Just How Wobbly is the NHL Wheel of Justice™?

I usually only blog about something other than the Leafs if it's relevant, and I'd have to say that this very much is. Allegations such as these can't help but bring the integrity of Colin Campbell into question.

In 2007, Campbell asserted in an e-mail that Savard, whom he coached with the New York Rangers during the 1997-98 season, was a 'whiner'. When you consider the shady call three years later that Matt Cooke's elbow to Savard's head was unworthy of a suspension, you cannot help but link the two. Even more damning is that the Savard e-mail and one other pertain to Campbell's objection of penalties called on his son, Gregory. While it is NHL policy that Campbell has no jurisdiction on disciplinary matters for games involving his son's team, he does seem a little more actively involved than meets the eye.

Let's address this second point first: what role do the e-mails about Campbell's son play? Colin Campbell offers us this defense:

For me, it's much ado about nothing. Stephen and I would have banter back and forth and Stephen knows I'm a (hockey) dad venting and both of us knowing it wouldn't go any further than that..

Okay, granted, Colin Campbell is a hockey dad. And, sure, hockey dads love to vent about calls on their kids that they see as questionable; hell, you see thousands of these guys at peewee hockey games across the country yelling at some acne-infested half-pint referee for this, that, and the other thing. But, one thing separates Joe Hockey Dad from Colin Campbell, and that is that the former has no jurisdiction over their son's league.

So, let's look at Campbell's specific defense on one of the games in question:

The game in question (when Gregory Campbell was penalized late in the Atlanta-Florida game) wasn't on TV and I was asking Stephen to find out for me if it was a soft call. That's all there ever was to it. The (refs) working that game are still in the league, aren't they?

Perhaps. Let's look at the content of the original e-mail now:

From: Colin Campbell
Sent: 11/#/2007 09:54 PM EST
To: Stephen Walkom
Subject: Penalty

Game not televised. Radio announcers said it was a bullshit penalty…you need to find out for me. How…I don’t know but this was awful. 1:30 left in 2-1 game for [team] and [player] scored with 2 second left to tie it up them won in OT. FUCK

From: Stephen Walkom
Sent: 11/#/2007 09:56 PM EST
To: Colin Campbell
Subject: Re: Penalty

ok ill find out….

Re: Penalty
11/#/2007 10:48 PM
Colin Campbell to Stephen Walkom

Did you find out anything? It was [another referee] that made the call. Keep Warren and gas this shithead. 90 seconds left and he calls a weak penalty…tripping. Makes me sick. If I was at the game I would have had to fine me.

This is a hard one to call. Maybe Colin Campbell is just wearing his 'hockey dad' hat, being a rabid fan, concerned as to whether his son is being treated fairly. The problem here is: when you're one of the top dogs at the NHL, you waive that privilege. To show this much concern over a soft call and want a ref to be fired may be a permissible hockey dad reaction, and nothing may have come of it, but Campbell should be held to a higher standard. Whether an irrational, knee-jerk response to his son's penalty or not, he should exercise more discretion in sending these kind of e-mails in realizing that, with the position he holds, he shouldn't be so liberal about his disdain for refs who make allegedly soft calls on his son. Whether he intends it or not, the wrong message- one of blatant favouritism- is being sent.

Now, as for the Savard matter, let's look at, verbatim, what Campbell says of Savard in 2007:

...that little fake artist [player] I had him in [city] biggest faker going...

...my view of him is this exactly…he puts his whining ahead of the game...

In light of these comments, it's hard to take Campbell's ruling to not suspend Cooke seriously. At the time, he made a dubious ruling that it was 'shoulder-to-head' contact, and not an intent to injure; he also said a hit by Mike Richards on David Booth could be used as precedent. Puck Daddy, however, makes a valid point as to why this shouldn't be:

Geographically, that's accurate, as both occurred near the blue line in the offensive zone. But that's where the comparison ends. Richards isn't skating by, sticking out his arm. Booth quickly dished the puck rather than having shot it like Savard. They're two completely different hits, and that's a good thing: The Richards check, as devastating as it was, was a hockey play by a Selke-worthy forward; The Cooke Hit was a cheap, late hit by a player who excels at them.

Also of note is that, while Campbell seems to want to use the 'hockey dad' defense, it simply won't fly in this case. This e-mail exchange about Savard had less to do with Campbell's son and more to do with Savard. He was invoking a previous player-coach relationship he had with the player and gave what appeared to be his impression of that player's character; more importantly, he seems to give this opinion with little mention of his son at all. Whether or not his son was penalized on a play by Savard, I just can't see why Campbell, even in the heat of irrationality, would say this if he didn't feel that way.

So, does this bring to light why Campbell made such a suspect non-call on Matt Cooke last season? I doubt anyone can say for sure; but, it certainly does cast that call into further suspicion. Whether or not this was at the heart of Campbell's rationale not to suspend Cooke, the existence of this suspicion already undermines the integrity of the decision. So, too, does e-mailing the officiating director about poor calls made against his son; whether Campbell had intended them to be serious, the optics are bad enough.

Sometimes, rightly or wrongly, all you need is the appearance of partiality and bias to undermine your legitimacy. Unfortunately for Colin Campbell, he's got just that right now.