Justice and Business

E from "A Theory of Ice" usually goes for the more existential articles, but I can't help myself. Plus, she ignored my request to be added to her blogroll, so there.
The Phoenix game brought one of the most particular aspects of the sport into plain view: the role of the enforcer. Kurt Sauer leveleld Andrei Kostitsyn with a vicious and borderline hit that took the winger out of the game. Something I thought of, and was surprised no one else has mentioned, is the fact that Andrei Kostitsyn is epileptic. He was drafted 10th overall because several other teams were concerned about the condition and passed him by. The condition has been kept under control with the help of medication, but I have always been slightly concerned that a concussion or other injury could shake something loose, so to speak. When I saw Andrei down on the ice and visibly struggling, this was the first thing that came to mind.

In any case, the hit was, as I described, borderline. If I had been a referee, I probably would not have even called a penalty on the play. These things happen SO fast, and referees do not have the benefit of seeing them in slow motion, as we do when we see the replay over and over. Granted, a referee has the option of assessing a penalty after the play once he sees the result, but it severely harms the official's credibility when he does so. We deplore the referee who makes a late decision seemingly based on how loud fans boo, or on whether a player is writhing in pain on the ice. I am convinced this is one reason why Boston fans still get upset when one mentions Mike Ribeiro. The stick to his midriff didn't look that bad, and it was only after he went down and started kicking and screaming did a penalty result. I refer, of course, to game three of the 2004 series between Montreal and Boston.

So what is a ref to do? He can't (or shouldn't) assess a penalty just because an injury happened. This is not the same as a stick-to-the-face that draws blood. A high stick is illegal, no matter what. A vicious check like the one that leveled Andrei is open to interpretation. It's one of those moments where there is no consensus. What must be made plain, however, is that injuring a player like Andrei Kostitsyn is NOT acceptable. It is not the referee's job to assess a penalty on Kurt Sauer for being too vigorous in his checking. So we rely upon an enforcer to make it clear that there is a price to be paid for borderline plays.

The next time Kurt Sauer was on the ice, Georges Laraque was there as well. And, predictably, Laraque shadowed Sauer throughout the shift, with every intention of starting a fight--a fight that Sauer declined. In the days before the instigator penalty, Laraque would not have had to ask. He would have simply dropped his gloves, begun pounding, and Sauer would have had no choice but to defend himself. Both men would have received five for fighting, and that would have been it. One must be wary of drawing an instigator penalty however, and Laraque never got the chance to fight Sauer. Sauer opted instead to fight Tom Kostopoulos. Kostopoulos has a habit of sticking up for teammates, but biting off more than he can chew. In this case, he got a few punches in, but was clearly the loser.

So why is it that I predicted, with %100 accuracy, what would result from Kostitsyn's injury? That Georges Laraque would be on the ice for Sauer's next shift, that he would try to fight him, and that eventually, SOMEONE would either take a run at, or actually fight Sauer? Because that is the system that has developed over the years. We EXPECT vigilante justice. You hurt our guy, we punch you in the face. It doesn't matter if the enforcer used to play on the other team (and he probably has in many cases). His job is to do what referees cannot. He has to make the other team's players think twice about going for that yard sale hit. Also, this is one of those times when vigilante justice is more efficient, and more desirable, than going through official channels. The first scene in "Batman" goes to the heart of the matter. A family gets mugged--what do they do, go to the police? The Police would make them fill out a report, get a description, and then go about the more important business of chasing murderers and rapists. Batman, however, saw the whole thing happen, and acts immediately. There is no scene where Batman gives the family their money back, however. There are further implications though. Suppose Batman witnesses a murder or rape about to happen? The police might not get there in time. So Batman acts immediately, taking matters into his own hands.

I forget the movie, but the quote is "It's not personal. It's business." I completely understand Sauer's exuberant hit. Had I been in the position to make the hit, I would have done so. But I also understand that actions have consequences, and that I should expect someone to come looking for retribution. This is the business of protecting star players. General Managers spend a lot of money on their stars, and they need an insurance policy on those players. For the same reason some folks argue for mandatory visors league-wide, GM's want to protect their star players from getting hurt. Messages have to be sent: "If you hurt our guy, our enforcer will come looking for blood." It's the same reason our judicial system concerns itself with Deterrent Penalties. While having an enforcer beat the shit out of a dirty opponent may feel good, the main purpose is to deter his teammates, and the rest of the league, from trying the same thing in the future.
This is the business of winning.

As Bride of Kovalev put it, after the hit, every Phoenix player was probably, ever so slightly, distracted by the possibility that Laraque would be looking for payback. What's more, other teams around the league do not operate in a bubble. They know exactly what happened to Andrei Kostitsyn, and what happened to the Coyotes as a result. If opponents are constantly looking over their shoulders, or even slightly distracted by Laraque's presence, the Canadiens stand a better chance to win.
It may not be "right" (a term I leave the philosophers to define). But it makes perfect sense. The person who complains about enforcers and the role of fighting in hockey has no idea about how the sport, or any business for that matter, operates.