People are pretty irate about this week's Shanabans, and I think it reflects a pretty simple disconnect in the NHL's "supplementary discipline" system.
First let me start by saying I think this year's regime is a big improvement from last season. The NHL wheel-of-justice was unpredictable and opaque last season. Under Shanahan this year, that has been greatly improved.
This year the NHL has been doling out justice under a pretty clear test. There are several factors that dictate a decision on whether a player should be suspended, and for how long:
1) Was the action per se illegal? Was it a charge, elbow, etc...
2) Does the victim of the play bear any responsibility? Did he make a last minute move that the checker did not anticipate, worsening the risk on the play?
3) Is the aggressor a repeat offender?
4) Did the victim suffer an injury?
[5) Was either player a "star"? This is more of an unspoken factor.]
Most of these factors are good. What is really riling people up is the 4th factor--resulting injury. There are A LOT of fans that think it shouldn't be a factor at all (myself included). Even worse, the NHL seems to put quite a bit of weight on this factor when determining suspension length. As a result, on plays that seemed to lack intent but result in an injury, the NHL hands down significant ban, but on plays that looked ridiculously dirty but resulted in no injury, the punishment is light or non-existent.
The best solutions are the simplest. Therefore, to improve the system, I say the NHL should merely eliminate or greatly reduce the weight placed on the 4th factor, and a new factor in the test, malicious intent.
Malicious intent is what fans are getting caught-up on in reviewing plays. The natural reaction of fans is to say "that was so dirty, just a blatant attempt to injure." It's perverse that fans should, on the one hand, feel relief that their player didn't get hurt, but must resign themselves to fact that the culprit on the other team will be getting off light for the same reason.
I suspect the NHL has resisted using intent in the past because it is inherently subjective. No player is going to admit after the fact that he was simply looking to hurt somebody. That should not prevent the NHL from judging intent. Forgive me for the lawyer-speak, but that is my trade by day, but there are several indicia of intent that the NHL can refer to to judge intent.
Indicia of intent would be things like relation to any valid hockey purpose, history between the players/teams, actions preceding the play, and time and score of game.
Take some recent examples. Hagelin gets three games because he gets his elbow up on Alfedsson in a tight game, causing injury to one Ottawa's stars. Under the above test, a 3 game suspension is not unreasonable. However, decreasing emphasis on the injury to Alfredsson and weighing Hagelin's intent, you get a different result. Hagelin appears to be making a hockey play, but he illegally got his elbows up. He has to answer for that, but malicious intent seems to be absent based on the circumstances. Now we're talking a 1-game suspension.
On the other hand, you have James Neal. After the game and series is seemingly out of reach, Neal throws a blatantly illegal check on Couturier, which is both interference for being late, and a charge for launching himself to hit Couturier high. On the ensuing shift, he stalks Giroux and hits him high as well, another illegal check. Neal was not penalized, and it appears no injuries were picked up. Neal also scored 40 goals this season and scored 2 nice goals in the same game. Under the old test, lots of factors are in Neal's favor. Weighing intent however, his hit on Couturier had no hockey purpose whatsoever, and the fact that he makes another illegal and dangerous check to Giroux just moments later is powerful evidence of intent. We're waiting for Neal's supplementary discipline ruling today, but it could be anything. Under my regime, we're talking at least 3 games for his undeniable intent to throw dirty hits.
Judging intent is difficult, but the NHL has to step up. As the NHL legislates on-the-ice justice out of the game, they are placing upon itself the responsibility to implement an effective system of justice. Based on the dirty hits thus far in the playoffs, their current system is lacking. It's okay for the NHL to go through growing pains in the process, but they have to keep moving and evolve the system. In the old days of street justice, players would make a snap judgment about intent, and immediately do something about it. There's no sense in denying or minimizing the factor of intent, and if the NHL is already implicitly weighing intent, they sure fooled me. I think you'd create a system that more effectively polices the players and leaves a lot of fans happier.
