Thursday, January 28, 2010

Fistric's Fine or... How I Learned to Love the NHL System of Discipline



Well, this decision is going to bring some real debate, as the NHL has decided to fine Mark Fistric $2,500 for taking the helmet off of Eric Nystrom and having it make contact with Nystrom's head in the fight.

I thought that the match penalty that was assessed to Fistric was a good call on the ice, the helmet was either held onto or caught by the hand of Fistric as he motioned towards Nystrom and in real-time, I'm sure it looked as bad as it does in the replays.

Personally, I thought Fistric was going to get suspended for this and rightfully so. The way I saw it was when Fistric had the helmet in his possession, he actually made more of a clubbing motion to use the helmet as a weapon, instead of throwing a jab or an uppercut, which would have made the contact seem a little more incidental.

Over time, I, much like a lot of media outlets and other fans, have been gathering criteria, which is not official, by any means, on how the NHL (and other large competitive hockey leagues) likes to dole out their disciplinary actions.
  1. First-time versus repeat offender
  2. Circumstance of the hockey play beforehand
  3. Relation to a hockey play
  4. The offense itself
  5. Result of the controversial action (injury)
Those are the five that immediately come to mind and really stick out to me and I would be eager to compare these five with other major suspension or disciplinary handouts that have previously happened. Of course, this is a very slippery and sliding scale to work with, because it all comes down to personal judgment and it's not us fans to decide what punishment a player is to receive. All the fans can do is try and reason why... or in most cases complain about what actually transpired.

So, saying that... I personally expected Fistric to be suspended. Despite his reputation of not being a generally dirty player, the fight happened after a clean hit, a fight is considered to be a hockey play of sorts and there was no injury relating to the incident itself. That's four of the five right there, which would say to me that a fine is okay, but the incident of swinging a helmet, with what looked to me to be an intentional swing, does trump the other four points, because of the nature of the action. Fistric, although it's only one swing, still seemed to have used the helmet as a weapon to get an advantage in the fight. I would have at least upheld the minimum automatic suspension in this case, because I believe there was intent there, but the video evidence does not do the grip of the helmet any justice, so the four other points really come into play.

I honestly believe that Colin Campbell does do a good job of keeping his integrity of the players, being a former player himself and it isn't going to change until the NHLPA or just a large group of players within the league say otherwise. I can't honestly say that I know that Campbell does a good job of drawing up memos that are sent to teams when he tries to justify his disciplinary actions, because they certainly are not public if they exist, but if there was one thing that I wish for on a regular basis is a public justification release.

Of course, if we had news releases justifying why players, coaches & management received fines or suspensions, the public would just have more cannon fodder to play with and debate about. Although most of the time, there isn't much for debate, rather just plain name-calling.

What I would like to see, now that judgment has passed from the Head Office of the NHL, is what players now have to say about it or even former players who are in the media on a regular basis. Only then do I have more of an understanding of what transpired, because players (both past and present) have been a part of the culture and should have some of the best opinions on the matter.

But until there are changes with the major hockey leagues of North America (and maybe to a lesser extent, Europe), we will battle on with what comes down the pipe. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of instances to talk about.

share this: facebook

No comments:

Post a Comment