Colin Campbell's Comments Creating the Slipperiest of Slopes
by Who Dat Ninja? on Mar 18, 2010 12:20 PM EDT
25 comments
I'm sure by now you've seen this gem of a quote from Colin Campbell:
"Look, if there's no injury on the play, we probably, we don't do anything, but that's part of the supplemental discipline process. If you cause a player to be injured, then you have to be responsible for the play that you're involved in, if there's any carelessness or recklessness in it"
Putting aside any inherant bias I may have stemming from Campbell's recent decisions, I can't be the only one who has a major problem with this on a philosophical level. If you use a resulting player injury as the determining factor in a suspension, does this not open the door for using player injuries as a strategic decision? For example, during last year's playoffs, after Ovechkin's knee on knee hit with Gonchar, what if Dan Bylsma decides to "hold out" Gonchar for the rest of the series in the hopes of drawing an Ovie suspension? Now, Gonchar was obviously an important piece of that team so the Pens probably wouldn't do that, but what if the hit had involved a lesser player? Don't they have to consider that "trade"? And while a broken shoulder is a clear cut case, what if the injury isn't as concrete as Brian Campbell's. (Say for example, Boyd Gordon's back injury, which was recently aggravated by a trip)? Is the NHL going to have a league doctor examine the player to determine if the injury is legit?
The concept of weighing the player you may lose to "injury" against the player the other team would lose to suspension is essentially already regularly employed when agitators attempt to draw coincidental penalties with more skilled players.
And of course, this also brings into the equation the fact that some players are simply more "fragile" than others. (And similarly, some may bleed easier than others which, to me, has always made the mandatory double minor for a high stick that draws blood a ridiculous rule. (Blood thinners for all in the locker room before the game! :)
I recognize that trying to gauge intent in these situations will always be somewhat subjective, but Campbell should do his best to discipline based on the circumstances surrounding the hit itself and not the resulting injury.
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 |
25 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Sister intentions aside, I just think it’s a better system to punish the hit and not the result. I get what he’s saying.. but I simply disagree. I don’t think you are obliged to enact punishment on someone who injures someone else if the act that causes the injury isn’t punishment-worthy.
Semin stick-lifts Recchi. Recchi’s wrist turns funny, and he sprains it. (Poor Boston!) He’s out two weeks. Does Alex Semin have to be parked for a game or to, to sit and think about what he’s done – possibly one of, if not the, most legal defensive play in hockey?
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
Or if a player has a chronic injury history which makes it more likely that an incident aggravates that injury.
Or if a player is hurt during the regular course of a game maybe his team goes back and tries to place blame on an opposing player for routine play looking for a suspension.
by Gin and Tonic on Mar 18, 2010 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Or when it gets leaked that the player injured has a season ending grade 2 concussion prior to the suspension getting handed down during a GM conference where they’re trying to take a stronger stance on head injuries. Adding to that the official announcement contained no reference to said concussion.
Suspend Colin Campbell!
I don’t think blood thinners would work – that would just make a cut bleed longer. Maybe a topical steroid or other material to thin the skin itself.
You’re probably right about that. Although I will say that my father has been on blood thinners for the past two years, and if he gets the slightest nick while shaving it looks like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre!
by Who Dat Ninja? on Mar 18, 2010 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Your GM agrees with Colin Campbell
This was found by another great poster at SCH on McPhee talking about the Gleason suspension:
“In my mind the player was trying to make a hit and it went wrong,” McPhee said. "And that’s ok. When you’re trying to hurt someone, if you’re trying to do something where a player is vulnerable or he doesn’t see you coming—you hit him from behind, you hit him from the blindside—I want those hits punished. But in this instance, it was an open-ice check, and it was a good attempt at a hit that went wrong, and sometimes they’re gonna go wrong.
“You have a player in Ovechkin who is one of the league leaders in hits, and they’re not all gonna go right. But if it’s an attempt at a legal hit and it goes wrong, it doesn’t mean it’s suspend-able. And in my mind, when there’s no intent to injure, and there is no injury, you can’t suspend the guy. And the league’s concern is that Ovi’s really been physical lately and he’s going to hurt someone. I said, ‘Well, if he hurts someone, suspend him.’ But you can’t suspend someone for something that might happen.”
Pretty clear Cap fans should calm down. Here’s your GM’s guidelines for an Ovechkin suspension and his hit on Campbell fit the criteria. Case Closed.
But if it’s an attempt at a legal hit and it goes wrong, it doesn’t mean it’s suspend-able. And in my mind, when there’s no intent to injure, and there is no injury, you can’t suspend the guy. And the league’s concern is that Ovi’s really been physical lately and he’s going to hurt someone. I said, ‘Well, if he hurts someone, suspend him.’ But you can’t suspend someone for something that might happen."
I’m sure 30 out of 30 GMs would say the same thing, more or less. But they’d also say that the league has to prioritize. The inconsistency in doling out suspensions and other punishments is maddening.
Pretty clear Cap fans should calm down. Here’s your GM’s guidelines for an Ovechkin suspension and his hit on Campbell fit the criteria. Case Closed.
Yes, it does. But so do many other plays that went unnoticed. The not-calm feeling is like “What gives NHL???”
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans no more intelligent than myself
by red army line on Mar 18, 2010 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
again, the issue is not so much the hit as the utter lack of logic behind the NHL’s supplemental discipline decisions. If Campbell claims that injury is the deciding factor behind suspensions, how does he square that with previous decisions from this season?
Kung-fu Rink Rabbit
Donate to the Rink Pledge Drive for SAVES FOR KIDS! Ain’t nothing [wrong] about giving $5 so a stranger’s premature baby can have the time on a respirator they need.~Gould Old Days
All I am saying is
McPhee feels it is valid to consider injuries when assessing suspensions. So I find it very hypocritical that he feels a suspension isn’t deserved.
First of all, Campbell knew Ovechkin was coming well before he even touched the puck seconds beforehand, so that rules out the unawareness / vulnerability / blindside part of your argument. He saw him coming and he certainly felt him climbing up his back before the shove. Furthermore, the vulnerability factor comes into question with how Campbell handled the Ovechkin pressure he knew was coming. He didn’t take care of himself adequately; he had an unfortunate toe pick in the shitty noontime Stadium ice. Unlucky and unfortunate. A dangerous, borderline play that I felt at the time was going to get a five. But what McPhee was talking about in your quoted statement about was hits with intent to injure, and Ovechkin had no intent to injure Campbell. That’s a huge difference that you’re conveniently ignoring.
Driving under the influence of hockey since godknow's when.
Lol
Its no use. Being diplomatic is useless. I recant all my arguments. How can I be such a blind homer?
Ovi did nothing wrong.
you’re creating a strawman to fit your narrative.
Kung-fu Rink Rabbit
Donate to the Rink Pledge Drive for SAVES FOR KIDS! Ain’t nothing [wrong] about giving $5 so a stranger’s premature baby can have the time on a respirator they need.~Gould Old Days
A range of thoughtful, diplomatically worded arguments was (very) well covered on this site three or four days ago — not all of them came from Caps fans. Don’t come in here with a nonsense claim to the contrary.
"Camaraderie, that's what the Washington Capitals are all about."
by CapitalCentre on Mar 19, 2010 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
What diplomacy? You conflated an out of context statement to fuse together with a thin argument to begin with and you’re getting called out on it. And by the way, your willingness to recant said argument really undermines its authority and validity in the first place.
Driving under the influence of hockey since godknow's when.
Case closed? Hardly
Just because GMGM says the NHL should punished based on injury doesn’t mean I agree with him. This may shock you, but GMGM’s word isn’t gospel to us just because we are Caps fans. I find the suggestion that suspensions should be based on injury to be foolish regardless of who makes the suggestion. Plus, I take any GM’s comments regarding the suspension of their own player with a HUGE grain of salt.
The problem with punishing injuries instead of actions couldn’t be any more clear in the past week. Aside from the AO hit, you had Pelley, Matthew Martin and Alfredsson dishing out equally (if not even more) dangerous hits from behind, with 0 supplemental discipline (and there were likely more hits from behind that got no coverage – I watch a lot of hockey but can’t see every game). Suspending AO because both he and Campbell were unlucky enough that Campbell got seriously injured does absolutely nothing to take dangerous hits out of the game. It just lets players know that in most cases you have a green light to hit from behind – just hope your hit isn’t the flukey one that leads to a serious injury.
That said, I’m not even sure that GMGM is supporting Campbell’s claim, he is merely pointing out that even by their stated standards AO should not have been suspended. He is saying that the NHL says AO must be punished because they are worried he will hurt someone, so GMGM’s response is that if their focus is on injuries they should punish when there are actually injuries. That quote doesn’t make a value judgement on the concept of punishing based on injury.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Mar 19, 2010 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly--Is it Potential injury or Actual injury?
It drives me crazy when quotes are taken out of context. GMGM was saying at that time that he took issue with Campbell suspending Ovi for creating a situation where an injury COULD have happened. He is saying that if a resulting injury is the determining factor, then suspend him when the injury actually happens, not if it might.
Flash forward to now, an entirely different set of circumstances, and what Campbell is now saying is that he had to suspend Ovi because he was responsible for Brian Campbell’s injury, that had B. Campbell gotten back up then Ovi wouldn’t have been suspended.
So which is it: POTENTIAL injury or ACTUAL injury?
IMO Campbell has reversed himself on how to assign suspensions when it involves Ovi. I’m calling it the special Campbell suspension rule for any incident/penalty/injury involving Ovi— or the Ovi rule: when in doubt just suspend the guy and give others a chance to win some of these individual awards.
Obviously I’m kidding on the last part. However, I have come to believe that Campbell just doesn’t know what to do with Ovi, how to handle him. It’s out of his comfort zone. Ovi has the power to be a threat with a regular gray area hockey play. Not once have I read Campbell asserting that Ovi has ever acted out of malice or intent to injury or even retaliatory: just that regular hockey plays gone wrong by Ovi have a greater impact than those by most other players.
by capsyoungguns on Mar 19, 2010 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
never mind the fact that david booth missed 3 months and mark savard is going to miss 6 weeks + however many games it takes us to finish off the bruins in the first round. Some might point out that as of yet, those headshots have not been outlawed, but given what Campbell is saying here, the injury is more important than what happened on the ice. Not to mention, Richards was kicked out of the game.
and he just re-iterated that the injury is the deciding factor during an interview during the Boston game, and replayed on CSN just now. Which explains why Koci got off for the Green hit, btu absolutely does not explain Booth and Savard.
Kung-fu Rink Rabbit
Donate to the Rink Pledge Drive for SAVES FOR KIDS! Ain’t nothing [wrong] about giving $5 so a stranger’s premature baby can have the time on a respirator they need.~Gould Old Days
The Commish tried to differentiate by saying that in this latest attack the difference was that wiz elevated to clearly attack the head and the puck was long gone from the play. He said in the others there wasn’t clear intent to go for the head (even though Cooke’s elbow was the part that went for the head) and that the puck had recently left the scene.
very spotty and flawed justice.
Suspend Colin Campbell!
Broken foot. Suspend the Slapshot-er!
I am clearly in your camp:
Only Injuries Draw Suspensions
and
The main point of my fanpost is: By only disciplining in the case of injury, you actually ENCOURAGE dangerous behavior.
That and I recently watched an interview with Campbell on HNIC… and he’s … uh… not smart.
I’ve always held the believe that for positions as delicate and complicated as leadership positions in a professional sports league (and the disciplinary head-honcho might be the toughest of them), you need somebody REALLY smart . I mean exceptionally smart. Somebody WAY smarter than me, to be making these tough calls. When I saw Colin Campbell answering questions I thought… “Wow. I’M smarter than this guy. By a lot!” I’m not saying he’s a simpleton (though his rulings often have a whiff of simple logic), but he’s only slightly above the dummy level.
That’s bad news for the NHL and the safety of its players. And it saddens me.
Great. Now I have to change my name to "Jaromir meet Alex".
by Chris meet Alex on Mar 22, 2010 2:29 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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
|
82 | 54 | 15 | 13 | 121 |
|
Atlanta
|
82 | 35 | 34 | 13 | 83 |
|
Carolina
|
82 | 35 | 37 | 10 | 80 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
82 | 34 | 36 | 12 | 80 |
|
Florida
|
82 | 32 | 37 | 13 | 77 |
(updated 4.12.2010 at 9:21 AM EDT)
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Trending Topics: Odd arbitration decisions; more NHLers Tweeting
- Ovechkin wins fifth Kharlamov Trophy, talks Talbot
- Puck Headlines: Witt hits waivers; Kovalchuk grievance details set
- Jersey Fouls: Sharks get creatively awful; hockey movie pass/fail
- White, Flames agree to one-year deal; Bruins sign Wheeler
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.
