Weighing in on the Double Standard

This is a response to a discussion that is currently happening within the pool that I am in and due to its length I was unable to post it there but I guess it's also good to read it here. The discussion thusfar has been about the Richards hit and the NHL's decision to not suspend him. Ideas offered have been letting the players police it themselves and such but he's my observation on the whole thing.

When looking at these kinds of issues you have to examine what is best for the game and like how Clauswitz believes that the military and governments are afftected by the joint triangle of the people, government and the military so to it works in the NHL with the Owners/Governors, the fans and the players and what would be the best solution for all 3.

Owners/Governors - The NHL for the past while has been promoting the stars of the NHL and how great they are this has been demonstrated in the road trip type commericals (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07R5T9ekAXw) and anything with Sidney Crosby which I think covers a wide variety of products with the exception of baby food and suppositories. So when their stars pull boneheaded moves like Richards hit and Ovechkin's slewfoot they do anything to protect them. So what is best for them (in their minds) would be for the stars to be protected. What may be best is a top down enforcement of the rules within the organization and when a player does something like that not only should they lose a substantial amount of games but the team itself also has to pay a bunch of money as well on top of the salary that was intended to go to that player. This would keep both parties accountable.

The Fans - This has already been discussed in some detail already and how if incidents like Richards hit are not brought to justice then the game could spiral out of control. What is best for the fans then? The NHL believes that it is in promoting the stars in which their argument is valid but the problem with that is the protectionist and two-tiered system that is now in place. The fans want a winner, plain and simple, and they want something entertaining. Each market is different but let's consider three types of markets: a Canadian one (Oilers), an original six (Chicago) and a sunbelt team (Ducks).

With teams such as the Oilers which despite their years of mediocrity in the playoffs and regular season with the occasional stint of depth this team has seriously not contended in over a decade (with the obvious exception of their recent Cup run anomaly which scientists are still trying to figure out). Despite all this the team still sells out because of the loyalty of the fans whether it be because of the dynasty years, the promise of a future with the kids or the plain and simple fact that sometimes people just want to see a puppy kicked around on the ice. Canadian fans are loyal and despite how crappy the team is they will show up because of the loss of teams like the Jets and Nordiques Canadian fans know that with Bettman as commissioner their teams have a short leash. So no matter if their player is suspended or not their will still be fans, just not the happiest at times, as the Canucks potentially lost a Stanley Cup when Bertuzzi ended Moore's career and got suspended. The fans still showed up and cheered because the loyalty will still remain.

Chicago, an original six team, like any original six team, can play on its past to bring out the fans despite the on ice product. Of course the owners almost killed this atmosphere a few years back but one thing is for sure an original six team is expected to compete year in and year out because they have been around the longest and teams such as that are expected to lead the way in how teams compete, it goes without saying. You'd have to be a bonehead to keep the fans away when there are generations of fans to fill your coffers with. You may not sell out every game in the low years but it does not take much to get the fans back. Look at Chicago in this matter as even though they had yet to make the playoffs at one point they were selling out their games (and then some) before the fans knew for sure that they were in. The on ice product was good and the team under a new owner knew how to promote their product. So what do the fans want here? They want a winner, of course, and to succeed in doing that you have to have your best players not in suspensions but on the ice. To keep the team accountable to the fans the team has keep the players accountable for their actions.

Finally a sunbelt team. I used the Ducks as a case point in this for prior to their first Cup run with Giguere in net stealing every game away the Ducks were on the verge of bankruptcy and there was discussion of them moving or folding and then they got deep into the playoffs and everyone's attitude changed. We have a winner on our hands and though they came up short a run like that breathed life into a dying team. So in general teams in the sunbelt require a winner and only a winner to survive. It's how Carolina does so well and how Phoenix is doing so poorly. The Hurricanes have been fortunate in their early years to put a couple runs together and claim a Stanley Cup because nothing creates a history or a myth for fans to follow like a Stanley Cup (look at the Leafs fans and how they grasp onto the 67 Cup- not saying all of them here but some). We will see how strong this myth is during the rebuilding years that are sure to come some day.

So the fans like winning and the best way to win is to have your best on the ice. That is what the NHL believes and so they believe that that is what they are trying to protect on being soft to the big boys.

The players - They are the ones who are getting hurt and the ones who are and are not getting suspended. It's their literal necks on the line on the ice and what is their attitude about it? A lot want sterner punishments and then there are others who want to keep their job and think injuries like that are just a part of the game and will happen. With the bulkiness of players nowadays, the wide variety of sizes between players (St. Louis vs. Chara) and the speed of the game injuries are bound to happen and incidents are going to occur when your responses are being pumped by adrenaline. You go up to Ovechkin before a game and ask him do you intend to go out and slewfoot Peverley this game and his answer will obviously be no and the same will be for Richards and his hit. Everybody makes boneheaded moves at their work, sometimes we forget a tool back at the shop once we've walked all the way to a job site, we give incorrect change at the counter or we're so much into the game that quick decisions which may take milliseconds to decide or just plain instinct can cost a player his career or even a life. The players will want justice on these incidents but they know sometimes that just the way the game is things like this will happen and that's why a lot of times the victim will forgive the offender because they are in the game and can understand and they are only fooling themselves when they say otherwise.

The longer a game is around the more people will get involved and the deeper the game gets and in hockey's case the longer it has gone on the better players can develop and grow into superstars is accelerated whether it be through training methods or the energy drinks that they drink which keep them more hydrated. The game is faster now. The game is rougher now. The game is bigger now. We cannot look into the past and say these type of things did not happen because they did but since the players were smaller they did not happen on such a large of scale. Incidents such as Richards hit are an example of what the current state of the NHL has become; it's a rough game where players can bring themselves to a point where they can hit a guy like that and not get suspended because that's just the nature of the faster, stronger NHL.

The Colin Campbells claim that they look at a player's past history to weigh in on their decision and so if incidents like this are not brought to a suspension point then they will be forgotten and the "past" history will not be recorded. A hit like that warranted a suspension of AT LEAST one game. That way when the history is brought into question again they have that one suspension on record. It seems too easy to point on that its the NHL leadership that has brought us to this point in the game but there are many factors to bring into question. I'm sorry for the length of this but we need to examine all points of the argument here and I know I haven't covered them all. We all want to watch hockey and we all want to see our favourite players in action and some times for that to happen is for them not to get suspended. The question we have to ask is what would have happened if it was not Booth, a forward playing for a backwater team like the Panthers whom few people care about, but a Sidney Crosby or an Ales Hemsky, players that are more well known in their markets in which fans will stand up more for and be baying for blood if nothing happened? The fans would go crazy so the NHL has to walk a fine line between what they think is best for the game and sometimes it is no suspension and other times it is a big one. There has to be some sort of balance and they think they have it but here we are discussing what was a dirty hit with no consequences except the lone player taken out on a stretcher.