Follow Paul on Twitter: @PaulStewart22

Most people have a tendency to play the "What About" game. Some do it more than others.

It's a way of deflecting personal accountability for a behavior or as a means of defending someone else's misdeed by pointing out a third-party's transgression in comparison, especially if they believe that transgression was under-punished. They do it even when it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Kids do it all the time ("Daaaaad, that's not faaaair. What about what my brother did?"). Politicians of every party alignment do it constantly, whether they're on the defensive or on the attack. Our social media channels are littered with circular "what about" arguments.

Very few people are immune to this particular behavior. I'm not immune myself. We've all done it. I did it sometimes as a player ("Coach, why was I benched and this other guy wasn't for the same essential thing?" "Ref, why, when you saw me get popped and then saw me retaliate, am I the only one getting a penalty here?"). We've all done it in personal lives at times, too.

However, I've tried my very best in my later professional life as a hockey referee and then officiating supervisor and league discipline decision-maker or advisor to focus on things through a case-by-case prism. Know the histories involved and know the precedents that have been set when making a disciplinary decision but use the facts of the case on its own merits.

Using "what about" as your primary guideline is an ineffective way to operate. Why? Because it actually encourages the repetition of the worst decisions and behaviors in the name of balancing the scales. On the ice, if you miss a call, get the next one right. Don't try to "retro-correct" it with an unjustified even-up call or let something else slide that you logically know should be penalized.

It all goes back to what our parents told us: Two wrongs don't make a right. An addendum to that is one wrong that got (perhaps excessive) leniency doesn't give someone else license to do the same or worse.

When I blog on matters that relate to player suspensions or on-ice penalties or non-calls, you will notice that I rarely discuss the "what-about" scenarios. Let's put that in a current NHL context.

The Ryan Ellis elbow on Pavel Buchnevich did not receive supplementary discipline from the NHL. In my estimation, it probably should have, because Ellis left his feet and made head contact in with a chicken-wing elbow in effort to make sure he at least got a piece of what otherwise would have been a missed hit attempt.

Buchnevich put himself in a vulnerable position, but the fact that hit was poorly received does not justify its dangerous delivery. Plain and simple, you can't leave your feet, and you can't deliver the check with the elbow. The primary onus here goes on the hitter, even if Buchnevich did himself no favors. It was an avoidable situation.

Had Buchnevich been injured -- he was checked for a concussion and then returned -- I have little doubt there would have been supplementary discipline. I am not a big fan of suspension or non-suspension based pretty much solely on an injury/non-injury outcome.

That being said, the next time a similar play unfolds, the decision not to fine or suspend Ellis should not factor into it. Get the next one right and spare me the manufactured "outrage" of "Why was our guy suspended. What about Ellis?"

That's especially true if the next "what about" comparative is to a different type of play, even if both are potentially dangerous and potentially worthy of supplementary discipline. Different things are looked for in a chicken-wing elbow, a boarding incident, a match penalty-worthy slash or cross-check or a late hit/ interference situation.

Speaking of late hits, the fact that the NHL did not see fit to suspend Ottawa's Mark Borowiecki for a late hit on Philadelphia's Travis Konecny does not in turn justify an even later hit a week later by Philadelphia's Joel Farabee on Winnipeg's Mathieu Perrault. Farabee justifiably received a suspension, and while I thought he'd get two games rather than three, it was not a "wrong" decision in my estimation. The "what about" game just doesn't work.

The Borowiecki hit on Farabee was a hockey play gone wrong, and the hit came in too late -- at least a full second -- after the puck was already gone. Konecny didn't help himself on that play, lingering to watch his pass, but he wasn't fair game to get hit by that point. The Farabee hit on Perrault came even later and appeared to primarily retribution motivated, as Farabee appeared to misidentify who had just cross-checked him in front of the net a moment earlier.

Farabee steamrolled Perrault up in his chest, and the resulting aftermath caused a concussion as collateral damage even though the contact itself was to the chest. The hit came very, very late. So late, in fact, that my old-school hockey background anticipated an instant fight (even perhaps a full-scale line brawl) triggered by it.

*********

A 2018 inductee into the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame, Paul Stewart holds the distinction of being the first U.S.-born citizen to make it to the NHL as both a player and referee. On March 15, 2003, he became the first American-born referee to officiate in 1,000 NHL games.

Visit Paul's official websites, YaWannaGo.com and Officiating by Stewart.