He wasn't the only guy getting hacked on the hands/wrists that series, that's for sure. On the flip side, everybody knows about Crosby's concussion history and I didn't see any Flyers deliberately targeting his head in that series.

If Kimmo's injury is disclosed only as a UBI and if I'm a player fully intent on hurting him? I'm testing everything above the waist now... I'm hacking his wrists, I'm putting his shoulders into the glass, I'm spearing him in the back, and maybe if I work up the nerve, I may target his head.

But if the Flyers come out and say it's a concussion (or facial injury), and I know I may be out for the PO's if I target his head and get caught? I may not spend so much time testing the rest of his upper body for weaknesses.

The result is not so much protecting the player, as it is protecting the sanctity of the dressing room.
- Tomahawk

How does not disclosing an injury protect the sanctity of the dressing room? The fact of the matter is that there are players who will target an injury if they know about it specifically. Just a fact of the game. And Holmgren, who has been an NHL player, Coach, Asst. GM, and GM, and has been involved in the game for a long time, knows this. And if there's even a slight chance that it could happen in a game, you err on the side of caution and protect a player from being targeted, as much as you can.
And to say it has anything to do with playing games with the media, is false. That is not on Holmgren's agenda. He has far more important things to do with his time.

And let me get this straight. If the injury is not disclosed and another player spears a player, or targets the head, he is less at risk of getting suspended then if the injury is disclosed and the same things are done? Doesn't make much sense.

And hits to defenseman, and whacks across the wrists, are part of every game. And are going to happen regardless of any injury disclosures.

The fact of the matter is that there are players who will target an injury if they know about it specifically. Just a fact of the game.
- MJL

Really?

The rationale, as has been stated by various G.M.’s, is player safety and the fear that opponents will target injured players if their conditions are known.

Just how serious that targeting problem is up for discussion. Jarome Iginla was recently interviewed by Joe Haggerty for his blog on the web site of Boston’s all-sports radio station WEEI, and Haggerty raised the subject with Iggy.

Q. This is sort of a league issue. I was going to talk about the new injury disclosure policy in which the league has really tightened what the teams can release publicly about injuries. I wanted to just talk a little bit about the rationale. Have you ever been targeted by an opponent who may have known you were injured any time in your career? Did you ever feel that that was a threat?

JAROME IGINLA: I personally haven’t been. You know, I can see the one side where it sounds like you don’t want anyone to know if a guy has maybe a bad hand and you’re going to start slashing his hand. But I don’t think that’s going to happen regularly.

I know when we hear a guy with an injury, we just played [Jason] Arnott. We knew he came back in Nashville, and we knew he came back from a finger injury. We’re trying to be hard on him obviously because it’s his first game back and he plays so well against us, but no one made one comment about let’s go slash his hands or anything like that. I mean, maybe playoff time things heat up even more. But no, we’ve never really talked like that at all.

Q. And just one quick follow-up. There’s been some comparisons drawn with the NFL only because it’s a pretty physical sport, as well, and guys try to take advantage of every piece of intelligence that they have. They have the most transparent policy, in which every Wednesday and Friday there’s a report that comes out on each injured player, where he’s hurt, what he’s been able to do. There’s a big reason for that, and that’s in Las Vegas with the wagering and whatnot. But I’m just curious, if the NFL can be that transparent, why can’t the NHL?

JAROME IGINLA: Well, yeah, I think it’s obviously a very physical sport, too. I mean, we’re trying to not say a guy has a shoulder injury. Say we’re playing another team and one of their top guys has a shoulder injury. Well, we’re probably trying to hit him anyway, but we’re trying to hit him as much as we can.

And if it’s an ankle injury, there’s nothing a guy is really doing to another guy’s ankle. I guess it would be a hand would come to mind that you might see more, but refs are on that and see that anyway. So yeah, most of them are like yeah, I’m not that personally, obviously, I’m not that worried about it because usually I feel like they’re trying to hit me anyway, or playing against another team’s defensemen and they’re trying to run me into a corner whether my shoulder is good or not. No, I could see why it could be more transparent.

Murphy wrote in his Pioneer Press story, “None of the 10 players interviewed for this story said he ever has been coached to attack a wounded player with intent to further injure him. And none could recall being targeted because of a disclosed injury.”

“I don’t get it,” 13-year veteran Andrew Brunette of the Wild told Murphy. “I’ve never seen, never heard anybody say, ‘Let’s get him’ because he’s injured.”

“I don’t buy into this thing about being targeted,” Murphy quoted Sabres coach Lindy Ruff as saying. “If you’ve got a pulled groin, are you going to target a pulled muscle? There’s always been this mystery in our league. But most of the time, it’s a meaningless type of injury you don’t need to hide.”

It’s not the unanimous view, of course, but we strongly doubt targeting is the threat it is made out to be.

...

Really?


...
- Tomahawk

Yes really. But I can understand how a few players out of hundreds speaks for the entire League. Because there are no dirty players or cheap shot artists in the NHL!

Doesn't that protect the injured area if they can't find it? If a player is taking liberties like that they are surely going to target and try to re-injure if they know the exact area of injury. Not disclosing the injury makes it a guessing game. I am not sure what your trying to say by this.
- FlyersSteve118

There is a specific ban against targeting the head... they're all reviewed by the DoPS and bans are handed out for obvious offenses. So specifying that Kimmo's injury is to the head, instead of to the entire upper body, would be basically saying, "yeah, he's hurt there, but the NHL won't let you get away with targeting him in the head, so there's nothing you can do about it".

Yes really. But I can understand how one player out of hundreds speaks for the entire League. Because there are no dirty players or cheap shot artists in the NHL!
- MJL

Way to count, because that was two respected vets and one vet coach quoted, and 10 players interviewed overall.

The question is, are there players who specifically target an injury? And can they even do that, with the speed at which the game is played? It's not like old-school Matt Cooke is so surgical with his stick that he can reliably stick you right in your cracked twelfth thoracic vertebra going at full speed. He's more liable to step on your Achilles or hit you with a flying elbow instead.

Way to count, because that was two respected vets and one vet coach.

The question is, are there players who specifically target an injury? And can they even do that, with the speed at which the game is played? It's not like old-school Matt Cooke is so surgical with his stick that he can reliably stick you right on your cracked twelfth thoracic vertebra going at full speed. He's more liable to step on your Achilles or hit you with a flying elbow instead.
- Tomahawk

It doesn't matter if there were a dozen players interviewed. It's League of hundreds of players. And honestly, what Coach is going to publicly admit that he's asked any player to do so?
No, the question is not are there players who specifically target an injury. That misses the point. The question is, is there a possibility that any player can target an injury. It is erring on the side of caution. That is the whole point. Most players are honorable players that will not. But some are not.
Calling it BS is what is BS, because the possibility exists.

And the comment about the twelth veterbra was senseless. Because if you have a broken vertebra, any hit to the torso is going to cause significant pain and a chance of reinjury. It doesn't have to be directly on the exact area.

It doesn't matter if there were a dozen players interviewed. It's League of hundreds of players. And honestly, what Coach is going to publicly admit that he's asked any player to do so?
No, the question is not are there players who specifically target an injury. That misses the point. The question is, is there a possibility that any player can target an injury. It is erring on the side of caution. That is the whole point. Most players are honorable players that will not. But some are not.
Calling it BS is what is BS, because the possibility exists.
- MJL

Find me one specific example, where a player was sanctioned by the league for blatantly targeting another player's injury in an attempt to re-injure. Not an anecdotal account... an actual report.

Find me one specific example, where a player was sanctioned by the league for blatantly targeting another player's injury in an attempt to re-injure. Not an anecdotal account... an actual report.
- Tomahawk

Don't need to have an actual report. If there is a possibility that it can happen, you err on the side of caution. Are you seriously going to tell me that it's not a possibility? That because I can't find an actual report, if one even exists, that it's never happened, or doesn't happen? Or couldn't happen? This is common sense.

And the entire article you posted quotes from, was anecdotal!

Don't need to have an actual report. If there is a possibility that it can happen, you err on the side of caution. Are you seriously going to tell me that it's not a possibility? That because I can't find an actual report, if one even exists, that it's never happened, or doesn't happen? Or couldn't happen? This is common sense.
- MJL

You know what I can find?

Plenty of instances where coaches will jump in front of the cameras and cry, "Player X should be suspended, because he just gave our guy a concussion!"

Where does that fit into your tidy little idea that it's all about protecting players?

"Player X should be suspended, because he just gave our guy an upper body injury" just doesn't quite have the same ring to it, I guess.

- jmatchett383

You know what I can find?

Plenty of instances where coaches will jump in front of the cameras and cry, "Player X should be suspended, because he just gave our guy a concussion!"

Where does that fit into your tidy little idea that it's all about protecting players?

"Player X should be suspended, because he just gave our guy an upper body injury" just doesn't quite have the same ring to it, I guess.
- Tomahawk

It doesn't fit in. It's a straw man argument. The issue is whether it's a possibility of happening, and whether Holmgren feels it is the correct thing to do to protect his players. No matter what the odds of it happening are.
I'm not naive enough to believe that any NHL player or Coach would admit to any reporter that things like this go on, nor naive enough to pretend that it doesn't happen.

Tim Panaccio: So Why the Secrecy?
- tpanaccio

the hell are you talking about?

You ever think that federal HIPAA privacy laws might be in the equation for releasing such information?
- watsonnostaw

you could have just stopped at think.

you could have just stopped at think.
- kicksave856

I am sure he thinks the "CB" on the Phillies jersey this year is in honor of his wife

The issue is whether it's a possibility of happening
- MJL

Lot of things are possible... doesn't mean we should go full-on paranoid about it. There's no evidence to support targeting, even before the new disclosure rules went into effect in 2008. A few teams decided that they wanted to start getting vague, and it caught on. Nothing more, nothing less.

The vast majority of injuries are disclosed... are all those players really in mortal danger? I think not.

Lot of things are possible... doesn't mean we should go full-on paranoid about it. There's no evidence to support targeting, even before the new disclosure rules went into effect in 2008. A few teams decided that they wanted to start getting vague, and it caught on. Nothing more, nothing less.

The vast majority of injuries are disclosed... are all those players really in mortal danger? I think not.
- Tomahawk

There doesn't need to be evidence of it. Those who have played the game and have been around the game know it's happened, and that there is a possibility of it happening. There is also no definitive evidence that it hasn't happened.
Yea, a few teams just woke up one morning and decided to be vague. There was no reasoning behind other then to piss of a few reporters.

Plenty of Upper and Lower body in there. Wonder why some injuries are disclosed and some are listed under UB or LB? Hmmmm!

- jmatchett383

why must there be full disclosure? So you have some facts to put in your lame articles? lame. You sir, are lame.

I come to this page for real hockey, not your national inquirer wanna-be writing. It's not a soap opera, its people's lives and a business. He doesn't want to tell you, he doesn't have to. He's out, someone else is in. So instead you whine instead of giving us hockey news. Boo, lame Tim. As usual....
- Girouxy

- Flyskippy

it's (frank)ing amazing, isn't it?

it's (frank)ing amazing, isn't it?
- kicksave856

"I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG!

"No, I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG!

"YOU'RE ALWAYS PICKING FIGHTS WITH ME!"

"No, YOU'RE ALWAYS PICKING FIGHTS WITH ME!"

"YOU COME ON HERE JUST TO PICK OVER WHAT I SAY AND FIND FAULT WITH IT!"

"No, YOU COME ON HERE JUST TO PICK OVER WHAT I SAY AND FIND FAULT WITH IT!"

Luckily, this only happens Sunday - Saturday.

it's (frank)ing amazing, isn't it?
- kicksave856

It's like suspended animation. Right where it was when I left off back in Whogivesacraptember.

There doesn't need to be evidence of it. Those who have played the game and have been around the game know it's happened, and that there is a possibility of it happening. There is also no definitive evidence that it hasn't happened.
- MJL

Defaulting to the old tried and true 'Homer knows best' defense... shocking.

Plenty of Upper and Lower body in there. Wonder why some injuries are disclosed and some are listed under UB or LB? Hmmmm!
- MJL

Reporters haven't gotten the scoop on them yet, and/or lists need to be updated?

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/injuries

A very small % of injuries remain mysteries for long.

Defaulting to the old tried and true 'Homer knows best' defense... shocking.



Reporters haven't gotten the scoop on them yet, and/or lists need to be updated?

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/injuries

A very small % of injuries remain mysteries for long.
- Tomahawk

It's not the Homer knows best defense. The reasons why it is done are reasonable and real. And Holmgren is not the only GM who does it. Curious why you didn't post the link to the article with the quotes from Iginla and others. Probably because the same article had quotes where Ken Holland thought that Johan Franzen was being targeted in the playoffs, when he was coming off a concussion. There are alsp plenty of other articles on this where the NHL injury policy is discussed.
Ex Maple Leafs GM John Ferguson talks about not letting the locker room attendant that works for the home team in their locker room when players were present, when they were on the road. And also talking their own medical team with them on the road for the playoffs. This is very real. And as you can see from the lists you have provided, pretty much every team does it for certain injuries, and moreso in the playoffs. Why is all this done, if the problem doesn't exist? Not hard to figure out.
But I understand that the narrative exists that everything the Flyers, and Holmgren does is wrong.