Nuclear Warfare on Ice
Protecting the game's stars with political science (?)
In a recent episode of The Jeff Marek Show, the eponymous host and collaborator Elliotte Friedman spoke at length about incidents involving NHL stars Sidney Crosby and Kirill Kaprisov.
In a PIT vs. STL game, Crosby was left bloodied after a jousting match against hulking defenseman Niko Mikkola.
Elsewhere, MIN dynamo Kaprisov may be out long-term after a cheap shot by depth forward Trent Frederic.
Marek and Friedman were careful to avoid openly calling for violent retribution against Mikkola and Frederic. However, both conceded that “there has to be consequences” to players taking liberties with stars that drive our sport’s popularity.
I cannot help but think about a far more serious topic, one that I had written a number of political science papers on during my undergrad at McGill University (where I majored in Marketing but minored in Poli Sci and German Language).
Indeed, I’m thinking about international relations, as they relate to nuclear warfare.
Schools of Thought
Realism
Although a highly diverse body of thought, it is unified by the belief that world politics is always and necessarily a field of conflict among actors pursuing wealth and power. The theories of realism are contrasted by the cooperative ideals of liberalism. (Wikipedia)
In hockey terms: Enforcers, staged fights, revenge hits
Liberalism
…a school of thought within international relations theory which can be thought to revolve around three interrelated principles:
Rejection of power politics as the only possible outcome of international relations; it questions security/warfare principles of realism
It accentuates mutual benefits and international cooperation
It implements international organizations and nongovernmental actors for shaping state preferences and policy choices (Wikipedia)
In hockey terms: Department of Player safety, calling the rule book, getting even by scoring on the power play
Deterrence Theory
Rational deterrence theory holds that an attacker will be deterred if they believe that:
(Probability of deterrer carrying out deterrent threat x Costs if threat carried out) > (Probability of the attacker accomplishing the action x Benefits of the action) (Wikipedia)
Realism and Liberalism propose different solutions to bolster deterrence theory. The former puts emphasis on increasing the Cost to the attacker (Mutually Assured Destruction). The latter focuses on reducing Benefits of a first strike (international cooperation, economic interdependence, diplomacy, etc.).
In hockey, the calculus of whether to goon it up against opposing skaters relies on the same principles.
The deciding factor tends to be the behaviour of the on-ice officials.
Situation: Team A’s #10 is deliberately injured by Team B’s #5. Another Team A skater, #12, jumps in to fight #5. A10 leaves the game and appear to be out long-term. A12 punches B5 in the face several times. B5 is bloodied but stays in the game.
Possible Outcomes:
A12 and B5 are assessed five-minute majors for fighting
A12 and B5 are assessed five-minute majors for fighting, with A12 receiving a game misconduct (instigating a fight) and Team B going on the power play
A12 & B5 five for fighting, with B5 receiving a game misconduct (intent to injure) and Team A going on the power play
In the example above, Outcome 1 is fairly neutral, though Team A is heavily punished by virtue of losing A10.
Outcome 3 contributes to Deterrence Theory, as severe punishment at both the individual and team levels should prevent B5 from taking liberties against vulnerable players in the future.
Outcome 2, however, actually breaks down Deterrence by reducing Cost to the attacker (B5 not given an additional penalty) and increasing the Benefit to the attacker (A12 kicked out + Team A shorthanded).
As such, if NHL refs consistently call Instigator and retaliatory penalties against a team whose player had just been injured, they are actually contributing to the problem and causing more players to be victim of first-strike attacks in the future.
Countervalue vs. Counterforce
DEFCON1.
Diplomacy has failed.
Nuclear war is upon us.
But how?
Again, there are two schools of thought.
Countervalue: Nuke the enemy’s cities
Counterforce: Nuke the enemy’s military installations
Hockey players generally use counterforce by retaliating against the opponent responsible for the star’s injury or via staged fights against the opposing team’s enforcer.
However, as Marek recounts, LAK tough guy Marty McSorley applied countervalue tactics against TOR in the 1993 playoffs. When TOR’s Wendel Clark roughed up Wayne Gretzky, McSorley responded by laying out Leafs star Doug Gilmour with an open-ice hit.
A year later, Clark attempted to apply countervalue tactics by threatening violence against VAN star Pavel Bure, as a way to neutralize Canucks fighter Gino Odjick.
The Leafs ended up losing both series.
Support Free Content on the Hockey Tactics Newsletter
