The Ottawa Knee Rules are fantastic. They’re a list of five simple tests to do on someone with a knee injury that identifies the need for an x-ray. You’ve fallen and whacked your knee, and it hurts like stink. If any of the following are true, you probably have a fracture and need an x-ray: You’re older than 55, your kneecap (and nothing else) hurts to touch, the top of your fibula (one of those lower leg bones) hurts, you can’t bend your knee to 90 degrees, or you can’t bear weight on the leg for four steps. The Ottawa Knee Rules have been tested to show 100% sensitivity (OH GROSS STATISTICS MAKE IT STOP), meaning that 100% of the people it identifies as needing an x-ray due to a possible fracture really do actually have a fracture.
Medicine loves a good algorithm. And good medicine can combine algorithms to solve the problem at hand using the same methods and hopefully yielding the same results each time. In a moment of post-West coast playoff game brain fog, I began to wonder why you couldn’t apply an algorithm to supplemental discipline, as opposed to the current method of whatever the hell it is they’re using (Alchemy? Dice? Majority vote in a room full of toddlers?).
Uh, what’s an algorithm?
It’s a fancy way of saying a list of steps used to solve a problem. It’s shaking the remote, whacking it, then changing the batteries when it won’t change the channel. It’s realizing the milk expired a few days ago, sniffing it, tasting it, then grudgingly going to the store for more. The advantage of well thought-out algorithms is that they tend to be very sensitive, and they yield reproducible results.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Was that statistics again?
Yes. And I hate statistics as much as you do. Probably more. The point is that an algorithm worth a damn will deliver the correct results in certain situations (ie. identify a fractured knee) every time you use it.
I’m bored, you’d better connect this to hockey ASAP.
If you could come up with an algorithm for punishing a bad hit in a hockey game, and used it every single time, you’d come up with consistent punishment every time.
I have to stop here and point out I’ve made several (currently laughable) assumptions. I’m assuming the NHL has an interest in punishing all offenders equally, whether their name is Shea Weber or Andrew Shaw. I’m assuming the NHL has an interest in sending a message to offenders that bad hits won’t be tolerated, and that repeat offenders REALLY won’t be tolerated. I’m assuming that the NHLPA, GMs and owners are willing to lose time and money and appearances by their star players. I’m assuming all of that, and wondering just how hard it would be to write an algorithm for each situation requiring supplemental discipline.
Can we try?
Sure. Proceeding with the understanding that there are a variety of situations that require supplemental discipline (and thus likely the need for a variety of different algorithms), let’s just pick one. Let’s pick illegal checks to the head. As a refresher:
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted. However, in determining whether such a hit should have been permitted, the circumstances of the hit, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit or the head contact on an otherwise legal body check was avoidable, can be considered.
48.5 Match Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent with an illegal check to the head.
If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion.
Step 1: The Hit
Player A hits player B in the head (from behind, after the puck is gone, after the whistle, etc). The referee decides this was a bad play and assesses a match penalty. Player A stomps off to the locker room. Player B is or is not injured.
Step 2: Pick your algorithm
This is where the is/is not injured comes into play. As such, here comes another assumption. I’m going to assume supplemental discipline is influenced by whether or not an injury results from the play. Before the screaming starts in earnest, consider the following: Criminal prosecution is influenced by the outcome of the crime. If I punch you in the face and all it did was piss you off, I wouldn’t be charged with the same thing as if I punched you in the face and put you in a coma. No, I’m not going to punch you in the face. Medical algorithms are also dependent upon the severity of the situation. If your knee hurts and you pass Ottawa Knee Rules, I’m giving you naproxen and sending you home. If your knee hurts and you fail Ottawa Knee Rules, I’m sending you to radiology.
Another assumption regarding injuries is that the doctors diagnosing the injury are operating solely in the best interest of the patient. That is to say that they would be completely impartial and disregard any inappropriate diagnosis/treatment (or non-diagnosis/treatment) suggestions from GM, coach, league, player, etc. All physicians should be impartial. That’s their job. That’s also completely untrue. Physicians don’t always do what’s in the patient’s best interest, choosing (or being forced to choose) what’s in the best interest of their employer, themself, or some other entity. The assumption of impartial diagnosis and treatment isn’t ridiculous if an injury is obvious – a broken bone is a broken bone. It’s a difficult assumption when it comes to concussions. You can’t diagnose a concussion with a blood test, they don’t show up on x-rays or CT scans, and a large part of their diagnosis is based on what the patient claims to be experiencing. A truly determined individual could fake their way into or out of a concussion. Neuropsych testing is a great tool, but it’s only one aspect of concussion management.
Step 2 (for real this time): Pick your algorithm
Let’s say Player B has a broken nose as a result of the hit. Supplemental discipline heads down the path of the head hit/injured algorithm.
Head hit: 1 game + monetary fine. (baseline suspension)
- Minor? Player in question likely to miss one week of play? Add a game + fine (player).
- Moderate? Player will miss up to a month? Five games + fine (player).
- Major? Season is threatened? Ten games + fine (player and team).
- First time repeat: Add three games + fine (player and team).
- Two or more infractions this season: Ten games + fine (player and team).
The games or fines I’ve suggested aren’t important. The levels would have to be set through agreement with GMs, NHLPA, league, etc. The point is to have a defined procedure.
Step 3: Do this every single time
Step 4: Complaints (because I know you have some)
*Consistent being a relative term because, again, we’re human, so 100% consistency is impossible.