Colin Campbell and Player Safety

Most of us are still pondering the rationale of Colin Campbell's decision not to suspend Matt Cooke for his blind-sided shoulder to the head of Boston's Marc Savard. I view Campbell's behavior as blatant incompetence.

Campbell's explanation for not suspending Cooke was because the check was identical to the hit Mike Richards dealt to David Booth. In Campbell's view, Richards' hit did not draw a suspension therefore, to be consistent, neither should Cooke's.

Really Mr. Campbell? Have you had one too many Boone Island Ales? I vehemently disagree with your decision-making. Before looking at the video, here's a refresher on Rule 21.1 from this year's NHL Rulebook, "A match penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who deliberately attempts to injure an opponent in any manner. A match penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who deliberately injures an opponent in any manner."

What is unclear about this rule? Now take a close look again at the hit on David Booth and see if you can apply the rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOsp_Spcdwg

Richards clearly brings his shoulder to the head. You will notice upon impact Richards actually thrusts upward to make full impact on the head. Clearly, this was an intent to injure. Any one of the four referees on the ice should have called this penalty. They opted not to and the decision came to your office for review and possible supplemental action. You too decided this was not an attempt to injure and recommended no suspension.

Last week you reviewed the hit delivered by Matt Cooke. Remember Rule 21.1, now again take a closer look at the Cooke hit on Savard below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_F7LEZ78_o

Clearly a head-shot and unquestionably an intent to injure. Because of the similarities and precedence set with the Richards incident you opted for no suspension.

Mr. Campbell, your decision-making on Matt Cooke demonstrates incredibly poor judgment and really questionable competence. I make this statement for several reasons:

1) You ignored Matt Cooke's track record - he is a repeat offender. He was suspended earlier this season for his head shots on both Artem Animisimov in November 2009 and for his check on Scott Walker in January 2009. He was recently accused of biting Asham. Two years ago when he played for the Washington Capitals I saw him come across the neutral zone and clobber Vincent Lecavalier. He destroyed Lecavalier's shoulder which ended his season. I was at the game, Cooke blind-sided Lecavalier - clearly an attempt to injure. In fact, all the above cited incidences are intent to injure infractions. Do you see the trend starting to develop Mr. Campbell?

2) You are confused between incidental and intentional contact. I hear all the time hockey is such a fast game and there are numerous instances where incidental contact takes place. Because you did not suspend Cooke perhaps you made the decision his contact was incidental. Just look closer at the videos. Cooke knows Savard is vulnerable and is applying a blind-sided hit to the head, with the intent of applying maximum impact with intent to injure.

3) Two wrongs do not make it right. You got the Richards incident wrong and you got the Cooke incident wrong as well. You elected to save face and not admit a mistake. Your saving face was a higher priority than the integrity and safety of the game.

4) Rare player outrage. Credible players across the league such as Vincent Lecavalier, Martin St. Louis and Mark Recchi are surprised at your decision. Even one of Cooke's teammates, Bill Guerin, said there should have been disciplinary action taken.

5) You are inconsistent in your rulings. Cooke suspensions were meted out when he checked Animisimov and Walker. In the case of Animisimov, the elbow was flagrant; less so with Savard, but the intent to injure was still there. In both Richard's and Cooke's cases you should have applied the intent to injure rule. You would then have come to the conclusion to suspend both of them.

6) You are incapable of interpreting the rules. Rule 21.1, mentioned above is applicable here. Either you do not understand it or, in the interest of self-preservation, you elected not to apply it.

Your poor decisions imperil player safety. You ought to tune into the Bruins versus Penguins game on March 18. With Matt Cooke still playing, you have the makings of another Todd Bertuzzi-Steve Moore scenario.