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 must say right off that I haven't seen the hit so I am unable to judge one
  way or the other.  However, I feel I must disagree whole-heartedly with your
  statement that a league should make an example of a player who intentionally
  OR unintentionally seriously injures another player.
 
  I think it is safe to assume that we are all in agreement that if a player
  intentionally injures or attempts to injure another player he should be delt
  with to the full extent of the rules.  But hockey is a contact sport, and with
  any contact sport accidents are going to happen.  I see no reason to start
  punishing players if an opponent happens to dislocate a shoulder on a CLEAN
  check.  Or what if, God forbid, a rising slap shot strikes a goalie in the
 head
  and he suffers a concusion.  Should we suspend the player who shot the puck
 for
  a game or the season.  I would have to say NO.
 
  Let's let the league office decide, after looking at film, whether or not any
  injury was caused by a FLAGRANT! attack from another player and if it was then
  punish that player.  But don't try and suggest that anytime an injury occurs
  on the ice that someone should be held responsible.
 
 
 
 
-------