A Simple Fix for NHL Suspensions

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.

Shanahan's Reign Begins

I was not a fan of how the NHL has conducted its disciplinary system the last few seasons.  It was arbitrary, mysterious, and lived up to the fan's mocking moniker "wheel of justice."  Perhaps the biggest indictment of the system was that it was wholly unpredictable, and lack of transparency and clarity are one of the worst criticisms you can level at an institutional system of justice.

When Colin Campbell left the office as head disciplinarian, things could only get better.  In steps Brendan Shanahan, a respected and well-liked former player who has been actively involved in rule tweaks the last few seasons.

Shanahan got things off to a good start, and even regaled those of us who lack the patience and interest to read a press release with a video;

Wow.  Transparent, clear, tough.  What a difference.

Jody Shelley has also found himself in the crosshairs;

I don't think Shelley's hit was as bad as LeBlond's, so Shelley's multiple suspensions last year and his "repeat offender" status obviously counts for a lot.

Given this positive start, the question still remained about the trickier case of illegal checks to the head.  Those incidents are much touchier, and there is still some resistance in the league to harsh penalties for such plays.  Also, late last season the GMs passed rule changes to toughen up boarding enforcement.  This included the language quoted in the videos about how the onus is the on the player applying the check to ensure the target is not in a defenseless position.  This language is not illegal check to the head rule.

It didn't take long to get a preview of how Shanahan will handle headshots;

Two games isn't very much, but that is explained by the lack of injury, intent, and previous suspension history of Boyes.  What IS noteworthy about this video is that Shanahan states that the onus was on the player delivering the check to minimize contact to the head, even though the onus language is not written into the headshot rule, as it is for boarding.

I think these rulings forebode very well for NHL disciplinary action this season.  Administratively, they are clear and transparent.  Substantively, they are tough penalties that place the onus on the checking player not to prey on the other player.  While the target still bears some responsibility for his position, it's a softening on the old school "keep your head up" attitude, which I think is the most important piece in reducing head injuries in the long run.