NHL Roundtable: Brashear's Suspension

The length of Donald Brashear's suspension -- six games total, including five for a hit on Blair Betts in Game 6 of their opening round series Sunday that resulted in a broken orbital bone -- has seemingly caught league observers by surprise. As a result, the ban has been on the tongues of hockey fans everywhere since the decision was handed down Monday afternoon, and FanHouse is no exception. After the jump, our NHL writers discuss the reasoning and justification for the suspension.

Eric McErlain: If NHL disciplinary czar Colin Campbell wanted to send a message to the rest of the NHL about hits to the head, it's pretty impossible to mistake the import of the five-game suspension that's been leveled on Brashear for the vicious hit that took down Betts. From here on in, it looks like the league has finally decided to chart a new course when it comes to hits to the head, something that ought to please a certain segment of the media that's always believed hockey was too violent, as well as an NHLPA leadership distressed by a pile-up of concussions and the rapid development of "puck optional" hockey.

But some questions remain, foremost of all whether or not the league is willing to hold some of its biggest stars -- including Anaheim Ducks defenseman Chris Pronger -- to the same standard that's sidelined Brashear.

In the playoffs two years ago, Pronger unleashed a hit against Tomas Holmstrom of the Detroit Red Wings in the Western Conference finals that was every bit as heinous -- if not more -- than the shot Brashear delivered to Betts. Yet Pronger was suspended for just one game. The next time Pronger steps out of line, and you know it's only a matter of time before that happens, will Campbell have the guts and wherewithall to punish him?

That's just one of the questions on this topic. But first: Did the punishment fit the crime, or was Brashear rung up in part because of all the noise the Rangers have been kicking up ever since their series with the Caps went south?

Kevin Schultz: I can't answer your question about what Campbell would do if Pronger stepped out of line again. At this point, it's silly to try and predict what the league is going to do. To decide that this hit, of all hits, and at this point in time, of all the times, is perfect to start sending a message about hits to the head is ridiculous. This is the kind of thing you come into a season on a mission to stop or make an example out of a really egregious offender. Neither applies here.

You don't do this in the middle of the playoffs. Not before a Game 7. Not after a hit that -- agree with the suspension or not -- wasn't worse than anything we've seen before. This wasn't Dale Hunter on Pierre Turgeon. This wasn't Chris Simon on, well, a few different people. It deserved punishment and arguably even the five games. It's just not the right time to set an example.

Bruce Ciskie: I'm all for sending messages, but I thought the league said they didn't want that going on in these playoffs.

Brashear's hit deserved a punishment, and there's almost no point in complaining about things like Pronger's cheap shot back in 2007.

However, I will complain to the death about the crap Sean Avery was pulling in Game 4. Not only did he somehow manage to only get four minutes of penalties for two flagrant hits that may have each merited a suspension, but those two flagrant hits happened within 10 minutes of each other, and both involved Avery using his stick as a weapon to the head of an opposing player.

I mean, this might not be as simple as logic makes it sound, but it can't be that complicated.

Adam Gretz: I think Brashear's suspension, especially the length, comes down to two main things: 1) His reputation as an enforcer/fighter 2) The fact that Betts suffered a broken orbital bone. I think if the 98 percent of the hockey players in the NHL who aren't enforcers/fighters dish out that hit, and it doesn't result in such a serious injury, there's no suspension and we have nothing to talk about. This isn't simply about a hit to the head, this is about a "fighter" hitting somebody in the head and having it result in an injury.

That said, I don't have a problem with the NHL laying down the law on hits to the head, like this one, as long as it's consistent with it. That, of course, is always the key.

BC: Gretz pretty much nailed the other reason to have a huge problem with the suspension. Not only is it not consistent in any way whatsoever, but it's also a reaction to a player suffering a serious injury.

It sucks that Blair Betts' season is over. Really, it does. But the injury that comes from a play like this should have no bearing on the punishment. When Pronger stomped on Ryan Kesler's foot last year, Kesler wasn't injured. When Chris Simon did his deed last year, Jarkko Ruutu was not seriously injured. Supposedly, such things don't matter.

But they matter now?

How convenient.

Why not just say "Donald Brashear has been suspended six games so the Rangers will shut the hell up" and get it over with?

Tom Mantzouranis: Is this a case of the NHL greasing the squeaky wheel? I'm not sure. Whatever the Rangers are saying about security in Washington in an effort to deflect the blame off of themselves, the general public opinion seems to side against John Tortorella and Co., meaning the league could give the Rangers more rope to hang themselves with by allowing them to continue to complain. Of course it doesn't necessarily behoove the league to have any one of its teams complaining about security in an arena, but I don't think quieting that talk is a motive in this suspension (at least, not a primary one). Brashear got the six games because the league is trying to rid the national reputation, right or wrong, that the league is dirty and unnecessarily violent.

KS: I don't think this was so much the league trying to shut up the Rangers (but that's probably a nice side effect for the league) as it was punishment for a dirty hit. This wasn't the case of someone skating with their head down through the neutral zone. This wasn't finishing a check. I completely agree with Bob McKenzie's analysis. To paraphrase, that this was to wear down an opponent and intimidate them. That's part of the game and is all well and good. But there's no reason that you had to destroy Betts to do that.