Colin Campbell is a joke
by Chris meet Alex on Oct 26, 2009 1:16 PM EDT
47 comments
Colin Campbell is the scourge of this league right now… he’s a buffoon. His decisions in the playoffs last year should have gotten him straight canned in the off-season. And thus, his continued employment is an embarrassment to the league.
In my book, you need to follow the NFL's lead here. Yes, they go way overboard on the No Fun League stuff, but when it comes to protecting the players they are dead-on.
They don't try to be a mind-reader and divine intention of a player's action... you make a dangerous play (helmet-to-helmet, horsecollar, chop-block, etc), regardless of whether that player was hurt (which is where the NHL REALLY drops the ball), you're gonna be punished.
That sends a clear message... do bad things (even if they don't catch you in the game), you're gonna pay for it. The NHL standard is, you do bad things... as long as you don't hurt the guy, you get away with it.
Ruling on these issues, is similar to judging how effectively you play the game (or any game for that matter); practice the right way, good things will happen, and vice versa. I have taught many people to play golf, and the easy mistake to make is to look at the results rather than the quality of shot. A duff that goes 10 feet from the pin, is easy to be excited about, but is far less effective than a pure stroke that went thirty feet right due to poor alignment. In the long run, the more quality strokes you make, the better your game will be.
There is a similar relationship between the players' actions and the results. In such an environment, an elbow to the head is a play that a high percentage of the time will do exactly what is intended. Shake the guy up, exact some revenge, throw him off his game and not seriously hurt the guy. And since the league doesn't usually penalize players for elbows that don't end up injuring anyone, you'll get away with likely little more than a 2 minute penalty (what? 90% of the time?). Seems like a fairly high percentage play. One who's only downside is that once every so often, somebody catches a guy the wrong way and will get suspended and fined. "Eh, that's the risk of being a physical player". It's not a stretch to suggest that this way of enforcement actually encourages dangerous behavior.
The fact that you are engaging in an activity that has NO respect for the health of your fellow player - if things go wrong, you can quite literally end someone career and give them life-long brain trauma - is certainly not on most players mind when they elbow someone. But that's where the league needs to step in and FORCE them to take that play out of their repertoire.
In the long run, the more you consistently rule against dangerous play, the more your players will respect it. The argument that consistent and firm ruling will take away some of the aggressive physical play is ridiculous in my book, aside from the rare accidental elbowing, most dangerous plays in the NHL, especially shots to the head, are intended. Isn't it worth fining/suspending a few accidental shots to the head, better than the current plan? I would think the number of accidental dangerous plays would drop too once players are more aware of safe play.
The NFL is one of the (if not THE) hardest hitting sports on the planet, and their players have been fined, suspended and brow-beaten into having the most respect for each others safety. The NFL seems to have no problem putting a tough, physical product out on the field that has, for the most part, a fairly strong sense of fair play and player safety.
Think back to Campbell NOT suspending Mike Cammalleri in the playoffs for reasons that had to do with the game situation, and you have the perfect example not adjudicating for actions but rather for intent (and even more egregiously, results).
P.S. We'll leave out the fact that they coddle their QBs too much... that's another discussion for another day.
:: UPDATED::
As requested here are some examples:
Puck Daddy lists a few examples of inconsistent punishment on head-shots from last years playoffs.
A few days later, Brashear is suspended for his head-hunt
While Mike Brown is given no league disciplinary action for his shot to the head of Jiri Hudler
This cheap shot from Patrick Kaleta, gets no suspension, even though he clearly jumped. While this similar cheap shot from Denis Gauthier draws a 5 game suspension because Josh Gorges is injured on the play. These two seem pretty similar to me and should get the same, firm punishment IMO.
If this FanPost is written by someone other than one of the blog's authors, the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of this blog or SB Nation.
1 recs |
47 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Generally agree, but to clarify, Campbell excused himself from the Richards/Booth decision because he has a relative playing for the Panthers. Not that the decision would have been different had he been the one handing it down.
by FFSEnough on Oct 26, 2009 1:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Campbell excuses himself with all Panther related discipline. What’s interesting though, for the Panthers, is that it’s not in their best interest to see Richards suspended, seeing as Richards has an upcoming game with a division rival (tomorrow night here in DC).
Maybe the NHL needs to redo suspensions so that if a player gets a suspension for violent play that the games the player sits are against the team he committed the foul against, or if there aren’t sufficient games left, games against the other conference.
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Caps on Oct 26, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s interesting though, for the Panthers, is that it’s not in their best interest to see Richards suspended, seeing as Richards has an upcoming game with a division rival (tomorrow night here in DC).
I disagree. It’s in everyone in the NHL’s interest to see players punished for making dangerous hits.
by David M. Getz on Oct 26, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
B…b…but Richards wasn’t suspended with the Caps next on the schedule just like Kozlov wasn’t suspended with the Caps next on the schedule last week! Conspiracy
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Oct 26, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Actually, one game would have been against the Sharks, not the Caps (last night). Believe me, I was looking at that, too.
by gfcaps fan on Oct 26, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec’d for saying what everyone was thinking.
"I'm just doing karate and trying to get females pregnant."
by Bald Pollack on Oct 26, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way, after Conspriacy!, I see a box with the dreaded red “x”. What should I be seeing?
by gfcaps fan on Oct 26, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if you are going to remove yourself from one decision because of that, you shouldn’t be in a position to make calls on disciplinary action at all. Any action from that point on could be considered collusion.
by snowburnt on Oct 27, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It can be argued that after auto racing (which can hit people hard enough that it kills them), hockey is harder hitting than any other sport. Consider that the players in hockey go faster than the do in the NFL, and they do it on skates. Sure NFL linemen as usually bigger, but they don’t get up to the same speed as an NHL forward going up the ice on a transition. That type of speed is unique to hockey. On top of that, hockey players have a lot less room to operate than football players, and the playing surface is contained with the boards.
In addition, while hockey players wear body armor like football players, the armor is much less extensive than in football.
This is a dangerous sport that can injure (and kill) the players if the NHL doesn’t enforce all serious body contact similarly.
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Caps on Oct 26, 2009 1:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
grass is a heck of a lot softer than ice, too.
by RedBirdie on Oct 26, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah...
…which is why I can’t believe that Arena Football was actually sanctioned. It’s the only sport, other than auto racing, where participants have been killed on the field in the past decade.
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Caps on Oct 26, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are a few families who would disagree with that statement. Might not have happened in the NHL, but there have definitely been some hockey related deaths and I seem to remember a coach being killed by a foul ball in baseball.
by Yoshietree on Oct 26, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
there’s a piece of the coach who died and the player who fouled off that ball in “Best American Sports Writing 2008” and its absolutely heart wrenching.
by RedBirdie on Oct 26, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
An NHL player will die on the ice. It’s just a matter of time.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 26, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Rangers prospect in Russia died not long ago, but that wasn’t an impact injury. Certainly an impact injury is indeed just a matter of time. A fan died from a slapshot, surprising a player hasn’t (Pronger almost did).
God kills a kitten every time Sidney whines.
by Chris meet Alex on Oct 26, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
IIRC that’s why they started hanging those nets.
by red army line on Oct 27, 2009 4:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit recently. Something needs to be done about the legal, reckless hits that leave guys motionless on the ice. The thing is that I don’t know if suspensions and fines are enough to stop it from happening.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Oct 26, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aside from the goals of physical contact in hockey vs football being drastically different, the grass/turf used for Football is probably a hinderance to NFL players’ longevity. Sure, ice is hard, but most collisions with the ice don’t happen perpendicular to the surface, and the lack of friction translates the collision into motion parallel with the surface. It also allows for a player’s limbs to move the way the need to in a collision rather than getting stuck in the turf by a cleat.
by FFSEnough on Oct 27, 2009 8:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that the big NHL hits are more violent than the NFL, but in general the size of the players, the violence of the average collision and the greater frequency of collisions in the NFL makes me think that it’s a more damaging sport to a players body. Just look at how former players walk around after playing the two sports… how many football players 10 years after their playing days are over can’t walk unassisted… you just don’t see much of that from former NHLers.
Crazy part is the most dangerous sport in the world id three day eventing (equestrian). My wife does it and something like 17 people have died doing it in the last few years.
God kills a kitten every time Sidney whines.
by Chris meet Alex on Oct 26, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
as tough as hockey players are, the training and medical staff,a long side coaches and management, are much smarter about concussions and other head injuries, as well as pulling players off the ice when they are injured. No players play injured? Yes. But not, it seems, to the extent that NFL player do. I’m sure it is in part because of the 16 game season, while missing a few games in an 82 game seasons isn’t seen as the end of the world. But there’s also a “get back out there and play! right after we inject your near-broken back with some numbing agent” mentality that pervades football.
by RedBirdie on Oct 26, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No players play injured? Yes.
I’m assuming you meant, DO players play injured.
Good point… that has a lot to do with their post-career health.
God kills a kitten every time Sidney whines.
by Chris meet Alex on Oct 26, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve always wondered about that. So many hockey guys seem to have their wits about them after they retire. Even guys with long careers that play very physical (Hunter, etc).
Why is it that NHL players who play into their 40s can walk, talk, and coach hockey while NFL guys who played for 5-6 years are often in such poor shape that we were hearing about a need for a retired players medical fund last year?
by renstar on Oct 26, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because football players get hit a lot more often, especially in the head.
by David M. Getz on Oct 26, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This
See Gladwell’s article on the NFL.
"Let the rest be scared of us." - Sasha Semin
by Scott in Shaw on Oct 26, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no some much about head injuries, but just watch a game. How many of those guys are wearing two ACL braces? That was pretty unheard of 10 years ago. And this is as a precaution, not because every guy on the O line a blown his knee. Asking guys to carry 300-350 pounds on knees is asking for serious knee problems. And then you’re asking them to run? Their knees are ticking time bombs. And that’s just one example. Imagine what carrying that wight does to the rest of their body. Ankles, hips, back……..
by RedBirdie on Oct 26, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shoulders and necks become major issues for many linesmen by nature of their position. They’re constantly pushing at, and knocking heads with, other 300 pound men.
by David M. Getz on Oct 26, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve heard that the average NFL lineman takes the equivalent of a 25 mph car crash 30 times per game. Scary stuff.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Oct 26, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh my god, why on earth would you put yourself through that?!
and just thinking of all the years of pounding they take before they get to the NFL.
by RedBirdie on Oct 26, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s why you are old at 30.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 26, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, sorry. my typing has gone down the crapper and I’m in such a hurry to post that I fail to proofread. Bad Birdie.
by RedBirdie on Oct 26, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In general the NHL style of violence is much friendlier on your joints than the NFL style of violence. That is one big difference that speaks to why NFL players can’t walk but NHL players can. I tend to agree with CmA that the NFL is more violent, but it’s because of volume of violence, not because of the high end violence. If that makes sense.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 26, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Totally makes sense… and why not taking care of the one area that really is a highly dangerous activity is borderline negligent.
God kills a kitten every time Sidney whines.
by Chris meet Alex on Oct 26, 2009 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The “armor” in football is designed to protect the hitter rather than the hitee(?) and it’s also designed to make the players look bigger.
Also the pads in football are only there to encourage violence rather than protect the players. If you compare sports, a violent sport like rugby where pads are forbidden (real pads that would protect either player at least…the pads that are allowed are more to protect against scrapes and pad players for scrums) the rules are designed to protect the players and while the sport is still incredibly violent, there are many less injuries in rugby than in football.
by snowburnt on Oct 27, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would find this more persuasive if it referenced specific incidents and how they were, in your view, mismanaged.
by David M. Getz on Oct 26, 2009 1:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Fair nuff… I will update with appropriate examples.
God kills a kitten every time Sidney whines.
by Chris meet Alex on Oct 26, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
see above
God kills a kitten every time Sidney whines.
by Chris meet Alex on Oct 26, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Oct 26, 2009 2:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Campbell (Ken) is usually pretty level-headed and thoughtful about such issues, and this is no exception. If I remember he’s taken on Campbell (Colin) for the way he handled such issues in the past.
God kills a kitten every time Sidney whines.
by Chris meet Alex on Oct 26, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That article gives some interest insight into the NHL’s decision making process, particularly the discussion of what constitutes a “late hit”.
by David M. Getz on Oct 26, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Booth was not considered an unsuspecting player and it was deemed Richards didn’t target his head.
Bwahahaha. I don’t think it was a late hit but it was definitely a targeted head shot on an unsuspecting player. You can get around the unsuspecting part by pointing out that Booth was watching his pass, but you simply cannot get around the fact that Richards targeted the head.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 26, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he definitely could have pulled that hit back as well
by renstar on Oct 26, 2009 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That sends a clear message… do bad things (even if they don’t catch you in the game), you’re gonna pay for it. The NHL standard is, you do bad things… as long as you don’t hurt the guy, you get away with it.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 26, 2009 4:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Respect for the players
I watched the Steelers/Vikings game yesterday all 3 of the long return TDs ended with defensive (chasing) players half heartedly pursuing the ball carrier, and blockers in the way. On at least the two PIT TDs the blockers could easily have smoked the chasing guy, even though there was no chance the pursuing Viking was going to stop the TD. They basically ran parallel down the field for 10-15 yards and didn’t do anything. The NFL is extremely violent and the maxim “the more violent team usually wins” is pretty accurate. Yet, given an opportunity to smoke an opponent, possibly even in a legal manner, none of these NFL players took advantage of the opposition. The first thought that came to my head when I watched that was “what has the NHL come to when NFL players respect each other more than NHL players do?” It’s unfortunate that we even need to ask it.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 26, 2009 5:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Dead on.
God kills a kitten every time Sidney whines.
by Chris meet Alex on Oct 26, 2009 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yet, given an opportunity to smoke an opponent, possibly even in a legal manner, none of these NFL players took advantage of the opposition.
Very valid observation, F&B.
If may, on the final touchdown I think what you were referring to was Steelers rookie DE Ziggy Hood catching up to and not hitting Vikes’ rookie OT Phil Loadholt. Loadholt, listed at 343 pounds, was not going to catch the 235 pound linebacker Keyaron Fox running to the endzone. Hood ran from an angle from behind Loadholt, and really if he blocked him it would have been in the back, a call that NFL referees almost always make.
So was restraint and respect for fellow player the reason Hood didn’t make contact with Loadholt? Or was it that the NFL has a well-known precedent for calling the penalty for blocking from behind which would have negated the impending TD?
I think if the NHL cracked down on hits to the head (especially after a player plays the puck away), that these incidents would diminish. Sure there’s “finishing your check” and sometimes players commit for the hit and collide right after the puck is played. Can’t deny that, but too often players leave their feet and/or contact the opponent’s head.
Richards example is not going to deter anyone from doing the same thing. That’s the shame, incidents like this aren’t going to deter player behavior. Which, unfortunately, means the results are going to be the same until it changes.
Pensburgh.com -- it's like the Max Talbot of blogs*
*not just because we only work for 12 minutes a night
by Hooks Orpik on Oct 26, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ziggy Hood probably could have blocked Loadhoalt legally. If he ran straight up behind him and hit him it would be an obvious block in the back, but if you get one step ahead of him and side-swipe him it may be legal. That depends on whether or not such a block would violate the Hines Ward Rule.
Two other possible reasons Hood didn’t try to smoke Loadhoalt: 1) Loadhoalt has a pretty serious size advantage and Hood wasn’t likely to come out on top. 2) Hood was probably seriously gassed and didn’t feel like expending that much effort to make an unnecessary hit. But these kind of plays happen routinely in the NFL. There are frequently opposing players trailing a ball carrier to the end zone and you almost never see any superfluous aggression between them.
If that’s because the NFL players respect each other, good on them. If that’s because the NFL calls that stuff tightly, good on them. One way or another the NHL needs to do a better job protecting their players from each other. You’re completely right on your last two paragraphs.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 26, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed on Colon Campbell being a joke.
Every time a player is injured or a player is hit in the head they always whine “it’s terrible to see a player get hit in the head/injured etc. etc. etc.” (Basically what Ken Campbell said). If they want to take head shots out of the game they need to start punishing all head shots, regardless of injury or game situation. If it’s a head shot then it’s a head shot and it’s punishable.
They need to crack down on hits like the one Richards had, or the Colby Armstrong special if they want to do anything about. At this point it seems to me that all of their bitching and moaning is there to cover their ass and make it look like they care about player safety, but they don’t follow up on anything and do a terrible job protecting the players.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Oct 26, 2009 8:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Japers' Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Washington
|
59 | 41 | 12 | 6 | 88 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
57 | 25 | 21 | 11 | 61 |
|
Atlanta
|
57 | 25 | 24 | 8 | 58 |
|
Florida
|
58 | 24 | 25 | 9 | 57 |
|
Carolina
|
58 | 21 | 30 | 7 | 49 |
(updated 2.9.2010 at 4:15 AM EST)
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
