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.

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.

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.

Why Games are Managed

It's Saturday morning, and I have a choice between writing this post or watching this crap.  So I'm writing.

My last post explored the concept of Game Management by NHL referees.  Basically, the theory is that the referees try to make games more palatable to fans by calling penalties according to certain formulas (or patterns).  There was no groundbreaking revelations in that post - intelligent hockey fans have made those deductions for themselves and have probably detected more formulas than was listed.

This post is to be more conspiratorial.  Let's discuss "Why".  Why does the NHL want their games managed?

Well, the first reason is easy enough to determine.  The NHL argues that exciting hockey is generated by games that are close.  Like casual hockey fans, the NHL would like the score of the game with 5 minutes remaining to be withing one goal.  In their opinion, which has been expressed in interviews, fans enjoy games more when the score is close.  Which is correct, of course.  The NHL, however, will take steps to ensure that games remain close in order to increase attendance which increases their revenue make it more exciting for the fans.  So, the first reason is that they believe "close games make money".  I can write a 1000-word post on how wrong this is, but will leave that for another day. (Quickly: referees are contributing to the game's outcome - BAD).

The other reason we'll explore is more of an theory, because no actual physical evidence exists.  No newspaper would touch this.  Gambling.  I am not accusing any active referee was involved in a points-shaving scheme, but I'm raising the question.  If an NBA referee could do it, what would stop an NHL referee?  We've already proven that NHL referees have a direct impact on the outcome or score of games and have identified the formulas that they use to do so.  What stops a referee from betting on a game and then calling the game's penalties to influence the score?  How easy would it be for a referee to call the game to keep the score close to help his bet?  Or worse, how easy is it for organized crime to be involved?

The next post will look at what can be done.  Because something needs to be done.

Make Teams Pay for Suspended Players

I have a beef (several, actually) about the NHL's disciplinary system.  This is the first of my posts on the topic, and it is focused on player suspensions.  If the NHL is serious about discipline, they will pay me for the following idea:

Players that get suspended remain on the team's NHL roster, but his paycheck goes to the NHLPA charities while he is suspended.


That's it.  Easy.

Implications: 
- The suspended player's salary will count towards the salary cap
- The player's salary who is used to replace the suspended player will also count towards the salary cap
- The suspended player is not able to be demoted to the minor leagues, removing the loophole (see the Steve Downie incident.)
This will mean that teams end up playing twice for a roster spot of a suspended player, decreasing the value of players that get suspended frequently.  This will lead to smaller paychecks for some of these players, and no jobs for some others.  Which is the whole point, anyway.