Seriously?

"In attempting to free himself, Pronger carelessly and recklessly brought his foot down," said Colin Campbell, NHL Senior Executive Vice President and Director of Hockey Operations.

So, Chris Simon is a deviant who needs counseling, but we're more than happy to offer an excuse for Chris Pronger. Colin Campbell's statement, especially the first five words, says to me that Pronger was suspended for eight games because Campbell had no choice at this point, but he's not happy about it. If you're going to suspend him, just levy the punishment. Don't start offering explanations now that they serve you. Or just admit that you made a mistake the first time. Enjoy the playoffs, Mr. Pronger.

Here's a post from Battle of California, another blog that is crediting the Internet for forcing the NHL to reverse its course on disciplining Pronger.

And I still can't get over the notion that the original video was too grainy for the the league to take action. It's not as though the Simon video was crystal clear. The mess of bodies and legs in that one made it confusing at best. But you could basically figure out what happened, just as you could in this case.

The Power of the Blogosphere

I didn't have time to write about the Chris Pronger stomping incident last night, but my intention was to put up the video and the requisite "You've Got To Be Kidding Me" post today because I thought the issue deserved as much exposure as possible. Well, I have to commend the bloggers of the hockey world and a fair amount of mainstream media writers. In the past 24 hours, the hypocrisy, favoritism, and lack of credibility and accountability in the NHL's department of discipline has received top-story attention all over the place. Islanders VP of Media Relations Chris Botta has weighed in on the matter twice on his blog.

I find it hard to believe that the NHL would revisit the incident because better footage became available. It's a convenient line for the league to put out. But the idea that the original evidence wasn't clear enough to justify a punishment is hard to stomach. The first video was certainly clear enough to launch an outcry from fans and bloggers. And that, my friends, is where we can rejoice in the power of the masses. There was a time when a fan's ability to protest an injustice was limited to call-in radio shows and letters that most likely would never be addressed. Now, of course, those same protests resonate on the Internet where hundreds of writers may call attention to them and thousands of readers will echo their voices. I have no way of knowing if pressure from the blogosphere and other online sources will ultimately be responsible for a do-over. It's shameful that the NHL would need such goading to get this right.

Okposo Net asks of Colin Campbell, "...if the above video isn't evidence enough to suspend Pronger, then it would be nice if you could go public and explain specifically why that is not the case (not that most people will buy it, but at least you're taking some responsibility)." It would be nice, but the NHL has built not explaining itself into its disciplinary process. I understand how not explaining every punishment or lack of punishment prevents the league from tripping over its own words. But building in a lack of accountability surely does not support the integrity of the process and it undermines the credibility of the league. Pronger's rap sheet and most recent offense align perfectly with the precedent that the league has already set for these matters. He is due for 20 games. If he gets anything, I doubt it will be more than five to seven.

As for the double standard being applied in relation to the Islanders, we will likely get nowhere by claiming an institutional bias. All we can do is continue to point out loudly the glaring incidents such as this. Did you notice how Garnet Exelby quietly got away without further punishment for forcefully raising his stick to Blake Comeau's nether regions? It was not an egregious, violent act, but we know that an injury is not required for disciplinary measures to be handed down. As a completely unnecessary and non game-related stick foul, the act deserved at least a symbolic suspension of one game--set the precedent that even thinking about that type of behavior will not be tolerated.

Botta postulates that maybe it is the name on the back of the sweater. What he can't say as a representative of an NHL team is that maybe it's also the logo on the front.

You Say Ovechkin, I Say...Well, I Say Ovechkin Too

OK, so bad example.

Thanks to Islanders Army and Japers' Rink for picking up the previous post on the advertising travesty that is the Versus "60" commercial. I realize that "travesty" may be a little strong, especially if you're not an Islanders fan who views the commercial as a tremendous slight to Mike Bossy. And that is what this post is about: diverse perspectives.

Prior to Wednesday night's game against the Caps, I was looking forward to paying a visit to Japers' Rink to see what the opposition was saying about the upcoming game. Reading the Gamenight preview and its accompanying comments was an eye-opener.

Let me say right from the outset that the purpose of this post is not to stir anything up with Caps fans. The Caps have an outstanding blogging community and I have enjoyed reading Japers' Rink since the operators first contacted Isles bloggers for quotes before the first meeting of the season between these two teams. It's a very sharp bunch over there, as well demonstrated by this comment from Sean, who said after viewing the Versus commercial:

"Hull's name shown inside the crease...someone at Versus a Sabres fan?"

Now that was an inspired observation. The purpose here is to show how our opinions as hockey fans are colored by different perspectives and the biases formed by having an allegiance to a particular team. It is also an opportunity to get a glimpse of how the Islanders are perceived around the league.

In the Gamenight post for Wednesday, JP wrote:

"I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you're gonna make the playoffs, you've gotta beat the teams you've gotta beat. This certainly is one of those teams, and one with whom the Caps shouldn't have a whole hell of a lot of trouble."

Replace "Caps" with "Isles" and I was thinking the exact same thing. Granted, the Isles give away a lot in offensive talent to the Caps. The teams obviously have very different strengths at this point. The Isles have tightened up their defense and goaltending, and produced some timely scoring, to turn a seven-game losing streak around into what is now a six-game winning streak. The Caps have played much better under Bruce Boudreau and are in contention to win the Southeast. However, the teams entered the game with nearly identical records. In reality, neither of us had any real reason to dismiss the other team.

The first comment in response to the Gamenight post began with this:

"When a club sucks -- and the Isles do..."

This is where I ask, "Really?" And then I wonder, "Is this what the rest of the NHL's fans think? And, if so, is it merely a function of the recent losing streak that saw the Isles plummet out of the playoff picture?" I understand that no one looks over the roster and trembles with fear. But when a team has won four in a row and is a point ahead of you in the standings, where does the motivation come from to say that they suck? What followed, of course, was a reasonable assessment of how the Isles would probably win playing the style that best suits their circumstances. And it must be frustrating to anticipate losing to a team with marginal talent. But the talent level is far from the complete story with this Islanders team. Yet, the team still seems to be paying for the sins of the '90s and the accompanying joke-franchise label. The perception is that it's still one of the easiest teams to put down, and that it's deserving of those put-downs. The results achieved over the last six seasons, while not stellar or brag-worthy, should suggest otherwise.

After the game, there was more of the same in the Thursday Open Thread. One comment began:

"What an opportunity, a crappy team limps its way into town..."

And further down the line:

"This one really pissed me off. The FRIGGIN ISLANDERS for crap's sake!"

Maybe this is more about the current state of affairs--no superstars and injuries lowering the bar even further. I was simply taken aback by the lack of consideration given to the Isles by a few fans and wanted to muse about what's behind it. Is it the past? The present? A combination of both, and add in a hint of unconventional ownership philosophies? Perhaps some fans of other NHL franchises will let us know what still drives their perception of the Islanders. The team has no current claim to the upper echelon. I think it does have a claim against being summarily dismissed. But maybe I'm just biased. Or easily swayed by six-game winning streaks.

Let me reiterate that the point here wasn't to call anyone out. I'm fully aware that there are probably Islanders fans taking similar shots at the Capitals on some comment thread or message board. In a way, seeing our teams from the perspective of rival fans keeps us honest. At the very least, it provides us with an opportunity to do a critical examination of our own teams with less influence from our natural biases.