It should never shock anyone when the NHL gets something wrong. It gets in a lot of practice in this regard, usually at least once a week. But this thing with Chris Pronger working for the Department of Player Safety actually might be the wrongest they ever got it.

Let's start out with the acknowledgment, first and foremost, that no, just because Pronger would be weighing in on suspensions not involving the Flyers, his former team would not essentially have free reign to start two-handing every star forward who came across the blue line. That is not, as Greg pointed out yesterday, how the system works. Everyone weighs in, and a decision is ultimately rendered by the man in charge.

Even if Pronger was sitting in on every suspension meeting involving a Flyer saying, “Oh that spear to Johnny Boychuk's face by Zac Rinaldo? I think a five and a game was plenty,” he'd be shouted down by the other people in the room and that'd be the end of it. Eventually, people would stop listening. But what the league is really doing in giving Pronger a job in that department, specifically, is essentially opened them up for some remarkably easy criticism. Heavy, easy criticism, every time an Eastern Conference opponent within 10 points of the Flyers had a player involved in a questionable hit.

Here's a scenario: It's late February and the Flyers are four points out of a wild card spot currently occupied by the Blue Jackets. James Wisniewski hits Brian Gionta from behind but it's one of those things where you can make an argument that the guy put himself in a vulnerable position at the last second. The league suspends him two games, which seems a little harsh but not outside the realm of what would normally be reasonable. Now, you might be able to say that everything's fine and dandy with that process. But what do you think Blue Jackets fans will say? How about, “Well of course they suspended Wisniewski two games. Look who's working for the Department of Player Safety!”

Here's another: Someone takes a no-doubt-about-it, he-tried-to-kill-him run at Sidney Crosby. Doesn't really matter who. Crosby's on the shelf for a few weeks or more with another “upper-body injury.” This offender gets off relatively light with three games, with the suspension video citing his lack of “repeat offender” status, as well as the fact that Crosby changed direction at the last second and had his chin taken out. What do you suppose Penguins fans have to say about it? Probably something like, “Of course they let him off the hook easy. Look who's working for the Department of Player Safety!” The Flyers and Penguins have a rivalry, etc.

There are plenty of scenarios you could play out exactly like this. Even if they're wrong about Pronger making a call in either of these cases — maybe Pronger advocated for less punishment for Wisniewskil, and a stiffer one for the guy who clobbered Crosby — the fact that you could even perceive it that way is toxic to the idea that fans can trust in the league's ability to punish people properly. And maybe those people would have complained about the same thing anyway, but why give them additional (and, one should note, well-founded) ammo?

The league's goal in operating the Department of Player Safety should be to levy justice while simultaneously striving to avoid any whiff of impropriety, even when it's pretty obvious there's always going to be bias in the system. This league is one in which everyone knows everyone else, having worked for or with or against them. Almost to a man you can draw lines for multiple biases in the department, plus there's the fact that even if you can be perceived as a neutral, maybe you just don't like a particular player (let's say, for instance, a certain Denver-based beat writer works for the league and has to render a decision to a certain young Kings defenseman; potential for needlessly colorful language in the suspension video aside, a pre-existing bias would certainly enter into the equation).

The idea that Pronger could poison the entire DOPS office with his pro-Flyers rhetoric is silly and immature and more than a little bit based in fanboyism. The argument that he might be able to impact decisions that could be beneficial to his now-former team at least has a wobbly leg to stand on. That can't be acceptable for the NHL.

Story continues