Why not a more constructive penalty?

As I was watching a daily sports discussion show on TV yesterday evening, a constructive approach was thrown into the discussion by one of the panelists. The show host and all the panelists seemed to agree. And I found it to be a great idea too.

I have been a hockey fan for the last 25 to 28 years, and I also noticed the increasing number of hits to the head in the NHL. Even the nature of the hits to the head have evolved. From driving elbows, shoulders and gloved punches towards their opponents heads, the tendency is now shifting towards sticks to the head more and more. A thing that was very rarely seen a few decades ago that is now making hockey headlines more and more often.

The famous Marty McSorley whack at Donald Brashear's head kind of slowly started the tendancy. Since that particular event, (only a few years ago by the way) the number of stick attacks and wild elbows to the head have clearly increased in frequency. The amount of concussions per player must've also increased as a result.

Should some of those events occured outside a hockey rink, many of those cases would've been filed in court. Prison sentences, community work and therapy would've been heard as sentences in some of those cases.

There goes the constructive idea... therapy. Why not attach an anger management therapy to every 20+ games suspension for example in the National Hockey League?

The nature of the agressions have changed, why the penalties awarded should not? Some individuals would really benefit a quality therapy in the NHL. Plus, my guess is that it would make the suspension VERY dissuasive. Some players would really think twice on the ice before swinging their stick at someone's head knowing that a therapy might await them around the corner along with the 20 or 25+ games suspension and salary cut.

(Picture: Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler. Anger Management, Sony Pictures.)