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."
    

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."

I Watched This Game: Canucks vs Flames, January 23, 2011

Canucks 3 - Flames 4 (SO)

It's a bummer that, for the second time in as many games, the Canucks had to fall in a shootout. That said, I'm hoping that the fans are smart enough to differentiate between the sluggish team that barely managed a point versus San Jose on Thursday night, and tonight's team, which improved as the game went on and controlled the run of play for much of the third period versus the Flames. Yes, Vancouver, your team only skated away with one point, and yes, they've now lost 5 of 6, but if you were looking for improvement, it was there tonight. Or, at least I felt it was when I watched this game:

• You'll hear the media people saying that the Canucks have dropped 5 of 6, but it's somewhat sensationalistic and irresponsible to report it this way when only 1 of the 5 losses was in regulation. They've gotten six points in their last six games, which is the same amount of points they'd have collected by going 3 and 3. The next time someone tells you the Canucks are spiraling, respond by pointing out they're actually playing .500 hockey. It's still worth a mutter, as this team should be better than .500, but it's not worth a panic, as they're not worse than .500, either. Not to mention they were the only of the top three NHL teams to get a point today. Detroit and Philadelphia--the two teams with whom they're jostling at the top of the league--lost in regulation.

• The real big story, I guess, is the odd decision from the NHL war room to call Alex Tanguay's shootout attempt a goal. Vancouver fans are right to be outraged. The call goes against the NHL's rule for reviewable goals, which stipulates that the puck has to be visibly across the goal line in order to overturn an official's no-goal call. In this case, the puck was lost in Luongo's pads, and there was no way to see it cross the line. Though it obviously did, by the letter of the law, the referee's no-goal call should have stood, due to inconclusive footage. Puzzlingly, the NHL used their heads and determined that, if Luongo was in the net, so was the puck. More than anything, it's odd that they decided tonight was the night to go against the letter of the law and utilize common sense. Since when do they do that? Jason Botchford dug up three distinct instances where the War Room called this the other way, and I think that's the infuriating thing here: it's not consistent with how they've been handling this situation in the past. Plus, where was this approach when the "Intent to Blow" controversy started?

• Meh. This game really shouldn't have even gone to the shootout, anyway. The Canucks' power play, usually so good, has now thoroughly failed the team in two consecutive games and dropped to third in the NHL. Identical to last night, the team went 0-for-5 a man up, including, again, an important 4-on-3 in overtime. The unit's had a few short droughts this season, but they need to get this fixed right away. This drought has effectively cost the team two points in the last three days.

• In the first period, Kevin Bieksa took a massive blow to the eye from Tom Kostopoulos, which turned out to be a massive blow to the whole Canucks team when Bieksa didn't return. Word is he's not concussed (yea!), but one of his eyes is swollen completely shut (nay!).

• Do you remember, back in November, when the Canucks' defense was in total disarray? It got so bad that Vigneault put his foot down, then made his top two pairings and committed himself to leaving them together for better or for worse. It's been two months since then, and we've taken for granted the defensive stability that grew out of his decision. It was apparent after the loss of Bieksa threw everything back into disarray. Ehrhoff, Edler, and Hamhuis all wound up playing over twenty-six minutes, but their ice time and shifts didn't make much sense and they didn't synchronize in the slightest. Meanwhile, Keith Ballard still didn't crack twenty minutes, and Chris Tanev's minutes actually decreased from the last game.

• Worse, nobody was ready or rested to join their regular units on the powerplay, which meant seeing Hamhuis and Samuelsson on the top unit, as well as Ehrhoff and Edler with the hapless second unit. It was a waste of a powerplay. I want to say Vigneault should have used a timeout to rest Ehrhoff and Edler to join their regular forwards, but Christian Ehrhoff played a game-high thirty-three minutes tonight; Vigneault clearly forgot rest was an option for him.

• I know Manny Malhotra is one of the forwards mired in a pretty remarkable scoring slump, but he had a great game tonight. Alternate Captain Mal was all over the ice defensively, he won 13 of 22 faceoffs, and he had 5 blocked shots--a game-high.

• Raffi Torres, on the other hand, had another subpar outing, and this time he earned himself a benching. Torres only played 5:43 tonight, only thirty-seven seconds more than Kevin Bieksa. The intermission peewee teams had more icetime.

• Mason Raymond had a few grade A chances, but he's still fighting the puck. Of all the slumping forwards, he's the one that concerns me the most. The Canucks are really thin on the wing if he's not an effective weapon.

• The Sedin line was solid and dangerous again tonight, as Daniel and Henrik both collected a point. However, the real stars of their line were Alex Burrows, who had two assists and was on the ice for all three Canuck goals, and Alex Edler, who was also on the ice for all three goals, and scored two of them himself. The first goal, above, came on a beautiful one-timed snap shot. The second goal came after Jay Bouwmeester slewfooted his goaltender in an ill-advised attempt to distract Alex Burrows.

• A brief word on Daniel Sedin's crosscheck to the back of Mark Giordano: awesome. I recognize that he took a penalty for it, but good on him for responding after the referees let the Flames brutalize the twins all night. Case in point: when "Macho Man" Cory Sarich drove a flying elbow into Henrik Sedin's face. I understand the referees want to let the teams play, but WWE finishing moves are a bit much.

• Ryan Kesler played a surreal game tonight. He seems to have willed his thumb back to health, as he took an unreal 30 faceoffs and won 19 of them. He scored a shorthanded goal that tied the game in the third period. He shadowed Jarome Iginla all night and kept the all-star forward off the scoring sheet. Also, during the second intermission, he flew into outer space and punched a comet into the sun.

• Speaking of punching, the Flames' third goal was a direct result of Roberto Luongo's aggravating tendency to punch the puck instead of catching it cleanly. Somebody needs to remind him he's supposed to catch the puck, not kill it. He's the Rooster Cogburn of goalies.

• Weirdest Kevin Weekes statement: "This is why Tambellini hasn't scored--he shoots lasers." I assume he meant to say that Tambellini isn't using his great shot enough, but it sounded like he was ragging on him for literally shooting lasers. And, as everybody knows, lasers are just fine, unless the walls are covered with mirrors.

• And finally, the Canucks only had 15 hits tonight. Unacceptable. Robbie Williams has more hits, and he sucks.

Four Reasons the Coach's Challenge is a Stupid Idea

Think video review would have fixed some of these bad calls? Look how many of these miscalls were the result of video review.

Miscalls happen in hockey. Referees are human, players are jerks, and few calls are an exact science. It's pretty much a Canadian tradition to complain about officiating (ask me about the Canucks-Kings series last year), but in the long run, things tend to even out, and the human factor is a part of the game. We're not all happy with officiating, but I thought we were at least happy to be unhappy some of the time.

Apparently not. Dale Tallon's proposal for a "coach's challenge" is gaining traction, according to TSN's Darren Dreger. That disturbs me.

I'll admit that the idea could fix a problem with hockey that's been a source of much frustration for as long as the game's been around. But it won't. It'll be held back by one small but vital complication:

It's a stupid idea.

Since when is "It works in the NFL" a selling point? The NFL plays a game in which, if a player grabs another player's mask, the offending team's moved back a number of yards. In the NHL, if a player takes exception to another player's behavior, they'll get into a fistfight right there on the ice. And they'll be back on the ice five minutes later. They can get into multiple fistfights in the same game. Penalties and infractions could not be more different for the two sports. No analogy between the two sports is a good selling point for a rule change.

Still, that's not a reason it wouldn't work. Here are four reasons it's a stupid idea:

Limits Referee's Ability to Manage Play

The referee's job is not to call every penalty. Something happens on every other shift that's technically a penalty. Some miscalls are more egregious than others, but in general, each team gets the same amount of leeway. Watch any broadcast and you will hear the words "no call" or "play continues" several times. That's just the way it goes. Referees often just let the teams play.

We don't dislike this. We appreciate the refs who "put the whistles away in the third." Who wants to see their team blow a two-goal lead in the third thanks to some questionable penalties? Who wants to see their team's comeback chance quashed by a momentum-changing penalty?

And the major miscalls, the ones players argue about, are usually evened out. Why do you think players complain to the referees? The ref isn't going to retroactively make a call on a play he missed. Players do it because refs often even it out. Miss an elbow to Kesler's head? Okay, they'll probably miss Edler hauling someone down, as well. Or maybe they'll call a hook they normally wouldn't. Most of the good referees make it work somehow.

What does the coach's challenge do to all this? Well, for starters, it drastically increases the third-period penalties that no one wants. The best use of a coach's challenge will be to overturn a goal, so coaches are unlikely to use it just to get a power play in the first period. Coaches will try to save it for a goal. If they can't get that chance, they'll use it late in the third period to get a power play. Refs "miss" all sorts of infractions in the third, so both coaches will have an opportunity for a late-game power play. That takes power right out of the hands of the referees.

Plus, it makes them look bad, and it's likely they'll just start calling more. Every successful coach's challenge is going to be considered a mistake by the referee, as far as someone's concerned. The refs' only defense is to make the calls themselves. Who wants that? How many unbiased hockey fans just want more penalties called every game, especially in the third? Those fans who complain about every miscall should be careful what they wish for. If this coach's challenge is adopted, they may soon be shouting "Let them PLAY!"

Disallowed Goals Suck

They do. Fans feel cheated, and teams feel frustrated. Sure, you're glad when a goal against your team is disallowed. You're upset when a goal against your team that seems questionable stands up to review. But all loyalties aside, disallowed goals suck, especially when they're disallowed on a technicality. The goaltender dove and drew an interference call. A player nudged another one ten feet away from the goal. Here's a favorite: the referee was reaching for the whistle. Everything just feels so dirty.

If you can only use a coach's challenge once per game, the best place to use it is to disallow a goal. A coach will give his team every chance to win, and if that means finding some technicality on which to challenge, so be it. You think your team scored a goal? They knocked the puck down with a high-stick 30 seconds beforehand, and the play should have been dead. Or, completely unrelated to the goal, someone was interfered with. Minor goaltender interference, a bit of roughing in front of the net, maybe someone got cross-checked... it all boils down to the same thing. More disallowed goals, and of the kind that really turns the stomach.

Sure, there are egregious miscalls that make us mad. That's why the proposal is gaining some traction. But the big mistakes are the exception, not the rule. If you think the coach isn't going to try to find a way to get a goal back, you haven't been paying attention. If the coach's challenge is adopted, every goal that can be disallowed based on a technicality, will be. And that sucks.

Video Review Takes Forever

Sometimes we're sitting around waiting for a full five minutes or more, waiting for the guys in Toronto to be absolutely sure there was a goal. Talk about boring. Talk about a momentum killer. You can't always predict how long they'll take, either, so it's not always safe to go grab another beverage. Video review sucks.

We put up with it because it happens when there are goals. Goals are important, and no team in the NHL averages 4 a game. It doesn't happen often, and for that reason, we understand that the league has to get it right. Fine. Whatever. I'll sit through your five minutes of staring at one or two frames to see if the puck crossed the line, or to see where the puck hit a stick, or whatever.

But don't you dare bring these show-stopping, buzz-killing, momentum-draining snorefests in on non goal-related matters. Did Edler really hold Kopitar up? I don't know. I don't care anymore. Yeah it was a close call, but in the time we've spent waiting for Toronto to decide, the Canucks could have killed off the penalty. And scored a goal. And Henrik could have taken another one.

As I pointed out above, these challenges, when not used to disallow goals for cheap reasons, will probably be saved for late in the third period. In any close game, this is the most exciting part. Know what the most exciting part of the game needs? Five-minute stops in play to decide whether Burrows was pushed or was diving.

Since When Is Video Review Infallible?

Seriously, it's like people all of a sudden have confidence in Gary Bettman and the Toronto front office. It's like they never ever get it wrong. Even this week, we have a clear instance of the NHL front office completely botching a call.

The people doing the video review for the NHL are human, and they make mistakes. They make mistakes all the time. Who expects that adding them to the mix more often is going to make things better? If anything, it means they'll just take longer to be wrong. Know what'll make a bad call less frustrating? Waiting five minutes for it.

The intention behind discussion of a coach's challenge rule is pure enough. GM's are frustrated when the wrong call is made on the ice. They want the game to be better. Still, when the proposal to even discuss a coach's challenge was shot down in November, it was the right call. While it's easy to be mad at one, specific instance where your team gets cheated out of a goal or a power play, perspective shows those instances are nothing compared to the damage such a rule change could do to the game. The NHL exists to entertain fans, and a rule change that makes the game less watchable is always going to be a bad idea.

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.

The Guys Who Run the League Are Fools

Or, The NHL Shows the Wrong Kind of Consistency.

Or, Is This How the Culture is Supposed to Change?

Or, Seriously, A Dirty Gesture is as Bad as a Dirty Hit?

Or, What the Hell is Wrong With You Guys?

The NHL wants to crack down on concussions, they say. Their goal, they say, is to change the culture of the game so players respect one another and stop the questionable hits.

The NHL is lying.

Actions speak louder than words. Really, if you ignore everything that's said, and pay more attention to what's done, it becomes painfully obvious what the NHL's number one concern is, and it's got nothing to do with player safety.

It's all about image.

Take, for example, the two suspensions the NHL just handed out, almost simultaneously. Niklas Hjalmarsson's brutal hit on Jason Pominville received two games. James Wisniewski's apparently pantomiming the act of enjoying a large, delicious popsicle also received two games. Let's compare the two acts.

On one hand, you have a guy who sent a player to the hospital by brutally checking him from behind into the boards. The hit was not only boarding, but also interference, as Pominville had not yet received the puck, although it was traveling towards him. In other words, he had little reason to even suspect that a check was forthcoming. This is essentially the same kind of hit that Joel Quennville called "the most dangerous hit in hockey" -- a boarding hit on someone who doesn't have the puck. Pominville was escorted off the ice in a stretcher.

On the other hand, James Wisniewski was on television and he made a gesture that, if you have a dirty mind, could be read as something obscene. Everybody saw it, unless they didn't watch the game, in which case you saw a really blurry James Wisniewski apparently doing something, or not. It was so horrible that they couldn't show it in replays. When it comes to sexual innuendo, hockey coverage apparently isn't allowed to be as racy as Tyra Banks on her talk show or Spongebob Squarepants. As Brendan Morrison observed, you're "under a microscope" as a professional athlete, and held to a higher standard. Sure, you need to represent the game well. I can't pretend I don't know why you shouldn't do what Wisniewski did.

Still, when the two offenses are given equal punishment, they're put on equal footing. According to the NHL, blindsiding a player with a dangerous and illegal hit that sends them to the hospital and can potentially end their career is exactly as bad as pantomiming something dirty. What message does that send?

The reality is that the NHL suspends players based more on the image of the league than the safety of the players. Hjalmarsson is an important piece on a team that just won the Cup, and those players tend to get free rides. For example, explain to me the difference between this horrible, 30-game suspension and this not-nearly-as-bad 8-game suspension. If you couldn't see the difference (besides that Simon stomped on Ruutu's skate, whereas Pronger stomped on Kesler's calf), it was that Chris Pronger was on a team that had just won the Cup, and they were 9 games out of the playoffs. The NHL makes a big deal about marketing defending Cup champions -- if Pronger isn't there, it hurts the marketing and leads to questions that hurt the league's image. Initially, the NHL's reaction was no suspension at all, but after massive outcry by fans of the game, the NHL "received new footage" of the stomp and decided it was suspension-worthy.

It's not news that the NHL seems to have more difficulty suspending offensive stars than it does fourth-line grinders, so this blog feels like it's beating a tired drum. This evidence shows, though, that the league is less willing to suspend players when it will hurt the NHL's image, and more than willing to suspend players they feel have damaged their image.

Sean Avery got 6 games for his admittedly obscene comments. Six games means the NHL considered it worse than this. And this. And this. And this. And even these.

The league doesn't want to suspend these hits, because violence sells. If a hit like Hjalmarsson's was met with a 15-game suspension, players would think twice about those kind of hits. Bettman has said over and over that they don't want to create an environment when players are afraid to make clean checks. He's said over and over that they don't want to take hitting or fighting out of the game. Violence sells. Anger sells. Viciousness sells. So they avoid long suspensions if they can, unless they're dealing with nobodies like Chris Simon, Jesse Boulerice, or (at the time) Steve Downie.

Willie Mitchell argued that the league has difficulty staying consistent. I disagree. I think they've shown a great deal of consistency, in that there are three kinds of infractions: the ones they feel they can ignore without getting into too much trouble, the ones they suspend because they have to for image's sake, and the ones that actually bother them because they make hockey look bad. You can make hockey look bad with a brutal hit that's highly publicized, or apparently, just making a rude gesture on television. Either way, it's clear that they care about how an incident (and their response) looks a whole lot more than they care how it threatens player safety.

This is about as short-sighted and foolish as you can get, because the dangerous hits and (seemingly) inconsistent discipline for it will be more damaging to the league's reputation than any apparent reduction of intensity that occurs when players start playing safely. More to the point, they've got a moral obligation to protect their players and they're failing to meet it.

As far as the players are concerned, though, the message is clear -- if you're so angry that you feel like maybe making a gesture implying that another player might enjoy popsicle-related activity, you'd be better off just cross-checking him in the face.

Basically, my points boil down to three things. First, in punishing image problems with the same number of games that they do dirty hits and safety issues, they cheapen the whole disciplinary process by using it to defend the league's image rather than the players. Second, that the contrast in suspension severity makes it just as palatable to a player to crosscheck a guy in the face as it is to make a rude gesture or say something off-color. Third, that the only consistency in NHL discipline has been that they're far more concerned with damage to their reputation than damage to players on the ice.