And Jingo was his name-o/The finest line.

I don't like Don Cherry. I know I try really hard to hide it, but it just comes out. When I watch Coach's Corner, I get 3 feelings:
1) Ron MacLean is the coolest guy possible. He makes terrible puns and always gives an intelligent, coherent opinion on the state of the NHL, even if I disagree with him.

2) Don Cherry when talking about how to play the game from a technical/fundamental aspect, has a worthwhile opinion. He still isn't right all the time. He constantly reminds kids to get their stick out of the way when trying to block a shot so it doesn't deflect and give the goalie a weird bounce. Ron MacLean has often reminded him that getting your stick in the way will often deflect a shot on goal from being on goal in the first place, but whatever. As a positional coach Cherry has some OK things to say.

3) Don Cherry is a xenophobic jingo.

Case in point:

On CC for 10/25, Grapes was lowlighting some of the dangerous hits that've taken place recently. He showed Ruutu, Artyukhin, and Kozlov hitting someone with questionable legality. He then made sure to point out how foreign those guys were by stressing the "uuuu" sounds in the names Ruutu and Artyuhkin. I think he even tried to call Kozlov "Kuuuzlov" to reiterate. Then he showed Willie Mitchell's open ice hit on Toews, saying essentially this is how it's done "legally and cleanly."

And since in today's NHL you can't hit anyone hard without getting into a fight right afterward, Mitchell then had to defend himself. While the play was going on, Henrik Sedin was skating in on Antii Niemi in a close, 2-1 game. The whistle hadn't blown yet, so Henrik made a move on Niemi and tried to score, while Edler followed and tipped in the rebound.

Cherry rolled the tape again saying:

"Look at the Swedes. There's a war going on and they're trying to score! They wouldn't know what to do in a fight anyway."

MacLean's response:

"Would've been a big goal."

Ron, you are awesome.

First, and maybe Don doesn't know this, the goal in the sport of hockey is to score more goals than your opponent.

2ndly, if it would've been and Jordan Staal on their way to the net and poked one in (whether it counted or not) I bet Don would cheer on their hustle and that they "played until they heard a whistle."

Lastly, they roll a tape of Toews hobbling off the ice like a baby bird learning to walk, to which Cherry applauds, mentioning Toews is Canadian and needs to "get up and get the bench."

Toews looked pathetic going to the bench. I don't know how that is any indication of anything patriotic or manly. Toews was so out of sorts and really no one assisted him until Brian Campbell came in after he was nearly off the ice.

I know this type of talk isn't anything new in the world of Grapes. That doesn't mean is pisses me off any less.

"If you think pride is about nationality, you're wrong."

******

Roughly while Cherry was flying the Canadian flag, Mike Richards put David Booth in the hospital and Radek Dvorak took a knee-to-knee hit that knocked him out of the game and probably much longer.

Message boards all over the blogosphere have been asking questions about each hit. "Was it legal? Was it dirty? Will there be a suspension? Is (victim) OK?" These are the questions that people want answers to and for too many the answer to one answers the rest. If there was a suspension then it was dirty and if not, it was clean. But this is where we need to look a little further. What if the NHL's definition of "suspendable" isn't relevant to the game? What if there are double-standards for certain players based on team, stardom, salary, reputation? Should these things factor in? People are too accepting of the NHL's opinion. The "what's good enough for the NHL is good enough for me" line of thinking doesn't fly unless you couldn't care less about anyone's well-being.

Some say that the player should be out for the duration of their victims injury which completely eliminates the point of suspensions in the first place. There is punishment for the action not the result. If I try to shoot you and I miss, just beacuse you didn't die doesn't mean I wasn't trying to kill you. I should still be punished.

It comes down to proving intent, which is really impossible. The next rung on the ladder would be probable cause. When asked after the hit on Booth, Richards said "I didn't mean to hurt him" and "I was trying to separate him from the puck." True Mike, it's about 6 miles from Wachovia Center to Pennsylvania Hospital. As Flyers GM Paul Holmgren put it, he was indeed "doing his job."

Watch Ruutu's hit on Tucker. Watch Mitchell's hit on Toews. Watch Richards hit on Booth. What are the similarities? What are the differences? They are all pretty similar to me with the major difference being that Ruutu's was on the boards and the other two weren't. Is that relevant? It might be. Richards' hit was to the head, but I don't think Mike was head-hunting necessarily. I think he was trying to hit Booth as hard as he could which is surely more than is necessary to "separate him from the puck." This all leads to the actual problem here.

The problem isn't reputation. The problem isn't players going head-hunting. And unfortunately, the problem isn't injuries. I've read fans saying that people being carried off on a stretcher as "That's hockey!" Is it? Is that why you watch hockey? In hopes of someone being carried off on a stretcher?

That is the problem with hitting in the National Hockey League. Anyone, including me and a man whose career was disrupted thanks to concussions, appreciates and understands the necessity of body checking. But the bottom line is the NHL is a business.

As far as many fans and former players/coaches (i.e. Don Cherry) are concerned, this NHL is trending toward becoming a non-contact sport. "If you don't like hitting, go play in Europe" one fan wrote. The league office acts like it is trying to appease those who are pro-health by suspending players for hits to the head who have an intent to injure, players who leave their feet (not relevant) or have a history. If health was really the issue, these hits would be banned outright, but the league isn't interested in that. It's interested in sitting on the fence as hard as it can because any one of us is a dollar sign. Give everyone a little bit of what they want, instead of looking at what really is the best scenario for those involved.

The only people who can curb this are the players. As LaFontaine said, we've taught a generation of defensemen not to clutch and grab. We can teach people how to avoid hitting people in the head. And until a new generation is taught when to finish a check and when not to, there will be too many players carried off on a stretcher. Could it still happen if head hits are banned? Of course, but not with such regularity as they have this past week.

A legal hit isn't necessarily a clean hit. And just because the NHL says it's legal, doesn't mean it should be. Think about what is necessary. Think about what should be legal. I really am asking for your opinion. Would you want to play in that league? If your answer is no, then I'm sorry....that's not hockey.