The first round of this years Stanley Cup playoffs has already seen four separate players receive disciplinary action adding up to a total of 5 lost games, with a fifth player narrowly and controversially avoiding a suspension. The epidemic that has become the National Hockey League must be stopped before our children and our children's children fall victim to this wicked tyrant. Air Canada, as we speak, is pulling the plug on their sponsorship and has even gone as far as to say they will cease flying in or out of North America if the league does not step in and put in place concrete preventative measures for their players safety.
Is anyone still reading this? If you are, I think you can clearly see how ridiculous all this sounds, but I sometimes feel this way when reading people's comments about suspensions and 'vicious' hits in hockey. The bottom line is there are millions of people who believe they should be in charge of disciplining players in the NHL (most of which have never strapped on a pair of skates) and feel Colin Campbell and company aren't doing it properly. Well, when we get past all the whining and outlandish statements, I may tend to agree to a certain extent with some of them. The subjectivity of suspensions seems to be front and centre in this years playoffs, so I wanted to take a look at each suspension, and the one non-suspension, to see if I could figure out the rationale behind the decisions.
Jarret Stoll on Ian White
I thought I would start with the Stoll hit as it was the first that received any disciplinary action in these playoffs. I also believe it was arguably the worst of all the hits. For those who didn't see the hit, during game 1 of the Sharks-Kings series Stoll ran Ian White from behind and drove his head into the end boards with his elbow. I say this was arguably the worst of the hits because of the nature surrounding hits from behind in the NHL and really throughout all of hockey. The damage that hitting a defenceless player from behind can inflict far exceeds most instances of body contact which is why minor hockey has placed large red stop signs on the backs of all jerseys. The NHL has gone to vast lengths to try and remove hits from behind from hockey and this check was clearly from behind as White had his back to Stoll for several seconds and Stoll took several steps before drilling White behind the net.
The other issue here is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. This is where the real subjectivity comes to play when comparing suspensions but for now we will just look at the Stoll hit. Ian White was clearly hurt after this hit as he was barely able to get up under his own power and looked very shaken up. White did not return to the game and was ruled out of game 2 as well with what can only be assumed to be a concussion. The notion that a severe hit from behind causing injury can only render a one game suspension does not seem to add up in the minds of many people. As we move forward and look at the other suspensions and hits it becomes even more glaring how this hit was given leniency possibly because of the time of year.
Steve Downie on Ben Lovejoy & Chris Kunitz on Simon Gagne
The second and third hits are out of chronological order but they go along with the subjective nature of suspensions in the NHL and possible leniency based upon the time of year. Steve Downie and Chris Kunitz both received one game suspensions following game 3 of the Penguins-Lightning series for their hits on Ben Lovejoy and Simon Gagne respectively. Neither Lovejoy nor Gagne appears to be injured following their hits which are about the only positive thing one could say about them. The Downie hit happened behind the Pittsburgh net as Ben Lovejoy went to retrieve the puck; Downie came full speed from the hash marks and obliterated Lovejoy while leaving his feet to do so. Leaving your feet when checking an opposing player is illegal and brings with it a charging penalty, however, the vicious nature of this particular hit brought with it a one game suspension. We will see the difference between leaving your feet and not doing so when we look at the Raffi Torres hit as there are many similarities between the two other than having one's feet on the ground. This all seems fairly standard until you consider Downie's history:
- Suspended 5 games in the OHL for cross checking teammate Akim Aliu during practice and knocking out 3 teeth because Aliu would not participate in a hazing tradition.
- Suspended 20 games in the 2007 preseason for deliberate attempt to injure by leaving his feet and hitting Senators forward Dead McAmmond behind the net.
- Suspended 20 games in 2009 for slashing a linesman while playing for the Norfolk Admirals after a controversial empty net goal
The other suspension coming from game 3 in that series goes to Chris Kunitz of the Penguins for his elbow to Simon Gagne's head. Kunitz also received a 1 game suspension which once again seems far too lenient when looking at the hit. Gagne came across the edge of the crease and as he lost the puck Kunitz, who was a foot or two away from Gagne, reached out his elbow into Gagne's head as the two crossed paths. I'm not sure what Kunitz is thinking at this point, but this hit can only be considered a blatant attempt to injure another player. The two weren't close enough for an actual body check and Kunitz made no attempt with any other part of his body other than his elbow to make contact with Gagne. For a league that has continuously discussed protecting their players from headshots it is hits like these, the blatant attempts on another player's head, which should be made examples of. Both Kunitz and Downie, for different reasons, should most definitely have been given harsher disciplinary penalties. Unfortunately, during playoff time in the NHL it seems there are a slightly different set of rules inside and outside the game.
Raffi Torres on Brent Seabrook
The Raffi Torres hit on Brent Seabrook is the only one being looked at that did not garner a suspension. The hit was reminiscent of Steve Downie's hit on Ben Lovejoy as Torres wiped out Seabrook behind the Blackhawks net as he was playing the puck. The crucial difference between the two hits was Torres keeping his feet on the ground and leading with his shoulder. Whether you agree with the rules put in place by the National Hockey League or not, you cannot argue that Torres' hit was not a legal one. The unfortunate nature surrounding the hit is that Seabrook eventually had to leave the game and subsequently missed game 4 as well. But people have to keep in mind that this is a physical game and injuries are going to be a part of it. I compare this hit to Scott Stevens on Eric Lindros in the '99-'00 playoffs which put Lindros' career in severe peril. However, hockey players have to understand where they are on the ice and must be aware of their surroundings. It is imperative not only for the player throwing the check, but for the player receiving the check to have a heightened sense of awareness of who is around him. The old saying goes 'never skate with your head down' for a reason, because that is when injuries occur. If the league wants to address hits where a player is 'legally' blindsided then that is something to do in the future. In this instance, Raffi Torres was well within the rules of the game leading with his shoulder and hitting a player from the front. It is just an unfortunate repercussion that Brent Seabrook was injured on the play.
Bobby Ryan on Jonathan Blum
The final suspension I want to discuss doesn't even involve a body check and yet Ryan received the most games (2) out of all the players suspended so far. Ryan was suspended for stomping on the foot of Jonathan Blum behind the Nashville net. Now, I am in no way condoning what Bobby Ryan did whatsoever. I believe it was pure stupidity that Ryan thought, out of frustration or not, that using a blade in a stomping motion would be alright. Furthermore, there is some severe precedent that has already been set for issues of stomping as Chris Simon and Chris Pronger have both had suspensions of 30 games and 8 games respectively for stomping on players. Granted, Ryan's particular stomp was not as comparable to those two, but there still have been examples set. What I don't understand is how Colin Campbell is able to justify that Bobby Ryan's stomp, which rendered no penalty or injury to Blum, is more serious than Jarret Stoll's brutal hit from behind which left Ian White injured, Steve Downie's best torpedo impression or Chris Kunitz's blatant attempt to injure with his elbow?
The issue is not whether all of these hits and stomps deserved disciplinary actions, but rather the justifications behind the suspensions that were handed down. I think fans and players alike are constantly confused by the NHL and the methods they are using to hand down punishments. It clearly is not a black and white profession and I respect Campbell and anyone else in a similar position, however, there needs to be some parody in respect to these punishments in order to rectify the situation itself. If the NHL continues to place such an emphasis on removing head shots and blatant attempts to injure from the game then they must be responsible for handing out punishments worthy of the crime. It's just one guys opinion I know, but I find it hard to see the logic in some of these suspensions especially when compared to each other. Other then that though I am loving this first round! Keep it coming boys!
No comments:
Post a Comment