Punishing results rather than actions

I generally believe that it is better to punish actions rather than the results. The NHL disagrees with me. A lot of times, they let dangerous plays slide because a player escapes injuries. Other times, they dish out harsh punishments on relatively insignificant plays based purely off of injuries
.

While I'm using this as one of my hockey frustration posts, I want to go off on a bit of a tangent first. I'm going to talk about driving under the influence. When people drink and get behind the wheel, they are a legitimate threat to innocent lives. If anyone is caught driving under the influence, the punishment should be harsh.

If a drunk driver gets caught but doesn't kill anyone, we treat it as though the action is not a big deal. If that's the message that we're sending, why would they stop? You might be able to see where I'm going with this.

If a hockey player does something that is likely to injure, he should face a harsh penalty. Otherwise, the league is sending a message of tolerance toward that behavior. Basically, the league tells players that it's acceptable to harm others.

Overall, I believe in harsher punishment. There are, however, exceptions. Since the league is tolerant of dangerous plays when they don't result in injury, pretty much all the examples of wanting leniency comes from plays with resulting injuries.

I'm going to bring up Todd Bertuzzi. For those who don't follow hockey, let me explain this situation. In a previous game, Steve Moore took out the Canucks best player with a blindside hit to the head resulting in a concussion and hyper-extended elbow. The league looked the other way (an example of the league not even punishing the injury even though the action alone warranted a suspension). In a following game, Todd Bertuzzi tried to hold Moore accountable for his actions. He grabbed Moore. Moore looked back then turned away. With a gloved hand, Bertuzzi threw a punch to the back of Moore's head. Moore stumbled. With Bertuzzi still engaging Moore, they both fell to the ice. The impact with the ice fractured vertebrae in Moore's neck and stretched some nerves.

Before going any further, I want to clarify something. Bertuzzi's actions were clearly wrong, and I do not support his actions. The incident was definitely worthy of a suspension. That said, the actual action was nowhere near as serious as the outcome. I have seen far worse over the years. The league went overboard and ignores what had actually happened when they removed Bertuzzi from the game for more than a year.

Another example of a suspension that was too lengthy was in the Stanley Cup final one year when Aaron Rome gave Nathan Horton a concussion on a late hit. Late hits happen all the time. While Rome did approach Horton from the side, he hit from the front. I would say that it was worthy of a suspension, but not an unprecedented four games for a play that I see all the time without any kind of response from the league. When the league handed out the suspension, they cited the injury as the reasoning behind the length.

On the other side, I have seen flying elbows to the head, numerous spearing attempts, and full speed blindside collisions with unsuspecting players that have gone unpunished, especially when the players elude injury.

Of course, there is something worse than the league's emphasis of injury over action. That's their inconsistency. I'm still furious over the league's inaction when Johnny Boychuk put his stick between Mason Raymond's legs, spun Raymond into a vulnerable position, and then pushed Raymond into the boards. This resulted in a fractured vertebrae. You never see this play because most players know better. Even though the injury was more severe than Hortons, which was in the same series, the league refused to hold Boychuk responsible for his actions. Of course, this might be because the league was protecting the officials. If the play was worthy of a suspension, the officials had to have been wrong when they failed to call a penalty on the play.