Paul Stewart: "What-About" is a Bad Standard for Supplementary Discipline

Paul, I have to ask. I understand not comparing or basing discipline on similar or past incidents (unless repeat offenses), but why does the supplemental discipline seem so inconsistent? It truly feels like they just spin a carnival wheel to make decisions. Also, to that end, what do you think might help the DOP fix this perception?

.3 second difference between the Farabee hit and the Konecny hit.

Just sayin"

Can’t say I disagree, Paul. However, the previous poster does pose a great question. I would say that the “DOPeS” lack of consistency has created the very environment it was supposed to eliminate. What is a player supposed to do when he takes a cheap shot, and there is no, or minimal penalty on the ice, and then gets hit again by the DOPeS of the NHL when there is no supplemental discipline?

This all comes down to players policing themselves. Besides, what’s wrong with a little retribution on the ice, or a line brawl, if that’s what it takes? Your statement about personal accountability is ensured, by players policing themselves, THEN let the league met out suspensions, if warranted. When you mentioned your “old school instincts”, I’d say they are spot on, and the league needs to get back to it. The league would be waaaay more exciting to watch. Need evidence? Just look at attendance, not ticket sales, those are corporate owned seats anyway. If the league actually cared more about the game than the bottom line, the sterility we see today would yield to the passion, and in turn, the excitement and fans follow.

What about Borowiecki basically saying after the game that he wouldn't change the way he played even if he was suspended? I mean right there you have a guy saying I don't care if a break the rules, I am going to walk the line and toe over it as much as I can regardless of outcome.

If you have consistency in punishment, there is no traction for any "what about" arguments, since consistency would eliminate people getting different punishments for similar transgressions.
You'll never have complete consistency I bet, but it is so bad in the nhl it's no surprise you see this argument come up all the time.
Like it or not, it's a valid point when considering the unfair advantage given to team A, whose player got a two minute minor, compared to player B, who gets a game misconduct and suspended several games for basically the same play.
People will have a problem with cases like this, which they should.
Create consistency and you eliminate most of this problem.

All that said, I agree with the rest of the blog. Refs shouldn't focus on matching calls they make with previous bad calls.
Focus on getting the call right. If everyone does this, you should, for the most part (assuming everyone knows what they're doing), get the consistency I'm talking about.

This only works if officials admit it when they blow calls. Calling something a penalty one time and not the next is just changing your standard, which is bad for everyone, unless you admit you blew it one of the times.

My personal "what-about-ism" is related to inconsistent DOPS reactions to the game.

I understand that the game happens fast and there are times when on-ice officials may not react as we expect. They're human and stuff happens. I'm happy to move on from those instances assuming they watch game tape and get coached and get feedback on their job performance.

What I think is inexcusable is the inconsistency of the Dept of Player Safety, who are afforded the opportunity to watch things back 100 times, compare it with precedent and make the correct choice on discipline. As an outsider looking in there appears to be some significant bias when these decisions are being made. How else do you explain one offense getting a significant punishment and then a far worse offense getting lighter punishment? How else do you explain two players doing nearly identical things and one receives supplemental discipline and the other does not (of course assuming the players' offense history are similar)?

It's getting hard to watch. It's getting impossible for fans to know and understand the rules when it appears to be a constantly moving target.

What about that non penalty call & non review & non suspension on the Holden hit on Leivo? Gary sucking up to VGK or what?

The next standard for supplementary discipline will be the first.

.3 is a significant difference. I believe the standard the NHL uses is .6 to the second after the puck leaves the stick. the flyer suspension was for hit that occurred a full second after the puck left.

If the Ottawa hit was at point seven seconds then it was a late hit and worth the penalty but not necessarily a suspension.