"It is not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of correctness," said Stu Jackson, NBA executive vice president, "and this is the right decision at this point of time."

And thus, even though the Spurs' Robert Horry was the only one who actually committed violence, it will be the Phoenix Suns whose roster will be seriously harmed for Game 5, and the Spurs came out ahead.

I certainly won't be the only one looking at NBA and NHL discipline side-by-side today; it's appropriate. My main take is that while justice administered arbitrarily is hardly worthy of its name -- the Colin Campbell Wheel of Justice^TM ain't a term of endearment -- neither is justice administered by formula.

My objection to the Wheel has never been that seemingly similar transgressions have been punished differently, but rather how difficult it is to glean what criteria are used and how they are weighed. If that seems a little fuzzy, read on.

Since criminal law has thousands of years of history on supplementary discipline in pro sports, and about infinity times more scholarship, I think it's instructive to look at theories of criminal punishment if we're trying to voice an intelligent objection to the way the NHL and NBA go about their businesses. From everybody's 2nd-favourite website (behind imdb.com), Wikipedia:

There are five main goals of criminal justice: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restitution. Jurisdictions differ on the value to be placed on each, if any at all.

So let's look at the jurisdiction that is the NHL, shall we?

Incapacitation: setting aside other factors, a serial killer needs to be locked up so that he can't kill more innocent people. There's not really an NHL analogue to this. I know that every so often in Junior B or minor pro leagues, a player is "banned" in part for this reason. However, I know of no NHL precedent where a player was given a long or indefinite suspension expressly for the protection of other players.

Rehabilitation: likewise. Sending a hockey player to anger management classes or some such thing just isn't analogous to the objective -- however effective it might be -- of transforming a criminal into a productive member of society, via education/therapy/whatever.

Deterrence: this is an obvious aim of NHL Supplementary Discipline, both individual deterrence ("maybe this'll make you think twice before you crosscheck someone in the face again") and general deterrence ("any of you other clowns want to try something similar, be aware that this is what'll happen to you"). The rough consensus among fans and media seems to be that the NHL doesn't do enough in this regard. I don't really want to get into it, but I will note this sentence from the Wikipedia article, which is consistent with everything else I've read on the subject of general(e.g. death penalty scholarship): "While of useful rhetoric value, studies do not generally suggest increasing penalties for a specific offence reduces the commission of that offence."

Retribution: this is the other primary aim of NHL S.D., and please don't confuse it with revenge. It's simply the idea that, regardless of other considerations, offenders ought to suffer consequences for their misdeeds. It appeals to our general sense of right and wrong (fairness), as thinking humans.

Clearly these two factors -- deterrence and retribution -- are what is weighed when the NHL considers supplementary discipline. And for the record, I think (conceptually) it is entirely appropriate and just. I strongly disagree with the segment of the fans/media who argue -- generally in the aftermath of a suspension that seems too short -- that there ought to be specific penalties for specific acts, period. (In other words, that sentencing should be all or mostly about deterrence: you get 10 games for doing X, 3 games for doing Y, etc.)

Mandatory minimums and zero tolerance can sound great in theory, but they have less than illustrious histories, and too often result in situations that are patently unjust. You get a schoolkid being expelled for bringing a butter knife in this lunch to put cream cheese on his bagel, or suspended for popping a Tylenol. And you get the NBA VP admitting that, "Hey, it's brutally unfair, but rules are rules."

The other problem with this is that when you give the act (e.g. hitting someone from behind) more weight, you necessarily give the consequences (e.g. whether the victim is injured, and how badly) less weight. That to me is unjust.

Take Jordin Tootoo, Scott Nichol, and Todd Bertuzzi. All were guilty recently of comparable (if not identical) offenses: sucker punching a guy in the back of the head. Tootoo got no suspension; Nichol got 9 games; and Bertuzzi got the most severe suspension in the history of the NHL.

I will listen to arguments that the exact length of any of these suspensions was inappropriate. However, you will never convince me that enraging Ryan Clowe (and receiving a proper beating in return) deserves the same punishment as breaking Steve Moore's neck. It is proper and just that Todd Bertuzzi was made to pay a higher price than Scott Nichol (Jaro Spacek was back the next game).

The other end of this spectrum is "eye-for-an-eye", which is also unjust. While (per the previous few paragraphs) I think it's fair for a backchecker who breaks another player's wrist with a slash to suffer greater consequences than someone who does not cause an injury, it stretches the bounds of justice too far to punish 99 versions of a bad act with a two-minute minor and the 100th with a two-month suspension.

This segues somewhat into the 5th principle, which is Restitution. Generally speaking (e.g. in the regular season), it is impractical to impossible to make restitution an element of NHL discipline. If Andrew Ference breaks Ryan Smyth's ankle with a slash, there is nothing the NHL can do -- or force the Bruins to do -- to compensate the Islanders for their loss. Suspending Ference doesn't really help the Islanders -- no more than the rest of the Eastern Conference, anyway.

Even in the playoffs, what are you going to do? Brad May dropped Kim Johnsson like a bag of dirt in G4 of Ducks/Wild, and was suspended for the rest of the series, but as everyone noted, this was not a fair trade-off. It seems like there should be something that the NHL could do to balance things out better, but I don't know what. (Suggestions?) You can't suspend Innocent 3rd-Party Scott Niedermayer; while it would better balance out the Wild's loss of Johnsson, he didn't do anything. (And further, that wouldn't just affect the balance of that series; it could have implications on Niedermayer's future earnings and legacy.)

Apparently, the NHL will be conducting a hearing on Chris Pronger this afternoon. I'm guessing that he'll receive a 1-game suspension, mainly on the basis of deterrence (in short: you just can't go around smashing people's heads from behind into the boards, particularly when you're pissed off because you're getting your ass handed to you). The need for retribution and restitution is (thankfully) minimal, as Holmstrom was not seriously injured (and has also apparently shrugged it off already).

I realize this post has been long and windy, so I hope there's something of interest in here for everyone. I think Colin Campbell could be better at his job, but I wouldn't want it myself, and don't envy him. If there's two things I hope readers take away, these are them:

1. It is just and proper that NHL supplementary discipline is evaluated case-by-case and takes everything into account: the act, the injury (if any), the situation. While the NHL VP's best judgement seems crappy sometimes, the alternatives are worse.
2. Next time you're reacting to a light suspension for a dangerous hit, and are tempted to say, "It shouldn't matter that the guy wasn't injured", ask yourself if you honestly believe that (say) paralyzing someone isn't grounds for more severe punishment.

I suspect this whole piece will need a coda or follow-up; we'll see.