Jim Kelley

Jim Kelley writes regularly on the NHL for Sportsnet.ca and can be heard on Primetime Sports on the FAN590.

Paul Kelly’s proposal regarding supplemental discipline in the NHL makes sense.

And now for something completely different we have the executive director of the National Hockey League Players Association, Paul Kelly, saying that the league should have an independent body, perhaps a panel of three, handing out justice regarding supplemental discipline in the NHL.

What next, a proposal to defend not just the perpetrator of an unseemly incident, but possibly the victim as well? What's that, he hinted at that too?

As my colleague Bob McCown on PrimeTime Sports on the Fan 590 is prone to say: "thank the baby Jesus."

Now I don't for a moment believe these things are going to happen, but the fact that Kelly made his remarks earlier this week, on PrimeTime no less (you can listen to it in the audio vault at thefan590.com) is history-making in and of itself. More importantly, the concept deserves to at least be put into the debate regards the state of supplemental discipline and hockey today.

As the two Chris' incidents -- Chris Simon vs. Chris Pronger -- clearly indicate, fans are not just confused as to the how and why of supplemental discipline, but they clearly believe (as do many of the players) that the NHL has a double standard in that regard.

Now that's denied by the NHL and a goodly number of their members truly believe that no such thing exists. But the perception is out there and giving one player a 30-game suspension for stomping on the foot/leg of a rival and another, admittedly a standout performer, eight games for the same offence and after having incurred the same number of previous suspensions, well, how can you blame them?

Truth is you can't, so the second step should be: how can you convince them that making a change is in the best interest of not just the fans, but the game itself?

Kelly's proposal, to have an independent party or a collection of independent parties that can be called upon as individuals or perhaps as a group, to take a good objective view of what happened, impose discipline and do it fairly and consistently, makes sense.

His approach would be to find several qualified persons (he did not say this, but perhaps one from the league, one from the player ranks and one who is away from the game but who has knowledge of it) who do not have a vested interest in the outcome and make them available for an instant hearing much the way Colin Campbell, the league's executive vice-president and director of hockey operations, does now.

Campbell is a league employee and even on his best days is often viewed, fairly or unfairly, as someone who has a vested interested in the outcome. That's especially true given that Campbell in recent years has made it clear that he would someday like to return to the ranks, perhaps as a general manager. Making enemies of owners by handing out harsh disciplinary rulings isn't always the best path toward landing one of those jobs.

Said Kelly: "One of the aspects of the process that does trouble us (regards supplementary discipline) is that a fair amount of lobbying goes on prior to the disciplinary process, the disciplinary call, where you get not only the GMs of the affected players calling Colin Campbell and lobbying, but you have general managers of teams that are completely unaffected by the incident in question but who would love nothing more than to see a certain player get whacked with a 10- or 15-game suspension because it has a certain competitive advantage, lobbying Colin Campbell.

"The notion that there is all of this behind-the-scenes activity going on gives us some pause and some concern. I frankly think that the time has come for us to talk with our players about taking a position that this has to be placed in the hands of a neutral party… Someone who is truly neutral and detached and who won't be subject to historical relationships and lobbying and the like.

"If the players agree that that's a position we should take as an organization than that is something that we would take to the NHL and urge them to make a change."

Now that last sentence is that of a general deferring to the wishes of his troops and given the curious way the players ousted former executive director Bob Goodenow and the debacle that ensued given the illegal hiring and contentious dismissal of his replacement, Ted Saskin, Kelly is wise to defer to the people who employ him before taking a single step down this path.

Still, the proposal makes sense and deserves an airing.

Kelly makes it clear that he sees the most obvious roadblock -- that the NHL would never give up an ounce of power, power either obtained through collective bargaining or the grab that falls under the claim of the owners that the commissioner can make rulings in the best interest of the game -- as a huge sticking point, but that shouldn't be cause for the end of all conversation.

Put another way, he's saying that it's not likely the league would ever surrender control of a situation that allows them to control the amount of violence in the game even if it is being perceived by the public as control through backroom discussions, outside influences and with a nod and a wink toward certain players and the back of an iron hand to others.

But if the league were to get past that, it might realize that Kelly's proposal could be in best interests in that independent parties would allow both the league -- and for that matter the PA -- to absolve itself against claims that the fix is in.

The league could simply say to both owners and fans that the ruling is the result of an independent process and that it is one that all parties agreed to and must abide by. That in itself would be both enlightened and take a great deal of pressure off Campbell.

But the PA benefits as well, because it could finally get out from under the criticism that it defends the perpetrator in regards the many on-ice incidents that injure players, but can't or won't defend the victim.

Kelly, like Goodenow before him, takes exception to the notion that the PA does not do even an adequate job of defending say a Steve Moore or some other player denied a livelihood because of the actions of a thug who not only keeps playing but in the process (and we can easily use Todd Bertuzzi as an example here) makes millions of dollars long after the injured party is removed from the game.

They both can take that exception but it doesn't change the fact that that is often the result.

An independent party or parties could change that.

Kelly argued that not having the process in the hands of people who have a historical relationship would be a good first step. He also hinted he would be willing to endorse something akin to sentencing guidelines (something the league has long opposed in practice if not definition).

A former federal prosecutor in the United States (he was the prosecuting attorney who brought Alan Eagleson to justice), Kelly is well aware and seemingly in favour of the value of sentencing guidelines. He said that in the federal courts the guidelines created "a grid" that put a certain numerical value to criminal offences. The guidelines created a range in which there was a low end and a high end for a similar offence and that a judge (or in this case an independent hearing officer) would only depart from the norm if there were exceptional circumstances and if there were, they had to be defined and reasons had to be explained.

"Frankly," he said. "It's the kind of system we should seriously consider."

My guess is that it will get about as far as the criminal case against Patrick Roy, his son and the Quebec Remparts, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't get a fair and adequate hearing.

After all, as the Pronger-Simon debate would seem to indicate: only the credibility of the game itself is at stake.

Doesn't that merit at least some consideration?