Henrik Lundqvist took a bad hit, but some hits on goalies should be fair game

On Thursday, the Dallas Stars briefly knocked New York Rangers goalie Henrik Lundqvist out of the game.

Not with goals, but with a vicious hit behind the net by center Cody Eakin. He’ll be suspended, and you’ll get no arguments here. But you will get an argument here about a long-standing unwritten hockey rule: goalies are off-limits when it comes to hits of any kind.

It’s actually written, too. We’ll get into that. And we’ll get into a debate I think many are having this morning: should goalies be fair game for legal hits?

I think so.

But not this kind of hit. It was bad.

The Stars were shorthanded. Eakin was trying to build up speed to return down the ice on defense and/or beat Lundqvist to the puck.

And then ...

Two rules are in play here. First, Rule 69.2:

In all cases in which an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate).

And Rule 42, regarding charging (which Eakin was ejected for):

A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

First, some ground rules: whether Eakin’s hit was good or not is not in question. Whether it was on a goalie or a regular skater, the initial point of contact was the head. The hit was bad. He’ll be suspended, and he should be.

What we’re going to question is the idea that goalies are not “fair game” when it comes to legal hits outside the crease.

Wait, what? We’re actually going to argue about this?

Yes. And hi, self!

Shut up. We are enemies in this contest.

Oh. Right. You suck.

Childish. Anyway, of course goalies shouldn’t be fair game. That’s the way it is. That’s the way it’s always been. You run a goalie and you get attacked by an angry mob of hockey men. They’re off-limits.

Why?

Easy. If a goalie is subject to the same kinds of hits and general violence that comes along with hockey then you’re begging teams to create an entirely new position. That position is called “winger who takes bombing runs at the goalie every shift” or the “Chris Kreider Memorial Position.”

Memorial? He’s not dead.

He will be if he keeps barging into the crease.

OK, that’s ominous. But I see your point. Let’s assume that lifting rules on goalie contact in the crease is off the table.

But Lundqvist was out of his net. And I present to you this incident that happened earlier this week:

That’s Torrey Mitchell steamrolling Tuukka Rask in overtime. It was a legal check, but arguably delivered with no more force and speed than Eakin’s hit on Lundqvist. And nobody called for Mitchell’s head, as I recall. It was just hockey. The risks of leaving your net.

But Rask wasn’t near his own net. He had ventured to the far boards, into winger territory.

So are you implying that he was ... fair game?

Well ... I, see —

What I see there is a goalie willingly engaging in a puck battle with a forward, knowing contact is inevitable. How is that any different than what Lundqvist set himself up for with Eakin?

Different situation. You forget the important parts of Rule 42, which I’ll highlight for your forgetful mind:

The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

That Mitchell avoided unnecessary contact is unquestionable. Eakin’s hit was avoidable, at least in terms of severity and how high he hit Lundqvist. There’s a reasonable balance already in the rulebook. Goalies aren’t completely protected, just from the same unnecessary hits that every other player is protected from.

I understand that, but that rule is about charging. Rule 69.2 specifically states that any contact with a goalie results in a penalty. The only way it doesn’t is if charging is somehow in play.

My argument is that (safe, normal) contact with goalies outside of the crease should be as legal and morally acceptable as when, I don’t know, Kyle Okposo finishes a check on Shea Weber on the forecheck.

I think there’s a hypocrisy hidden here. We whine about how goalies have become divas, falling at the slightest bit of contact in order to get a penalty called. Of course they do! We’ve enabled them to have that power. I saw some Stars fans saying Lundqvist was baiting Eakin.

Of course he was! Every goalie does. When a goalie goes behind the net and hesitates with the puck ahead of an oncoming opponent, he’s begging that player to come near him and make the slightest bit of contact. Wouldn’t you? It’s an easy penalty. No goalie expects them to actually check them (or, in this case, aim for their head).

You realize what you’re saying, right? The slippery slope you’re proposing we open to the masses? If we allow checking on goalies, we open them to the same dangers of hits like Eakin last night. Those kinds of hits to the head only exist because checking exists.

You’re right. And —

We’re right.

What?

Nevermind. Go on.

Anyways, I don’t disagree. If we tweak that first rule a bit to let some checks behind the net become legal, then we’re risking some worse hits than we intend.

But what if it keeps goalies in their crease for good? We’ve spent so long coddling goalies, making them feel like the rulebook will be on their side every time. No wonder Lundqvist was behind his net and not trying to protect himself.

Maybe if we loosen those restrictions a bit more, goalies will stop taking risks and everyone will feel better about the health of their most important players.

I think you’re severely under-estimating goalies here. They’re still hockey players. We’re not just talking about a rule here, we’re talking about a culture. You can loosen restrictions all you want, but it’s in a team’s DNA to defend their goalie’s health with their lives and goalies won’t just forget they still have that protection if you change a rule. You can’t eliminate risks by increasing them.

So what do you propose?

Propose? I propose nothing. Nothing other than ending this article about you arguing with yourself before people think you’re losing your mind.

Warble nullifiers.

Huh?

Hmm? Anyway, if you’re not going to propose changing anything, I’ll propose we stop coddling and protecting the large men with large equipment and large pads from simple hits when they leave their nets. Not just with rules, but in culture.

They’re big boys too, and they can handle contact (within reason, within safe bounds, if they aren’t leaving themselves unprotected) too.

Dude. It’s never going to happen.

I know.

Want to go see Rogue One again?

I don’t like Star Wars.

WHO ARE YOU?!?