A Winning Habit
Fansided

Habs’ Subban: No Suspension Is The Right Call

By Lissa Albert

facebooktwitterreddit

Habs’ Subban: No Suspension Is The Right Call

CBC is reporting that NHL chief of discipline, Stephane Quintal, has decided not to bring supplementary discipline against Montreal Canadiens‘ defenseman, P.K. Subban. Subban was ejected from Game 1 in Montreal after a slash that had him assessed a five-minute major and a game misconduct.

This was the right result. Subban slashed the Ottawa Senators‘  Mark Stone, who left the ice in obvious pain – but unconfirmed injury. It was immediately announced that there would be a major penalty on the play and shortly thereafter, a game misconduct.

Subban wasn’t the only one who reacted in shock and anger. Head coach Michel Therrien‘s face said volumes. The chorus of booing in the Bell Centre arena was thunderous. Even broadcasters questioned the call. More than once, they expressed their opinion that a penalty was deserved, but not a major, and not an ejection.

This became the focal point of the game. The Habs, already missing top forward Max Pacioretty due to injury, would now have to play through the last two periods without their top defenseman.

Following the game closely on Twitter, I saw former NHL referee, Kerry Fraser post the following:

If anyone should know, it’s Fraser. However, Stone was back on the bench during the 5-minute major, clearly able to play, and clearly uninjured. This became the secondary focal point. No injury, therefore the game misconduct was unwarranted.

Does Rule 61 (an ironic number, considering it’s the one on Stone’s jersey) state anything about intent? And if there were to be an assessment of intent, shouldn’t it have fallen to the Department of Player Safety and not a referee on the ice, in the moment, without the full picture?

Curious enough to look into it, I found the NHL Rule Book (handy little resource, I’ve discovered!) and it states that the referees are the ones to assess the penalty.  From Page 85:

"61.3 Major Penalty– A major penalty, at the discretion of the Refereebased on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a playerwho slashes an opponent. When injury occurs, a major penalty mustbe assessed under this rule (see 61.5)."

Those key words: “at the discretion of the Referee” sum it up. At the outset, Stone appeared to be in pain. And to be fair, had that been a Montreal Canadiens player, fans would have been up in arms. But the rule book continues on page 86:

"61.5 Game Misconduct Penalty– Whenever a major penalty is assessedfor slashing, a game misconduct penalty must also be imposed"

Knowing that one would lead to the other, I believe the officials were too quick on the draw. You may notice that “61.4” is not in play. Here is that clause:

"61.4 Match Penalty– The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a matchpenalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberatelyinjured his opponent by slashing.61.4 Match Penalty– The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a matchpenalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberatelyinjured his opponent by slashing."

There it is. Clearly the referees didn’t believe it was intentional or they’d have invoked 61.4 – if that is the case, why were they so quick to assess a major, and the automatic ejection they knew would follow?

I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t believe referees are all out to get the Habs. But when it comes to Subban, the referees often seem to fall on the wrong side of the penalties called. Yes, there was a penalty on Subban that was called back – but in that case, he did deserve it. The irony!

And my point – and that of many analysts more seasoned than I – was made with Stephane Quintal’s announcement this morning.

So, let’s move on from this (we can – can the Senators’ fans? Can their head coach, Dave Cameron, who may be sending his players out for some “justice”?). At this point, looking ahead to Game 2, Subban will be in the lineup and the Habs that much more powerful.

More from A Winning Habit

Home/Habs News