Both were reckless, dangerous plays that need to be eradicated from the game. So why does one not result in a suspension?
Here's why, according to @TSNBobMcKenzie:
Why Ovie was suspended, Downie not? U won't like it, but it's one word - injury. If Crosby injured, Downie sits. If Campbell not, Ovie playsI have a problem with that. I always have. I remember during the whole Todd Bertuzzi episode thinking that if Steve Moore was not seriously injured, not much would have happened. And that I had seen far worse incidents go undisciplined simply because the victim was somehow not seriously hurt.
In that same season as the Bertuzzi incident I remember Doug Weight deliberately deliver a vicious cross-check to the face of Henrik Sedin. Somehow Henrik got up and walked away, but why was Weight, like Downie several years later, not disciplined?
If you want to truly eliminate dangerous behaviour on the ice, you need to punish those who commit fouls even if somehow there was no injury as a result of the act.
Everyone always calls for a revamping of the NHL discipline system, but no one ever comes up with a reasonable new standard. Suspended as long as the player is injured? Not going to happen. Revoke the instigator rule and allow the players to settle things on the ice? Also not going to happen.
I do not know the answer, either. But I do know I want to see changes that eliminate reckless players, whether they injure someone or not.