Capitals: Credibility, Can The NHL Department of Player Safety fix its problem

The National Hockey League talks about player safety but has a credibility problem with the lack of supplemental discipline for Evander Kane

Over the last several years, the National Hockey League and its own Department of Player Safety have tried to put forth the notion they are concerned about player safety and are actively working on the problem using fines and suspensions to educate players engaging in unsafe behaviors.

However, these actions are failing at the most basic level – consistency. This has led to the League having a credibility problem with the fans. I think we all can understand that it may be confusing and difficult at first to carry out sweeping and effective changes. But the time for the learning curve for the NHL and DoPS has run out. I give you four current events to compare:

Evander Kane of the San Jose Sharks was fined $5000 for elbowing Radko Gudas of the Washington Capitals in the head;
Erik Cernak of the Tampa Bay Lightning was suspended two games for elbowing Rasmus Dahlin of the Buffalo Sabres in the head;
Ryan Johansen of the Nashville Predators was fined $5000 for elbowing Brayden Point of the Tampa Bay Lightning in the head;
Garnet Hathaway of the Washington Capitals was suspended 3 games for spitting at Eric Gudbranson.

During the third period of the Sharks vs. Caps game, Kane was checking Gudas near the benches as Gudas played the puck to the boards. However, instead of moving to retrieve the puck, Kane decided to body check Gudas. With Kane looking directly at Gudas, he applies a high head shot with his hands and the butt end of his stick resulting in Gudas falling and hitting his head on the boards. Kane was given a game misconduct and subsequently fined $5000 for his actions. It is important to note that he has been suspended before for a shot to the head.

Near the end of the second period of the Tampa Bay vs. Buffalo game on November 25th, 2019, Dahlin was driving towards the Nashville goal and passes the puck to a teammate. After the pass, Cernak attempted to prevent Dahlin from going around him to the front of the net by applying a body check. During the check, Cernak lifted his elbow and made direct head contact with Dahlin. The contact resulted in Dahlin leaving the game with no penalty applied to Cernak. After reviewing the incident the DoPS applied a two game suspension as supplementary discipline for Cernaks actions. Cernak has no history of suspensions or fines in his career.

At about the mid-way point of the second period of the Nashville vs Tampa game on December 3rd, 2019, Johansen was moving to retrieve the puck from the corner of his defensive end with Point in pursuit. Just before reaching the puck, Johansen stops and appears to attempt a reverse body check sending his elbow backwards at an upward angle striking Point in the head. He was assessed at game misconduct for his action. After reviewing the incident, DoPS fined Johansen the maximum $5000. Once again, it should be noted that Johansen has a history of shots to the head.

More from Stars and Sticks

I have included the Hathaway incident as it reflects the Leagues interpretation of “Intent to Injure”. Near the end of a heated confrontation with multiple players involved during the Caps vs Ducks game on November 19th, 2019, Hathaway, while being restrained by an official, received at least one punch from Gudbranson.

As a result, Hathaway lost control and spit on Gudbranson. The actions of Hathaway were, as considered by most reasonable adults, disgusting and intolerable. There is a level of moral and adult actions that as a society we simply do not condone. However, no physical contact occurred and it is hard to fathom the intent to injure determination. The suspension was applied by the Department of Hockey Operations and NOT the DoPS.

While on the surface it may seem that some of theses incidents are not linked, I think if you take a bit of a deeper view they are. Three of the four incidents are classified as elbowing and are the result of hits to the head. For starters, we should look at the decision handed down by the DoPS for the Cernak case.

In the DoPS ruling it states that:

It was elbowing;
Cernak extends his arm and makes direct contact with Dahlin’s face;
Dahlin was injured on the play;
He has no history of prior suspensions for this.

So he received a two game suspension. It would seem that there are some clear basis for the suspension. And given no prior history it was decided two would be sufficient.

There was no official explanation for the Johansen ruling. However, it is possible to look at it and consider it may have been a bit of a blind hit. The League often uses phrasing similar to “The onus is on the player to deliver a hit in a legal fashion”. Johansen DOES have a history of illegal hits to the head. He made direct contact with the head. Point leaked enough of his own blood that he would seem to meet the definition of injured. However, without the official ruling, we cannot understand why he did not receive supplemental discipline in line with Cernak.

Again, there was no official explanation from DoPS on the Kane ruling. If you look at the play, it is clear that he has a visual on Gudas. It is clear that he extends his arm holding the butt end of his stick and makes clear direct contact with Gudas’ head. By the Leagues previous definition, this is an illegal hit. Gudas was clearly injured on the play and did not return to the game.

So we have recent League decisions that SHOULD have helped clarify things:

A suspension of 3 games based on “Intent to injure”;
A suspension of 2 games for an illegal hit with direct contact to the head;
A suspension partially based on injury;

If you review the hit Kane delivered, clearly with his eyes on Gudas, he hits Gudas with the primary contact being the head. In other words, an illegal hit to the head. How can the League not apply its own language and review criteria to this hit? Unlike the Johansen hit, Kane has full view of the situation and location of Gudas.

The league’s position has been clearly stated time and again that the “The onus is on the player to deliver a hit in a legal fashion”. With a clear view on replay showing Kane lifting his arm and hitting Gudas in the head (just as in the Cernak suspension), how can the League not apply its own definition of “Intent to injure” in this case?

With Gudas leaving the game looking like he was possibly concussed, how can the League not apply any additional discipline from an action by Kane, a repeat offender, that results in an injury? It is this lack of consistency, and therefore credibility, that causes so much aggravation with the fans.

So how does the League fix the credibility problem?

There are some pretty simple things the League can implement to fix its credibility issue:

Transparency. The League needs to publish full explanations for ALL reviewed incidents noting why any action was or was not warranted.
A set of standards. The NHL via the DoPS needs to create and publish a list of standards to be applied in all cases. They must define things like “Intent to Injure”. Is it getting saliva on someone? Is it hitting someone in the face with a punch? Is it looking directly at an opponent and hitting them in the head with the butt end of your stick?
Develop a consistent review process. Why does the Department of Hockey Operations handle some discipline (like Hathaway’s) instead of the Department of Player Safety? Can anyone expect two different sets of people to have similar standards? All actions need to be defined by the previous actions of the DoPS.

Next. Caps vs. Kings. dark

In the end, the NHL vocalizes how much they want certain aspects of the game to be removed. They expound on how fighting, cheap shots and extreme play need to be removed. But the League repeatedly fails the eye test. Without consistency of action when these events occur, the League simply cannot be taken seriously on any action they take. The NHL is a great product but the League demeans both it and the players by not improving their credibility on this set of issues.

Home / Editorials