Comment | Back in the fall, Tommi Niemelä criticized the entire Liiga’s operation as dead end – now a strange play is going on

Ice hockey The strangest play of the league finals has so far taken place outside the rink, in press conferences.

Pelicans coach Tommi Niemelä has decided to make it very clear that he is forbidden from criticizing the judges. You can read between the lines that there would be something to say.

On Saturday, Niemelä took his interpretation to a level where even positive reviews are criticism, which is forbidden.

However, it is not known what kind of threat is hovering over Niemelä. The league’s director of communications Tuomas Nyholm has told both To Yle that for Sanomat, that there is an internal sanctioning system for excesses.

“If necessary, there is an opportunity to react and there is a selection of means, but the league does not want to have this discussion in public or, more precisely, to open internal processes. It has been common knowledge for years that means can be found as needed”, Nyholm said.

It is also not known with certainty where the ban on commenting, interpreted by Niemelä himself as a ban, comes from. In the fall season, he criticized refereeing at least once, after the match against Ilves in November.

That’s when Niemelä said that the line of referees changed during the national team break, which led to an increase in ice hockey. According to him, the result was “clinical nonsense”.

“Now everyone is on the fence about what can and can’t be done. In my opinion, it’s a pathetic action on the part of our entire league to go to this kind of shit,” Niemelä said at the press conference, which is available on MTV’s website.

Back in the years sanctions have been reported. Piloted Pelicans in spring 2012 Kai Suikkanen banged his mouth at the press conference with care. Suikkanen announced tinged with swear words, that he was the chief judge Aleksi Rantala has not whistled a single good game in his life.

The consequences were published soon after the incident. Suikkanen was fined 2,500 euros.

For example, in 2016 Tappara was said to have received Fines of 3,000 euros and threatened fines of 10,000 euros, when the then CEO Mikko Leinonen violated the integrity of the judge.

A public sanction for a public violation is a clear principle that the League should consider returning to as soon as possible.

Transparency about the grounds for sanctions and imposed sanctions would also be a sign of appreciation for the work of professional judges that started last fall. It would make visible the seriousness with which their labor peace is treated.

If the statements bringing the sanction are not made public, what kind of criticism is within the permissible limits and what kind of criticism must be endured in the public work of a judge will also remain hidden.

“You must not say anything” can become the truth in people’s minds, even if it is not.