The league issued a four game suspension to Rome for his hit on Horton during the first period of last night's Game 3. If the series does not go seven games, the suspension carries over into next season.
"Two factors were considered in reaching this decision," Mike Murphy, the league's senior vice president of hockey operations, said in a release. "The hit by Rome was clearly beyond what is acceptable in terms of how late it was delivered after Horton had released the puck, and it caused a significant injury."
If you look at my previous post, I concluded that a suspension was likely, but should not happen. I stand by that statement. It is interesting that the NHL would suspend a player for the hit with such statement. While both are true, neither is solid enough seperately or combined for a suspension in my opinion.
Was the hit late? Oh yeah. No question. Clearly beyond what is acceptable? Sure. I'm on board with that.
Did it cause significant injury? You bet. A concussion that leaves a player out for the Finals is a big deal. Don't misunderstand me. It was an incredibly horrible outcome.
But a four game suspension? Notice the press release did not mention Rome had intent to injure or that the head was targeted or it was blindside to a helpless opponent or anything like that. It was a late hit with injury. And that warrants a multi-game suspension? The first multi-game suspension in the history of the Stanley Cup Finals and just fourth overall during the Finals?
What were the other three suspensions? Well, let's look.
Anaheim's Chris Pronger suspended for a game for hitting Ottawa's Dean McAmmond during the 2007 Stanley Cup Finals.
This was a reason for the new Rule 48 about targeting the head. Blantant elbow to the head. A suspension is in order.
There was Calgary's Ville Nieminen who was banned for a game in 2004 for a hit from behind on Tampa Bay's Vincent Lecavalier. I don't have video, but it was a hit from the back to an unsuspecting player.
Detroit's Jiri Fischer earned the first Stanley Cup suspension in 2002, for a cross-check to Carolina's Tommy Westlund. I really don't know about that incident, so take it for what it's worth.
I disagree with the NHL ruling in the Horton case. It's not surprising, but I do not agree with it. Yeah, bad injury. But not as the result of an obvious attempt to injure or doing something that would likely injure.
Hmm. Now where could one find video of something that was likely to injure?
That's Boston's Chara putting Montreal's Max Pacioretty into the turnbuckle March 8, 2011. What was the outcome there? It was a late hit that caused significant injury, just like the Horton incident. One could even argue that the head was targeted. What was the punishment for Chara?
A five minute major for interference and an automatic game misconduct.
Yeah, yeah. I get it. Same thing as Rome, but what about the suspension? Any fines? What happened after the review?
Nothing. There was no suspension. There were no fines.
See, this is what I don't get. How is Chara's hit less than Rome's? The setting (Stanley Cup Finals versus a game in March) shouldn't matter. Why is one hit that causes significant injury not punished as bad as another?
Is it because Chara is a hockey great? He is one of the posterboys of the NHL right now, especially for defensemen. Is it because Colin Campbell, the League's senior executive vice president of Hockey Operations, has a son (Gregory Campbell) who plays for the Boston Bruins?
Okay, that last one maybe a bit much. In a way. To be fair, Murphy delivered the suspension because usual disciplinarian Colin Campbell recused himself from any involvement in this series because Campbell's son Gregory is a forward with the Boston Bruins.
Last week, Campbell, senior executive vice president of Hockey Operations, announced his resignation from the role of overseeing discipline, handing the reigns to Brendan Shanahan. That transition of power, however, takes effect after the season leaving Murphy to dole out punishment.
You can count up the Rome suspension a few ways. First, I never liked the way Campbell dealt with punishment. It was a roulette wheel of justice. There really didn't seem to be a pattern. So perhaps this is what many in the League office wanted to do all the time but couldn't. Maybe Shanahan will be harsh, but equal.
It could be the all too quoted "make an example" case. Perhaps it has gotten to the breaking point for the League about head injuries and finally they are just like "That's it. We are stopping this type of action, accidental or not." If so, I can understand that to a degree. But don't do it in the middle of the Finals. The entire season has been played with one set of rules and discipline. It is unfair to change it during the playoffs (with the notable exception of overtime periods and no shootout).
I don't put a lot of credit into the theory that Campbell actively helps the Bruins in punishment (or lack thereof), but it is worth mentioning.
But why the hefty suspension? Is it a make up call for the biting incident?
This clip also helps prove my point that discipline has been all over the map, even for very cookie-cutter incidents. There was a bite earlier in the year that got a two game suspension. And it happens again with different players in the postseason.
Nothing. No fines. No suspension. What is going on here?
If the League wants to send a message during the Finals that even the slightest infraction of the rules will be dealt with the harshest punishments, that's one thing. Suspend or fine for the bite. By the way, a bite is a really big deal in the rule book. It's a Match penalty offense because it is a deliberate attempt to injure an opponent in any matter. It could also be a minor, unsportsmanlike penalty under Rule 75.2, but that specifically says under subheading (ii) that biting, if warranted and specifically when injury results, should be ruled a match penalty.
I can understand if the Referee didn't see it or didn't want to believe the bite mark evidence (because it may have been something else). But Rule 28 gives the Commissioner the ability to investigate anything and punish accordingly, even if it goes undetected by the on ice officials. And there is clear video evidence to support the biting claim.
Now, I'm not a Vancouver fan. I'm not a Boston fan. I would make the same arguments if the tables had been reversed. It just baffles me the discipline all over the map.
Bite in the regular season, suspension. Postseason, nothing. Major interference with injury in the regular season? Nothing. Stanley Cup Finals, suspension for the remainder.
Want to really get your panties in a bunch over the weirdness that is NHL discipline? This clip shows a victious blow to the head.
One would think that's why there is now a Rule 48 concerning hits to the head.
This hit from the last regular-season game of the 2009-10 season, Chris Pronger of the Flyers on Jody Shelley of the Rangers, was explicitly deemed legal in the NHL’s preseason video explaining Rule 48.
I do wish Horton a speedy recovery. As does Rome who issued a statement: "I want to express my concern for Nathan's well being and wish him a quick and full recovery. I try to play this game honestly and with integrity. As someone who has experienced this type of injury I am well aware of its serious nature and have no desire for another player to experience it. I will not take away my teammates' focus on the task at hand and intend to speak at an appropriate time in future."
Apparently Rome and Murphy spoke by phone and Rome was contrite and descibed it as a hockey play gone bad. I see that. The League did not.
I got much of this information from an article by Shawn P. Roarke - NHL.com Senior Managing Editor, particularly the quotes and some history; although, the opinions are my own.
No comments:
Post a Comment