Leafs GM Brian Burke (L) and Calgary Flames GM Darryl Sutter.

BY MARK SPECTOR
sportsnet.ca

PHILADELPHIA — They’re still talking about it, but at least there is an end in sight for the head shots issue.

"By the time we start the (2010-11) season we’re going to have something in place that’s clear. Players will know whether it’s legal or not," said Edmonton general manager Steve Tambellini, after emerging from a five-hour session with his colleagues prior to Game 3 of the Stanley Cup final.

The debate is no longer whether there will be penalties and suspensions for unexpected blows to the head, but how severe and immediate those repercussions will be. Although every hit is subject to review from discipline czar Colin Campbell, most GMs favour an immediate minor or major penalty as well.

The major would come with a game misconduct.

"Teams that are participating in a game want to have an immediate result from an infraction, rather than teams benefitting who come behind," said Vancouver GM Mike Gillis. "When a guy gets suspended for the next two or three games, those are the teams that are getting the benefit of the suspension.

"It’s a real difficult area," he continued. "You don’t want to take body checking out of the game. Willie Mitchell’s hit on (Jonathan) Toews was a clean, north-south hit with an unfortunate result."

Naturally, the Canucks didn’t like Evgeni Malkin’s hit that ended Mitchell’s season in January. Gillis said he would be speaking to the UFA defenceman over the next couple of days to "get a feel" for where his post-concussion syndrome stands.

Another issue the GMs tackled at their Ritz Carlton meetings was the shootout. There are concerns about the rising number of games that end in a shootout, though no clear solution on how to deal with that.

"I think I can say safely for the group that when we approved the shootout we never thought we’d get this many shootouts," said Toronto GM Brian Burke. "I know our fans like it, but it’s a skill competition, decides games, and I think more games are being decided by shootouts than any of us envisioned when we voted for the rules."

It may not be a coincidence that the issue was raised at this particular Stanley Cup final. The Flyers needed a shootout after Game 82 just to qualify for the post-season.

"You’re looking at a skills competition that gets Philadelphia into the playoffs," said Gillis. "Now they’re in the final."

It’s a chicken and egg thing. The shootouts, and the loser’s point in overtime, create closer races in the standings. Closer races mean more parity, which tends to give you more tied games after three periods.

"When you put it in, there was probably a disparity in teams," said Calgary Flames GM Darryl Sutter. "Now there are more shootouts, clearly, because teams are even. That’s why there aren’t more games decided."

So, what’s the solution?

"I don’t know what the answer is to that," admitted Burke, who is rarely stumped. "Longer overtimes? If you play part of the overtime 4-on-4 then to go to a 3-on-3? I don’t know what the answer is. But an unreasonable number of games are being decided by a shootout."

"We can bring up all … those things," Sutter said. "I really don’t know how you address it. That’s what the cap created — the parity. You have a huge number of games that are decided now by shootouts. So be it."