A simple search of the league archive uncovers how the NHL may be playing favourites when it comes to handing out suspensions.
Is there a bias in the way the National Hockey League hands out supplementary discipline?
It's hard to say and even harder to prove. But recent events in the early rounds of the playoffs and even the stretch run to the playoffs causes one to wonder, especially when it comes to Canadian-based teams.
It was by no means a scientific search but in using the words suspension, suspended and disciplinary action in browsing the press releases at NHLMedia.com I had to go back to Feb. 12, 2009, to find an intance when a player on a Canadian-based team was suspended for his actions regarding another player on the ice.
It was Tomas Plekanec's takedown from behind on Edmonton's Denis Grebeshkov. No explanation, just two games for what, as memory recalls (video has been removed from You Tube for the ubiquitous 'terms of use violation), was a slew-foot situation that resulted in an ankle injury that caused Grebeshkov to miss about two weeks.
I mention this because there were several other noteworthy suspensions during the stretch drive and except for Toronto goalie Martin Gerber's automatic three-gamer for going after an official, I couldn't find one involving a Canadian-based team vying for a playoff spot.
That's not to say there couldn't have been some deserving ones. Montreal's Maxim Lapierre's hit from behind on Buffalo forward Patrick Kaleta when both teams were in a heated race for a playoff spot at the bottom of the Eastern Conference comes immediately to mind. In that one, Lapierre ran Kaleta face first into the glass. It had all the elements regarding what the NHL seems to consider important in supplemental discipline: reputation (Lapierre is a well-known "physical" player), a clear hit from behind while the player is unable to defend himself (Kaleta had his back to the onrushing Lapierre) and injury (Montreal doctors ruled Kaleta, who had to be helped from the ice, had a concussion, the Sabres later disputed that but did take him out of the lineup after one more game with what they said was a neck injury.
But in the wake of the Plekanec suspension Los Angeles Kings player Denis Gauthier got two games for an un-described "incident" in a game versus the San Jose Sharks; Dallas' Steve Ott got a game for an "altercation" involving the Anaheim Ducks, an altercation that moved Ott into the "repeat offender" class. In addition, Chicago forward Ben Eager got three games for delivering a blow to the head of Edmonton player Liam Reddox in an incident in which there was no penalty on the initial play; Colorado's Cody McCormick got two games for high sticking Minnesota's Cal Clutterbuck; Minnesota's Derek Boogaard got five games for an elbowing incident involving Calgary's Brandon Prust and Islander Brendan Witt got five games for an elbow to the head of Toronto forward Niklas Hagman.
Now I understand there are four times as many U.S.-based teams than there are Canadian-based teams, but even with the percentages in mind they either play a remarkably clean game north of the 49th parallel or something is amiss.
Let me state for the record that I don't believe for a moment that the ethics of Senior Vice President Colin Campbell are in any way, shape or form in dispute here. I've known this man for the better part of 25 years and his commitment to the game and to integrity in the game are -in my mind at least-not in question. His decision to take himself out of decisions that would impact the Eastern Conference playoff race because his son played on a then contending team (Florida) is a noteworthy example of that.
But in light of the above and what's happened in the first round to date where two players on U.S.-based teams -Boston's Milan Lucic and Philadelphia's Daniel Carcillo -- were suspended for obvious blows to the head while Calgary's Mike Cammalleri was not still leaves the issue open to debate.
Carcillio's hit on Pittsburgh's Maxim Talbot was an absolute must regards supplemental discipline. It was late in the game (something the NHL warned about) and was clearly an intent to injure. It was also a pre-mediated punch to the head for no reason other than intent to injure. Lucic's use of his stick and gloved fist to the head of Lapierre was equally indefensible despite the fact he was being confronted by the on-rushing Montreal player. Boston protests aside, it was a suspendable offence.
But one could argue and seemingly with the upmost sanity, that Cammalleri's blow to the head of Chicago forward Martin Havlat in Game 1 of that series was equally deserving perhaps more so. It was clearly a pre-meditated blow delivered with a clear intent to injure and with a gloved fist and stick still in hand. It was also delivered off a faceoff where the receiving player had a right to assume that no such blow would be forthcoming.
And as accurate as Campbell's explanation of the Carcillo suspension was, his defense of the Cammalleri hit was illogical at best, incomprehensible at worst.
Campbell said things like "having to let hockey be hockey and the playoffs be playoffs" is a twisted replay of the old "the rules are different in the playoffs" line, but worse. Not suspending Cammalleri for a deliberate blow to the head, a blow delivered with a clear intent to injure was a direct violation of the oft-stated directive to clamp down on blows to the head.
Even weaker were the arguments that Cammalleri is not a "repeat offender", he's "no bully" and that Havlat was not injured.
It's statements like that, coupled to decisions that appear to be based on situational circumstances that cause perception problems. One could argue, and NHLers often do, that Kaleta deserved the hit he got from Lapierre because he's delivered those kinds of hits in the past hence no penalty to Lapierre that get people to wondering. One also wonders that with Campbell presumably out of the decision making process regarding the hit on Kaleta (because a suspension or lack of same would have impacted the Florida Panthers as well) also leads to a question of just who did make that non-call. Add to that the fact that Cammalleri and Lapierre are on a Canadian-based teams and it's little wonder people start adding up the numbers.
This is not a charge that says this is what happens but in sports, perception is often reality and if there's a perception that the NHL is looking a tad kindlier on teams where the game is held in the highest regard (and where say the absence of a major Eastern television market might well cost a major television outlet huge amounts of revenue), well then the NHL has a problem.
In order for the sport to have relevance and authority, one has to assume that justice, including supplemental discipline, is dispensed with a blind eye toward who the player is or, as in this case, which team he plays for or where it might be based. The decision has to be transparent and backed by a long history of consistent application of the rules no matter what the consequences.
Campbell makes a strong and valid case for the Carcillo suspension especially in light of the fact that the teams were warned, Carcillo has a reputation and that as the league's penalty-minute leader you can make an argument that he had no reason to be out there taking a faceoff in the closing seconds of a game that was beyond reach. He was there for one purpose and one purpose only -to create havoc--and he was suspended and his coach was fined accordingly.
But that's as much an argument for intent (something the NHL often says it can't take into consideration) while ignoring the clear case of intent to injure, something that was obvious from the players' actions.
To argue that Cammalleri can legitimately smack an opponent across the head off a faceoff with his stick in his gloved hand and say that's acceptable because he's not a "repeat offender" and he's "not that kind of player" and that Havlat "wasn't hurt" makes a sham of the so-called crackdown on intentional blows to the head.
It reinforces the oft-repeated message in the NHL that not only are the rules different in the playoffs, but that the rules are different for different players. And if you buy into the idea that the rules are different for different players is it that much of a leap for a fan to assume that the rules might also be different depending on where a team is located, the size of its market or the television audience it may well deliver?
It's a given that it's not good for the NHL's business to have just three of its six Canadian-based teams in the playoffs. Is it a reach to suggest that a fan might think that ignoring Lapierre's hit on Kaleta might have favored the Canadiens over the Sabres in the rush to the final playoff berths? Is it a reach to suggest that taking a major scorer out of the Calgary lineup might weaken a Flames team already beset by a rash of injuries and a documented slump in the goal-scoring and power-play goal-scoring departments?
It's not if you don't have a hard-and fast record of rulings regards supplemental discipline and blows to the head.
Equal justice under the law is a notion that oft times has eluded the National Hockey League. It is because of that that fans on both sides of the border still talk about Brett Hull's foot-in-the-crease goal that decided the 1999 Stanley Cup. Fans have long been enraged by what appears to be an uneven application of the league's own rules and directives regards that goal. It's not for nothing that Campbell, in defending the non-suspension of Cammalleri, brought up that very incident and that Calgary coach Mike Keenan did the same in arguing there should have been an interference call on Havlat's game-winning goal for Chicago in Game 1 of that series. Both men know of the league's shaky past and used the controversy to buttress their point.
It's been nearly a decade since that stain on the league and, protestations to the contrary, little seems to have changed.
That's a big part of the reason there's been such an outcry over the perceived imbalance in handing out justice.
And why so many wonder if there is indeed a bias; real or imagined.
