| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
 Posted - 11/12/2008 : 11:21:18
|
Poll Question:
Should Injuries Impact the length of the suspension given on suspend able offences?
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2008 : 15:48:19
|
This is the exact problem with NHL Discipline. The punishment for an infraction should be based on potential outcome, not actual outcome.
Let me explain.
Two situations:
1) Sidney Crosby loses control one night playing Atlanta. He remembers a few years ago when he took a penalty on Kovalchuk, and while sitting in the Sin Bin, Kovalchuk scores a PP goal and points back over to Sid. It makes Crosby irrate. Crosby skates to Kovalchuk after a whistle and hits him in the head with his stick. The carbon-composite stick shatters across Kovalchuk's visor, but there is no injure at all.
2) Alexander Ovechkin's goalless streak hits a phenomenal 20 games. So frustrated with his play, Ovechkin loses it playing against Detroit. After a spectacular break away save on Ovechkin by potential future Hall of Famer Chris Osgood, Ovechkin swings his stick at Osgood's head. Just as Osgood is removing his helmet for a refreshing sip of water, Ovechkin's stick strikes his temple. This put Osgood in a coma for 11 days and ends his career.
What should the suspensions be???? My opinion, exactly the same. Regardless of the injury, the potential for an injury is huge in both cases. Both cases the player acted after the whistle had gone, and in both cases, the action had nothing to do with hockey in any way shape or form. Just because Crosby's actions didn't create an injury does not make the action any less punishable.
The only way to take the garbage out of the game is to punish the actions the same way, regardless of the injury or outcome. Now, I also think that players that are repeat offenders (like Ryan Hollwig) should get a more severe penalty, but the starting point should be the same for all players.
And if you don't believe me, ask yourself this. How long(if at all) would Bertuzzi had been suspended if Moore got up and staked off the ice without injury???? |
 |
|
|
Guest2559
( )
|
Posted - 11/14/2008 : 08:29:17
|
| Beans I have to agree with you 100% on everything you said. I think they should have a mandatory suspension for a elbow to the head or hit from behind regardless if the player that got hit is ok or not. And it should be a few games so they realize they're going to have to be more respectful out their. If a player gets injured I can see upping the suspension or if the offending player is a repeat offender. This to me is the only way to get rid of some of the dirty hits that are happening out their. Don’t get me wrong I love physical play but it’s always better when it’s a good hard clean hit. Shoulder to the head nothing wrong their player being hit needs to know what’s happening around him, elbow to the head different story. I know if they would hand out suspensions for this the GM's and Coaches would be in an uproar about the suspensions, like Murry was about Ruttu's suspension but I’m sure he will be calling the league about the hit on Shannon last night. Witch was very easily prevented. |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2008 : 11:10:03
|
| Sorry Last post was mine. |
|
|
|
Guest8332
( )
|
Posted - 11/14/2008 : 11:14:18
|
I find it strange that the league has to make the first move. Why isn't the NHLPA doing anything about this? Considering that the leader of this organization say they want to protect their members, but they do nothing about it. Then when people get suspended (harshly or not) for an infraction that is dangerous, they appeal it.
Every player is an asset not only to the league but the PA also, why is the PA not taking a more pro-active stance to prevent injuries to their own asset? |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2008 : 12:15:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest8332
I find it strange that the league has to make the first move. Why isn't the NHLPA doing anything about this? Considering that the leader of this organization say they want to protect their members, but they do nothing about it. Then when people get suspended (harshly or not) for an infraction that is dangerous, they appeal it.
Every player is an asset not only to the league but the PA also, why is the PA not taking a more pro-active stance to prevent injuries to their own asset?
Here, Here! Excellent point. However, very typical from a union. Complain about what is happening, explain to everyone what should be done, but do nothing them selves.
And on another point, I disagree with heavier suspensions based on injuries. There should not be a standard suspension for a specific infraction and more if there is an injury. The injury is a symptom of the action and it is the action that should be punished, not the outcome from the action. |
|
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2008 : 12:22:14
|
In theory you may be right Beans, but by definition I would say you are wrong.
A penalty is not a suspension. That's because they can 'codify' a penalty, and say 'every time a player ''hooks'' another player, he gets two minutes.'' Which means it doesn't matter who hooked, who got hooked, where it happened, and at what point in the game, a hook is a hook is a hook. So they have implemented this 'standardized procedure' concept, and it works.
But a suspension is far different. They would need the most creative minds in the world to get together and try to foresee the infinite ways a player can break the rules. Do you think anyone would have anticipated that a player would chase another around the ice for about a minute before sucker punching him to the head? Do you think they could anticipate someone firing a puck at another player's head, or stomping on him with a skate, or whacking him in the head with a stick?
It is the non-uniform nature of a suspension that differentiates it from a penalty, and therefore, injury will always play a role in the punishment.
Make sure to cast your votes in the PickUpHockey Hall of Fame |
Edited by - Alex on 11/14/2008 12:22:40 |
|
|
|
Guest4985
( )
|
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 08:43:45
|
| There is something in what you say but I believe the reason for convening a hearing for a suspension is because the standard punishment available to a referee (time in the penalty box or a game suspension) does not fit the seriousness of some infractions. There are rules to govern each of the cases you cite (roughing, high sticking, unsportsmanlike conduct etc.) but some acts are so egregious that they require additional punishment. I have to ask where the owners are in all of this. If I had to pay those ridiculous salaries and then saw my guys out for 2-3 months because some jerk broke their nose and gave them a concussion with a hit from behind I think I'd be pretty upset. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 09:48:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
In theory you may be right Beans, but by definition I would say you are wrong.
A penalty is not a suspension. That's because they can 'codify' a penalty, and say 'every time a player ''hooks'' another player, he gets two minutes.'' Which means it doesn't matter who hooked, who got hooked, where it happened, and at what point in the game, a hook is a hook is a hook. So they have implemented this 'standardized procedure' concept, and it works.
But a suspension is far different. They would need the most creative minds in the world to get together and try to foresee the infinite ways a player can break the rules. Do you think anyone would have anticipated that a player would chase another around the ice for about a minute before sucker punching him to the head? Do you think they could anticipate someone firing a puck at another player's head, or stomping on him with a skate, or whacking him in the head with a stick?
It is the non-uniform nature of a suspension that differentiates it from a penalty, and therefore, injury will always play a role in the punishment.
Make sure to cast your votes in the PickUpHockey Hall of Fame
I'm calling you out on this one Alex, but you are the one who is wrong.
I didn't do any kind of comments or discussion about penalties. I am talking specifically about suspensions. Compare it to the legal system. There are infinite ways for someone to commit murder, but there are not specific sentences for each type. They are grouped together, by definition as the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought. What ever fits that criteria will fall under the shroud of "murder" and will be treated as such. The punishment will vary, but there is a "minimum" punishment that is involved if a crime fits that criteria.
Now, let's say for example the NHL (and NHLPA) decide to have a minimum suspension of 10 games for "Stick Infractions." And let's say a "Stick Infraction" is deemed as any action of a player where his stick makes contact with another player without outside influence and without the clear intention of making contact with the puck. Now, let's say that the minimum suspension for this is 10 games. So the example I cited above is that both Crosby and Ovechkin would get a MINIMUM of 10 games. (Before you jump all over me, I know this wouldn't work, it's just an example to prove my point)
I know that it is not reasonably possible to punish the example I stated above with Crosby and Ovechkin the exact same way. However, my point is there should be a minimum suspension based on the action. Both Crosby and Ovechkin would received at least a 10 games. Deservedly, Ovechkin would get more, but it's the discipline of Crosby that actually changes the behavior. Everyone expect the players that cause the problems to be punished, but when players are suspended based on their actions, regardless of the outcome, then it becomes a true deterrent to the action. |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 14:55:27
|
Its simple fellas - If you injury a player on a play, intentional or not then you should recieve a suspension. The suspension should be increased based on number of offenses. It also should not matter what the type of injury is, if the injury results in a man game lost then a suspension is due.
Now the real way to prevent senseless injuries is to get rid of the instigator rule. Let the players enforce the unwritten code of ethics amongst players. If a player like Ruuttu throws a ridiculous elbow, then he gets pummelled by someone. Pretty soon he stops throwing elbows because his eyes are swelled shut (just kidding) but the message would have been sent.
The league and the NHLPA have to do something though, the head hits and hits from behind are becoming way to common of occurence in the game. |
|
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 17:00:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I'm calling you out on this one Alex, but you are the one who is wrong.
I didn't do any kind of comments or discussion about penalties. I am talking specifically about suspensions. Compare it to the legal system. There are infinite ways for someone to commit murder, but there are not specific sentences for each type. They are grouped together, by definition as the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought. What ever fits that criteria will fall under the shroud of "murder" and will be treated as such. The punishment will vary, but there is a "minimum" punishment that is involved if a crime fits that criteria.
Now, let's say for example the NHL (and NHLPA) decide to have a minimum suspension of 10 games for "Stick Infractions." And let's say a "Stick Infraction" is deemed as any action of a player where his stick makes contact with another player without outside influence and without the clear intention of making contact with the puck. Now, let's say that the minimum suspension for this is 10 games. So the example I cited above is that both Crosby and Ovechkin would get a MINIMUM of 10 games. (Before you jump all over me, I know this wouldn't work, it's just an example to prove my point)
I know that it is not reasonably possible to punish the example I stated above with Crosby and Ovechkin the exact same way. However, my point is there should be a minimum suspension based on the action. Both Crosby and Ovechkin would received at least a 10 games. Deservedly, Ovechkin would get more, but it's the discipline of Crosby that actually changes the behavior. Everyone expect the players that cause the problems to be punished, but when players are suspended based on their actions, regardless of the outcome, then it becomes a true deterrent to the action.
Even if I'm completely wrong, you must admire me for going head to head with the most respected poster out there 
You used the example of killing. Tell me, is that an action or a result thereof? The latter. The murderer gets sentenced because of the ''injury'' of his actions. Not because of the action itself. Therefore you can't use this to prove that injuries should not be taken into account, because the punishment for murder is just that - a punishment for a result.
As for ''10 games for stick infractions.'' I don't know what you classify as ''outside influence'', but think about how grossly misinterpreted your rule could become, as portrayed in the following scenario.
Tomas Holmstrom is parking his big behind in front of J.S. Giguere. Chris Pronger, trying to clear the traffic, gives him a few cross-checks - with the stick - with the sole intention of knocking him off balance. Not trying to break his back. It's a light little shove, and it happens all the time in the NHL, legally. Now say Lidstrom fires a shot at the same time that Holmstrom is taking heat for being in the crease. Because of a combination of trying to tip in the shot, maintain his balance, and not get hit by the shot, Holmstrom falls to the ice awkwardly and chips a bone in his knee and is out for four months. It wasn't solely due to the cross check of Pronger, but without it, Holmstrom wouldn't have fallen awkwardly.
The Wings are enraged, complain to the league. Ken Holland goes on TSN and says ''Holmstrom isn't Swedish for hit me with your stick'' and Burke sues for stealing his line (lol - that wasn't really relavant.) And, because of your rule and the whole to-do made about a play that happens a million times in the league, Pronger gets 10 games. Is it fair? Not at all.
But that's what will inevitably happen when you try to codify something unpredictable. It just doesn't work, end of story.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 18:25:43
|
Alex, trust me when I say I hear what you are saying. The system wouldn't be perfect, but neither is the legal system.
And you make comment of the "result" of the action. However, consider "attempted murder."
All I am saying is that the initial suspension should be based on the action, not the result. The result will obviously have an impact, but it should not be a qualifier. As an example, the Bertuzzi/Moore incident. Let's imagine for a second that Moore gets up and skates away un-injured. What do you think the suspension would have been??? A game?? Maybe 2 tops. Does that mean the action did not have the potential for serious injury??? Absolutely not. The suspension he received is deserved as I think it was based on the action, not the result.
I know my example had holes, I am not the right kind of person to make those kinds of decisions. My point is that if the action is not the main issue being disciplined, it does not do anything to stop future situations from happening. What the NHL is doing today is saying it's alright to partake in actions that could injure a player as long as they don't get injured. I am saying to take all the garbage out of the game, a player needs to be disciplined on action first, result 2nd.
|
|
|
|
J-Dog
Top Prospect
Canada
39 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2008 : 08:18:57
|
Wow guys, I love the debate. Both of you have very big arguments that are always supported and as far as anyone is concerned, valid. The gap between your thinking, however, is the answer, in my opinion. You guys are talking about a hypothetical ''murder'' and ''attempted murder''. Well that is just becoming out of hand to me. No one is taking out a gun and shooting each other. It's hockey. And all things that happen in that rink stay in that rink. UNLESS in rare cases a fatal injury occurs, where the ACTUAL legal system to give sentence as they see fit. In hockey rules Bertuzzi gets 2 minutes for roughing, maybe 10 min for whatever, lets say intent to injure. In LEGAL terms, he has to go to trial, and try and avoid a REAL sentence, the result of an ACTUAL injury(sorry for the caps I just want to get the important words to really stick out, as I am not the best writer :)).
So to me, the reality is in the middle. The NHL should hand out suspentions for actions, especially non-hockey plays, such as after the whistle plays, stomping etc. And when Injuries are serious as in loss of pay, play or anything else, then the judicial system should probably do the work. If not, then the NHL will need to write they own judicial system not based on actual events that happen, events that can vary on severity but be classed under the same offence.
So guys, your both right, changes need to be made so that these actions are held accountable to their severity, and I believe that the solution will please just about everyone of you. 
''And when hell freezes over, I'll play hockey there too.'' - Anonymous
-Justin |
Edited by - J-Dog on 11/19/2008 08:19:34 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2008 : 09:06:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by J-Dog
Wow guys, I love the debate. Both of you have very big arguments that are always supported and as far as anyone is concerned, valid. The gap between your thinking, however, is the answer, in my opinion. You guys are talking about a hypothetical ''murder'' and ''attempted murder''. Well that is just becoming out of hand to me. No one is taking out a gun and shooting each other. It's hockey. And all things that happen in that rink stay in that rink. UNLESS in rare cases a fatal injury occurs, where the ACTUAL legal system to give sentence as they see fit. In hockey rules Bertuzzi gets 2 minutes for roughing, maybe 10 min for whatever, lets say intent to injure. In LEGAL terms, he has to go to trial, and try and avoid a REAL sentence, the result of an ACTUAL injury(sorry for the caps I just want to get the important words to really stick out, as I am not the best writer :)).
So to me, the reality is in the middle. The NHL should hand out suspentions for actions, especially non-hockey plays, such as after the whistle plays, stomping etc. And when Injuries are serious as in loss of pay, play or anything else, then the judicial system should probably do the work. If not, then the NHL will need to write they own judicial system not based on actual events that happen, events that can vary on severity but be classed under the same offence.
So guys, your both right, changes need to be made so that these actions are held accountable to their severity, and I believe that the solution will please just about everyone of you.
''And when hell freezes over, I'll play hockey there too.'' - Anonymous
-Justin
I think you might have my point confused. I am not saying that the justice system should be involved at all. What I am doing is comparing the justice system to what I think NHL discipline should be. One of the points by Alex was that there would have to be a group of people that would have to come up with the infinate possibilities that could happen. My point what that there are many kinds of way someone could kill another, but they are all grouped in as "murder." The same could be done for hockey.
|
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2008 : 13:44:53
|
Hi Guys, my 2 cents....
I think the initial poll question is getting over debated. The league already does what the question asks, by reviewing each infraction on a case by case situation. That is, in my opinion, the way it has to be done as there are too many variables in each situation.
That isn't to say they get it right all the time, but to "blanket' suspend, based on perceived intent, is overkill in a sport that embodies physicality, aggression and competitiveness.
Take the Bertuzzi incident, if Moore, after the gang tackle, had been able to get up, and drop the mitts with Bertuzzi, what should Bertuzzi have received then? He would have probably skated off with a double minor for roughing and a fighting major, with maybe an instigator tossed in there too.
The fact that what occurred, occurred, caused the review and subsequent suspension.
To somewhat support Bean's argument, blatant attempts to injure such as intentional stick infractions(by which I mean his examples of Ovechkin and Crosby), or stomping etc, I agree there should be a mandatory suspension based on flagrant attempt to inure, and it should be stiff enough that the outcome has little relevance on the term, meaning Crosby and Ovechkin would get similar harsh punishments regardless of helmet versus no helmet. One is no less intent than the other.
Just my thoughts....
|
Edited by - fat_elvis_rocked on 11/19/2008 13:49:06 |
|
|
|
J-Dog
Top Prospect
Canada
39 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2008 : 04:31:29
|
Very well said fat_elvis_rocked. By the way Beans, I didn't really mean to say that you are using the judicial system, in your arguments. It's just because it was the hypothetical situation you and Alex were debating, so I thought i'd put in my opinion by staying with that situation, which to me doesn't work unless under the same guidelines stated in my previous post. I did like the fact you supported "infractions that didn't necessarily lead to injury". I too, believe that the punishments there are far from fitting the crime so to speak.
But as Elvis said, there are so many variables, that when a player does get hurt, how can the injurer not get a bigger sentence. Again, in the legal system everyone might be caught and tried for murder, but not all sentences are the same, and some are wrongly convicted, and others wrongly let free. Imagine if a player who never had a dirty thought in his mind, well respected, like Sakic, were to hit someone in the head with his stick after being hit on his head with a stick. Who would get the worst punishment, the guy who hits Sakic (lets say no injury occurred), or Sakic, who gave the guy a severe concussion and who can no longer play in the NHL. I think the injury must have some value, on top of the intent. But no action being the same, everythng is subjective, so we might be digging a pretty big hole.
On a side note Beans, your the second person to mention me in a thread, as "someone". I think in the Ottawa thread you said something like , "someone" said ...
I know I'm a Rookie, but I'd still like a little recognition, you know, I do have a name. You can call me rookie or J-Dog or Justin,it doesn't matter, but "someone" sounds like my opinion is disregarded completely. BTW it might be a problem with my account, I am new so I'm still getting used to the options, like the fact I have no pic...
''And when hell freezes over, I'll play hockey there too.'' - Anonymous
-Justin
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2008 : 07:03:16
|
J-Dog, I mean not disrespect. If I am replying to multiple posts at the same time, I might not remember exactly who said what and where they said it. It's nothing personal. If I recall who says what, I'm specific. If I don't remember, I say "someone" so people don't give me the credit for saying it.
I'll work on in.
Back to the topic at hand. The issue I have is not the suspensions given to those who have caused an injury. My issue the lack of suspensions given to players who could have injured someone and the inconsistancy involved with suspensions based on players. Think about Pronger. He has had like 8 suspensions (don't quote that number, it's around there) almost all of them for elbows/head shots. I don't think there was one more than 6 games. If those same infractions were done by Holliweg or Simon(when he played in the NHL) they would have be far more severe.
And in your example, it's unfortunate as the player who originally hit Sakic can't play any longer. However, theoretically, both should get a very significant suspension with Sakic getting a little more. |
|
|
|
J-Dog
Top Prospect
Canada
39 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2008 : 20:53:57
|
Ah see, I think we understand each other now. I agree players should get suspended on actions committed without necessarily the result being injury. But I still think the same penalty shouldn't be given on two separate acts. Some might be more accidental some more intentional, and that would probably impact decisions, and having a complete rule-book for every different possible case would be pretty difficult to say the least. I agree on the tougher punishments and more consistency(by this I mean, as you said, having a bigger punishment to players committing an infraction), but however the cards are played your still missing that 1 card for the royal flush, and that 1 card is subjective, unbiased opinion, and in the end it will have to stay. So no rule book will ever be completely in control of the NHL, no matter how hard we try. Which means although you could enforce a new system of suspending players based on specific acts, there will always be someone sitting at the top having to make a decision on the severity of the play and of the sentence attached. Hockey will never be perfect, suspendable plays will go on forever, but it is a step in the right direction.
And I know you don't disrespect, I was just saying that in my posts people were mentioning me, without mentioning my name and I felt some credit was taken away as there were more responses to when they said it after I already stated it before. I wasn't aiming it directly at you, and I know you respect everyone here as do they respect you. But thanks for mentioning Beans 
-J-Dog |
|
|
|
Guest6695
( )
|
Posted - 11/21/2008 : 09:24:50
|
Wow Beans never fails to repulse me with his opinions and brutally uninformed statements.
How do you possibly use the legal system to support your point of view considering the legal system does take "injury" (and intent) into account and totally contradicts your point of view??????
-One person, premeditated, takes a gun shoots another in the stomach, person dies, shooter FACES murder charges.
-Another person, premeditated, takes a gun shoots another in the stomach, person lives, shooter DOES NOT FACE murder charges.
-Another person, unpremeditated, takes a gun shoots another in the stomach, person dies, shooter faces some degree of murder charge, but punishment is quite likely less severe.
-And yet another person, acting strictly out of self-defense, shoots another person in the stomach, person dies shooter DOES NOT FACE murder charges.
Yet according to your view of the ideal NHL punishment system all four shooters should face THE SAME punishment because they committed the same act and you try use the legal system to support the point of view? LOL.
"There are infinite ways for someone to commit murder, but there are not specific sentences for each type"
OH REALLY, are you sure about that? There are specific ranges that can be given, based on INJURY and INTENT and other factors.
You might want to read up on:
1st degree murder
2nd degree murder
And then just to round things out:
Manslaughter
Killing out of self-defense
(ADMIN EDIT CONTENT REMOVED - AGGRESSIVE PERSONAL ATTACK ON MODERATOR AND MEMBER) |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2008 : 11:36:24
|
Wow! That's quite the diatribe......from a guest account
I frequent the site, and nothing makes me shake my head more than guest accounts, pontificating with thier replies.
If you have that amount of rhetoric, the least one could do is use a valid account and open their views for debate, otherwise, what is it? Another blast of hot air on a cold winter's day...thanks, I was getting chilly! |
|
|
|
admin
Forum Admin
Canada
2338 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2008 : 12:14:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6695
(ADMIN EDIT - CONTENT REMOVED)
Dear Guest 6695. Thank you very kindly for your well crafted response about the topic at hand regarding suspensions and injuries. Obviously you feel strongly about it and your points about the game and this subject have merit.
HOWEVER...I would like to point out that personal attacks towards members and guests are not permitted, they are entitled to their opinions and as long as they are not harming anyone they can continue.
Attacks on moderators are also against our forum guidelines. So please refrain from this behaviour in future posts. You can check out our posting guidelines at: http://www.pickuphockey.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2160
Please note that Beans15 is a volunteer moderator who offers up his personal time to help maintain the forums. We appreciate his efforts tremendously and his knowledge of the game is exceptional. Please also note that he is entitled to his personal opinions about the game and you are by no means obligated to agree with them but please respectfully disagree with him, please do not launch all-out assaults such as this. In the future, if you have concerns about moderator behaviour please fire me an email and we'll look into it.
In the meantime, I look forward to your insight on the game of hockey. This part is very appreciated. |
|
|
|
J-Dog
Top Prospect
Canada
39 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2008 : 18:23:08
|
Guest, I think you did the same thing I did, and took Beans' hypothetical situation as a statement of some sort, when it was just an example. And he is not talking about players that necessarily get injured, so your argument is a little off from what Beans was talking about with that example. And no one is being shot... unless with a puck... which makes Alfredsson's "slap shot at Niedermayer" case another great example in this debate. I forget if he was even suspended although I dont think so. It was a playoff game so the suspentions are usually shorter, but still, he deliberately shot the puck at someone. The question is, can an act of this kind really be put under a specific genre of suspention, warenting a lenthy repercution instead of a slap on the knuckles? I hate when non-hockey plays like this arent punished. Which is why I think there should be severe punishments on some acts even if there are no serious injuries in the end. Things like the Alfie incident and many others dont belong in the game, period. Not taking action is the real crime.
-J-Dog |
Edited by - J-Dog on 11/21/2008 18:23:35 |
|
|
|
Guest8135
( )
|
Posted - 11/22/2008 : 01:55:17
|
Just look at high Sticking, if there's blood it's fore if not it's two.
so yes Injuries should matter |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2008 : 10:32:40
|
I guess I missed the real heat thrown at me. That would have me interesting.
To what it left, I will answer. Absolutely, I agree that there are various degrees of "murder." That is not my point. My point is that with each degree, there is a minimum and maximum sentence if charged, tried, and convicted. What punishment is doled out is based on the action.
The punishment in the legal system is based on the action, not the result. If there is a guy who shoost and kills someone, he gets life but will more than likely get paroled at some time. However, a guy that shoots another guy and then defiles the body will never get out of jail.
That is my point. The player who hits another player in the head with his stick gets (for example) a 20 game suspension. The player who skates off the bench, fights his way though the other players on the ice, and hits another player in the head repeatedly will get a life time ban from hockey.
My entire point through all of this is that for the NHL discipline to actually deter future situations, the initial suspension needs to be based on the severity of the action, not just the outcome of the action. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Should Injuries impact suspensions? 
