Tampilkan postingan dengan label Colin Campbell. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Colin Campbell. Tampilkan semua postingan

Senin, 24 Januari 2011

20 More Things Overheard at the NHL War Room

I know, I know. I did this joke yesterday. Cut me some slack. I can't even fully explain how much fun these are to come up with. You should try it. Tweet us @passittobulis, with the hashtag #NHLWarRoomQuotes. Here are twenty more things overheard at the NHL War Room:

  1. "Okay, Mr. VanMassenhoven. Pick a number, then a colour, then a number."
  2. "A lot of people said I was crazy to hire an all-blind team, but look at us now. Oh right, you can't."
  3. "It's hard to make out... can we zoom in? Why did we pick such a dirty coin? I can't read heads or tails. Inconclusive."
  4. "I'm torn. Both teams are from Canada, but we have to rule in favour of one of them."
  5. "Wait, zoom in. Is that a tattoo?"
  6. "I can't see it on camera, but I was just reading about object permanence. Did you know it has to be somewhere?"
  7. "If you listen closely, you can hear him thinking about blowing the whistle just before the puck goes in."
  8. "Hey, this is alfredo sauce! I said pomodoro sauce! This is the last time we order Italian. Rule against Luongo."
  9. "Bad news, guys. We've all gotta stay late--I just found out the Canucks play tonight. Hey! Relax. Your beef is with Vancouver, not me."
  10. "I don't think that should count. The goalie couldn't see it."
  11. "Good news, guys! The NHL has asked us to pick the musical act for the All-Star Game. Let's put our heads together and see if we can't come up with something everyone will like."
  12. "Okay, I was just looking through yesterday's logs, and it says here that someone ruled in favour of Buffalo. What the Hell! We've talked about this!"
  13. "This clip is boring. Change it to Two and a Half Men."
  14. "Did anyone else see Double Moustache Man?"
  15. "That's a clean hit. The head is part of the shoulder, right?"
  16. "I'm so sick of the officials calling us. Do we have to hold their hand through everything?"
  17. "Hey, switch to the net cam. Ha ha, look how big his ass looks."
  18. "The puck is black, right?"
  19. "Tell them we couldn't see the puck so the call on the ice stands. Gosh, this will be a lot easier when the power comes back on."
  20. "Get the Braille rule book."

Minggu, 23 Januari 2011

20 Things Overheard in the NHL War Room

Last night's contentious decision from the NHL War Room--in which they defied their own precedent and overruled an on-ice no-goal call despite inconclusive evidence--was just another bit of proof that Colin Campbell and his crack squad of AV geeks have literally no idea what they're doing. And, in case you weren't convinced, PITB's recently-dispatched War Room spy has returned, reporting twenty of the most remarkable #NHLWarRoomQuotes he's heard:

  1. "Vancouver's on the phone. Don't they know what time it is?"
  2. "How did we do it last time?"
  3. "What does 'distinct' mean, anyway? There's literally no way of knowing."
  4. "Man, that's a tough call. Unplug the phone."
  5. "I think it's a touchdown."
  6. "I told them, I don't know much about hockey, but I was Dan Hartman's synth player, so I've got a lot of experience with Instant Replay."
  7. "Crap, I think Canada's on to us."
  8. He knocked it down with a high stick and then he kicked it in, but it's Gregory, so count it.
  9. "What part of 'inconclusive' don't you understand? I said I'm on break."
  10. "I can't decide. Load the mousetraps and get the mouse."
  11. "Is that the rule? Somebody Google it."
  12. "Did you know I interviewed for their vacant general manager position? I didn't get it. Anyway, no goal."
  13. "I can't see it--the crossbar's in the way. Oh wait, it's just a Twizzler on the monitor again."

  14. "FSN Pittsburgh has another angle, but they said it would take four to six weeks for delivery."
  15. "Zoom in. Now increase the pixels."
  16. "Let's just say 'he intended to blow the whistle'. Then amend the rule before people start snooping around. Unplug the phone."
  17. "He's faking it. That's fake blood."
  18. "Call it a goal. Nobody's watching anyway."
  19. "Bwa ha ha, screw the Sabres."
  20. "Guys, we suck at this."

Jumat, 07 Januari 2011

Canucks 10K: Honouring the One-Goal Guys

Without Yannick Tremblay's one goal, the Canucks would still sit at 9999.

In case you missed it, Daniel Sedin's third period goal Wednesday against the Calgary Flames was the 10,000th regular-season goal in Canucks' history. These 10,000 goals were scored by 354 different players over the Canucks' forty-year history, and I'm sure we can name more than a few of the guys. Markus Naslund. Trevor Linden. Stan Smyl. Thomas Gradin. You know, the stars.

But any stat sheet, let alone a list of goalscorers, is incomplete without a perusal of the cellar-dwellers. In this case, the one-goal guys. Some might say they're not important, but that's crazy talk. Without the one-goal guys, the Canucks would be sitting at 9,957.

That's right. Of the 10,000 goals, 43 have been scored by guys who only got one. Today we honour them. It's not exactly a who's who (more of a "who?"), but there are some interesting names on this list. Some remain active NHLers. Some are memorable. Some are long forgotten. Some will surprise you. Here they are, the one-goal guys, in alphabetical order:


  1. Shawn Antoski
  2. Kris Beech
  3. Alexandre Bolduc
  4. Mario Bliznak
  5. Mike Brown
  6. Colin Campbell
  7. Michael Christie
  8. Larry Courville
  9. Troy Crowder
  10. Jim Dowd
  11. Neil Eisenhut
  12. Rory Fitzpatrick
  13. Robert Flockhart
  14. David Fortier
  15. Lee Goren
  16. Randall Gregg
  17. Martin Grenier
  18. Jim Hargreaves
  19. Ed Hatoum
  20. Stewart Holt
  21. Sheldon Kannegiesser
  22. Zenith Komarniski
  23. Jason Krog
  24. Frantisek Kucera
  25. Mike Lampman
  26. Tim Lenardon
  27. David Logan
  28. Brad Lukowich
  29. Len Lunde
  30. Brad Maxwell
  31. Aaron Miller
  32. Stephane Morin
  33. Martin Rucinsky
  34. Tommi Santala
  35. Dan Seguin
  36. Brad Smith
  37. Fred Speck
  38. Mike Stapleton
  39. Yannick Tremblay
  40. Lubomir Vaic
  41. Claude Vilgrain
  42. Aaron Volpatti
  43. Jim Wiste

Do any of the names on this list surprise you? I'm a bit taken aback to see Colin Campbell's name on there. Sometimes I forget he was a Vancouver Canuck. That said, Campbell did score two very valuable playoff goals for the Canucks during their 1982 Stanley Cup Finals run.

It's interesting to note that the players from the Gillis era are guys that will likely get another before things are all said and done. Some of the names from the Nonis era make me sad. Kris Beech. Yannik Tremblay. Aaron Miller. Martin Rucinsky. Tommi Santala. I guess I shouldn't be surprise Lee "No-Scorin" Goren made the list. His inclusion here is explained by his nickname. Rory Fitzpatrick gets a pass because he was an All-Star defenseman.

I remember Shawn Antoski well. The Canucks drafted him 18th overall in 1990, just ahead of Keith Tkachuk and Martin Brodeur. And this is where he ended up. And you wonder why Canuck fans can be pessimistic.

What do you have to say for yourselves, Canuck fans?

Minggu, 21 November 2010

Ron MacLean Gets It


Watch the above video starting from 3:28 on through. Pay special attention to what Ron MacLean has to say about the Colin Campbell situation. Now read this fantastic article from our very own Qris. Ron MacLean gets it. The biggest issue in this whole Campbell controversy is not Campbell calling Marc Savard a "little fake artist," though that is also completely inappropriate. The biggest issue is the head of NHL discipline speaking to an employee about situations involving his son. It's an abuse of position and, as Ron MacLean says, "it's a conflict of interest."

We at Pass it to Bulis have been pointing this out from the beginning: there is a bigger issue here than Marc Savard. Most of the mainstream media have been asking the wrong questions. Last night on the Hockey Night in Canada Hotstove, Ron MacLean asked the right ones.

Rabu, 17 November 2010

McKenzie, Cox, and the Difference Between Bloggers and Journalists

Harrison touched on Damien Cox's recent words regarding Tyler Dellow and his blog. These comments received some backlash, as many thought he was being somewhat harsh. Cox has since deleted the tweets and issued a retraction. Still, his comments managed to stir the pot with the tired, old debate about a blogger's role in the hockey writers' community. The debate, as I said just a second ago, is tired and old, but recent events have required that the dead horse be given one more hard kick in the name of holding "real" journalists accountable.

The story about the Colin Campbell e-mails has shown not only bloggers' potential for great journalism, but actual "journalists'" potential for shoddy disappointment.

Bloggers haven't been given a fair shake. We're more than "web/twitter groupies," as Damien Cox called us. While it'd be fair to say individual bloggers reach fewer people than individual sportswriters, bloggers do have a great deal of influence, as Tyler Dellow's blog showed. The reaction to his blog was instantaneous. He essentially broke a story that TSN, CBC and others had to comment on. That's big. No one can realistically say that Greg Wyshynski isn't a big voice in the hockey world. Still, even he doesn't give himself enough credit. He said this a couple hours ago on his live chat:

"I think we're more like entertainment writers. That isn't to say we're not journalists. It's to say the guys who roll up their sleeves and start preaching about hard-nosed reporting are talking about covering a form of entertainment -- not Afghanistan."

He's right on both counts -- he's writing about a form of entertainment, and that doesn't mean he's not a journalist. While his blog is more editorial than news, he still holds himself to a standard of factual consistency. He's been known to fix any mistake he makes. This is what journalists are supposed to do.

Journalists are supposed to be better than bloggers. I can see right now a bunch of comments telling me that isn't necessarily true, and they'd be right, but it's supposed to be true. I can happily say that I think over 100 people read my comments on the Colin Campbell emails. Bob McKenzie and Damien Cox have thousands upon thousands of readers. They should be held to a higher standard.

Edit: a portion of this article has been removed due to its inaccuracy regarding newspaper headlines and who is responsible for writing them. It has been fixed based on comments and criticisms we have received.

It's clear from his tweets that Damien Cox believes in a higher standard:

"All this 'news' abt Colin Campbell and internal NHL emails was reported months ago by The Star's Rob Cribb" "Cribb did a series of stories. Did background reported. Also asked Campbell for comment. That's called journalism."

But journalism also includes investigative reporting of the sort Tyler Dellow did, when he uncovered and investigated the e-mails nine months later. It was a lucky find, but what he did with it was both journalistic and skilfully so.

Dellow could only do this because the information was public. Rob Cribb could have done it nine months ago. And unlike Cribb, Tyler Dellow probably couldn't call Colin Campbell for comment and expect him to respond. Journalists have the name recognition and the widespread readership that allows them access to the people they cover, and yet they squander this by merely calling for quotes rather than doing real investigative work. Cox, your thoughts?

"It's an interesting comment on these media times, including the fact some 'bloggers' are twisting this to suggest the 'main stream media' is out to protect the establishment and figures in power. Why these people weren't outraged and up in arms when Cribb was writing his stories and The Star was publishing them is unclear. If you employ the logic of the bloggers, their silence was evidence that they were the ones protecting the establishment."

Is it really unclear why the people weren't up in arms when Cribb wrote his stories, Cox? Here, let me help: his stories didn't demonstrate that Colin Campbell clearly had a grudge against Marc Savard and that he was taking an active role in decisions regarding those who referee his son's games.

Journalists have a massive influence and therefore a massive responsibility to their readers. They must know the facts and be clear in their reporting of them so readers finish their articles being more informed than they were before. To borrow a phrase, "That's called journalism."

If Colin Campbell is returning your call, and not mine, then I expect you to adhere to a higher standard than I do, and when you fail, you offend me and everyone else who would love to have your job and do it better. When it comes down to it, a sportswriter's job isn't based on his hockey knowledge. Most sportswriters don't know more about sports statistics, rules and history than the average diehard fan, and the information is readily available to anyone with google. The sportscasters watch the same games we do. The thing that sets sports reporters apart is supposed to be their ability to communicate clearly and their journalistic experience. When they fall down on that job, they're cheapening the profession. Not everyone can go to Afghanistan to write a three-part story on the war, poverty and terrorism, but any sports fan can watch a hockey game and report the score.

That's why it's infuriating to see a paid professional sports writer who doesn't know the difference between compliment and complement. It's why it bothers me so much to see bad, over-used headline puns on the TSN front page. And it's why it broke my heart to see Bob McKenzie say something that wasn't true, and then make no correction when it was pointed out to him.

Bob McKenzie's take on the Colin Campbell e-mails was wrong on many levels. It addressed the wrong issue of the Savard-Cooke hit and lack of suspension, and Campbell's role in issuing suspensions. He never addressed the issue of Colin Campbell using his influence to protect his son from referees.

Worse, he was factually incorrect:

"As for the emails, [...] nothing was ever acted on, that we're aware of, because the referees that Colin Campbell complained about to Walkom, they're still working in the National Hockey League."

His argument was that these e-mails weren't a big deal, because they didn't lead to anyone's firing. As I've said before, these e-mails were used as evidence to show why Dean Warren was fired. In other words, it's the official position of the NHL that, contrary to McKenzie's assertions, the e-mails were acted on and resulted in the firing of Dean Warren, which is a very big deal.

In the blog post I originally made, I made a factual error, as well. No one messaged me about it, but when reading Tyler Dellow's follow-up, I realized I'd made an error and went back to fix it. Bob McKenzie, on the other hand, has had days to fix his error, and has several people informing him of it, including myself, and has failed to make any kind of correction.

I've always loved Bob McKenzie, but he should know better. He pointed out in a tweet today that he follows Canadian Press style. That's great. But if you're going to boast about following the same stylistic rules as the collective of Canadian journalists, can't you follow the same journalistic principles when it comes to making sure you don't accidentally misinform people, and that you issue a correction whenever you become aware of your mistake? Sadly, this whole issue has been eye-opening for me. If Bob McKenzie isn't going to behave like a real journalist, why should I take him more seriously than, say, Matthew Barnaby, who's at least played the game in the NHL?

To a degree, I understand. Bill Daly chose to speak to TSN about the Colin Campbell e-mails first. That's a big scoop for TSN, and you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you. That said, if a few early quotes are the price of your journalistic integrity, there wasn't much to begin with.

The point? I've given two examples of bloggers who were acting more like journalists than the real thing. Rob Cribb, Damien Cox and sadly, Bob McKenzie have fallen down on the job. It's bloggers like Tyler Dellow who have done the actual investigative work, and it saddens me that the real journalists aren't willing to show the same journalistic integrity and discipline.

Senin, 15 November 2010

The Wrong Questions: Colin Campbell and the Media's Poor Response


So the story about Colin "Lord Chaos" Campbell's e-mails has been active for about a full day. Originally, I elected to bite my tongue, confident that the right questions would be asked. How wrong I was.

To those who aren't familiar with this story, hockey blogger Tyler Dellow posted an article yesterday (Sunday) that started this whole thing. Dellow had found this court decision on a wrongful firing suit filed by former NHL referee Dean Warren. Warren claimed he was fired for his union work, so the NHL had to show evidence of his failures as a referee. To do so, they submitted into evidence, among other things, several e-mails between Colin Campbell and then-Director of Officiating Stephen Walkom. These e-mails had been redacted, but some had enough details that they could be traced back.

Dellow, after what I'd imagine was a great deal of investigative work, pinned down two specific penalties. The one that got the most attention was a call in which Campbell's son, Gregory Campbell, was given a high-sticking penalty against Marc Savard. Campbell called Marc Savard a "fake artist" and just showed a general dislike for the guy. There were two specific charges that followed -- that Campbell was unfairly biased towards his son, and that he was unfairly biased against Marc Savard, and that this affected his judgment when deciding to suspend Matt Cooke.

What's been said about this? TSN's Bob McKenzie said this:

"There's no question that there's a perception of inappropriate behavior when Colin Campbell sends an email within the office to Director of Officiating at the time Stephen Walkom. As for the specific charge that maybe Marc Savard would not get a fair shake in the Matt Cooke hearing when Matt Cooke delivered the knockout blow to him because Colin Campbell called him a little faker at some point I can only tell you this: I don't have e-mails to prove it, but I would venture a very strong guess that whatever Colin Campbell and the NHL Hockey Operations Department think of the way Matt Cooke plays the game is far worse than whatever Marc Savard would be deemed in terms of being a 'little faker.'"

He then went on to cite the Cooke-Savard hearing as an example of Campbell's integrity. I sort of agree on that point -- Campbell probably wanted to get Matt Cooke and didn't.

Elliotte Friedman of cbcsports.ca had this seemingly-relevant tidbit to contribute:

"The key thing to note here is that the emails in question were exchanged three years ago. On March 29, 2009, Steve Ott nearly decapitated Colin's son, Gregory Campbell. Ott, a repeat offender, was given no suspension."

That would be very interesting if Campbell had anything to do with that hearing. Campbell, of course, recused himself. Safeguards exist to prevent his ruling on hits on his own son.

What about Greg Wyshynski of Puck Daddy?

"I believe those holding up emails that deal with his son and malign the reputation of Marc Savard of the Bostin Bruins as a smoking gun that Campbell's been unfair to him are, ironically, being unfair to Colin Campbell [...] We don't have evidence that his personal feelings on Marc Savard (oddly not addressed in the TSN statement) contributed to any action taken (or not taken) in cases with which Savard's been involved."

Again, this is true, but missing the point, although to his credit, Wyshnyski does spend a lot of time on the real concern. The one that's been all but ignored.

Of course Colin Campbell didn't let his grudges impact his decision not to suspend Matt Cooke. Campbell isn't that kind of idiot. Campbell would never use his power to further his personal grudges. That's a sure-fire way to get caught.

The evidence shows, though, that while Campbell didn't abuse his power, he did abuse his position.

Being the Senior Vice President and Director of Hockey Operations means you have more than just official power, you have implied power. People tend to do what their boss says, rather than questioning whether he's allowed to tell them to do that. On numerous occasions, as I'll show in a minute, Colin Campbell wrote furious e-mails to Stephen Walkom, his subordinate, about calls made against his son. Campbell's explanation was ridiculous:

"Stephen and I would have banter back and forth and Stephen knows I'm a (hockey) dad venting and both of us knowing it wouldn't go any further than that. Stephen would laugh at me."

Really? Let's take a look at this "venting." Keep in mind that these e-mails aren't the only ones that took place -- they're just the only ones with Dean Warren's name on them.

The following is an e-mail from Colin Campbell to Stephen Walkom that took place in October 2006. The names and dates were redacted Some expletives have been cleverly replaced, and are marked in green.

"Are you trying to f____ with my head? Sending this guy back into …..after the …..call and others? Have you talked to him yet and have you seen the penalty he called on [player]? Should I call him? Talk to [another referee] he will tell you the
[pony poo] game Warren had and how hard it was to work with him. This guy is in serious trouble. He will be in trouble as soon as [coach or general manager] sees him tonight…they will think you are shoving it up their [fanny]. Maybe you should call [general manager] as a pre-emptive strike but talk to Warren first."

Wow, Colin Campbell is MAD at Dean Warren, seemingly for a specific call. Obviously, from the e-mail, Dean Warren is about to officiate a game with a team he's just made very angry. Of course, with names and dates redacted, it would be impossible to figure out when this occurred. Fortunately, we at Pass it to Bulis have noted that the court ruling supplies the date for us:

"The first contact which occurred after Mr. Warren’s election to the OA executive was on October 23, 2006. The names of players, coaches, club officials and teams have been redacted."

Splendid! This e-mail happened on October 23. From the comment, "He will be in trouble as soon as [coach or general manager] sees him tonight," it's clear that this refers to a game Warren was going to officiate on the 23rd. In other words, this game, between the Florida Panthers and the Atlanta Thrashers. Warren has clearly done something to anger one of these two teams recently.

So what was Dean Warren's mistake that was so egregious that Campbell was furious he'd be sent back to officiate another game with the same teams? The only other time so far that season that Warren had been at a Panthers or Thrashers game was on October 21st, between the two of them. It was a home-and-home series. This is the box score for that game.

So what, right? As Greg Wyshynski has pointed out, part of Colin Campbell's job is to assist the Director of Officiating in oversight of the referees. The only problem is, Gregory Campbell was playing for the Panthers, so Colin Campbell was complaining about a penalty that may have cost his son the game.

As Tyler Dellow pointed out in this later post, Bill Daly seemed pretty certain that this kind of thing wouldn't occur:
"Because of the potential for a conflict of interest, or more importantly a perceived conflict of interest, the League has implemented various structural protections that prohibit Colie from having any oversight or disciplinary authority relating to any game in which his son, Gregory, plays. Its always fair to question and criticize League decisions as being wrong, but not on the basis that they aren't justly and fairly arrived at."
Well, maybe Colin Campbell really was just ranting to a friend, right? Wrong. Walkom responded:
"Spoke with [general manager] and spoke with dean …."
So Colin Campbell's ranting led directly to the referee at that game getting a call from his boss about it, right before officiating another of the games in which Colin Campbell's son, Gregory, played. Despite Daly's carefully-worded insistence that the rules say Colin Campbell can't influence the officiating in his son's games, the evidence clearly shows that he has.

It gets worse, as the penalty that had Colin Campbell up in arms about Marc Savard was actually called on his son Gregory. Here was the NHL disciplinarian's reaction. I have numbered portions of it for easy reference:

"A bend in the road is a dead end if you round the corner and Dean Warren is standing there. Your answer re: his high stick calls and the score of the game were [the feces of an equine]. 1) The 3rd call on [player] was while they were down 5 on 4 and on a def zone face off vs that little fake artist [player] I had him in [city] biggest faker going. And
Warren fell for it when he grabbed his face on a face off. Your supposed to see the act, not call the embellishing act. 2) Dean Warren has to go with [referee] There must be a way to get rid of this guy. Is there a way we can tract (sic) and total minors called by referees this year. We could then get the minors they call per game. … or with 2 [referees on the ice] it is impossible? 3) Warren and [referee] out of [club’s] games. Give them to [referees]."

Wow, Campbell is mad here, too. By far, the most-discussed part of the e-mail was part 1. People unfortunately tended to look at what it
means and not what it is. Don't look at it to determine Campbell's opinion of Marc Savard and if that would cause him to act with bias. Look what Campbell is saying to the then-current Director of Officiating, and his subordinate: Marc Savard is a horrible faker. This comment is clearly influenced both by his coaching of Savard in New York and his anger over his son's being assessed a bad penalty. Neither of these things should be factors when talking to the boss of every NHL referee. Suppose that Campbell's comments here are biased, and that they in some way influenced Stephen Walkom's decisions as head of officiating? Wouldn't that, right there, constitute an abuse of his position?

But it gets worse. Here, in this e-mail, Campbell states "Dean Warren has got to go" (2). Cats and kittens, here we have
direct evidence that Campbell's decision that Dean Warren must be fired was influenced by a call he made against his son. Right there. It's fortunate for Campbell that the names and dates were redacted and that Warren's attorney apparently didn't catch who this call was made against, because in a wrongful termination suit, this e-mail would be solid gold. "Your honor, this e-mail proves that I was fired not for making a mistake, but for making a mistake that negatively affected the son of the Director of Hockey Operations."

But even if that wasn't the only factor in his firing, look what happens at the end of the message (3). Colin Campbell says, straight up, Warren isn't allowed to referee a certain club (presumably either Florida or Boston). Let's make sure to get the word out to all NHL'ers. Get a bad call against you? Colin Campbell will be there to make sure that referee never calls your game again. Or does that privilege only apply to those who are his son?

Keep in mind that according to the court case, the first e-mails in October are when things seemed to go sour for Dean Warren. Also consider that after these events came this little gem, an e-mail from Campbell to Walkom with apparently some video of Dean Warren:

"Can we use this
[dookie] [the emailed clip] to remove him or is there an HR excuse."

This e-mail makes it fairly clear that Campbell is already trying to get Warren fired. He's asking if he can use the clip to accomplish the goal of removing Warren. The question of whether Warren
should be removed is not discussed.

Also, keep in mind Steve Walkom's comments regarding potentially using numbers to remove Dean Warren:

"I think we have that data but it may work in his favour. That why I'm against data."

So here's a conversation in which Steve Walkom is telling an angry Colin Campbell that the numbers don't justify firing Dean Warren, and trying to help his boss to find an excuse to fire him. Does Walkom really think Warren deserves to go, or is he just trying to please his superior?

Again, let's look back to some things that were said about this. Here's Bob McKenzie on the e-mails to Walkom:

"As for the emails, and sending them to Stephen Walkom, that's inappropriate behavior, and it gives the perception. Now, nothing was ever acted on, that we're aware of, because the referees that Colin Campbell complained about to Walkom, they're still working in the National Hockey League."

That's simply not true. In fact, two of the three e-mails we have about calls on Gregory Campbell refer to Dean Warren. Not only was he fired, these very same e-mails were used in trial as evidence of Warren's shortcomings as a referee. In other words, they were shown in court as the reason Dean Warren was fired. Not only can we say that one of the referees in these e-mails lost his job, the NHL asserts that he lost his job because of incidents in these e-mails.

Greg Wyshynski:

"You can't tell the fans and media that Gregory Campbell is persona non grata in your role as NHL VP of hockey operations and then inquire about penalties he's been given with an email to the director of officiating. You're saying one thing, doing another, and "just a hockey dad venting" doesn't absolve that; if he's off-limits then he's off-limits."

Well put. Unfortunately, it goes farther than "inquiring" about penalties Gregory Campbell's been given. So far, he's had a referee removed from games because of a penalty regarding his son. He also may have attempted to negatively influence a player's reputation among officials while angry for his son, and he's used these penalties to get at least one NHL referee fired.

That's more than just egg on your face. Let's hope Dean Warren sues for wrongful termination again, this time for unfair favoritism.

But of all these e-mails, perhaps the most damning is the third one. This one was, again, from Colin Campbell to Stephen Walkom:


"Game not televised. Radio announcers said it was a [male bovine manure] penalty…you need to find out for me. How…I don’t know but this was awful. 1:30 left in 2-1 game for [team] and [player] scored with 2 second left to tie it up them won in OT. [MAKE LOVE TO]"


Now, Colin Campbell insisted this message was just banter, but Walkom clearly took the "you need to find out for me" seriously. He responded that he'd find out. Less than an hour later, Campbell is nagging him about it.

"Did you find out anything? It was [another referee] that made the call. Keep
Warren and gas this [doodoo]head. 90 seconds left and he calls a weak penalty…tripping. Makes me sick. If I was at the game I would have had to fine me."

So a couple points on this. First, and most damning, is that Campbell is clearly very upset about a call
he never saw. He heard from the radio announcers, he says, that the call was bad. Are we to believe that every time Colin Campbell hears someone claim a call is bad, he immediately e-mails the Director of Officiating to investigate? Absolutely not. Further, Campbell says to "gas" the guy who made the call. While he's indicated that he hasn't seen the play, he's willing to go after the referee who made the call.

Tyler Dellow's words on this e-mail:

"The player who was penalized? None other than Gregory Campbell. Brian Pochmara and Don VanMassenhoven were the referees in that game and both are, as far as I can tell, still NHL referees."

So no one got fired over this call. I guess that's good, because it's a dangerous precedent for the Director of Hockey Operations to get a referee fired over a call,
then watch it. Still, once again, this e-mail is regarding Gregory Campbell, and daddy is very upset when referees call penalties on him.

So what questions SHOULD people like Bob McKenzie, Elliotte Friedman, Greg Wyshynski and other big name hockey commentators be asking? How about these:

  • Is it true that, as was suggested by the ruling of Warren v. National Hockey League, that penalties called against Gregory Campbell were a major factor in his father's pushing for Warren's firing?
  • How often does Colin Campbell bar referees from officiating for certain clubs after a bad call?
  • How often does Colin Campbell direct his subordinate, the Director of Officiating, to investigate calls against his son?
  • How often do calls against Gregory Campbell influence his father's decisions regarding which NHL referees should be let go?
  • How often does Colin Campbell complain to the Director of Officiating about calls he has not even seen, and what percentage of these incidents related to his son?

Forget Marc Savard. Forget Matt Cooke. Colin Campbell is unfairly using his position as the Director of Officiating's superior to help his son, and to fire at least one referee who's wronged him. That's where the story should be.

NOTE: Speaking of corrections, this blog has been edited. Originally, it erroneously speculated that the call from October 21st had been one on Gregory Campbell. After I wrote it, I read Tyler Dellow's follow-up, in which he referenced a comment of mine, and a later comment that wasn't visible after his site went down. The later comment, from Colby Cosh, demonstrated that the penalty that had Colin Campbell up in arms on October 23rd was not called on his son, but his son's teammate, Martin Gelinas. I had previously narrowed down the call to be either on Gregory Campbell or Martin Gelinas, and Cosh's clever investigation of headlines from that night determined which it was. However, as Dellow pointed out, this is still a clear instance of Campbell directly affecting his son's games, which Bill Daly insisted never occurs. While the point remains very-much intact, it would be criminal not to fix factual errors whenever they're caught. Much credit to Dellow and Cosh for their superb work.