Journalism takes a back seat when it comes to Sidney Crosby

When a star player for any team is injured, there is an immediate and fierce reaction.  If the New  York Rangers lost Adam Fox or Artemi Panarin to an blatant head shot, the reaction would be unimaginable.  When Sidney Crosby was injured and lost to what could be another concussion, the blowback from the Pittsburgh fanbase was predictable.   However, there’s one big difference.

In this case, the fact is that this was not a blatant head shot.  While no one can deny that Jacob Trouba’s elbow came in contact with Crosby’s head, you have to consider why.  It was a collision that resulted in an injury and the NHL looked at it and ruled that it was not worthy of a suspension or even a fine.

It’s truly unfortunate that Crosby was injured on the play.  He’s been the Penguins’ best player and has been a major reason that Pittsburgh is ahead in the series.  He’s also a player who is on the ice more than any of his teammates and he doesn’t shy away from the “dirty” areas.  His low center of gravity makes him hard to stop or hit, but he has never been a perimeter player.

The reaction

Despite the facts and video evidence, the reaction in Pittsburgh has been over the top, bordering on irrational.   What makes this one different is that the local media has joined the fans in disregarding the facts and have joined the chorus calling for Jacob Trouba’s head.

Josh Yohe is listed as a senior writer for The Athletic (subscription required) covering the Pittsburgh Penguins.  This is what he wrote:   “What a classic NHL moment. Crosby, a living legend and one of the five greatest players in the history of the sport, is elbowed in the head while authoring one of the signature series of his career. No penalty. You can’t make this stuff up.  I’ve seen dirtier plays than what Trouba did to Crosby, but make no mistake, it’s a dirty hit. It’s a clear elbow to the head.”

Pittsburgh Hockey Now is a website that describes itself as “a fully credentialed website covering all things Pittsburgh Penguins.”    Here is what Dave Molinari wrote.  “When Rangers defenseman Jacob Trouba targeted Crosby’s head with an elbow during the second period of New York’s 5-3 victory in Game 3 and didn’t get so much as a dirty look from referees Wes McCauley and Garrett Rank, the idea that it is still open season on Crosby was confirmed.”

Writer Dan Kingerski has been on a rant about it, writing after the game,   “Sidney Crosby did not return. It was an obvious intent to injure. A ‘reckless hit’ is a benefit of the doubt I’m not inclined to give, provided the situation and Trouba’s repeated and continuous actions.”

He followed up yesterday.  “The hit was at best reckless and at worst a continuation of a pattern of deliberately dangerous hits in the series and game by Trouba and New York defensemen. Earlier in the series, defender Ryan Lindgren knocked Penguins winger Rickard Rakell out of the series with a head shot.”

Never mind that none of them mentioned the dangerous cross check by Evgeni Malkin to the face of Kevin Rooney.  Malkin had been suspended for a similar offense in the regular season.  None of them mentioned the special attention paid to Ryan Lindgren and his lower body injury.

Columnist Mark Madden of the Trib Live weighed in.  “As for Trouba’s hit, it was high, bad, involved his elbow and looked intentional.   Do I think Trouba was looking to knock Crosby out of the game? Absolutely. The Rangers targeted Crosby from game’s beginning. Trouba elbowed Jake Guentzel in the head not long after the opening draw. Ryan Lindgren of the Rangers eliminated the Penguins’ Rickard Rakell from the series with a high hit in Game 1.”

The difference here is that Madden is listed as a columnist and is expected to express opinion. To his credit, he also mentioned the ugly Malkin cross check as being no better.

What’s the difference?

There is a difference when it comes to reporting on sports.  We’ve seen a proliferation of fan-generated content websites like Blue Line Station.  While we at BLS fully abide by the rules of journalism when it comes to reporting the facts, there is no doubt that this is a site written by Ranger fans and for Ranger fans.  If Pittsburgh Hockey Now is going to present itself as a “fully credentialed” news organization, that’s a big difference.

In writing about the play, we’ve tried to present the facts and the various interpretations of what happened.  We’ve weighed in with our take on the play, but also provided the opinions of other hockey observers.  Finally, we provided the video so fans can look and decide, based on the feedback from others.

When a website that purports to be a legitimate news site crosses the line into opinion without acknowledging that, it becomes an issue.  Fans read this stuff and they believe it.  When a writer states that a hit was malicious and intentional without providing both sides of the story, it riles up an already angry fan base.

When we say that most, if not all hockey observers felt that it was an unintentional collision, we are not kidding.  Here is Frank Seravelli’s take on the play.

We’ve already mentioned Kevin Bieksa’s analysis on Hockey Night in Canada.  As a former right shot defenseman, he pointed out that there is no way that Trouba was headhunting by leading with his stick hand.  He said, as Seravelli points out, that when Trouba’s stick hit Crosby, it forced the arm up and that resulted in the “chicken wing” that the Pittsburgh writers saw as an intentional elbow to Crosby’s head.

Ditto for hockey writer Elliotte Friedman.

Mike Rupp on NHL radio said that it wasn’t an intentional head shot, but warranted some kind of discipline in an effort to keep high hits to a minimum.   Radio analyst Mike Johnson felt the same.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but make it clear why.

A suggestion

When the NHL takes disciplinary action against a player, they provide a full explanation on the nhl.com website.  Perhaps, in cases when they do take a look at a play, it would be helpful to provide an explanation when they don’t take disciplinary action against a player.

Fans may not accept such an explanation, but journalists would have a something to point to when describing the NHL’s response.

As for the reporting, websites should make it a practice to label opinion as opinion when they purport to be news organizations.  There’s no denying that journalists can be fans of the team that they cover, but if you are a journalist, you are supposed to be impartial.  In this case, impartiality is nowhere to be found.  Social media is where you should find unlabeled opinion, not news sites.