Clean Check

Today, Nick Kypreos said some rather interesting things about the mindset of hockey players during a lunchtime radio show. The most relevant quote:

“I’m not proud to say it, but I felt like if I could kill somebody with a legal check, I would do it,” Kypreos said, reflecting on his career during a discussion on vicious bodychecking — whether clean or illegal — on The Fan 590.

“That’s how much emotion, and outside the norm (of society that a hockey player) can get ... there is no rhyme or reason.

“I have been out there and looked at another guy’s eyes and I thought ‘I could kill you.’ ”

Now. I should start by saying I have never played a game of professional hockey. If you want to discount my opinion for that reason, you are free to go ahead and do so. But I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if a sporting event is eliciting that sort of reaction, something is wrong. I am all for heated competition, but there should NEVER be a point where death is even contemplated.

Read Kypreos' comments again. He certainly seems to be implying that had he been given the chance to kill another player with what he defines as a "clean check", he would have done it. That is highly disturbing for a number of reasons:

1) Kypreos chose the term kill carefully, and used it deliberately. There was no hyperbole in the way he spoke. He did not use the word kill to exaggerate "hit very hard". He definitely meant "to take the the life of another human being".

2) While Nick Kypreos explained that he was not proud of having felt that way, he did attempt to justify his thoughts. In reading the rest of the article, it becomes clear that Kypreos would say he is merely a victim of his surroundings. There is "...stuff that will make you snap.." and that body checking can involve "...drawing some emotions you're not proud of". Kypreos is suggesting that placed in the same situation, everyone else would have done the same. It's just the way the game is played etc.

3) Maybe the scariest underlying part of all is the implication that it would be possible to kill someone with a "clean check", one for which, as a player, you not only could legally perform, but should feel obliged to do so. The furor surrounding the recent rash of injuries in hockey that have been caused by hits to the head has revealed a mentality in the upper echelons of the game wherein the only question of whether a player was in the right was whether he lead with his shoulder or his elbow, or did the hit take place when the injured party still had the puck?

Why is it okay to shrug off debilitating injuries in the name of...what exactly? What is so great about seeing players lying prone on the ice? But if it's a "clean check", it's okay?

"...the key to trying to deliver a punishing hit or exact a measure of revenge is to do it legally. That’s where Cormier failed miserably".

That's what Toronto Sun's Gary Loewen wrote in that same Kypreos column. And he is so very, very wrong. Patrice Cormier failed miserably as a human being not because he led with his elbow in hitting Mikael Tam, but because he left the bench with the intention of hurting Mikael Tam. The elbow is scary, but the beeline Cormier takes is even scarier.

Which takes me back to Kypreos' original statements. I think it says a lot about the state of the game that Kypreos says something like that and almost no one bats an eyelash. Google the term "Nick Kypreos kill". Almost no results relating to his insane comments. You know why? Because he said he would do it with a "clean check". One day, something horrible is going to happen because of what the rules would define as permissible. Maybe then we can finally talk about the consequences of "clean checks" like rational human beings.

NB