Colin Campbell explains how he reaches his diciplinary

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

Figured I'd put this in a seperate thread as it's not dealing with any one team

http://sports.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/...ortsHockey/home

Whole article in the link...

Ask Campbell to explain some of his decisions and you get a grab bag of variables: When the infraction happened, where it happened, the score of the game, the history of the players involved. Considering how it can be made to sound so convoluted, no wonder people stop him and ask: "Why do your suspensions seem so arbitrary? Don't you use common sense?"

The answer, Campbell said, is simple. "There's never one [incident] that's exactly the same. All have their own identity at the end of the exercise."

Now, I understand player history, when the infraction happened (goon out for the last minute with intent to injure) etc, but how the hell should the score of the game EVER be considered when making a diciplinary decision

[yrhmblnr8r 69]

If the game is tight, a player is less likely to take a dumb penalty. He wouldn't want to incur the coach's wrath and possibly cost his team the W with a dumb penalty.

In a blowout, the player may think, "We're down by 3, I might start a fight/take a cheap shot/hit the guy in the corner to give the team a boost. What have we got to lose?"

My $0.02.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

If the game is tight, a player is less likely to take a dumb penalty. He wouldn't want to incur the coach's wrath and possibly cost his team the W with a dumb penalty.

In a blowout, the player may think, "We're down by 3, I might start a fight/take a cheap shot/hit the guy in the corner to give the team a boost. What have we got to lose?"

My $0.02.

"may think"

Regardless of the score, Campbell does not know what a player is thinking. It was a one goal game when Brash got the 6 game suspension.

It was a 1 goal game when walker got his automatic suspension reversed.

The score should never be a factor.

Player, intent to injure, infraction are all fine to consider, but the score, are you kidding me

[hockeysc23 0]

there is no set process or set rules. It's been pretty obvious all playoffs. The only standard for getting suspended is being black .... (i kid i kid ... sort of)

[yrhmblnr8r 69]

Nobody knows what a player is thinking except for that player. Obviously.

Unfortunately, Campbell's tasked with making a judgment call. It's subjective. I think the score should be a factor. Not a huge one, but still something to consider.

[crazylegs_9 0]

If the game is tight, a player is less likely to take a dumb penalty. He wouldn't want to incur the coach's wrath and possibly cost his team the W with a dumb penalty.

In a blowout, the player may think, "We're down by 3, I might start a fight/take a cheap shot/hit the guy in the corner to give the team a boost. What have we got to lose?"

My $0.02.

"may think"

Regardless of the score, Campbell does not know what a player is thinking. It was a one goal game when Brash got the 6 game suspension.

It was a 1 goal game when walker got his automatic suspension reversed.

The score should never be a factor.

Player, intent to injure, infraction are all fine to consider, but the score, are you kidding me

Wasn't it in the blowout by Boston in game 5 when Walker punched Ward?

[Eddie20 0]

I really don't think most of those factors should be factors. The player should be penalized on their action...regardless of motive.

Think about a 2 handed chop to the face of an opposing player.

Does the timing of the infraction make any difference. Is it better if it happens in the first minute vs. the last?

Does a history of suspensions make it any worse? Does a clean record make it any better?

Is it any more (or less) justifiable if it happened in a tight game?

Those factors mean nothing when someone baseball swings a stick into someone's face.

Even in determining the length, I don't see how those factors make a difference. You could argue history. But with a repeat offender, you could argue that the length of suspension probably doesn't make much of a difference. 1 game, or 10, they are still going to go back out there and do the same stupid stuff again...and be suspended for it again.

Its already been touched on, its unfair to penalize intent. You really can't judge a persons intent. Judge the action, penalize accordingly. When we start awarding goals on intent, we can start penalizing that way.

[fieldofdreams 0]

This is why the disciplinary decisions reached by this man are ridiculous. He has failed to gain my respect, although I'm sure he still sleeps fine knowing that.

[hockeysc23 0]

This is why the disciplinary decisions reached by this man are ridiculous. He has failed to gain my respect, although I'm sure he still sleeps fine knowing that.

It just doesnt make any sense. Look at the action, forget the outcome, score, or who he was hitting. An intent to injure, blow to the head, stick swing ... whatever the penalty is ... = such an such a suspension. repeat offender x2.

Doesn't matter if the player got up and walked away, or was out awhole season. A dirty play is a dirty play and should be assessed appropriately.

Obvi going to use a Caps reference since they are who I watch the whole year. Brash 6 game suspension ... don't agree with it but it was a suspendable offense. Scotty Walker does the text book definition of a sucker punch, late in the game, nothing ....

[Chadd 916]

He looks at the act, and the rules, then tries to find any possible reason to mitigate the suspension. He has a particular fondness for grinders and agitators, as he was that type of player, and places himself in their position. The league needs someone that cares about the health and well being of the game in that position. It shouldn't be "what if I was the guy who did it?", it should be "what is the impact to the Game of Hockey?" The Game benefits from skill players and clean hitters on the ice, it does not benefit from guys that only care about throwing cheap shots and collecting a paycheck.

[vek 0]

This is why the disciplinary decisions reached by this man are ridiculous. He has failed to gain my respect, although I'm sure he still sleeps fine knowing that.

I have the exact same sentiment. Some of his decisions are absolutely baffling. Like how Cammalleri could intentionally throw an elbow at a faceoff, and not receive discipline. How Lucic could get a game, while Walker gets nothing.

Ron Mclean on CBC took him to task once on an interview - it was clear that there is no sort of basis for consistency or transparency. Its annoying that such an important position is filled by someone who clearly doesn't have the toolbox to do an even passable job.

[chk hrd 164]

at least he didn't say anything about using a Magic 8 Ball...sometimes I wonder. I can see it...should we suspend Walker...shake, shake, shake...definitely no...

[mrusse01 0]

I thought they truly lost credibility when Carcillo and Cammilleri did the exact same thing within 24 hours of each other and one was suspended for 1 game and the other got nothing.

Campbell also forgot to add that apparently it makes a difference who is the target of the infraction, and what their reaction is. If Walker punched Phil Kessel in the face like that and Kessel was down crying for 5 minutes, there obviously would have been a suspension on the play.