Colin Campbell explains Ovechkin suspension

During an appearance on NHL Live Wednesday afternoon, NHL discipline chief Colin Campbell touched on many of the hot-button issues that have been percolating around his sport and his role in recent weeks. And, of course, he dealt with the Alex Ovechkin two-game suspension.

Campbell was sort of given a two-part question: to explain why Ovechkin was treated differently than Maxim Lapierre, who got a four-game rest for a hit Scott Nichol, and why Ovechkin got the two-game ban.

"Well Lapierre first of all didn't have a record," Campbell said. "It might have been more if he was a repeat offender. We felt when you watch the play he had no regard for the puck. In fact, the puck wasn't there. It was a useless play and a dangerous play at a point where I think all players know at that speed it's pretty reckless to give a guy a crosscheck in the middle of the back in the position he was in....We felt like that was a reckless play, but he was a first-time offender, so it was what it was, and it could have been worse....

"In Ovechkin's case, you're dealing with a player who, he's been suspended once," Campbell continued. "And we fined him once this year.



"So in talking with some guys the other day, having coached Mark Messier, Mark Messier was a big strong, what they call a moose, bull of a player. When he played, he played between 205 and 210. Ovechkin's at 235. And so what he did, I understand the Washington people feel that we might be picking on him and that we don't allow him to play his game, but I think they understand that at some point in time you've got to responsible and somewhat thoughtful when you're going into boards, boards that don't move....

"And so I think he has to be responsible in how he takes a [Brian] Campbell in, and what kind of position the other player's in. And he had moved the puck already, Campbell. Look, if there's no injury on the play, we probably, we don't do anything, but that's part of the supplemental discipline process. If you cause a player to be injured, then you have to be responsible for the play that you're involved in, if there's any carelessness or recklessness in it.

"And it's not Alexander's first issue. You know, we've dealt with a few others, and we've talked about that very aspect of the play. Now having said that, you enjoy him as a player and you like the fact that you have a finesse player that's also aggressive and plays both sides of the game. And hopefully we don't have to have a conversation ever again in his career."

The headline, of course, is Colin Campbell openly saying that had Chicago's defenseman not been hurt, Ovechkin probably wouldn't have been suspended. Sure, there are real-life examples people will point to in justifying such a policy (running a stop sign is treated more harshly if you crash into a baby than if nothing happens).

But as many have said using many words, if you want to change NHL behavior, you have to legislate against the act, not the consequences. Because otherwise, you're quite literally giving more incentive to hit big and sturdy players and protecting small and fragile players, and that just doesn't make any sense.

(These quotes were typed running and might be off by a word or two; will update with complete transcript later.)

UPDATED: Since some of you asked, the segment did indeed open with questions about the head shots debate and Matt Cooke's hit on Marc Savard. Campbell said they want to get a new rule in place as soon as possible, "so there's no gray areas here when something might happen." And he said the debate preceded even Mike Richards's hit on David Booth earlier this season.

"We've been dealing with these things on a rising kind of crescendo over the last number of years," Campbell said. "We increased the speed of the game of hockey, and at the same time players are getting bigger and faster and stronger. And we came out of the lockout with a great game, and we made it a better game to watch, a better game to play for the players....When we opened this game up, there was a ying for the yang, and we had a lot more car crashes, and the car crashes were legal, based upon shoulders hitting heads. (Emphasis added.)

"But we've got to make an attempt to reduce the concussions," Campbell continued, "and we've been doing that. And there was something that the managers didn't like last November -- they couldn't get a grasp around it -- but there was something they didn't like about the Richards-Booth hit and we've been working on that going into the [GMs] meeting....The Booth hit started it, and the Savard hit ended it this year, and so we were reminded quite graphically that it's something that we had to attend to."