Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Latest Straightjab (Nhl Discipline - D. Sedin)


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
55 replies to this topic

#31 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 29 March 2012 - 11:40 AM

I'm a-lovin' it, as usual! Well done and it states what a lot of people are thinking!

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#32 powerman

powerman

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 12

Posted 29 March 2012 - 11:53 AM

how about roster spot suspensions? lets say in this case, Keith is suspended for 5 games, the blackhawks cannot dress a guy for five games to replace keith. I think teams would suffer alot more being a man down. (21 non goalie skaters, games would still be 5 on 5, but you have one less skater to juggle your lines with) and i bet coaches and GM's would outlaw hits to head/intent to injure on their players. and teammates would be pretty pissed that their guy put the whole team down a skater for 'x' amount of games. especially in tight playoff races. also, in the case of goons and AHL callups, the parent team now becomes responsible for their actions and must suffer the consequences

off course all this would not be necessary in this case, if keith didn't blatantly try to remove daniel's head with his elbow. im only talking about suspension where intent to injure has been ruled by the NHL

ive been thinking about this for a while, what is the point of suspending a player, when the team that owns them can just replace them for the next 5 games. there is no liability on the teams, it's not all the time a good player is suspended


I think this part of your post is a great idea. I don't think intent should have anything to do with it. If you make a reckless hit that is worthy of suspension I think this idea works. Also include that player's cap hit for the game.

Edited by powerman, 29 March 2012 - 11:54 AM.


#33 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,080 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 29 March 2012 - 11:55 AM

LOL nice, NFL headshot rules are getting out of hand, but they are at least protecting star and vulnerable players, Qb's recievers ect.

#34 Raiun

Raiun

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,112 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 12

Posted 29 March 2012 - 12:40 PM

LOL nice, NFL headshot rules are getting out of hand, but they are at least protecting star and vulnerable players, Qb's recievers ect.


Is there really such a thing as "out of hand" when you're dealing with such a serious safety concern? The message should be clear: Cut the headshots, or pay the price.

Not clear enough? Then make the price higher until it is. Professional athletes train their whole lives and work incredibly hard to get where they are. Freak accidents happen, but no one at that level (Or any level, really) should have their career damaged or ended because of someone targeting them for an injury.

Imagine any other industry where a coworker smacked you over the head because they didn't like you, or you got into an argument with them. Fines/loss of a job would be the least of their worries, they'd be going to court for assault.

There's a bit of leeway for sports because of their already physical nature, but that doesn't mean they should treat them any less harshly if they suspect there was deliberate intent to injure.

#35 pwnstar

pwnstar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,308 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 10

Posted 29 March 2012 - 01:50 PM

LULAY-SEDIN-SIMON

Posted Image


#36 gocanuckzgo

gocanuckzgo

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Joined: 04-November 09

Posted 29 March 2012 - 01:52 PM

I really don't get the Daniel thing. What's-his-face got five games... Since when is a five game suspension something to scoff at? He didn't board him, he didn't sucker punch him, he didn't swing his stick at his head, he just gave him an elbow to the head. Frankly, five games is the perfect amount of times for that.

I don't think it's wise to set the precedent that injuries demand suspensions. If you hit a guy clean and take him out of the season then you shouldn't be suspended. If you elbow a guy like Daniel and he bounces back up you should get five games. The fact that the player is injured is irrelevant. The goal should be to punish bad behavior, not bad results.

The only thing that I can think of to explain this, is that everyone is butthurt at the fact that Romer got four in the finals. I agree that that was waaay to excessive, but two wrongs don't make a right and we shouldn't compound the problem.

#37 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,113 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 29 March 2012 - 03:03 PM

I really don't get the Daniel thing. What's-his-face got five games... Since when is a five game suspension something to scoff at? He didn't board him, he didn't sucker punch him, he didn't swing his stick at his head, he just gave him an elbow to the head. Frankly, five games is the perfect amount of times for that.

I don't think it's wise to set the precedent that injuries demand suspensions. If you hit a guy clean and take him out of the season then you shouldn't be suspended. If you elbow a guy like Daniel and he bounces back up you should get five games. The fact that the player is injured is irrelevant. The goal should be to punish bad behavior, not bad results.

The only thing that I can think of to explain this, is that everyone is butthurt at the fact that Romer got four in the finals. I agree that that was waaay to excessive, but two wrongs don't make a right and we shouldn't compound the problem.


Five games is nothing for a blatant attempt to injure. I can only guess that you've never taken an elbow to the head like that if you believe justice was served.

The problem we have with the Rome suspension is that it was supposed to set a new standard. Here we are almost a calendar year down the road and we've regressed rather than progressed. To make things worse, it's the Vancouver Canucks who got the short end of the stick in both cases.

The NHL does more flip flopping than a trout when it's first landed...
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#38 NuckFanLivingInCalgary:(

NuckFanLivingInCalgary:(

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Joined: 27-March 12

Posted 29 March 2012 - 03:05 PM

Many proposed solutions for adequate penalty/suspensions to offending players and/or teams.

Also many people saying these proposed solutions are too outrageous and the league will never go for them.


In my mind it is simple. If the league wants a solution, make the penalty outrageous. In fact, the more outrageous the better the results.

I like to speed. I really don't care if I get a $200 ticket. If the penalty was a $5000 I would stop speeding. If the penalty was 10 years in jail then I would never go 1 km/h over the speed limit ever again in my life.

You get the point.

Do you think Keith would have made that hit if he had to forfeit half of his salary? Or the rest of his season including play-offs? I'm not saying those should be the penalties, but an outrageous penalty will deter offenders.

Regards,

T
Go Canucks Go!!!

#39 OFFSIDEsports

OFFSIDEsports

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 07

Posted 29 March 2012 - 06:23 PM

Thanks again everyone... I think we can all agree on one thing, the NHL could and should have done better by Daniel, the fans and the league itself.

#40 binderdonedat

binderdonedat

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 11

Posted 30 March 2012 - 06:37 AM

I really don't get the Daniel thing. What's-his-face got five games... Since when is a five game suspension something to scoff at? He didn't board him, he didn't sucker punch him, he didn't swing his stick at his head, he just gave him an elbow to the head. Frankly, five games is the perfect amount of times for that.

I don't think it's wise to set the precedent that injuries demand suspensions. If you hit a guy clean and take him out of the season then you shouldn't be suspended. If you elbow a guy like Daniel and he bounces back up you should get five games. The fact that the player is injured is irrelevant. The goal should be to punish bad behavior, not bad results.

The only thing that I can think of to explain this, is that everyone is butthurt at the fact that Romer got four in the finals. I agree that that was waaay to excessive, but two wrongs don't make a right and we shouldn't compound the problem.


Most ridiculous thing I've ever read on CDC. Hands down. You did see that hit right? Have you played hockey, like, ever? In college I was on the ice when a kid had his neck broken from an almost identical elbow, and he never played again as result. And he was being scouted at the time.

What total frikin nonsense. May as well say "Hey guys, it's only an elbow to the head, not like he actually shot him with a .40 caliber Glock or ran over his legs with a truck".

I said I'd never resort to the face palm, but this post so deserves something visual to exemplify such complete knuckleheaditus....

:shock: :picard:

#41 the boards

the boards

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 11

Posted 30 March 2012 - 07:41 AM

Here's an idea:
Shanahan & co. hold their hearing, discussing what the factors are with the offending player.
They then go behind closed doors to decide a fine and/or suspension (if any).
Then they come back out, and ask the player what he thinks it should be, without telling him what they have decided.
If it isn't close, the penalty is increased.
So, the disciplinary panel might provisionally decide 4 games, but the player says 2. The actual suspension then becomes,say, 5 games.
Or, panel thinks 3, player says 5, so the suspension stays at 3.
A little accountability? There are problems with this, but it might make it more likely that players will not try the 'Marchand Innocence' act, and come out of these things with a little more respect for the game and responsibility for their actions, even 'in the heat of the moment.'
Of the dwarves, little is said.

#42 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 30 March 2012 - 08:58 AM

Kudos for another fine rendering........which once again hits the nail on the head. (no pun intended)
Kevin.jpg

#43 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 30 March 2012 - 09:08 AM

Many proposed solutions for adequate penalty/suspensions to offending players and/or teams.

Also many people saying these proposed solutions are too outrageous and the league will never go for them.


In my mind it is simple. If the league wants a solution, make the penalty outrageous. In fact, the more outrageous the better the results.

I like to speed. I really don't care if I get a $200 ticket. If the penalty was a $5000 I would stop speeding. If the penalty was 10 years in jail then I would never go 1 km/h over the speed limit ever again in my life.

You get the point.

Do you think Keith would have made that hit if he had to forfeit half of his salary? Or the rest of his season including play-offs? I'm not saying those should be the penalties, but an outrageous penalty will deter offenders.

Regards,

T


I just wonder what got into Keith. He is not a dirty player, far from it, so why then and why Daniel? It is a mystery.

I must say, however that for a hit like that, "first offence" shouldn't apply.

I think that's two damned good sportsmen and decent people on and off the ice (Daniel and Sami) who have been subject to premeditated career threatening injuries and it is about time as a poster above says, for the "judge" to put the 'black cap" on and throw the book at the culprits.
Kevin.jpg

#44 :D

:D

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,689 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 03

Posted 30 March 2012 - 02:44 PM

Seriously, These should be featured on the main site. Great job.


If they weren't always so homeristic and defamatory, they'd probably have a better shot to

#45 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 30 March 2012 - 02:49 PM

If they weren't always so homeristic and defamatory, they'd probably have a better shot to


Defamatory???? :huh:

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#46 :D

:D

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,689 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 03

Posted 30 March 2012 - 02:50 PM

Cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck

#47 Grapefruits

Grapefruits

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 30 March 2012 - 02:52 PM

I gotta say, as little as i care about football, their anti-headshots rules are something that the nhl should look into pursuing.


yeah the NFL rules also seem to be working. It makes me wonder if someone needs to get crippled or die before the NHL takes it seriously.

#48 OFFSIDEsports

OFFSIDEsports

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 07

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:12 PM

If they weren't always so homeristic and defamatory, they'd probably have a better shot to


Isn't that (bold above) an oxymoron?

I think it's a stretch to say I've ever defamed anyone though I would think that, at times (Stanley Cup final vs B's) I've come across as a bit of a homer. So be it... I'm a Canucks fan afterall.

Overall I think I'm really fair with how I portray the Canucks and most other sports in the city etc. If someone deserves accolades so be it, if the deserve to be called out so be it... that being said I don't really think, because of what I said above , that my JAB's would work for the main site. In fact... I've been told as much which is cool.

Thanks again for your thoughts everyone!

#49 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 64,678 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:18 PM

Well done!
Posted Image

#50 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,398 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:27 PM

Defamatory???? :huh:

I think sometimes these can be at least borderline defamatory if you look at some of the portrayals of Bettman (as much as I hate him), the NHL disciplinary board, the NHL officials/officiating and the Bruins.
I'm not saying I don't think they are humorous portrayals, but they definitely straddle the line sometimes.
I think what he was saying is that with the majority of satirical humor, it is unbiased and can be digested by a large audience that way. Look at newspapers. The cartoons that lampoon political and social figures take great care not to cross the line of bias, and if a bias is illustrated, it is generally pretty soft core.
The bias with these illustrations is pretty obviously biased and borders on defamation sometimes, therefore it wouldn't make the CDC front page. He's not saying it' not funny, or even pointedly observant. It's actually a compliment, as he deems the quality of illustration and humor to have a broad appeal.

no duh.

You win the internet, EOM.

#51 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:41 PM

Cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck


Maybe you should see someone about that chicken in your throat......

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#52 Kesler_smash

Kesler_smash

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:57 PM

No elaborate scenarios are needed to fix this problem, just longer suspensions that actually hurt the player not benefit them with rest before the playoffs. I think the bottom end for a blatent attempt to injure headshot like this should be 15 games, 2nd offense 30 games, 3rd offense 82 games. Its really simple the punishment needs to be just that, not a well needed rest period before the playoffs.

Edited by Kesler_smash, 30 March 2012 - 03:58 PM.


#53 binderdonedat

binderdonedat

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 11

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:38 PM

No elaborate scenarios are needed to fix this problem, just longer suspensions that actually hurt the player not benefit them with rest before the playoffs. I think the bottom end for a blatent attempt to injure headshot like this should be 15 games, 2nd offense 30 games, 3rd offense 82 games. Its really simple the punishment needs to be just that, not a well needed rest period before the playoffs.


I agree with this - if you add a retroactive salary hit shared by the player's team or head office. Maybe 5% first offense, 15% second, and 25% for third, donated to the NHLPA or a charity of some sort. Do something like this and it hurts the player AND the team, which is wholly necessary to send a message that intentional head shots can kill the offenders careers as easily as the victim. The team needs to feel the hit as well. You put punishments like this in play and we'll never see a hit like Keith's again.

#54 nucklehead53

nucklehead53

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 12

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:44 PM

Great stuff ::D Really sums it up
It only takes one hard fought series to make a rivalry

#55 Burnsey

Burnsey

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,782 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 08

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:11 PM

great on so many levels. Great because the artistic side is amazing, but also great because it's so true. Player gets hit in the head and the excuse will always be something along the lines of:
it's hockey, a physical sport.

Sooner we take head shots out the game completely, the sooner injuries will occur less often.
Posted Image

#56 Dak72

Dak72

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Joined: 18-October 08

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:04 PM

Fan-friggin-tastic!




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.