Written By:Iain Carnegie, AllHabs.net
“I can’t see the difference – can you see the difference?”
Do we all remember that commercial? Apparently Mr. Shanahan not only saw that commercial, but has decided to subscribe to it when reviewing potential suspendable hits in the National Hockey League.
Late this afternoon, Brendan Shanahan released his explanatory video as to why Max Pacioretty has been handed a three game suspension for his hit on the Penguin’s Kris Letang last Saturday night.
In Shanahan’s explanation, he states that players that come across the middle of the ice have to expect to be hit, but they should not expect the “primary point of contact” to be the head.
I have watched this video over and over again, from multiple angles, and I couldn’t disagree more.
What is clear, is that Letang did take open ice contact, and that his head certainly was touched, but it was far from being the “primary point of contact” on the play. It’s also clear that Letang knew the hit was imminent (also stated by Shanahan in his video explanation), and dropped his head to continue the play. I’m not sure how anyone could expect Pacioretty – who had clearly already committed to the hit – to change his body position and not follow through.
What makes this suspension less bearable, is the fact that the Senior Vice President of Player Safety and Hockey Operations was asked to make a ruling on the exact same style of hit earlier this year. On October 1st, while attempting to clear his defensive zone, the Canadiens Chris Campoli was hit in the exact same fashion by Ryan Malone of the Tampa Bay Lightning.
The National Hockey League’s website (nhl.com) made the following statement regarding Shanahan’s decision on the Campoli / Malone hit:
“Shanahan called it his most challenging decision thus far, but ruled no suspension because Malone had already committed to the hit and Campoli leaned forward and left himself vulnerable.”
So let me ask you once again … I can’t see the difference. Can you see the difference? Sounds awfully familiar doesn’t it?
If you haven’t seen both hits, take a look at the following video’s and then tell me where the difference lies.
Pacioretty on Letang:
Malone on Campoli:
In the end, the explanation that exonerated Malone is the same explanation that convicted Pacioretty. At a time when players like Milan Lucic can run at, and concuss a goalie with no consequence, it remains baffling that a player with no previous record can be handed this type of suspension.
Consistency continues to run a muck in the NHL, and it’s taking the sports credibility with it.
Iain, thanks for an excellent read and concise explanation; sadly those who pass judgement as fair and impartial will likely not take notice.
A game perhaps maybe two but three? After the Lucic non call and the Malone hit? Many within the twitterverse claim Shanahan is above reproach; I am not one of them. His rulings have been partial, inconsistent and riddled with faulty logic. Double standards abound, I don’t abide by conspiracy theories (too complex) however clearly the Habs don’t have the juice of Boston or the close friendship of an Yzerman in this league.
This is shameful!
Well thanks for being so incredibly kind in your comments.
I agree that we could probably swallow a game – even two (?) – but three is a statement that makes no sense in light of the other suspensions that have been handed out (or a lack thereof).
I too, don’t buy into the conspiracy theory, but I also know that there is something extremely wrong with this league when Lucic, Malone, and the like get a free pass.
I haven’t yet lost my faith in the league, but I’m well on my way.
Thanks for the read and the comments. Your support is greatly appreciated.
I’m done trying to make sense of these rulings. Same old crap, different package, full of contradictions.
About the only consistency he obtains is inconsistency.
“Once upon a time ….”
There used to be an NHL that I believed in, but that love is depleting fast with each inconsistency that is shown.
I look at the Andre Deveaux suspension, where there was a clear lifting of the elbow and a push out of the left leg to catch Tomas Fleischmann crossing the blue line, and wonder how that could possibly be equated with Pacioretty’s hit on Letang. They received the same number of games.
Something is wrong in the state of Denmark my friend, and it leaves all of us scratching our heads in wonder!
Thanks for the read and comments.
I concur, but it is entertainment business and not based in reality i guess, i expected him to get the shaft and was bang on.
Oh well, history now and we get to see how NHL ready Mr. Leblanc is.
Good for Muller to get job, he is a classy individual and deserves his shot.
Hey Don! Miss your comments – good to hear from you again!
Totally agree with you on Muller. Sadly the Marois rule is still in effect here in La Belle Province because he would have been the best fit here.
As far as the Pacioretty suspension goes – you’re right – none of us should have been surprised. Just aggravates me to no end, as it does to most fans here in Montreal.
Regarding LeBlanc, what are your thoughts on him as a player? Is he ready for the NHL?
Thanks for swinging by and leaving your thoughts!
First – my disclaimer message: I am a Habs fan through and through. I am also a fan of the game in general – but a Habs fan first and foremost. I accept that I look a the game differently because of my allegiances and try to make my comments with my own prejudices in mind.
Max deserved a suspension and honestly it should have been longer. This isn’t my quibble with the ruling from Mr. Shanahan at all nor is the whole Big Zed issue that keeps being brought up in these discussions. I have my own opinion of Mr. Chara and I can assure you that it is not favourable in the slightest – but the fact of the matter is that that was last year – and before Shanny’s time as Sheriff.
The real issue that I have isn’t even the perceived inconsistency of the rulings that Shanny has brought down – it is the absolute lack of transparency in the process. Sure – we have Brendan giving a few minutes of explanation each time there is a ruling, but what we don’t have during these videos is a historic framework to put everything in context.
Let me explain what I mean by this. My assertion is that there has been a couple of precedents set that should have informed this decision – Andre Deveaux’s hit on Tomas Fleischmann and – yes I am going to pull this one out – Ryan Malone’s hit on Campoli. All three of these hits are of a similar nature. Fleischmann, Campoli and Letang all try to cut East-West. All look down at the puck and extend their bodies out while trying to make a play. All have their head as the principal point of contact in the ensuing hit.
The Malone hit was the first of the bunch and the league stated that it was a difficult decision when they finally decided to not suspend Mr. Malone for making the hockey play that just a couple of years ago would have been lauded as a good clean hit. Fine. Fair enough. But here is the line in the sand that the league has now effectively drawn on what is legal and what isn’t when it comes to head shots.
Then came the Deveaux hit and Andre was assessed a 3 game suspension despite the very flagrant elbow being thrown. I do not doubt Mr. Deveaux at all when he states that it was unintentional and a momentary lapse in judgment with no ill-intention behind the hit. But here we are – this is now the line in the sand that the league has drawn about the length of a suspension for what is not only a head shot – but one delivered with an elbow and even by the standard of a couple of years ago could not be lauded as a good, clean hit like the Malone hit arguably could have been.
Finally, this brings us to Max’s hit on Letang. Watching the replay’s of all 3 hits and trying my best to be impartial about it – of the preceding two examples, Max’s hit appears to me to be more in the vein of the Malone hit than the Deveaux hit. It does appear that Pacioretty’s elbow comes up – but it seems that this is after the contact has already been made with the shoulder to Talbot’s head and is a reaction to, not the cause of, the impact.
Now my issue. The line has been drawn about what is and what is not a legal head shot. That line has apparently moved between the time of the Malone hit and the time of the Pacioretty hit. The line has also been drawn on the length of a suspension and although the length handed down both for Deveaux’s hit and for Pac’s hit is the same – the “legality” of this hits are significantly different. I can even accept this. The game is a fast one and this new-found (and about time) emphasis on curbing head shots is a constantly evolving paradigm. What NEEDS to happen during each of these paradigm shifts is an explanation as to why the previously set precedent has been superseded by the latest incident. This is what is OWED to hockey fans. At the end of the day – we are the ones who are indirectly paying Mr. Shanahan’s and Mr. Bettman’s salaries and they need to start being accountable to US – the fans of the league and of the game – no matter what team we cheer for.
Comments are closed.