Carol writes:
> I personally would like to see some action taken when "incidents" of this
> nature occur. Usually it involves a player who is known for getting a large
> number of penalties. Whether it is intentional or not, (and I do believe most
> are not intentional) the league should make an example of the incident and
> discipline the guilty party. The fact that Hill only received 2 minutes for
> such a blatant hit to the head and neck just enrages me.
 
    I have to disagree, Carol.  I can't comment on this particular incident
    because I did not see it, but in general, I don't think players should
    be penalized strongly when an unintentional injury occurs.  Now, the
    NHL and virtually all other levels of hockey have decided to try to
    eliminate stickwork, for example, and we have mandatory suspensions if
    a major & DQ are handed out for butt-ending, spearing, etc. in college
    hockey.  The players know this and it is their responsibility to keep
    a rein on their sticks.  Yet, if we are talking about some type of
    collision, say, and there is no evidence to suggest that there was an
    attempt to injure, even if the player was hurt badly, I don't think
    the league should come down on the offending player.
 
    Don't get me wrong - if Hill was clearly attempting to hurt Aikens, then
    yes, the commish should suspend him.  I assume the WCHA is reviewing
    the tapes and interviewing involved parties in an attempt to determine
    just that.  But I don't think he should be suspended just because Aikens
    suffered a serious injury.  Prove intent to injure, then suspend him.
 
 
    - mike