The National Hockey League’s Department of Player Safety is the division charged with reviewing on-ice infractions, assessing supplemental discipline, and educating players on what is considered unsafe in an effort to lower the risk of injury during a game.
Prior to the formation of the Department of Player Safety (DoPS) in 2011, supplemental discipline for on-ice infractions was handled by Hockey Operations. Teams would mail the NHL’s then-Executive Vice President and Director of Hockey Operations Brian Burke VHS tapes of incidents they felt should be reviewed. When Damian Echevarrieta, current Vice President of Player Safety and Hockey Operations, came to the NHL in 1999, he assembled a makeshift room with a number of televisions and VCRs to record games. At the conclusion of those games, staffers were able to review any incidents from the night. Any incidents would be sent from the NHL’s New York offices to the offices in Toronto for Burke’s successor, Colin Campbell, to review. In describing the first iteration of the DoPS, Echevarrieta said: “my first year, we rigged a satellite dish in a corner conference room pointing out the window of the 46th floor and ran wires through the ceiling to our makeshift video room.”
In 2011, the NHL separated player safety from Hockey Operations and created the Department of Player Safety. Commissioner Gary Bettman announced the establishment of the DoPS saying, “I am creating effective after this season a new Department of Player Safety which will be headed by Senior Vice President of Player Safety and Hockey Operations, Brendan Shanahan. In this revised role, Brendan will be responsible for developing rules related to better protecting our players without changing the fundamental nature of our game, dealing with equipment and safety issues related to equipment, and pursuant to a request made by Colin Campbell, Brendan will administer commissioner supplemental discipline.”
Get The Latest NHL Tech News In Your Inbox!
. . . . .
The DoPS is based out of the twelfth floor of the NHL’s offices in New York. The room where Player Safety is stationed features twelve high-definition televisions, along with workstations that all together utilize ten monitors. On these screens, the home and away feeds of every broadcast are streamed live. Both broadcasts are viewed to limit bias from either broadcast’s commentators. At present, this office consists of Senior Vice President of Player Safety Stephane Quintal, Vice President of Player Safety Damian Echevarrieta, Director of Player Safety Patrick Burke, manager Evan Rand, and coordinators Michael Grover, Peter Livera, Chris Nastro, and Paul Treyman. Former NHL player Chris Pronger reviews for the DoPS from his home in St. Louis. Hall of Famer Pat LaFontaine advises unofficially for the DoPS as well.
In the DoPS office, not only are incidents that may require supplemental discipline reported, but accidental and clean collisions as well. Also noted are whether a team’s broadcast accurately identifies rules to ensure fans are receiving the correct information. All together, more than 800 clips were reviewed during the 2011-2012 season.
Key factors considered when analyzing a questionable play that could result in a suspension from the NHL’s Department of Player Safety are: what happened in this particular instance, whether or not an injury resulted, the supplemental discipline history of the player, and when the player in question’s team plays next.
Patrick Burke explained how repeat offenders are assessed when determining supplemental discipline: “We have a sense of, ‘Are you doing the same things over and over? Are you learning from what we’re trying to tell you?’ If you have a borderline boarding suspension, and then you come back three years later, you’ve never been suspended again, and you have a borderline, whatever, rule 48 suspension, they’re very different plays. It’s not ‘Oh, this guy isn’t getting it.’ So a large portion of what we do here is trying to change player behavior. Trying to be proactive, reach out to guys, and, if we feel a player isn’t learning from what we’re trying to teach him, then, yeah, we’ll hit him harder.”
What penalties, if any, were assessed on the ice are also factored into the decision-making process. On the penalties called on these infractions, Echevarrieta said: “[regardless of what the call is on the ice, we look at every play on its own merit, no matter if there was a penalty called on the ice or not.”
The DoPS must look at whether an injury resulted from the play in question, because the CBA mandates that this be a consideration in determining supplemental discipline. However, an injury does not determine whether or not a player is suspended. Shanahan explained: “I had a player who asked me, ‘If I hit a guy clean, but he gets hurt and I have a history, am I gonna get suspended?’ And I said ‘no.’ The presence of an injury does not make a legal hit illegal. However, if there is an illegal hit, the lack of injury will not exonerate you. But the presence of an injury will get you more games.” Another DoPS-related note in the CBA is a rule barring teams and general managers from contacting the DoPS to lobby or complain about an incident until 48 hours after the infraction.
Also considered is whether the players involved have any prior history that form a narrative that indicates additional discipline is necessary. The context can help the DoPS understand the motive of the player who commits the act. Similar instances are also looked at for comparison, so DoPS is able to follow its own precedents and maintain consistency.
All reviewable incidents are entered into software that clips the broadcast, allowing the play to be reviewed frame-by-frame. Each play that is clipped is reviewed by the DoPS. With this software, it can be determined to a tenth of a second how long after a player releases the puck that a hit takes place (the NHL defines a late hit if it is 0.6 to 0.7 seconds after a player does not have the puck). By reviewing footage frame-by-frame, the DoPS can see the main point of contact during a collision within a fraction of an inch.
That footage is sent via email to the members of the DoPS, with all feedback being sent back to Quintal. Quintal requires that those analyzing send him an email back without replying to all partaking in the decision to ensure independent judgements. After everyone submits their opinions all those involved debate to come to a final decision. Quintal has the final say over the discipline after listening to the considerations raised by those involved in the decision making process. Decisions can range from a warning to a fine, hearing (which likely would result in a suspension), or no action.
Once the DoPS determines whether or not to discipline a player for an incident, a video is published by the NHL with an explanation of the decision. Commissioner Bettman introduced these videos when Shanahan took over the Department. These videos explain exactly where a play went wrong in an effort to educate the players and fans, as well as hold the player in question accountable for their actions.
The NHL and DoPS intend to be as transparent as possible with the teams, players, and fans, and these videos provide the best opportunity for the DoPS to do so. “When we’re on the fence about a play, we’ll often say, ‘Can we make a video explaining why we’re suspending this guy?’ And if the answer is no, then we don’t suspend. To have to actually prove with the video, with the money shot, with the exact spot shadow, with the exact rules, it really keeps us honest and consistent with past rulings,” Echevarrieta explained.
. . . . .
Supplementary discipline is less frequent in the Stanley Cup Playoffs than the regular season, as playoff games are seen as more critical. A suspension that would occur in the playoffs typically is shorter than the same suspension would be had it occurred in the regular season––one playoff game is generally equivalent to three regular season games. The DoPS had to act twice in the second round of the 2016 Stanley Cup Playoffs, in the series between the Washington Capitals and Pittsburgh Penguins.
First, Capitals’ defenseman Brooks Orpik was suspended three games for a late hit to the head of defenseman Olli Maatta of the Penguins. Burke, who narrated the NHL’s video explaining the suspension, stated: “this hit is forceful, unacceptably high and excessively late,” adding that “no player should reasonably expect to be hit at this time and in this manner.” Also considered in the decision to suspend was the fact that Maatta left the game after the hit and did not return to the game. Additionally, Orpik has been suspended twice in his career prior to this instance, although he has not been suspended since the 2005-06 season. Orpik originally only received a two minute minor for interference for the hit on Maatta.
Orpik acknowledged his wrongdoing after the suspension was announced, saying “it was intended to be a hard hit, definitely not at his head but I don’t think there is anything that you can argue that it was definitely late. I think that was pretty black and white. I said that during my hearing yesterday. So, I’m just disappointed. It’s a split-second decision you make and I just gotta live with it.”
The next game, Penguins’ defenseman Kris Letang hit Marcus Johansson, and was penalized on the ice with a minor for interference. Letang’s hit resulted in a one game suspension being handed down by the DoPS. Unlike in Orpik’s case, Johansson was not injured on the play, though he briefly left the game after hit.
Another major difference between the incidents was the lateness of the hits. Both hits were considered to be late; Letang’s hit came 0.63 seconds after Johansson released the puck while Orpik hit Maatta a full second after he took a shot, which is “excessively late” according to the NHL. Had Letang’s hit been considered charging, he would have seen harsher discipline. However, the DoPS attributed Letang leaving his feet during the hit to the force of the collision. Additionally, the head was not the “main point of contact.” Instead, the infraction was only considered to be interference.
While many viewed the infractions as similar since both did hit the head of the opposing player and both saw an interference minor on the ice, the difference in injury and lateness were the distinguishing factors. Letang’s prior history with the DoPS was not for interference, rather it was for a different type of infraction. Thus, it did not impact the discipline as much as it would have had it been for the same infraction.
. . . . .
The DoPS is looking to do more than just punish unfavorable plays, but to change the behavior and culture of the game. Therefore, it is imperative that the DoPS educate players on what is suspendable, which is why players who are not suspended but did something questionable are often warned and are made to understand the ramifications of these types of infractions.
Shanahan saw the potential for the DoPS to change the culture of the NHL by penalizing unsafe plays, but he also acknowledged that the process would take time. “We understand that when you’re trying to make a big change in a game in which things have been done a certain way for a long time and there are constantly new players coming in, I think that it takes a while.”
Many feel that DoPS is plagued by inconsistency. Fans often point to the DoPS video library to implicate the DoPS for being inconsistent. For example, some fans were upset over the discrepancy in Orpik’s and Letang’s suspensions, since both were suspended for an interference penalty. However, these instances were in fact different under the NHL’s rules, but that is often overlooked by fans who are unsatisfied by DoPS’s decision. The alternative to the current process would be the imposition of a uniform suspension, which would eliminate the consideration of context of the incident.
While the league may need to increase its efforts to alleviate concerns regarding inconsistency, changing the system in favor of a uniform suspension model would be problematic since most instances are unique. Considering the narrative is important because players may have been looking to injure someone on the opposing team, and planned the incident in advance.
Prior history is crucial because it can help indicate whether a player has learned from his past infractions. And the exact mechanisms of a play are imperative to look at, because the slightest movement can change what rule is broken. The DoPS may not be perfectly consistent, but before making that judgement the rules need to be fully understood, and the alternatives to a flexible disciplinary scale must be fully considered.
No fan will be completely satisfied with the DoPS because of the effects of league discipline on their team, but that is not why the department is in place; rather, it exists to protect the players on the ice by penalizing those who put other players at risk and educating players on how to conduct themselves on the ice.
As Echevarrieta said, “It’s the Department of Player Safety, not the department of punishment. We’re trying to change their behavior. Our perfect season would not be a hundred suspensions, where we show everybody we’re in charge. It would be no suspensions, where players aren’t breaking any rules.”