Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
In the classic 1942 film
Casablanca, Vichy Captain Louis Renault (portrayed by Claude Rains) instructs the police to "round up the usual suspects" to interrogate for the killing of Nazi Major Heinrich Strasser (Major Heinrich Strasser); an act that Renault knows protagonist Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) committed and, indeed, helped to orchestrate because his true sympathies were with those who opposed the Nazis.
Who were the "usual suspects"? Those who were chronically in trouble with the law; people of questionable character with criminal reputations. It was not hard to find such people in Casablanca.
The hockey world has its own version of "usual suspects": players who can't seem to stay out of trouble and have earned bad reputations as a result. The bi-product of this, unfortunately, can often be reputation penalties.
Here, I should make crystal clear my stance on the issue: I detest reputation penalties. A call should be made on its own merits based on what happened on the play. On the other hand, players whom an official knows cannot be trusted are going to be watched more closely and deserve less benefit of the doubt on a borderline play. Players who are reckless or sneaky tend to get involved in more borderline plays.
If that seems like a mighty fine line to skate and a vicious circle, that's only because it is.
Where supplementary discipline is concerned, the specifics of the offense PLUS the offender's history need to be considered. What I do not like is supplementary discipline based largely on the result -- injury or no injury -- on the play. Some of the most egregious plays I've witnessed over 40-something years of playing and officiating this game have not resulted in injury, through sheer luck. On the other hand, I've seen horrifying injuries result from seemingly routine plays. There's an element of unpredictability and chance no matter how the game is legislated, and that's why reckless acts that do not result in injury should be treated as a serious matter in order to help reduce the risk.
What we had the other night in Newark was a situation where two usual suspects -- serial reckless hitter Radko Gudas and known embellishment artist Bobby Farnham, each of whom has been officially sanctioned by the NHL this season and has been under scrutiny multiple times -- came together.
For the life of me, I have no idea why Gudas thought it was OK to hit Farnham with the puck nowhere in the same zip code. It was as blatant of an interference penalty as you'll ever see. But was it a head shot (i.e. worthy of a match penalty and suspension)? From some angles it looks pretty borderline but there's a definitive angle that shows the primary point of impact was shoulder-to-shoulder. And now we get into the embellishment. Farnham sold it heavily for the referee's "benefit" but was actually just fine even in the immediate aftermath.
Two usual suspects: the irresponsible force meets the untrustworthy object.
The former (Gudas) got a reputation-based "upgrade" of the penalty to match penalty level by once again doing something that was in no way a hockey player. The latter (Farnham)
"won" in the very short term of a single call but, in the big picture most veteran hockey people know he cried wolf again. That's going to bit him, maybe not much financially in the NHL's pitty-pat on the wrist fining system for dives, but in being believed less and less.
This is what I call the acceptability factor. I's a two-way street of respect between officials and players. Just as officials have to earn acceptability for a screw-up to be forgiven as a human being's error committed by a usually good official, players have to earn their own acceptability as someone whom an official needn't scrutinize a little more closely than the average teammate or opponent.
Gudas was not suspended in this case. Based on the individual particulars of this play, that was the right decision by the NHL. Putting his team shorthanded five minutes and a defenseman short of a full lineup for the remaining two-plus periods was plenty sufficient. He certainly did nothing to suggest officials should give him the benefit of any doubts going forward. Farnham, who pushes the envelope a bit himself in his play and is now even more firmly entrenched as a player who is not above embellishment.
In the big picture, both players have only themselves to blame for their reputations. It does not mean that Gudas should get tossed for every bodycheck or bump. It does not mean that every time Farnham hits the ice or his head snaps back, he's diving/embellishing. What it does mean is that neither is inclined to take accountability and, correspondingly, they probably won't get many the benefit of many borderline calls in their favor.
************************************************************************
Paul Stewart holds the distinction of being the first U.S.-born citizen to make it to the NHL as both a player and referee. On March 15, 2003, he became the first American-born referee to officiate in 1,000 NHL games.
Today, Stewart serves as director of hockey officiating for the ECAC at both the Division 1 and Division 3 levels.
The longtime referee heads Officiating by Stewart, a consulting, training and evaluation service for officials. Stewart also maintains a busy schedule as a public speaker, fund raiser and master-of-ceremonies for a host of private, corporate and public events. As a non-hockey venture, he is the owner of Lest We Forget.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»