Can somebody explain the logic

Posted Mar 7, 2006 by Erik Erlendsson

Updated Mar 7, 2006 at 02:43 PM

OK, word floating around the Lightning today is that Evgeny Artyukhin will receive a two-game suspension for his actions Monday against Ottawa. In case you missed it, Artyukhin took the helmet off the head of Ottawa’s Antoine Vermette and struck Vermette in the head with the helmet. This occurred late in the second period when Artyukhin checked Vermette into the boards along the Lightning bench. A shoving match ensued in which Artyukhin was jumped by three Senators’ and Artyukhin had a momentary lapse off reason. Artyukhin was given a five-minute major and a match penalty for intent to injure which automatically calls for a review by the league.

Were Artyukhin’s actions worthy of a suspension?

Absolutely. You can not take use a helmet as a weapon. I don’t care what the circumstances are it is not acceptable and it is cleary an attempt to injure on purpose.

But I wish somebody from the league office would give me a call and explain something to me.

You see, a precedent was already set earlier this year when Toronto’s Darcy Tucker did a similar act. A quick refresher - Tucker was involved in a fight with New Jersey’s Cam Janssen in December and had Janssen’s helmet in his hand during the altercation and struck his opponent, not once, but twice in the head with the helmet. Tucker was given a five-minute major for headbutting and ejected from the game. But when Colin Campbell reviewed the incident, Tucker did not receive a suspension, only a fine of $2,500.

Campbell’s statement at the time: “We did not feel it was Tucker’s intent to hurt Janssen with the helmet,” Campbell said. “He was trying to get the helmet off and I don’t think he was trying to use it as a weapon.’‘

Are you serious? One time is an accident, a second time is intent. Yet Tucker, who plays in the town and in the same building in which the league offices are housed, was given a slap on the wrist. And this is a guy who has been subject to suspensions and questionable actions in the past. He has a history.

Artyukhin has a clean slate. He has not been the subject of league discipline at any point this season. Yet for an offense similar to Tucker’s, Artyukhin gets the more severe ruling.

This just offers up more proof that the league doesn’t get it in many ways. There is no consistency to their thinking. While every incident has to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, the punishment has to fit the crime. Again, Artyukhin probably deserves a suspension for his actions. But when weighed against the actions of Tucker and compared to the league’s decision, it just doesn’t make sense.

So please, can somebody let me know what is going on?