As far as the suspensions go, the buck stops with NHL Senior Executive Vice President of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell. At the end of the day, the buck stop with him. In instances where the Panthers are involved, Mike Murphy takes over (Campbell's right hand man) because Colin's son plays for Florida…

But let’s look at a deeper problem – there are too many instances where an attempt/intent to injure is clearly evident. This means the punishments are not adequate to deter the conduct. AS an example let’s look at the recent LaRaque suspension – though I don’t do this to single him out.

The Habs use LaRaque as an intimidating force – one that provides some benefit to them. The Habs have a series of quick but small players that can be the target of substantial physical play, and the Habs want a credible threat on the bench (or in later games) that can counter that play. Despite his weak offensive skills (still not nearly as bad as Brashear), this is clearly a net benefit to the Habs, and I think most real hockey fans understand this and can live with this. It’s the deliberate injury stuff that has to go.

So here is the problem. A five game suspension is just not very costly to the Habs. While LaRacque is lost as a physical force for five games, he will still be available to come back and retaliate in subsequent games against those that play physically against the Habs while he is out (e.g. he remains a credible threat down the line), and the Habs will also have the option the replace LaRaque on the roster with another heavy. Not so hard to do, since there are plenty of heavies, and LaRacque brings little skill otherwise that needs replacement.

Given that the cost of LaRaque’s dirty play to the team, does not exceded the benefit of his presence, the punishments (suspension) don’t deter him (or others) from engaging in questionable play. This is why LaRaques current suspension is his sixth in three years. Let’s not even talk about Brashear.

Some have suggested a solution to the problem may be to cut the NHL roster size, eliminating the luxury of a fourth ‘goon’ line. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/113422-creating-controversy-reducing-nhl-roster-sizes. This strikes me as a non-starter. Only three forward lines will slow the game materially – more line changes will be needed, and the play will simply be slower – something the NHL has clearly indicated it will not do (this is the sport’s key advantage over others).

But there a concept here to explore. I thnk the NHL needs to revisit how punishments are meted out when the league determines there was a deliberate attempt to injure. First, the offender should have to sit a minimum of three games, enough to require the team to rethink its lines. Beyond the three games, the offender should be required to sit as long as the player he injured is out. This seems like an equitable thing to do.

But now comes the real kicker. During the first N games of the suspension (N being at the descretion of the league), the team’s roster gets cut to 22 players. That creates a significant headache for the team, but doesn’t profoundly disadvantage them too much in actual game play. Realistically, the roster cut would not be for too long – perhaps 1-3 games, or perhaps up to five. This would pick up the team’s incentive to self-police its wrongdoers – which in my book is almost always the way to go.

For me, shoulders to the head should be illegal and I don’t think that would water down hitting or the game. It might make guys learn to hip check but blows to the head need be to vastly lessened for sure.

As for the Ruutu thing, I just think the punishments need to be honest deterrents, not slaps on the wrist. I mean, 3 games is nothing. We need to start getting to 5-7 games as a basic suspension if something so out of line happens.