The NHL's Conundrum

So, here we are with TSN's pet topic (headshots) taking control of all the NHL's media coverage.  It has become so prevalent that the NHL is recommending a new rule to address the 'problem'.

As I have written in previous posts, the NHL is approaching the problem incorrectly.  Actually, its more than that.  They aren't identifying the right problem.  They've identified a symptom of the problem.


Prior to the Instigator Rule, the NHL players "policed" themselves.  If an opposition's player was being reckless (with hits or stickwork, etc), he could expect to have to fight against a very tough hombre.  The Instigator Rule removed this "Frontier Justice" by penalizing the people who enforced it.

And this isn't a bad thing.  Frontier justice isn't "just" - its revenge.  This can lead to escalating levels of violence and the NHL was right to curb it.  The NHL had to change - just as societies change.  Our modern society has no room for vigilante justice; everybody is granted a fair trial and a punishment that fits the crime as determined by a fair and objective court.  This is what happens when a society matures.

The problem is that the NHL removed it's system of Revenge but didn't replace it with a mature model.  I have in previous posts presented a mature model, but the NHL's current system has some growing up to do.  All current discipline is left to a single man's judgments with heavy influence from the employer of the person being judged.

To show the ineptitude of the NHL, instead of using a rule that is already in force (the "intent to injure" rule), they made up a new rule.  This is the brainchild of confused and panicked people who are not using the tools at their disposal to fix a problem that they created.

How have they not hired me yet?