Written by Rick Stephens, AllHabs.net
MONTREAL, QC. — From my earliest memory, in addition to sports stars, my parents were my heroes — the ones who were around everyday. They could do lots of things I couldn’t, and they seemed to know the answer to every question. Sure, I didn’t always like their decisions, but they explained it in a way with which I couldn’t argue — my debating skills were undeveloped at that point.
I’m not quite sure when it happened — slowly over a period of time, I suppose — but I began to realize that my parents didn’t know everything there was to know. They sometimes made mistakes and made emotional decisions. Still, whether my parents were right or wrong, their word was law — appeals were heard by my grandmother who smiled, said nothing and made me a cup of hot chocolate.
I was a pretty good kid, but like anyone else I occasionally strayed — for the most part I understood when I had to be disciplined. They explained that they were just teaching me the difference between right and wrong — I suppose that made sense.
I had two pet peeves, however. The first was inconsistency — why could I do similar things getting punished sometimes and excused others? And the second happened when my parents ran out of good reasons for their decision — “Because I said so,” was the response on those occasions.
I admit that these two situations caused a great deal of confusion for me. I certainly didn’t learn anything, and in fact, some of the lessons — things I thought I knew — got undone along the way.
Brendan Shanahan, a veteran of over 1,500 game and 21 years in the NHL, is a hero to many. Although not a shoo-in, he will get serious consideration when he becomes eligible to join the Hockey Hall of Fame next season. Shanahan is a three-time Stanley Cup champion, and a gold medal winner at the World Championships, Winter Olympics and Canada Cup.
Shanahan is the only play in NHL history with over 600 goals and 2,000 penalty minutes.
It’s a new role for Shanahan being appointed on June 1, 2011 succeeding Colin Campbell. He was given a warm welcome by the hockey community who were prepared to give him much latitude to rescue a supplementary discipline system that was rife with inconsistency, patronage and stained with a lack of credibility.
Shanahan’s impact was immediate handing down his first two suspensions of the pre-season on September 22, 2001. Two repeat offenders, Pierre-Luc Letourneau-Leblond of the Flames and Philadelphia’s Jody Shelley were each suspended for incidents involving boarding calls. Shanahan communicated his decision on this controversial matter, clearly and concisely via a shiny new video wall — it was a teachable moment directed at players, coaches and fans.
It was an impressive debut. Had the NHL spun on a dime a restored faith in the process? Was Shanahan the all-seeing, all-knowing hero who had the answer to every question, and could do things no one else could?
Wisely, we hadn’t dismissed grandma — she was standing by with the hot chocolate and would be called upon soon. As the autumn of Septmber entered the chill of October, the bloom was about to come off the Brendan rose.
On October 2 in Quebec City, I watched an entertaining pre-season game between the Montreal Canadiens and the Tampa Bay Lightning. The Habs routed the Bolts 5-1 in their final exhibition tune-up. The game was marred by a serious of incidents involving Tampa’s Ryan Malone.
First Malone went after P.K. Subban, who was rescued by defensive partner Hal Gill. Malone also cross-checked goaltender Carey Price into his net after the whistle had blown. Malone would complete the trifecta leaving his feet to give Chris Campoli a shoulder check to the head with an elbow chaser midway through the third period.
As we watched from the seats of the Pepsi Colisee, concerned for the health of Campoli (and for Josh Gorges who stood up for his teammate but got the worse for wear) there was one thought that subdued the outrage: Sheriff Shanahan was on the case — let’s see him dissect this one on the video wall and hand down proper punishment.
The poster child for the violent offender of the NHL’s new season was Ryan Malone, and Shanahan could use the opportunity to educate players on what would no longer be tolerated. It should have been a slam dunk.
But we all know how that case ended up: Shanahan said he didn’t like the hit but twisted himself in knots spinning a tall tale to exonerate Malone. The sheriff took a page out of Colin Campbell’s book (or is it Bettman’s) and blamed the victim. Campoli changed the position of his head by reaching for the puck, and put himself in a vulnerable position.
What could he do? With Campoli leaning forward, Malone had no choice but to target the head, leave his feet, and follow through with an elbow. Well, of course, that’s obvious.
Hearing the convoluted explanation, we got the feeling that we were getting a peek behind the curtain of Oz. Sure there was a lot of style and flash in the way it was delivered, but it was our first clue that decisions rendered under the Shanahan regime would share some elements of arbitrariness of his predecessor.
As ridiculous as the verdict was, and Shanahan’s explanation, he had established the criteria he would be using to inform his judgement. Or did he?
Fast forward to the collision between Pacioretty and Letang in Montreal last Saturday night. We have seen the replays and know the facts. Pacioretty made a body check to separate Letang from the puck, as the Pittsburgh defenseman dangerously cruised into the middle of the ice for a scoring chance from the high slot with the clock winding down on a tied game.
In his ruling, Shanahan notes the following about Letang:
- His head was up as he crossed the blueline
- He was aware that a check was imminent
- He made a decision to take the shot despite knowing what was coming
- He understood and accepted the danger of putting himself in that position
As we know from watching the video that Letang’s right shoulder dipped just prior to taking the shot exposing his head to a hit. By his own admission, Letang said that he dropped his head. Shanahan ignored Letang’s quote and obscured the body change by employing another toy: super slow-mo.
The body of evidence supported that Letang put himself in a vulnerable position. We learned from the Campoli case that players who put themselves at risk absolve the aggressor from liability. And it should be noted that Malone’s check was vicious whereas Pacioretty was trying to make a hockey play.
Shanahan said that despite all of the things that Letang did wrong, that no player should expect to be hit in the head. One wonders why that sentence didn’t find it’s way into the Malone – Campoli ruling?
The bottom line is that Shanahan used similar criteria to arrive at polar opposite conclusions. Why go through the song and dance of creating fancy but twisted explanations of his decisions that don’t hold the scrutiny of consistency? He would be slightly more credible if he simply announced “Because I said so” — you know, the same attitude displayed by Bettman so often when he smugly takes to the microphone.
For Pacioretty and a good many others in the NHL community, they are confused about what is legal and what isn’t. Who can blame them?
Now Pacioretty is being asked to accept that while the NHL endorses Chara’s conduct they have a problem with something he has been instructed to do his whole hockey career.
“My whole life I have been taught by everyone who has ever coached me that when someone comes across he middle and they are about to shoot or they are going to make a play that you step up as a winger because defensemen are backing up and giving him free ice.” — Max Pacioretty
No Max, you shouldn’t have been listening to those coaches. Instead the NHL says you shoud have been paying attention to the ones who advocated ramming player’s heads into stanchions or the ones who suggest leaving your feet and elbowing your opponent. And don’t forget the double forearm smash to the head of a goalie who strays from his crease — that’s on Shanahan’s approved list too.
Perhaps it’s unfair to suggest weave a thread through this piece that Shanahan should take on the role of a parent when doling out punishment. Or is it?
I know that some see Shanahan’s role as simply that of a figure skating judge, holding up his card to indicate the number of games of suspension for each incident. I suppose that would follow if commissioner Bettman simply wanted to manage public opinion and sooth the concerns of NHL sponsors about violence in hockey.
But I expect more — I believe that Shanahan must be an educator. If he is going to effect change, players need to understand the difference between right and wrong. That is an impossible goal to reach if consistency is absent from his decisions.
So if suspensions are supposed to have a component of education for the players in the league, is Shanahan accomplishing his mandate?
“I’m confused and a lot of other players are confused too.” — Max Pacioretty
Yes, so are we. And somehow hot chocolate has lost the soothing effect it had when I was a kid.