The Stanley Cup Playoffs couldn’t even last one day without controversy.
On Wednesday night, Montreal Canadiens blueliner P.K. Subban was ejected and received a game misconduct after slashing Ottawa Senators forward Mark Stone on the wrist. It appeared to be a questionable call, but the Senators were insistent it was the right one.
Stone’s status is now uncertain with a micro-fracture in his right wrist while Subban will reportedly not receive any further discipline.
STANLEY CUP PLAYOFFS: | Broadcast Schedule
Rogers GameCentre LIVE | Stanley Cup Playoffs Fantasy Hockey
New Sportsnet app: iTunes | Google Play
Is that the right call? Sportsnet staff writers Dave Zarum and Jeff Simmons go head-to-head to debate Subban-gate below:
Question 1: Did Subban deserve to get kicked out of the game?
Zarum: We live in a society governed by rules. You may not agree with them—hell, you may not even follow all of them (as most, myself included, often don’t)—but they exist for a reason. It’s no different in hockey, where the NHL rulebook serves as the word of law. And in that book it clearly states that when a major penalty is called on a slash that results in injury, “a game misconduct penalty must also be imposed” (Rule 61.5). Now, it was up to the referee Wednesday night whether he wanted to call a major or minor on the play, but given that the slash happened away from the play and that Subban did clearly wind up (though perhaps not as dramatically as your friends on social media made it sound), it was perfectly reasonable to call a major. Couple that with Stone leaving the game, and Subban should have gotten the boot. We don’t have to agree with the rule, but fact is it was properly enforced last night.
Simmons: Who brought Kerry Fraser into this? Here’s the issue: Knowing that rule, what prevents Stone from potentially embellishing an injury to ensure Subban gets kicked out? Based on the aforementioned play, one could certainly make that argument. There’s no doubt that Subban deserved a penalty. However, I find it hard to believe there was any intent from Subban. It’s incredibly difficult to wind up and target Stone’s unprotected wrist while moving at full speed. And what happens if a player does not get injured on a more dangerous slash? We have to draw the line somewhere.
Question 2: Should Subban have been suspended for the slash?
Simmons: Absolutely not. Subban already served a stiff-enough punishment for his actions (he missed a significant portion of Game 1). There isn’t any evidence that would support the notion of further discipline. Zarum, you couldn’t even come up with a rule to prove that.
Zarum: If a brief suspension had been handed down to Subban I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Whether it’s a typical “hockey play” or not, the slash was completely uncalled for and at some point Subban needs to be held accountable (though one could easily argue that booting him from the game accomplished that). However, I’m not surprised he wasn’t suspended, and that’s because of Senators coach Dave Cameron’s reaction, which came off as an ultimatum served to Stephane Quintal and the NHL’s decision-makers—one that they wouldn’t want to succumb to.
Question 3: Was Senators coach Dave Cameron out of line with his post-game comments?
Simmons: It’s easy to understand why Cameron was emotional. But how in any way did he help his team? In fact, you even mentioned above that Cameron’s “ultimatum” did some potential damage. It’s fair for Cameron to call out Subban or ask for discipline. What coach wouldn’t? But his comments came off poorly—like a threat almost—and that just brings negative attention, whether it’s from the media, the league or referees down the road. That’s not going to help your team get the next call, is it? I do agree that Cameron’s comments were refreshing from an honesty perspective but he should try to tone it down a bit.
Zarum: I disagree. Cameron was just moments removed from an intense game marked by this controversy in which he saw an opponent target one of his most important players. So you’d have to expect him to be a tad fired up, to say the least. And frankly, you can’t have it both ways when it comes to scrums and other interviews. We all want athletes and coaches to express their true thoughts and feelings, and we roll our eyes when they don’t. Yet the moment somebody says something remotely interesting or (gasp) controversial, today’s frothing media landscape pounces on it and blows it up, often way out of proportion. What should he have said? “Next question”? Fact is, Cameron was totally within his right to speak his mind. It’s on us to process what he says and react accordingly.