Rewriting the (Rule) Book

The NHL saw a pair of 10 game suspension handed down this week and, well, that's about where the similarity between the two ends. You may as well be comparing apples to pucks in terms of how they were decided.

To start there was a good old fashioned dust up late in the Flames Red Wings game last Wednesday. It began when the Wings Luke Witkowski who was headed to the dressing room was apparently slashed...? by the Flames Matthew Tkachuk who was, well, being Matthew Tkachuk. Anyway, all hell broke lose and, fairly or unfairly, Witkowski now pays the price. That's because when a player returns to the ice to fight it's an automatic 10 game suspension, per NHL rules. Now in this case, it kinda seem like a lot. The player was literally only a few steps down the tunnel when Tkachuk tapped him with his stick and he then turned around and charged back out. The idea of this rule was to prevent the wild, all be it entertaining, incidents that were common place in the 60-80's. The NHL set about instituting a strict punishment and you'd have to argue that it's worked well. However, as Wings coach Jeff Blashill pointed out circumstance should be taken into account. While the spirit of the rule is to be admired, was this really something that was 10 game worthy when hits, and dirty plays (like the one we'll get to) often get far less? Tkachuk was suspended 1 game for his part and it may not seem fair but the fact is the rule is clear (even if Witkowski was apparently unaware of it) applied accordingly, and he won't appeal.

This brought to mind the Denis Wideman and Antoine Vermette incidents where players contacted an official and were subject to similarly clear rules (OK, maybe less clear in the Wideman saga...) and subsequently suspended as a result. If the punishment for these types of incidents is laid out by the letter of the law, it begs the question, could the league change the rule book to implement stricter punishment in other situations where a lengthy suspension should be the outcome?

The second suspension stemmed from the Flyers Jets game where the Flyers Radko Gudas attempted to remove Jet Matthieu Perreault's head, which inevitably had people calling for his. The league responded with a ten game suspension that many feel wasn't enough, especially given the repeat nature of the idiot, um, offender. I understand why people would like to see a harsher penalty, (particularly to a guy like Gudas) there's no place in the game for that crap, but the fact is, with the current structure in place, it's not that simple.

First off with any suspension there has to be proof of intent and the fact is the league has no idea what's going on in Gudas's head (spoiler alert, not a hell of a lot). As mentioned he's a repeat offender and a guy who walks the line constantly. However, the act itself isn't enough and unless the file against you fills up a hockey bag (ala Raffi Torres) odds are he wasn't gonna get more. This begins to shine a light on one of the biggest problems in the league when it comes to discipline: how do you protect the players from themselves and punish these sorts of acts in such a way that more strongly discourages them?

If the league had gone to 20 games for example, Gudas would be quick (far more so than he is on the ice) and foolish not to go to an independent body to appeal, both from a professional and financial standpoint - Gudas will forfeit over 400k in salary as a result of this suspension. Then there's the process. The body involved in appeals is not a hockey one and what may be seen as obvious to some in the game may not be to them. They simply look at what's happened in similar incidents and apply justice as such. Gudas was falling forward and I've heard (morons) argue that he simply lost balance and didn't have any sort of control over what he was doing. There's also the fact that Perreault (thankfully) wasn't seriously injured on the play. These mitigating circumstance would be argued and a reduction in games would likely be the outcome. The NHL would rather not push the envelope by trying to implement such a lengthy ban then look bad by losing in arbitration.

The issue then becomes precedent. The fact that the player would probably win isn't because he wasn't wrong in committing whatever transgression got him suspended, but simply because the league, generally, hasn't tossed guys for long periods of time previously so it wouldn't seem fair to do so. Sure you have the odd Dale Hunter or Chris Simon thrown in but for the most part 10 games is seen as a sort of max for this sort of thing.

This got me to thinking should the league look at rule changes that would remove the sort of grey areas that lead to arbitration? Whether it's head shots, stick work, whatever, can they find a system that would outline the proper suspension? While I'm sure the players would jump at this idea, it may simply lend itself to further grey areas. Not all these plays are going to fit into a nice little box you can merely check off and say that's what they should get. However, it'd be a start and provide a much clearer guideline to work from.

Or do they go another route and put more weight on previous suspensions and punish repeat offenders more harshly? While this is already, supposedly, taken into account by the NHL's Department of Player Safety, should they up the anti make the punishment more sever to these particular players? To be fair Gudas likely would've gotten less had he not been a repeat offender, but how do you explain to the casual fan that these two guys got the same suspension given the optics? Not that the fight in Detroit looked like a picnic, but one is clearly more egregious than the other.

The whole thing seems contradictory because you're talking about protecting players from players and essentially the same body is arguing for both their rights, so should the victim's plight not be given more weight? Whatever the case the league, and the players association, need to take a serious look at how they dole out discipline. That's not to say there's been a rash of incidents like this, but until the issue is addressed there really isn't a strong enough deterrent in place to prevent guys from acting out.