EmailPrintOpen Extended ReactionsChris Pronger has a unique perspective on NHL player safety. In hockey disciplinary terms, he's like an inmate that eventually became a warden at the prison."I got suspended eight times as a player. I got a phone call [from the NHL] probably 12 times, I think. It was a large number. It was double digits," he told ESPN last week.During his Hockey Hall of Fame career, Pronger was suspended for slashing, high sticking, leaving the bench for a fight, hits to the head, kicking and perhaps most infamously stepping on Vancouver's Ryan Kesler with his skate, which earned him an eight-game suspension.But in 2014, Pronger was hired by the NHL Department of Player Safety as one of several voices to opine on potential suspensions and fines, serving for almost three years. He was still under contract to the Philadelphia Flyers at that point, despite last playing in the 2011-12 season. He recused himself from situations involving the Flyers, and later the Arizona Coyotes when his contract was traded there.He has seen the NHL disciplinary process from both sides of the table -- a process that has come under major scrutiny from fans, media, agents and some current players this season after a handful of controversial rulings."Players and fans deserve better. The Player Safety Department should be suspended," said Judd Moldaver, executive vice president of The Team agency and Auston Matthews' agent, after Anaheim's Radko Gudas was given a five-game suspension for ending the Toronto star's season with a knee-on-knee hit."If every time there's a suspension, everybody complains about it, well, why don't we take a look at the process and figure out if there's a better way to make sure both parties are happy? Because it seems like there's a lot of frustration there," Edmonton star Connor McDavid said after the Gudas hearing.We asked Pronger his thoughts on the past, present and future of player safety in the NHL, as the former star defenseman promotes "Earned: The True Cost of Greatness from One of Hockey's Fiercest Competitors," his new book scheduled for release April 14.You worked in the NHL Department of Player Safety for three years. What surprised you most about how discipline was determined after being on the other end of it as a player?The process had changed a fair amount. In the beginning, it was Brian Burke running it. Then Colin Campbell did it. Then Brendan Shanahan went in and set up the Department of Player Safety. When I worked there, Stephane Quintal was the head. Then I left and George [Parros] took over, after working with him side-by-side for a year.When I went through the [Player Safety] process [as a player], I'm going to call it "unorganized" because back then it was more by "feel" and more by situation than having a standard. I'm pretty sure there was not anything in the CBA spelling out supplementary discipline and what suspensions are going to look like. So when I got to NHL Player Safety, now there was a process in place.Obviously, things were ever-changing, especially with Rule 48 and hits to the head. In my three years at the Department of Player Safety, that changed a couple times, including the wording of the rule. What was legal, what wasn't. There were hits that I made from when I was playing five years earlier that they'd show in the Player Safety meetings as a legal hit. And then literally the following year, when they'd change the guideline, that was now an illegal hit.But when I got there, it was just about understanding the criteria. Looking at every single play through a different lens. Looking at ... I'm not going to say fault, but the unintended consequences. Look at the Auston Matthews hit.The one where Radko Gudas was suspended five games for a knee-on-knee hit that ended Matthews's season.I was at that game, sitting fifth row, watching that hit take place right in front of me. And the moment I saw [Matthews] not shoot the puck and then pull it back, I was like, "This is going to be bad."I guarantee you, if there was a camera on my face, people would've been like, "Man, this guy's sick." I literally started laughing, because I knew what happened and how it happened. And then the reaction from the Leafs, and Gudas looking around like, "Who's coming after me? Nobody?" So people would've been looking at me like, "Were you happy this guy's hurt?"It actually had nothing to do with Auston Matthews. It just was more the circumstance and situation and knowing, again, who's on the ice, knowing that's Radko Gudas, knowing he's going to try to finish his check. When I saw it live I'm like, "That's not good." But I watched it again from a side angle and I'm like, "OK, I see what Gudas is doing there."When you're defending, you're like, "I've just got to get a piece." With how Gudas defends, how many times have we seen guys try to cut to the middle of the ice and he's there to smoke them? He's not going to not get a piece of you. So knowing that's him, do you really want to fake that shot there and try to pull it into the middle on your back end?And that's not to say it's Auston Matthews' fault. It's completely on Gudas, but it's not an A.J. Greer hit on Connor Zary, which was dirty. This was a hockey play, and the Greer hit was not a hockey play. Shoving a guy into the boards when you're five feet away is dirty.You mentioned before that NHL discipline used to go by "feel" before the Department of Player Safety brought in rigid precedent. I think the injury to Matthews -- one of the best players in the world -- had some people wondering if the magnitude of the loss for Toronto should weigh more heavily? Do you feel like they were light on Gudas? Do you think that it'd be OK to go by "feel" sometimes versus by precedent, depending on the injured player?Here's the problem: That ain't going to happen. And the reason it's not going to happen is that the NHLPA is on both sides of the ledger. They're defending the victim and the assailant.With Gudas, what I think people don't realize is that when they hear "repeat offender" they don't know it's merely about the money [they lose]. A serial offender is somebody who does the same thing over and over again, similar to Raffi Torres, who we gave a 40-game suspension to one time.Myself, Radko Gudas, some of these other guys that have been suspended six, seven, eight times ... we sprinkled the infield. I never had the same [suspension] twice. I got suspended a bunch, but I wasn't a serial offender. Just because I've been suspended doesn't mean that you ratchet up my suspension [next time], because it wasn't for the same thing.Sometimes it's luck. There are times where you see a guy get hit from behind and it is incredibly dirty but there's no injury. So therefore, nobody's mad. There's no uproar because the player got up and skated away. So if you're only suspending for the outcome and not for the act, where is that taking us?Owners don't want their players getting suspended. From the owners to the managers to the league to the PA, there's a balancing act of how many games is going to send a message. By the way, I'm going to be honest with you: At no point when I got suspended was it, "It's going to change how I play." I'm still going to play hard with my stick. I'm still going to crosscheck. I'm still going to slash guys.You mentioned the owners, GMs, the NHL, the NHLPA not wanting lengthy suspensions. Is that why they don't happen? There's no appetite for it?Not only that, but say we come out and say we're going to be hard on [certain] offenses. And then the first thing that's going to happen is that it's going to be a star player [that commits one]. And they're going to be like, "Oh, great. We don't want to do that." Sidney Crosby's going to hit somebody or Macklin Celebrini or Connor McDavid. I mean, look at McDavid's suspension last year. He's still pissed off. He's still pissed off that he got three games.So when a star player gets suspended, we don't like it. So now we're going to have two sets of rules? One is for the guys who play hard and you need on your team, let's call them your bottom six, and then we're going to have another set of rules for the top six and star players? That's the balancing act you constantly have.A few rulings lately have really riled up fans -- Radko Gudas on Auston Matthews, AJ Greer on Connor Zary. What do you make of the calls for George Parros to step down as head of player safety?I know when I was there, if both sides were mad, you did your job.Everybody knows it's a thankless job. It's a tough job. You're never going to make anybody happy. And if you can walk away from a supplementary discipline hearing and the PA's mad at you, both teams are mad at you, the player's mad at you, then you're probably getting it right because both sides think they're getting screwed.Ultimately, it's on George and if he thinks it rises to the level of supplementary discipline. And then once it does, then you go back into precedent. Here's what we've given these in the past, this is where we're at and we'll go from there. It's not going to go much higher than where it's been in the past because that's the precedent and that's what the NHLPA is going to hold you to.How responsible is the NHLPA for keeping suspensions low? If it's the players that are complaining, I'll tell you the exact same thing I told [former Ducks star] Ryan Getzlaf when he called me at the Department of Player Safety: "Talk to the PA. I don't talk to them. You're in the PA. Tell them that's what you want."If they want stiffer suspensions, then they need to have a conversation with the union. Until they do that, it doesn't matter, because you can only do what it says in the CBA. Which is what most people don't understand and don't get.How would you improve the Player Safety process?I think if they need to do a better job with respect to PR. Just explaining how the process works. I know they've done a little bit in the past, but I think they need to just showcase what they do on a night-to-night basis more often. Once a year is not enough because not everybody sees those things. And if it's on social media, the algorithm gives it to 7% of the people, if that.Do you think that they should film the hearings and release them?No. Because it's private. People don't need to know, because sometimes they're in there talking about personal stuff or talking about mindset, talking about whatever. I mean, that's not anybody's business.You have a new book called "Earned" about your playing career and entrepreneurial life. Why did you decide to write it?I'd been asked to do a book a number of times and the timing wasn't right. I probably wasn't ready either. I wanted to be able to help people understand that their life can be better, but they have to take ownership. All the things that I learned early on when you go through adversity and you go through conflict and leaning into adversity and being uncomfortable. And we hear people say it all the time, but nobody does that more than athletes.When you look at success, adversity, ownership, I think a lot of people see those that are successful -- they see a trophy and championships, and they always forget about the hard times. I tell you how many times people come up to me and go, "Oh, it was easy for you. You're big." I'm sorry. Are you kidding me? It wasn't easy. Clearly, you don't know my story.Note: Some answers were edited for clarity and length.
