Shacks’ Canuck take: The Keith suspension fair or foul? -03/24/12

Okay so I’m late to the party on this one but I needed a little time to digest the suspension in its entirety. 

The first thing one needs to do when assessing the ruling is remove their fandom from the equation.  Does being a Canuck fan skewer my view on this, abso ‘frickin’ lutely. Duncan Keith’s extreme cheap shot has the potential to ruin the Canucks’ season, like a flour bomb can ruin a Kim Kardashian perfume launch.  If Daniel Sedin can’t play the Stanley Cup playoffs this is a significant blow to Vancouver’s chances of winning the cup. 

Shanaban's explanation of the suspension.

How can anyone be expected to give a rational opinion when Keith’s flying elbow could end up being the death knoll for the Vancouver season? 

I’m trying to reverse things and think how I would feel if Dan Hamhuis laid Patrick Kane out and possibly ended his year.  Would I think Hamhuis deserves 10 games or to be out as long as Kane is hurt?

The concept of keeping a player out as long as the player is injured was floated. I even heard a suggestion that Shanaban could issue a minimum five game suspension that could be upped to 10 if Sedin didn’t come back before 10 games (ie. if Sedin misses eight the suspension would be eight, etc. up to a maximum of 10.)

While I kind of like this suggestion, I also understand the NHL’s reasoning behind not tying suspension lengths to the actual injuries for two reasons: first, it would give the same hit two different punishments.  Two players with identical rap sheets could do the exact same punishable act and one could end up with a two game suspension and the other a 10.  I don’t think the NHLPA would back that form of punishment.

Second, what would prevent a team from holding out a player for longer if it adversely affected the opposition longer. 

Wouldn't you sit Weiss if it meant more games for Keith?

Let’s say it was Dale Weiss Keith rocked.  Why wouldn’t Vancouver claim Weiss was out for a length of time to hinder the Blackhawk’s chances and keep Keith off the ice.  Unfortunately, keeping the player benched as long as the other player isn’t playing just doesn’t work.

So unfortunately I’m right back to my original question, was the ban long enough?

Even worse, my answer to that question is yes and no.

In terms of the NHL disciplinary track record, yes.  Keith, according to the NHL czar of discipline standards, has never been fined or suspended before, although as Harrison Mooney smartly points out, this is not his first transgression. 

Was Keith's hit worse than this one or is the timing worse?

Was this really worse than what Brad Marchand did to Sami Salo?  Maybe a little bit, but Marchand was a repeat offender, which factored into his five game Shanaban.  So based on past suspensions, this is a more than fair ban.

Unfortunately a few other factors make me think this suspension wasn’t worthy. 

The biggest reason the ban serves as no deterrent for Keith is the fact this suspension has no effect on the Blackhawk’s season whatsoever.  Barring a miracle or a catastrophe, Chicago is locked into the 4^th, 5^th or 6^th seed.  In fact, one could easily argue 6^th is a better seed than 4^th or 5^th because you end up facing the Pacific division winner and not Detroit or Nashville who have been better all year.  So losing a few down the stretch actually helps Chicago.   

At least Keith will be well rested for the playoffs.

Really all this suspension does at this time is ensure Duncan Keith is nice and rested for the playoffs.  That hardly seems like a deterrent at all.

The other reason this suspension disappoints most fans was a belief that perhaps the NHL was finally going to get serious about protecting its players.  Arguably, one of the top 10 players in the league was taken out by an extreme cheap shot with possible malice as the intent. 

The league had a chance to make a statement with this ruling.  Even if the league had given an eight game suspension that extended one game into the playoffs, one could argue the NHL was really trying to give a suspension that could hurt the player and the team. 

Instead the NHL did their usual, give a ban that has the optics of being tough, without really being tough at all.   This is what makes this a hard pill to swallow.

Had this hit occurred in January, five games would have been seen as fair.  Because it happens right near the playoffs and has massive implications moving forward on the Canucks’ playoff chances, this punishment won’t come close to comforting Canuck fans if it contributes to an early playoff exit. 

If Sedin misses the playoffs, this will be only some of
what will likely happen the next time these teams meet.

So in the end the punishment is going to boils down to the severity of Daniel’s injury.  If Daniel returns by the playoffs or at least in time to contribute to the Canuck’s run, all will be forgotten.

If the Canucks face an early exit and Sedin’s absence s a major factor, this suspension will be seen as another in a long line of pathetic attempts by the league to curb headshots.

As well, the Vancouver Chicago rivalry will become that much tenser, and my bet is the next time these two teams meet another ugly chapter will be written as the Canucks seek the punishment that will be viewed as lacking in Shanahan’s ban.