Conor Garland Mauls Connor McDavid: Don Cherry Weighs In

Article content

As Connor McDavid returns from a three-game suspension to rejoin the Edmonton Oilers lineup against Seattle, hockey commentator Don Cherry has chimed in with his critique on Vancouver’s Conor Garland’s actions during a game against McDavid, sparking significant debate.

Cherry discussed GARLAND’s hold on McDavid, describing it as “ridiculous” and stating, “He really did have him tied up.”

Cherry also expressed his disappointment with the NHL’s Player Safety’s decision to suspend Tyler Myers three games for a crosscheck, while only handing McDavid a three-game suspension despite the unpenalized actions of Garland. He argued, “Well, you had to give him three games if the other guy (Myers) gets three games.”

Cherry further criticized the NHL’s instigator penalty for protecting players who stand up for their teammates. He believed stars were better protected in the past, noting, “Everybody used to take care of [Guy] Lafleur, take care of [Steve] Shutt…. Say you pick on Shutt. There’s a guy coming. Took care of their own.”

Cherry recounted an incident from his coaching days where he had Brad Park, one of the Rangers’ top defencemen known for his fighting ability, quit fighting after a conversation. Cherry instructed Park not to fight, advising him, “Don’t worry, there’ll be somebody there to take care of.” Cherry’s guidance effectively ended Park’s fighting career.

Garland’s Actions in Context

While Cherry’s perspective holds weight, it’s essential to consider Garland’s actions within the context of modern hockey rules. Garland’s hold on McDavid was likely within the bounds of what is allowed, whereas crosschecks, as exemplified by Myers, are more definitively penalized.

Garland’s moves enabled him to get better positioning on the ice, a strategic play within the game’s rules rather than outright abuse. Garland’s tactics reflect a different approach to player engagement compared to Cherry’s era.

The Role of Money in Modern Hockey

Another aspect worth considering is the significant increase in player salaries over the years. In the 1980s, when Cherry coached, players had less financial incentive to provoke stars, knowing the consequences could include physical retaliation.

Today, with millions of dollars on the line, players are less likely to fear intimidating figures like Dave Semenko or Mark Messier. Modern players may be more inclined to push the boundaries in their pursuit of wins and, consequently, financial gain.

This financial factor underscores the importance of league enforcement in curbing aggressive or abusive behavior. In the current instance, Garland should have been handed a double minor for a roughing penalty, and Kempe’s $5,000 fine should have been accompanied by a multi-game suspension.

The NHL’s role in maintaining fair play is crucial. Through better officiating and stricter penalties, the league can address issues like Garland’s hold on McDavid, ensuring a more equitable and safer game.

Conclusion

Cherry’s nostalgic perspective highlights the evolution of hockey’s protective measures for star players. While enforced by physical camaraderie in the past, today’s players face financial incentives that influence their behavior.

The league must play a pivotal role in protecting players from abuse within the rules. By implementing stricter penalties, the NHL can foster a safer and more respectful environment, ensuring that players like Connor McDavid face minimal risks during games.