NHL general managers are meeting in Florida this week for three days to discuss, among other things, head shots in hockey and the serious injuries that follow. 

This hot button issue has sparked a ton of discussion in the NHL this year because of an apparent increase in head injuries following hits, most recently to Marc Savard of the Boston Bruins when he got demolished by Matt Cooke on Sunday.

It’s a tough topic because some of these checks are ones we previously would have deemed as clean.

Elbows in. No charging. Player doesn’t leave his feet.

But still, players are getting it too hard in the bucket and we all know by now that concussions can mess a guy up. 

Everyone seemed to agree that a clearer definition of the rules was in order heading into the GM meetings. So what did they vote to pass unanimously today? 

A rule that says the referee can assess either a minor penalty or a major penalty for hits they deem were targeted to the head.

What does that mean?

And don’t we already have this rule in place?

Officials have the power to call a major or match penalty any time they feel a player intentionally tries to injure another. Wouldn’t that qualify?

Instead of clearing things up, the NHL is heading (pun intended) into a whole new grey area that’s going to cause them a mountain of, err, headaches. 

It’s tough to distinguish what is an intentional hit to the head and what isn’t, especially at the speed of NHL play.

In slow motion, I’d say that, yes, Cooke went after Savard’s head even though his elbow was down. In real time, I’m not so sure and I think real time is the only way you can look at these kinds of plays because that’s all the player gets to see.

Another question. Savard is generously listed at 5-foot-10 by the Bruins. A ton of players in the NHL are over six feet. What happens when they catch the Marty St. Louises or the Brian Giontas of the league (both 5-foot-7) in the head due largely because of size difference?

It’s a subjective call a lot of the time and I don’t think this alleged new rule does much to clarify.

I saw an interview with Mark Messier the other day and he made a great point that I don’t hear come up too often. He said he’s baffled at why players today seem to put themselves in more vulnerable positions than they used to.

It’s a great point. This wasn’t a problem we seemed to have before and it wasn’t like players all of a sudden started going after heads. They would have laid a guy out in 1989 just the same as they would in 2009 given the chance.

I think too often, players are coming through the trolly tracks – like Savard or like David Booth earlier in the year – with their heads down. Back in Messier’s day, guys just didn’t seem to put themselves in those types of spots as often and if they did, anyone who tried to hit them would have to worry about eating a Sherwood.

I’m not so sure why players put themselves in more vulnerable spots these days. I think in part it has to do with the equipment that can make them feel a little invincible and partly it has to do with the competition.

The battle to make, and stay, in the NHL these days is so tough, players would rather put themselves in precarious positions on the ice in order to make a play rather than risk getting blasted by their coach when they get back to the bench.

I dunno. Those are just two of my theories, but I really don’t have a definitive answer. Feel free to throw out some of your thoughts on how the NHL could improve this problem.

What I do know is the NHL didn’t solve any issues with this new rule and we’re going to see the refs take a pile of heat next season as they attempt to put this grey rule into practice.