I just wanted to post this video. Great game tonight, guys. I don't know if I'll be able to watch game seven. Heading out to California for a week or so.

Why should we be surprised?

Just when I thought some justice would finally be handed down by the League against a Bruins opponent, the NHL front office did what it's best at doing which is completely ignoring their own rule book and ignoring all common sense whatsoever. The reason that the NHL is a joke and is only followed by the common man at playoff time is because of the disgusting incidents (like Sunday night at the Bruins game) and the NHL's disgraceful response (like a small fine for a blatant sucker-punch).

Warning: This is not for the figure skating fan...



So the response from the Bruins Sunday night and the responses from every NHL analyst on the planet seemed to indicate that they felt a suspension was not only coming, but pretty much inevitable. Even the Carolina coach admitted he thought he'd get fined, stating in a press conference, "I might have to sell my truck." So what do Colin Campbell and Gary Bettman do? They not only choose not to suspend Walker for the extended five to ten games as everyone outside of Raleigh felt was due, but in their infinite wisdom Colin and Gary actually took back the automatic one-game suspension that Walker earned by committing an instigator penalty in the last five minutes of the game.

Here's the actual rule:

"47.22 Fines and Suspensions – Instigator in Final Five Minutes of Regulation Time (or Anytime in Overtime) - A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5) minutes of regulation time or at anytime in overtime, shall automatically be suspended for one game. The Director of Hockey Operations will review every such incident and may rescind the suspension based on a number of criteria. The criteria for the review shall include, but not limited to, the score, previous incidents, etc. The length of suspension will double for each subsequent offense. This suspension shall be served in addition to any other automatic suspensions a player may incur for an accumulation of three or more instigator penalties.

When the one-game suspension is imposed, the Coach shall be fined $10,000 – a fine that will double for each subsequent incident.

No team appeals will be permitted either verbally or in writing regarding the assessment of this automatic suspension."

The league lists criteria for review and possible rescintion (they state that there could be more, but you'd expect some reasoning if they went completely beyond outside of the rule). Both are valid reasons, but neither apply.

Score of the game - The league realizes that if the game is tied or close and the outcome is not yet determined, a player taking and instigator penalty may actually be just acting in the passion of the moment and still competing to win the game. In this case, a suspension may not be worthy. In Game 5, the score was 4-0 Bruins and the outcome was decided. The physical play that erupted from the 'Canes at the end of the third period was that of a team frustrated that they failed, not a team passionately trying to win. This instance of no suspension is not met.

Previous incidents - Another place where a suspension would not be just is when a completely innocent player normally is again just caught in the moment and acting out of character. You'd expect this to be applied to a player who's never been even in question of a suspension in the past and/or a player who may be just on the side of a scrum and not trying to instigate anything. Scott Walker has already been suspended once in his career for head butting another player. He also was the third man in to an offsetting roughing pair. This instance of no suspension also not met.

The problem with rescinding an automatic suspension is that you are completely screwing over your on ice disciplinarians. It's not like the referee that made the instigator, fighting, and misconduct penalty call was on the fence about giving a suspension. The referees read the rule book, too, and there is no doubt in my mind that that referee thought, after watching the whole game, knowing the situation the best, that Scott Walker was deserving of at lease a one game suspension for that sucker-punch. Overturning this is as bad if not worse than the NBA releasing a statement saying a ref missed an intentional foul call.

Still, after meeting with Walker, having Walker saying that he thought by Ward and Cullen being in a gloves-on scrum that meant that him and Ward were involved in an altercation to the point where he dropped gloves and hit Ward, Colin Campbell ruled that this was not suspension-worthy.

However, if Ward had been trying to start a fight and had skated at Walker at full speed and Walker had hit him in the side of the helmet with a gloved hand, then Colin would definitely have suspended him for a game. (See: Lucic v. Lapierre)