It is Getting Worse

Colin Campbell has made a statement defending his honour and integrity- see here.  Look at the last statement attributed to him in the article.  It's pretty clear that he (like Nick Kypreos)  reads this blog.  Good, this article may help him.

I don't think he understands what we have a problem with here.  It isn't that we are offended by the word "faker".  It isn't that he should have used the term "embellisher of penalties".  The problem is that by using any terms of this nature he is showing bias.  Here is a quick tip - sentences that are built like "He/she is a Blanker" is an attempt to attach a label someone, usually in a derogatory manner.  Lets see how it works - "He is fat".  That isn't candor, it is labeling.  "He is a liberal" (especially when seen on Fox News) is a label.  All labeling is a personal interpretation of someone's actions or words.  By using the words that he did, Campbell expressed a predisposition to act against the player.  This is unforgivable in a position of power.

And Yes, Mr. Campbell, you do make decisions in a vacuum. See my previous post.

This CAN get worse, you know

You've read or heard about this already, but here is a link to TSN's article:  HERE

I fear this article will be a rant.  Sorry.

I am actually having trouble figuring out where to start.  This is wrong on so many levels.  I guess we'll start by asking some questions.


First question - How stupid is Colin Campbell to put this stuff in an email?  He's close to 60 and doesn't understand one of the principal rules of email - If you don't want everybody to know it, don't put it in an email.  If you aren't proud to write it, don't write it.  If you need to get something off your chest, say it.  Basically- don't give people proof that you're stupid, make them work for it. 

Second Question - Why are we surprised?  Stop with the blind faith.  The NHL Disciplinary system under Colin Campbell is a "black box" - we see stuff go in, we see stuff come out, but we don't understand how the stuff that goes in becomes the stuff we see come out.  We see the incident and then hear the ruling, but we don't know the process used to make the ruling.  "Black boxes" are perfect for people who want ZERO transparency and want to make decisions based on criteria they aren't proud of.  These emails are a peek into the "black box" and it appears to be very black indeed.


Third Question - How can Campbell now rule on any incident involving Marc Savard.  The world now knows that Campbell has no respect for Savard, so every ruling by Campbell involving Savard has been and will now be tainted.

Fourth Question - If Campbell says this about Savard, who else does he say this about?  Does he think the same about Sidney Crosby?  Or how about Alex Ovechkin?  Doug Weight?  It appears that his decisions are influenced by the amount of "whining" that victims do.  The black box looks blacker still.

Fifth Question - If all questions about his son's team is supposed to be handled by someone else, why was Campbell handling it?  I know the answer to this one.  He isn't allowed to, so it didn't happen.  But the NHL is not refuting the emails, so it did happen.  How could it have happened if it wasn't allowed to happen?  Ah, that's right, it happened anyway.  So he broke a conflict of interest rule.  That's not too important.  It only concerns the integrity of the game and the trust of the fans and business partners (i.e. advertisers).  Never mind, I shouldn't have brought that up.

Any Great Teams? 2010

Do we have any great teams in the NHL this year?  Any team that stands out, not from this year's competition, but from the best of other years?

First, lets identify the teams that are in contention for this discussions this year.  The way we have done it in the past is to use the 100-point mark.  How many teams have hit, or are likely to hit 100 points?  Well, as this column is written (April 7, 2010), there are 5 teams with 100 points (Wash, SJ, Chi, Pho, Van).  Other teams that are likely to hit 100 points (less than or same number of points required to hit 100 as games left) are NJ, Buf, Nash, LA, and Pitt.  That is another 5.  Det has a chance, 4 points required and 3 games left.

So that is 11 teams that have, or are likely to, or can reasonably, reach 100 points this season.  BUT WAIT!  We can't use the 100-point milestone.  We can't use the same criteria to identify great teams any more.  The league has more points available now, due to that stupid OT Loss point.   Here is a table I put together:

Team	Games Remaining	Wins	Points	Possible Points	Loss Points	Real Max Points	Points per game
Washington	2	53	118	122	12	110	1.34
San Jose	2	49	109	113	11	102	1.24
Chicago	3	50	107	113	7	106	1.29
Phoenix	3	48	102	108	6	102	1.24
Vancouver	2	48	101	105	5	100	1.21
New Jersey	3	46	99	105	7	98	1.19
Buffalo	3	44	98	104	10	94	1.14
Nashville	2	46	98	102	6	96	1.17
Los Angeles	3	45	97	103	7	96	1.17
Pittsburgh	3	45	97	103	7	96	1.17
Detroit	3	41	96	102	14	88	1.07

Real Max Points are equal to the Possible points the team would have in a 2-point per game world, based on current standings.  It is (Wins + Games Remaining) * 2.  Points Per Game (PPG) are the Real Max Points divided by the number of games in the season (82).

So, the BEST? team in the league, if you compare them to other historical teams that are based on 2-point games, come up woefully short, in Points per Game:

Team	Season	GP	Points	PPG
Washington	09-10	82	110	1.34
Pittsburgh	92-93	84	119	1.42
Calgary	88-89	80	117	1.46
NY Islanders	81-82	80	118	1.48
Edmonton	83-84	80	119	1.49
Boston	71-72	78	119	1.53
Montreal	72-73	78	120	1.54
Montreal	75-76	80	127	1.59
Detroit	95-96	82	131	1.60
Montreal	76-77	80	132	1.65

All the teams in the list were considered Stanley Cup favourites.  Well, except for this year's Washington team.  No great teams this year, unless you change your definition of great.

This Season's Weirdest Statistic

The Ottawa Senators have a W-L record of 43-30 at the time of this post, so they have won 13 more games than they have lost.  The weird part?  They've given up 9 more goals than they've scored.  I'm still trying to figure out if that means that they are dangerous threats for the playoffs or not.

The NHL's Conundrum

So, here we are with TSN's pet topic (headshots) taking control of all the NHL's media coverage.  It has become so prevalent that the NHL is recommending a new rule to address the 'problem'.

As I have written in previous posts, the NHL is approaching the problem incorrectly.  Actually, its more than that.  They aren't identifying the right problem.  They've identified a symptom of the problem.


Prior to the Instigator Rule, the NHL players "policed" themselves.  If an opposition's player was being reckless (with hits or stickwork, etc), he could expect to have to fight against a very tough hombre.  The Instigator Rule removed this "Frontier Justice" by penalizing the people who enforced it.

And this isn't a bad thing.  Frontier justice isn't "just" - its revenge.  This can lead to escalating levels of violence and the NHL was right to curb it.  The NHL had to change - just as societies change.  Our modern society has no room for vigilante justice; everybody is granted a fair trial and a punishment that fits the crime as determined by a fair and objective court.  This is what happens when a society matures.

The problem is that the NHL removed it's system of Revenge but didn't replace it with a mature model.  I have in previous posts presented a mature model, but the NHL's current system has some growing up to do.  All current discipline is left to a single man's judgments with heavy influence from the employer of the person being judged.

To show the ineptitude of the NHL, instead of using a rule that is already in force (the "intent to injure" rule), they made up a new rule.  This is the brainchild of confused and panicked people who are not using the tools at their disposal to fix a problem that they created.

How have they not hired me yet?

Kovalchuk Trade

See here and here.

Don Waddell is Lou Lamoriello's bitch.

CASST - Summary

 Over the past few posts, I’ve introduced and explained my proposed solution for the NHL’s Disciplinary system, which includes both refereeing and supplementary discipline (suspensions).  The system’s acronym is CASST – Consistency Accountability Standards Separation Transparency.

In a nutshell, the problem faced by the NHL with respect to their Disciplinary system is daunting.  It is a hodgepodge of opinions, styles, beliefs and processes.  This is the way that unprofessional organizations are run.  These issues lead to problems like inconsistent decisions, lack of direction and corruption; all of which stifle the league’s image by fostering confusion and frustration amongst fans.

My solution is simple, if not difficult:

1.       Increase Consistency by implementing a quality system

2.       Make referees Accountable by using audits and rankings based on objective findings to assign playoff work and remove under-performers.

3.       Improve the Disciplinary Standards by updating the NHL Rule Book and create a Disciplinary Standards book.

4.       Separate the business interests from the hockey interests with a restructuring (replacing?) of the NHL Hockey Operations Dept.

5.       Show the public what you are doing.  This Transparency will improve people’s trust in the league and lead to a better league image.

So, why would the NHL want to implement these changes?  

1.       To separate themselves in the professional sports landscape as a quality source of entertainment.

2.       To change the league’s reputation as a “minor” professional sport.

3.       To remove confusion when dealing with Discipline.

4.       To improve the trust of fans and media in the league’s systems.

5.       To reduce any implication of corruption charges that other leagues seem to be experiencing on a regular basis.

Comments on B. McKenzie's Article

I like Bob McKenzie.  I think he does a great job and brings humanity and integrity to his profession.  He doesn't follow the crowd and is willing to stick his neck out about a topic when he believes in it.

Please read this article.  It is very good and I agree with all of it.

The article is asking a question that I love: What can we do to change the situation?

If you read earlier posts, you'll know that I hate (HATE) "interpretations" of rules.  But if that is the way the NHL now works, we can use it to our advantage by either of the following "interpretation" changes:

1. Instigator - isn't this what the instigator penalty was designed for?  To stop the fights that are not caused by the passion in the game?
2. 3rd man in - Player A hits Player B, and then Player C jumps in as the third man.  

Bob, I know that the NHL does nothing without consulting you first.  Here is the answer.

CASST - Transparency

The Problem
The issue here seems pretty obvious - all the hockey-related disciplinary decisions are made by:

1. Reviewing Precedence (Good!)
2. Consulting various "Hockey" people :(
3. Comparing each situation against a set of pre-determined criteria (GREAT!!, depending on the criteria)

The Rant
Go read this article.  I'll wait.  (Did you see the paragraphs in the article that sounded like real leadership?  It makes you want to work for Garth Snow, doesn't it?)

Look at the comments from the NHL Senior Vice President and Director of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell:

• "I think we've been fairly kind"  He didn't say that.  He couldn't have.  Couldn't.
• "We considered a lot of numbers."  Really?  If you had a Disciplinary Book, this would have been thought about under controlled conditions, not in a rush against the clock or with the press breathing down your neck.
• "It might be a lack of respect among a couple of players," he said, "but that's always been the case throughout the history of the game. ... You've got players who aren't able to cap it when they should. And that's why the league will always have a discipline department."  Isn't it his job to fix that?  If you remove the player's only method of policing (with the Instigator Penalty), then you have to perform very strict policing and suspensions.
• "all over the map"  I didn't expect you to make my point for me.  Thanks!

See the problem yet?  OK, let me show you what my mind tells me is wrong:

A couple of people are sitting in a room making these decisions based on what will make them the most money with the smallest amount of "crap" being stirred up.  Its a form of Kleptocracy.  It is where evil can be born.


Have you ever felt that the NHL suspensions are unfair and you can't understand WHY a particular decision was made?  Its because the NHL is more concerned with making money than with what is the right decision.  What they are missing is that making the right decisions leads to making money.




How to Implement
To improve the NHL, the process of handing out suspensions must change.  This change must become more open and transparent.  Here is the quick rundown of how to do it:

1. Most importantly, acknowledge that precedents set prior to the new system do not necessarily apply to future suspensions.
2. Building on previous posts, the NHL has to publish a Discipline book and make it publicly available.  If the book is created properly, everything else becomes easy.
3. Compare incidents that are under review against the book.
4. Publish the findings, with clear explanations about how criteria are met or not met.
5. Hold a press conference to field questions from the press about the decision.
6. Store the findings online in a publicly available repository for future reference and reporting.

Mike Green Suspension

Did Mike Green deserve a suspension?  Yes.
Did Mike Green receive a suspension?  Yes.

My belief is that the suspension that Mike Green received was not issued for the hockey play - it was issued for Optics.

The NHL does not suspend its star players.  The NHL protects it investments by keeping star players on the ice.  A suspended player does not make any money for an owner, so they don't suspend them.  Mike Green is definitely a superstar player, so something doesn't jive here.  So what happened?  Mike Green also got injured in the game.

Colin Campbell decided that this was an opportunity to improve his Optics.  He didn't want to suspend Mike Green - he is a superstar and the NHL doesn't do that.  But with the injury, he could suspend the player without any repercussions.  Because of his injury, Mike Green wasn't going to play hockey anyway.  The only loser in this scenario is Mike Green - and his only penalty is to lose money that he can afford to lose.

Colin Campbell saw the opportunity to look good and took it.  This was a cowardly act on his part.

CASST - Separation

The Problem
All NHL Discipline and Refereeing decisions are run by the same person - the NHL's Director of Hockey Operations.  The Director of Hockey Operations reports to, um, I don't know.  Either to Gary Bettman or Bill Daly (who reports to Gary Bettman).

The Business of the NHL is also run by both Gary and Bill.  So, the people who run the business of hockey also run the rules of the NHL games.  Do you see a conflict here?  If you don't, you can stop reading now.  You probably aren't smart or cynical enough to read anything I write.

The Rant
I swear that the NHL is the world's biggest small business. Too much power in too few hands.

The Business of the NHL is run by business people.  The hockey of the NHL is run by business people and (IMHO incompetent) hockey people.  The wrong people are making the wrong decisions.  Or more accurately, they are too close to the decision.  The Commissioner, his VPs, and their Directors are too close to the hockey decisions.  Its like an Electrical Engineer making financial decisions instead of a MBA. This is a symptom of a business that has grown in size without maturing. The NHL's Hockey Operations is the business equivalent of a 16-year old teenage boy with a mustache and a mullet.  How annoying is that?

How to Implement
The Hockey decision-making process of the NHL has to change from an Entrepreneurial mindset to a Professional one. This is one of the most difficult processes for a business to engage in.  It will not be easy and it will mean that heads will roll.  It always does.

Structure has to be put in place, which is basically what the entire CASST system is about.  The NHL is focusing (correctly, they aren't a charity) on making profits.  What they aren't doing is providing governance to their Hockey Operations department.  The current head of that group is Colin Campbell, and the decisions that he makes, which are based on fluctuating and inconsistent criteria, faulty logic, and bad judgment are consistent with the lack of structure in place at the executive level.  Campbell, or his replacement, needs to bring structure to the decision making process and live within that structure. 

The structure should look like this:

1. The Hockey Operations department is a separate organization from the NHL's business organization.
   
2. The Competition Committee reports directly into the Director of Hockey Operations.
3. Change Management is to be completed via processes.
1. All hockey-related requests made to the Director of Hockey Operations by the Commissioner is to be done in writing, and acknowledged in writing.
2. The Director of Hockey Operations has the option to refuse the change
3. If the change is warranted, the Director of Hockey Operations engages the Competition Committee to study the requested change.
4. The Competition Committee then provides a recommendation to the Director of Hockey Operations as to the feasibility of the requested Change.
5. Et cetera.
6. The process works in reverse if the Competition Committee comes up with a Change.
   
4. Of course, the Rulebook has been updated, the Discipline book created and the Quality system is in place, as well.

It is starting to look a little bit like your workplace, isn't it?  It's because you work in a Professional environment.

CASST - Standards

The Problem
Each season, the NHL provides guidance to their referees as to what is a penalty and what is not a penalty when decisions are made at executive levels as to what rule changes or rule interpretation changes are required for the upcoming season.

Why is that a problem?  Well, I'll telly you why its a problem. 


The Rant
While the NHL has improved their sport decision-making (no comment on the business) with the introduction of the Competition Committee, they have a long way to go.  Look at it this way: 

You work for a company, any company.  Your employer publishes policies for their employees to follow - things like Expense Policy, Use of Internet Policy, Hiring Policy, etc.  That is how I see the NHL Rulebook.  They are RULES.  Not Guidelines.  RULES.  These are 'Musts', not 'Maybes'.  They are 'Always', not 'Sometimes'.  Frickin RULES.

Rules are used to keep a group of people (a company, a society, etc) informed of the level of behavior that is expected from them.  Also, they provides the people who are responsible for the enforcement of the rules (police, judges, REFEREES) with clear and defined requirements to judge whether actions  are considered in agreement with the rules or not in agreement AND the penalties associated with them.

How to Implement 
The NHL needs to implement a set of standards to govern several aspects of the Refereeing and Diciplinary systems.  A good first step would be to implement the set of standards that they already have without "interpreting" them.  If a rule needs to be changed, then change it.  Stop this insulting "Interpretation" business.


As for Discipline (which means fines and suspensions), they need to come up with an equivalent.  The NHL has to create a Disciplinary Standards book.  The Disciplinary Standards would provide the basis to define the NHL's Discipline policy, including the criteria for implementing particular punitive measures (when to fine, when to suspend, etc), how to assess the severity of the punitive measure to be taken (how big a fine, how long a suspension, etc), how to deal with unexpected items and how to change the standards.A committee must be formed to review the current procedures, review what other top-tier professional sports league do, what other hockey leagues do, andcreate a new Disciplinary policy.  That policy will then be used to create the Disciplinary Standards by the same committee.   This committee must be sponsored by the NHL Commissioner (Gary Bettman) but operate outside the regular machine of the NHL to ensure that impartiality.

CASST - Accountibility

The Problem

No apparent mechanism exists for NHL referees to be held accountable.  At work, if you do your job poorly, are you held accountable?  I know I sure am.

The Rant

Who do these guys report to?  Why are they so special?  I have to answer to my boss for my screwups, why don't they?

When listening to Gary Bettman's show on satelitte radio, his politically correct answer to all refereeing problems is the same - "I look to see if the referee is in the correct position.  If he is, he usually makes the right call".  What the heck is that?  The NHL referee is judge and jury during a game, but we cannot confirm if this judge and jury have their judgements reviewed at any time to ensure they meet the criteria put forth by the NHL.  I know that when I watch a game, I see many penalties that go uncalled.

How to Implement

Building off the ISO 9000 idea from the previous post, each referee would have the same number of blind quality audits performed during a season.  Information from the audit, including "What worked well", deficiencies, corrective actions, etc would be tracked.

This information would be compiled to create a reference list of each referee's performance.  The referees would be ranked against several categories, including:
1. Consistency
2. Compliance with standards (see next post)
3. Ability to handle pressure
4. Game Communication Management
5. Etc

A scoring system would be used to determine who would be ranked as the NHL premier Referees, good refs, poor refs, etc.

This ranking would then be used to assign playoff work, layoffs or outright firings.

CASST - Consistency

The Problem
Each referee calls the game in his own way.  Each referee is granted, by the NHL, to interpret each rule withing specific guidelines, including when in the game the infraction occurs.

The Rant
Strict adherence to whatever standards are in place on an ongoing basis is a MUST.  This will require a tremendous amount of oversight.  No longer can the NHL change "Interpretations" of rules that are already in the rulebook.  If the rulebook requires clarification, clarify it.  If not, the referees must make the calls.  Hooking in the first period is the same penalty as hooking in the third period.  A referee who "Interprets" leaves his imprint on the game.  Make every call and let the players decide who wins.

How to Implement
Quality Assurance.  Plain and simple.  Have the NHL Refereeing system implement ISO 9000-type standards.  Why not?  ISO audits are used to judge the consistency of a product.  Isn't the refereeing of the most prestigious Hockey league worth implementing a system to make sure it is done the same way every game?

People earning minimum wage at a call-centre (call-center for my American friends) have their work audited to ensure they match the company's standards.  Have you ever heard "This call may be monitored for quality assurance"?  Surely, the "best referees in the world" can pass the same test that many of us are subjected to by our employer.

This includes written instructions that the referees must follow, escalation procedures, quality audits, notification of deficiencies, and corrective actions.

CASST

I've covered the issues surrounding the Refereeing in the NHL in my recent and not-so recent posts.  While I take great pleasure in complaining, that isn't the reason I started this blog.  This blog was created to present my solution to the Issues I see in the NHL.

So, what is my solution to the NHL Refereeing issues?  The answer boils down to Consistency, Accountability, Standards, Separation and Transparency.   The CAAST system.

I wanted to look into each of these points in this blog post, but the post became way to large way too quickly.  So what I'll do is post a series of articles that look into each, starting with Consistency.

More of the same.

Don't be shocked at this.  What did you expect?  Credibility? Accountability?  Don't be a fool.

I missed this one

I know it has been a while since I blogged, and I aplogize.  I promised a post about corrupt refereeing, and then fell through - sorry about that.

But I have to admit that I missed another of the reasons that NHL referees manage games  - Pettiness.  See
here and here.  I should have seen it before.

Do you believe Alex Burrows?  Do you believe that a professional referee would stake his reputation on revenge calls?  Do you believe that referees are emotional people who are largely unsupervised and who have say in the output of a hockey game?

I would answer "Yes", "Yes", and "Yes" to those questions.  The reason I would answer "Yes" to all those questions is simple - I have too much anecdotal and circumstantial evidence to not believe it.  Alex Burrows is just adding some hearsay evidence to the pile.  Pile of what?  Basically, it passes the Cheech and Chong "Dogsh!t" test (unofficial transcript here), which goes like this:

1. Does it feel like Dogsh!t? - His statements feel right.  They match what this blog has been stating - the referees aren't as professional as they want us to believe.
   
2. Does it smell like Dogsh!t? - I've smelled something like this before.  It smells like Tim Donahey.
   
3. Does it taste like Dogsh!t? - I've watched too many games and come from the game with a bad taste in my mouth.  Now I know what that taste was.  (and NO, it wasn't something that you stuck in there, you perv.)  It was a game that was artificially influenced by referees.
   

The problem is that the NHL is stepping in the pile of Dogsh!t by ignoring the it.  They appoint former referees and players to handle the disciplinary duties of the NHL, which only servers to maintain the status quo.  The former players and referees are so used to the smell of the Dogsh!t that they don't notice it anymore, are too ignorant to look down to see it and are too squeamish to taste it.  They're actually the dogs who "made" the Dogsh!t.

This won't change until somebody in the upper reaches of NHL Managaement sees the Diciplinary and Refereeing systems for what they are - a big steaming pile of Dogsh!T.

* I couldn't find an audio link to the Cheech and Chong Dogsh!t skit, but maybe you can if you Google it.
** I didn't really mean for the Dogsh!t metaphor to take over the post, but it had a life of its own and kept working the more I used it.