CBA School: Article 18 – Supplementary Discipline for On-Ice Conduct

Photo credit:Sergei Belski / USA Today Sports

4 years ago

Friends, now we’re onto a part of the CBA that we’re all very familiar with thanks to the protracted Dennis Wideman proceedings.

Let’s jump into Article 18: Supplementary Discipline for On-Ice Conduct.

What it is

Section 18.2 does a really nice job of laying out the goals of supplemental discipline, so we’re just going to quote it directly:

It is the parties’ intention to impose Supplementary Discipline for On-Ice Conduct in a swift, effective and consistent manner with respect to conduct proscribed by League Playing Rules, including the use of excessive and unnecessary force and reckless acts resulting in injury. In doing so, however, the parties do not intend to alter the basic fabric of our game. In deciding on Supplementary Discipline for On-Ice Conduct, the following factors will be taken into account:
(a) The type of conduct involved: conduct in violation of League Playing Rules, and
whether the conduct is intentional or reckless, and involves the use of excessive and unnecessary force. Players are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
(b) Injury to the opposing Player(s) involved in the incident.
(c) The status of the offender and, specifically, whether the Player has a history of
being subject to Supplementary Discipline for On-Ice Conduct. Players who repeatedly violate League Playing Rules will be more severely punished for each new violation.
(d) The situation of the game in which the incident occurred, for example: late in the game, lopsided score, prior events in the game.
(e) Such other factors as may be appropriate in the circumstances.

Now, before we get into the rest of this section, let’s just reiterate: the Department of Player Safety reviews just about everything.

How it works

As soon as the game ends, Player Safety conducts its initial review of any notable incidents (Section 18.3). They review all available video plus reports from the officials, officiating managers, and any relevant medical information from the teams involved. (The preference is to have an assessment from a doctor rather than just the team’s assessment, if possible.)

The league is allowed to conduct a phone investigation with interviews with players and non-players, as long as the NHLPA is given advance notice and a “reasonable opportunity to participate.” Findings from any investigative interviews are to be written up into a report and provided to the NHLPA.

But basically, the league does a preliminary review of any incident they feels merits it.

Disciplinary options

Once the preliminary review is complete, per Section 18.5, the league has some options as to how it wishes to proceed:

No discipline needed.
A fine. (For fines over $5,000, the player has a right to a phone hearing.)
A suspension of up to five games, for which the player has a right to a phone hearing.
A suspension of six or more games, for which the player has a right to an in-person hearing.

The player has the choice between in-person or a phone hearing, but any hearing cannot be more than two days after the incident and the player cannot play while waiting for a pending hearing. Once a decision has been made that there will be a disciplinary hearing, the player, their team and the NHLPA will be informed.

It’s worth noting that “no discipline” doesn’t necessarily mean that a player making a borderline play that doesn’t merit a fine won’t get a phone call from somebody from the league telling them to calm it down. (We’re not saying which Flames this has happened to, but probably Matthew Tkachuk.)

Fined “the maximum amount allowed under the CBA”

One of the most common phrases in disciplinary press releases is the phrase that a player has been fined “the maximum amount allowed under the CBA.” So what does that mean?

Well, per Section 18.7(b), a player’s fine can be up to 50% of their daily NHL salary (excluding bonuses) – in other words, their NHL salary divided by the number of days in the season (at least 184) – and cannot exceed $10,000 for the first fine and $15,000 for any subsequent fine over any 12 month period.

If you’re making league minimum ($700,000), your maximum fine is $1,900. A player would need to be making $3.6 million for the CBA fine maximum to approach $10,000. Fines over $5,000 also have the right to a phone hearing. Players with fines aren’t considered repeat offenders. In other words: fines are very much a slap on the wrist.

Hearings

The procedures for phone and in-person hearings are laid out in Sections 18.8 and 18.9. Basically, the league walks the player through why they’re leaning a certain way and the player and the NHLPA get a chance to protest and get the discipline reduced.

As soon as the league makes a determination, they’ll inform the player, team and NHLPA before they make a media release.

Appeals

Here’s where the fun starts.

Within 48 hours of being told of the league’s determination, the NHLPA can file an appeal (Section 18.12). If the suspension is five games or fewer, the Commissioner can either have a hearing (telephone or in person) or just decide without one that the ruling stands – and then the whole process is over, as the Commissioner’s ruling is final in shorter suspensions. (Any such hearings will be held “on an expedited basis.”) The Commissioner’s gig is just to ensure that the initial suspension is supported by the evidence.

If the suspension is six games or more, there’s an in person hearing. If the suspension is upheld by the Commissioner and is still six games or more, then the NHLPA can file an appeal to the Neutral Discipline Arbitrator (Section 18.13). The appeal has to be filed within seven days of the Commissioner’s determination. An in person hearing is held in an expedited manner. The arbitrator “shall have the authority to consider any evidence relating to the incident” even if such evidence was not available at the time of the initial hearing or the Commissioner’s review. Their authority is final and binding.

Forfeiture of salary

When players get suspended, their forfeit salary. Section 18.15 gets into how it works, and it’s actually kind of smart.

For the first suspension in a rolling 18 month period, the salary forfeited formula involves losing a day’s pay for each game suspended. Five game suspension? Five days pay lost (even if the five games missed are over a lengthier period). If you’re making $2 million, for example, that’s $54,347 of forfeited salary over a 184 day season.

For those with repeated suspensions in that rolling 18 month period, the salary forfeited involves losing salary per game. Five game suspension? Five games lost pay. And since there are fewer games than days in a season, it’s a bigger hit to the wallet. The same suspension noted above would involve $121,951 of salary lost for a repeat offender.

Public comment

Per Section 18.18, public criticism of supplementary discipline could be itself subject to… supplementary discipline for off-ice conduct (“Other Commissioner Discipline” under Article 18-A)!

Uncategorized