What Constitutes an NHL Suspension?

How many times have you been talking to your friends about stuff going on in the hockey world and heard this argument: “He was given that suspension because of his reputation!” Maybe you’ve heard someone go to the: “there’s no way that would have happened if it was Ovechkin” card. While spinning the NHL’s Wheel of Justice, it’s become apparent that reputation and prior incidents have become a factor when Colin Campbell hands out punishments. But here’s the question that no one is asking: Is that OK?

There were 4 players that were involved in 5 questionable hits over the past weekend (yes, I’m including Friday into the “weekend” category like a college student). The reason that each and everyone one of these is questionable is because they were all dangerous. But what people need to do is separate “dangerous” from “legal.” The reality is that hockey is a dangerous game. You could say that blocking a slapshot is dangerous, but we’re not going to make 100 MPH shots from the point illegal, are we?

At some point when we are looking at fines and suspensions, there are other factors that we have to look at. Of course there are rules that you can look at—but isn’t that what penalties are for? When we’re talking about sitting guys out without pay, there needs to be more to it than just “it was a really hard penalty.”

Here are some things that I look at when I try to decide if a play warrants a suspension (in this order):

1. Intent: First and foremost, was there intent to injure? If there was, then there’s no punishment that’s too harsh.

2. League Precedent: How has the league treated similar plays in the past? Is the play in an area that the league is trying to make a statement? (i.e. Hits to the head)

3. Prior History: Is this a player that is constantly testing the limits of dirty play?

4. Recklessness: Did the player know that they’d be putting their opponent in a dangerous position? (Kneeing, play up against the boards, etc.)

The two most devastating hits were Mike Richards’ hit on David Booth and Tuomo Ruutu’s hit on Darcy Tucker. Both hits resulted in overnight visits to the hospital for the men on the receiving end of the blows—yet the punishments couldn’t have been any more contradictory.

First, Mike Richards completely destroyed David Booth in an open ice hit. He kept his elbows down and delivered a vicious check with his shoulder. Obviously, there was no intent as he was just delivering an open ice hit to a guy that was crossing the blue line. He doesn’t have any prior history. I have a hard time with the league giving a suspension for a check when the player COULD have made it much worse. If you start suspending players for regularly open ice hits, it’ll water down the game. However, if the league is going to make examples of hits to the head, then they can’t pick and choose who they punish and who goes free. It’s a hit to the head but could have been worse.

Campbell’s Ruling: No Punishment
VFMS Ruling: Fine

The Ruutu hit on Darcy Tucker pulled down a tougher ruling from Colin Campbell. The league has consistently penalized and suspended players for dangerous hits along the boards. Additionally, they’ve stated that there will be harsh penalties for any hits to the head. Ruutu’s dangerous hit was delivered both in a dangerous spot and to the head. It didn’t look like there was intent; otherwise the penalty would have been MUCH longer.

Campbell’s Ruling: 3 game suspension
VFMS Ruling: Approx 3 games suspension

Of the 4 hits over the weekend, Scuderi’s hit (while looking dangerous), had less intent than any of the other 3 hits. The play was literally within the context of the game. His job as a defenseman is to make sure that Chimera doesn’t get past him with the puck. He had Chimera lined up for a hip check against the boards. As the Blue Jacket forward saw the check coming, he lowered his shoulder so HE could deliver the contact. Scuderi simply went lower to avoid Chimera’s shoulder—thus making contact much lower than Columbus would have liked. When we put it up to the categories we established, it’s hard to justify the suspension that the Blue Jackets asked for. Was there intent to injure? No, he was just stopping a player with the puck. Does he have a history of dirty play? Absolutely not. Has the league ever suspended a player for a check where the player is leading with his ass? Not that I’m aware of (please let me know if there are examples). No, the league penalizes players when they lead with their knee, elbows or deliver a blow to the head.

Campbell’s Ruling: Fine
VFMS Ruling: No Punishment

The Steve Ott situation is easily the most complicated of the scenarios. The problem with Ott was that he was involved in not one, but TWO different plays that warranted consideration from the league office. While I think they might have got the punishment right, I think they completely fucked up the rationale. We’ll take these hits one at a time:

First, let’s look at the knee that Ott delivered to B.J. Crombeen. When the players were passing, Ott looked like he was trying to deliver a body check. As Crombeen saw the check coming and moved out of the way, it appears that Ott extends his leg to make knee-on-knee contact with the opposing forward. We’re talking about a player with a prior history, delivering an extremely dangerous play in an area that the league has tried to crack down on. Additionally, as hard as it is to prove “intent,” it certainly looked like he knew what he was doing when it happened. Let’s just say it was gray area. So what do you think should be the punishment?

Campbell’s Ruling: No Punishment
VFMS Ruling: 3-5 games

The second hit that we’ll look at is the hip check that Ott delivered to Carlo Colaiacovo in the 2nd period of the same game against the St. Louis Blues. It was an open-ice hit when he led with neither his knee nor his elbow. He didn’t deliver a blow to the head and it was nowhere near the boards. Colaiacovo wasn’t in a vulnerable position at all—so this should be pretty cut and dry, right? Body checks are still legal in the NHL, right?

Campbell’s Ruling: 2 game suspension
VFMS Ruling: No Punishment

At the end of the day, I’m only asking for the same thing that the players are asking for: consistency. Have a set of standards and thresholds, and then apply them universally to all players. Let us know what to expect—because predicting the Wheel of Justice is like predicting lottery numbers.

It’s not too much to ask, is it?

If you like this article, check these out:

KW11994

can you review the play that cost Mike Green 3 a three game suspension? 3 games seems a little steep for a weak elbow that didn't even hurt the other player. Also do you know how the NHL makes a ruling on a suspension? Is it by committee or does one individual make a decision based on the evidence that is given to him. No one seems to know how the NHL makes a decision and this might help us better understand the inconsistency in the NHL.

Matt Reitz

For once, I'm glad the league looked at things BESIDE the injury to the other player. Mike Green was pissed from earlier in the shift and looking for retaliation, he led with his elbow and went for the head. 3 games seemed alright. I wouldnt have complained if it was a few games more, but I'm glad there was SOME kind of disciplinary action.

As far as the suspensions go, the buck stops with NHL Senior Executive Vice President of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell. At the end of the day, the buck stop with him. In instances where the Panthers are involved, Mike Murphy takes over (Campbell's right hand man) because Colin's son plays for Florida...

Nette Minder

Consistency is a problem, and a solvable one, I agree.

But let's look at a deeper problem - there are too many instances where an attempt/intent to injure is clearly evident. This means the punishments are not adequate to deter the conduct. AS an example let's look at the recent LaRaque suspension - though I don't do this to single him out.

The Habs use LaRaque as an intimidating force - one that provides some benefit to them. The Habs have a series of quick but small players that can be the target of substantial physical play, and the Habs want a credible threat on the bench (or in later games) that can counter that play. Despite his weak offensive skills (still not nearly as bad as Brashear), this is clearly a net benefit to the Habs, and I think most real hockey fans understand this and can live with this. It's the deliberate injury stuff that has to go.

So here is the problem. A five game suspension is just not very costly to the Habs. While LaRacque is lost as a physical force for five games, he will still be available to come back and retaliate in subsequent games against those that play physically against the Habs while he is out (e.g. he remains a credible threat down the line), and the Habs will also have the option the replace LaRaque on the roster with another heavy. Not so hard to do, since there are plenty of heavies, and LaRacque brings little skill otherwise that needs replacement.

Given that the cost of LaRaque's dirty play to the team, does not exceded the benefit of his presence, the punishments (suspension) don't deter him (or others) from engaging in questionable play. This is why LaRaques current suspension is his sixth in three years. Let's not even talk about Brashear.

Some have suggested a solution to the problem may be to cut the NHL roster size, eliminating the luxury of a fourth 'goon' line. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/113422-creat.... This strikes me as a non-starter. Only three forward lines will slow the game materially - more line changes will be needed, and the play will simply be slower - something the NHL has clearly indicated it will not do (this is the sport's key advantage over others).

But there a concept here to explore. I thnk the NHL needs to revisit how punishments are meted out when the league determines there was a deliberate attempt to injure. First, the offender should have to sit a minimum of three games, enough to require the team to rethink its lines. Beyond the three games, the offender should be required to sit as long as the player he injured is out. This seems like an equitable thing to do.

But now comes the real kicker. During the first N games of the suspension (N being at the descretion of the league), the team's roster gets cut to 22 players. That creates a significant headache for the team, but doesn't profoundly disadvantage them too much in actual game play. Realistically, the roster cut would not be for too long - perhaps 1-3 games, or perhaps up to five. This would pick up the team's incentive to self-police its wrongdoers - which in my book is almost always the way to go.

saronoff

Prior history should matter. If you're playing dirty over and over it should be a consideration for sure.

For me, shoulders to the head should be illegal and I don't think that would water down hitting or the game. It might make guys learn to hip check but blows to the head need be to vastly lessened for sure.

As for the Ruutu thing, I just think the punishments need to be honest deterrents, not slaps on the wrist. I mean, 3 games is nothing. We need to start getting to 5-7 games as a basic suspension if something so out of line happens.

Zen DeHoag

Great article. I think you made your argument well. Whether the player we like was the aggressor or the victim in one of these hits, it's far too easy to get emotional about it and call for punishment or no punishment based on player/team loyalty. Your examination of these hits was logical and made sense and I couldn't agree more that once a standard has been set then the league needs to stick to it and provide some consistency in its rulings.