The Discourse: The real reason Mark Stone's hit on Miro Heiskanen matters, and why Stone should have been suspended

Nobody can stop talking about it on Twitter, so I won't stop talking about it here.

I wanted to interact with fans on Tuesday night, but between it being a late game and trying to get a postgame recap, along with prepping for today’s appearance on Dimitri Filipovic’s PDO Podcast show — you get it. Sometimes it’s best just to log off, whether to get work done, or simply peace of mind.

I was at odds with Stars fans about Mark Stone’s intentions (I can’t stress this word enough) on the clipping penalty—officially called a trip—to Miro Heiskanen. But it also wasn’t important: Heiskanen was injured because of Stone’s play. His intentions don’t change the effect of what happened. And so a lot of things bothered me about that night.

It starts at the top. Dave Jackson presumably has a role and a job at ESPN to communicate the rulebook; specifically when rules have been violated or not, and plays that straddle the line. So I ask, only half-rhetorically: what is the point of having an expert in the booth if he has nothing to say about one of the game’s best defenders getting injured on a penalty the on-ice officials called? Anyone new to hockey seeing someone kneecapped only for the offender to sit in timeout for two minutes would think something was wrong. Either the sport is wrong, the culture is wrong, or they’re watching the wrong sport. And that person, newbie that they are, would be right. There is something wrong.

This isn’t to bag on Jackson. Although I don’t want to “be fair” either. Even people plugged into hockey culture are willing to call out his complete and utter lack of conviction, and non-analysis. It’s the problem I have with modern broadcasts, and the uphill battle that comes with watching people like Rick Tocchet get asked about his thoughts on analytics back when he was on TNT, to which he responded by throwing a bunch of papers in the trash—as if that were somehow clever or noble. I don’t need to hear people talking about synthetic goals, or Corey’s tracking data. But why is hockey so unchallenging, and hostile to everything new? Why is it so hostile to change? More specifically: why does it revel in hostility itself?

I didn’t want to write about the Heiskanen stuff again, until I read Ralph Strangis’ take. It’s worth reading in full, but here’s the choice quote.

Pathology. The perfect word.

And that’s precisely the problem. There’s a long list of players who have been affected by this pathology. Eric Lindros. Paul Kariya. Pat LaFontaine. Marc Savard. These were great players whose careers were cut short (or altered) due to predatory hits. And that’s what hockey wants to protect. Isn’t it bad enough that these stars could have had longer careers? Sure, the NHL has “eliminated” head shots. But that’s the problem. They’ve only eliminated it in a rulebook that is constantly left open to interpretation and non-analysis. Meanwhile, the Department of Player Safety just turns a blind eye. And so now the pathology manifests in different ways. Instead it’s more elegant. But that doesn’t make it any less insidious. The end result is that even the most egregious examples, like Matt Rempe literally flying in with an elbow to the back of Heiskanen’s head, gets what amounts to a two-week vacation.

This may seem dramatic, and indeed the sci-fi I’ve been reading lately could be contributing¹, but it really isn’t. Forget about hockey careers. Why kind of lives do players like Wade Belak, Derek Boogaard, Chris Simon, Rick Rypien, and Matt Johnson² still have if they’re not asked to literally fight and brutalize others and the bodies of others? And for what? To protect what? The barbaric vision of some old, former player trying to relive his own glory days? That’s worth a cumulative increase—each year—in the risk of a brain disease?³

So I change my mind. Stone should have been suspended (of course, he won’t be because Vegas wasn’t even contacted for a potential hearing). Why not make an example out of players? Whether intentional, negligent, or somewhere in between, what difference does it make if it denies a player their freedom to play hockey? If this kind of play has no business in hockey, then why does the player deserve hockey’s business?

This is obviously a very different take then my initial reaction. But I’m tired of having this discussion over and over, and it wasn’t until I had time to reflect that I realized its connection to everything that is reflected in Steve Dangle’s famous words: best sport, worst league. I’m especially tired of somebody splitting hairs over what constitutes legal point of contact. Zach Whitecloud’s hit on Matthew Knies, in which no penalty was even called, was a perfect example.

Point of contact should be irrelevant at this point⁴. It’s one of the things I appreciate about Lian Bichsel. At 6’7, he has every reason to make the “well, I’m tall” excuse like Rempe. But he doesn’t. He squares up. And he drives into opponent’s torso area so that his height never has to be a problem. He’s the ultimate counterpoint to Don Cherry stans who think eliminating head shots will make the game “soft” — as if that even matters.

This is not an argument to throw the book at Stone. But I think something like five games sends the message: intentional or not, we’re gonna protect hockey’s best if you can’t protect the safety of your peers. It’s time for hockey to err on the side of that safety instead of playing out the cheap fantasy of an old boy’s club that wants the octagon on ice. This is a game. There are pucks, sticks, and skates. If you want a prizefight, go watch boxing. That’s what I do.

1. Octavia Butler’s Parable of the Sower has been a blindspot of mine for years. I’m currently fixing that, but man what a gut punch of a read.

2. Unlike the others, Johnson is presumably still alive. But that doesn’t make his story any less horrifying.

3. The fact that anyone is letting Donald Brashear still fight, at 52 years old, is one of hockey’s ultimate failures.

4. I feel like wording goes a long way, so adding words like “primary or secondary” or “main and incidental” instead of “main” point of contact might clarify these borderline cases.