Marian Hossa of the Chicago Blackhawks celebrates scoring the game-winning goal against the Nashville Predators in Game Five of the Western Conference Quarterfinals during the 2010 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs at the United Center on April 24, 2010 in Chicago, Illinois. The Blackhawks defeated the Predators 5-4 in overtime.Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images
The most predictable thing about Colin Campbell's decision not to suspend Marian Hossa for the push that sent Nashville Predators defenceman Dan Hamhuis tumbling into the boards last Saturday was the outrage.
Commentators across North America condemned the NHL's director of hockey operations for not giving Hossa, one of the most important players on the Chicago Blackhawks, the same punishment Campbell issued to Washington Capitals superstar Alexander Ovechkin for a hit on a similar play in March that left Blackhawks defenceman Brian Campbell with a broken collarbone. Ovechkin was suspended for two games and the Blackhawks defenceman missed the last month of the season with his injury.
Fuelling the indignation, Hossa was not even tossed from Game 5 of the playoff series. He served a five-minute major penalty for boarding (some felt it should have been a checking-from-behind penalty, which would have resulted in a game misconduct) and then stepped out of the penalty box in overtime to score the winning goal.
However, outrage aside, there were a number of factors that made the two cases different. So just how do Campbell and his staff (these decisions always involve lots of discussion between Campbell and his lieutenants Mike Murphy, Jim Gregory, Terry Gregson, Kris King and others) arrive at a decision on supplemental discipline, especially one like the Hossa play that is not black-and-white?
First, says Campbell, there is no such thing as a black-and-white situation. "Everything is a grey area," he said dryly.
Campbell agreed to walk us through the Hossa decision as a way of explaining how all decisions are made. What was surprising was the number of factors that go into them, some obvious and some subtle.
The first is that playoff infractions are treated twice as seriously as those during the regular season. For Hossa to receive the equivalent of Ovechkin's punishment, he would have to be suspended for one game, since Campbell has always used a 2-for-1 formula.
Once Campbell and his staff see a hit that will require a decision, their first move is to determine whether it is a legitimate hit and not embellished by the victim. "This aspect raises its ugly head all the time in the playoffs," Campbell said, explaining that the sheer competitive urge to win and the money at stake by advancing to the next playoff round makes players "throw anything at the wall to see if it will stick."
The next two important factors are whether the victim was injured and if the perpetrator is a repeat offender. Ovechkin struck out on both counts here. He had already been fined and suspended for previous transgressions. Hossa's record was clean.
On the injury issue, Campbell was out for a month but Hamhuis escaped serious injury. He missed the rest of the game but was expected to play in Game 6 of the series last night. "In the playoffs, that becomes a huge dynamic," Campbell said.
Coming down hard on repeat offenders became an issue this season when Campbell asked the general managers at their March meetings for their thoughts. "They said we have to deal with them more vigilantly than we have in the past," Campbell said.
In Hossa's case, Campbell said, "You ask if he is a mean-spirited guy. Is this something Hossa would do?" Campbell believes he and his staff are experienced enough and know the NHL's 700 players well enough to judge if there was intent to injure. "Yes, we do look at intent," he said. "We think we have a fairly good handle on a lot of these things."
And, the hockey operations people compare the hit to similar plays. In this case, the Ovechkin hit was the benchmark, Campbell said, if only because "people throw it in your face."
But there was a more subtle factor at play as well. Ovechkin injured a Blackhawks player and, at the time, the Blackhawks were pushing for severe punishment. Now, with the shoe on the other foot, Campbell said, "Chicago doesn't want us to use that link."
Finally, there is the study of the act itself. And this is where Ovechkin and Hossa parted company. Ovechkin was judged to have thrown an illegal hit that caused Campbell to fall into the boards while Hossa's action was more of a light push in a similar race for the puck, although, like Campbell, Hamhuis fell and slid into the boards.
"[Hossa's action]was a desperation play late in the game that happens all the time," Campbell said. "The puck is shot in and there is a race for it. Was Hossa trying to throw a body check? Not at all, he was trying to get the puck. In doing so, his hand comes out and he pushed the player away.
"Was there intent on Hossa's part to throw this guy into the boards? No. Was it careless? Well, you might deem it was careless somewhat because [Hamhuis]went into the boards hard. But I don't think Hossa was acting in a careless manner in trying to get the puck. He wasn't swinging his stick around and he wasn't driving the guy's head into the glass."
In the end, "We really pained over this," Campbell said, but the factors added up to no suspension.