAT the wind is blowing at 250 mph that is dangerous. And your remark forgets the fact that it isnt THAT gravity pulls you downward, but WHAT gravity pulls you downward onto. Bare heads hitting canvas,mattress,soft ground, etc vs brick,metal,or ice are obviously gonna give diff results. Untie yourself from the tree dude. Gravity dont kill, what it pulls you onto just might.Topcat wrote on Dec 29, 2009
Actually Chris its like you saying bodychecking should be eliminated based on how Bill Masterton died, cuz it was the bodycheck and its intent and not his head hitting the ice that killed him. Ice was hard then and even harder now with the jet-ice and its derivatives being used. Ace Bailey the same in Toronto Leaf history. When heads hit ice, especially uncovered heads, these things can happen and have happened. All I pointed out is Mr Houston was making it look like a punch killed him, and that was and still is inaccurate. Doesnt lessen the tragedy at all. My point was eliminating ALL the reasons for head injuries will lead to no-contact hockey (a la A\S game). and what is wrong with no-contact hockey? Absolutely nothing. And its probably coming sooner than we think. But is it really NHL hockey at that point? And will it really be better? IMHO - no.Chris wrote on Dec 28, 2009
That's like saying it's not the person with the gun that killed you, it was the bullet that killed you. Are you advocating that GRAVITY was to blame for Sanderson's death and not the fight? Although the government can't get anything right, they can't possibly do a worse job of legislating some common sense into the NHL.Topcat wrote on Dec 25, 2009
Shouldnt this article be titled "why hasnt Don Cherry changed the culture of hockey"? And tell the complete truth Mr Houston - it wasnt the blow to the head of a fist that killed Sanderson but the blow of the head to the ice. But I agree with BobMcKenzie that it is all going to change, especially when when gov'ts get involved. What have THEY ever got right? For those advocating how letting the skilled players showcase all their talents, lets really let them show it by eliminating ALL possible reasons for head injuries, whether into the boards or the ice, not just from person to person. And this will result in GREAT hockey - just like we see in the All-Star games. That is the best hockey in the world for advocates to watch. Me? I find it so boring I havent been able to watch a full A/S game in over 10 years. 17-14 is a football score, not hockey. But it is going to happen - like it or not. And someone will bury Gretz's records in no time. As my dad used to say, diff era, diff game.kenchevis wrote on Dec 24, 2009
I coached a group of Atoms in the old MTHL and recall a particularly nasty game with a team from the east end of Toronto who were bigger than my kids and very aggressive. I had to sit several of them down due to minor injuries. Late in the game things really got rough and, to prevent one of my kids from being seriously injured, I pulled the team off the ice. I was brought before the disciplinary committee of the MTHL and threatened with sanction if there was a repeat. Cherry was not as "front and centre" as he is today, but his distorted view of the game was being felt right down to the youngest ranks. Just his image in the HNIC trailers makes my blood boil. I refuse to watch Cherry and his stooge, MacLean. It is far past the time for him and his ilk (like Kypreos and Milbury) to retire. I look forward to the Junior Worlds and the Olympics where we are treated to hockey skills and the goons are relegated to the sidelines.Linden16 wrote on Dec 22, 2009
It's funny how the most popular sport in North America has no fighting, and the "olde tyme hockey" nuts like Cherry keep promoting fisticuffs. If you want to provide great hockey, do things to let the skilled players play - enjoy the fight-free Olympics, folks - it's as close to great hockey as we're likely to see in a while. As other posters have mentioned - an automatic suspension would quickly reduce the number of fights and dirty hitting we currently see in the NHL. I guess the NHL knows what it's doing though, right?Kim wrote on Dec 22, 2009
Insightful as always! Cherry is the problem and I am glad Tator took him on. How long can this nut stay on air? I have been saying that for a decade now so I must be in the minorityWalt Cherwaty wrote on Dec 21, 2009
I have for 5 decades fought to reform hockey and intensify other sports' regulations regarding over-aggressive play , i.e. illegal hits and fighting . The game of " professional " and even high school hockey is a travesty of common sense with various infractions allowing players to return to the ice after 2 minutes for tripping or slashing or cross-checking or boarding or roughing or .......all dangerous actions . Intimidation is the rule of the game . I have boycotted hockey here in London despite the huge success of our Knights and consider the coach Dale Hunter a retired goon teaching others the art of goonery , costing his teams many games because of foolish acts of hooliganism . What a shame ! Even our local reporters seem to turn a blind eye rationalizing the inane behaviour.The cash cow must be honoured.Cherry's childish rants promoting bully tactics are embarrassing.Chris wrote on Dec 21, 2009
I think Don Cherry has done everything possible to keep the culture of hockey exactly as it has always been. To me, that's the problem. He advocates fighting, an eye-for-an-eye mentality (all based on the hockey "code"), but then maintains an air of civility by taking up the cause for minor junk like no-touch icing and seamless glass. If the NHL were run like a professional sports league and not a beer league, this is how things would shake down: A player that fights would get a game misconduct. If you want to add some "Chris" to it (ie: some intelligence), add a 1 game suspension if the fight occurs in the 3rd period or OT. Thank you, done. Fighting problem solved. Next? Hitting from behind: 5 minute major (automatic). If the other player is injured, add a suspension on top of it.