Urethra_Franklin Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I had this idea after the NHL failed to uphold its integrity by only fining Shea Weber with a 2,500. What if the league had a list (with video evidence) of all disciplinary acts handed to players over the years and used those as a basis to suspend or fine players in the future? Kind of like how Supreme Court Cases are used. For example, in the case of Bitz vs. Clifford, a player who hits another from behind with no indication of slowing or getting out of the way shall be administered a ~5 game suspension or 2 game suspension in Playoffs. The department of Players Safety could use these instances as a guideline to maintain consistency. Players with histories could be related to other players who have done similar acts with the same rap sheet. Therefore, plays like these: and Get similar disciplinary action as this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Loves You Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 They would never go for it...as much as I hate to say it, the system isn't perfect and it's meant to be like that. There are a lot of unwritten policies that they all abide by (and I'm not saying I agree with them), such as star vs. 4th liner, regular season vs. playoff round 1 vs. playoff SCF, injury vs. non-injury, etc... To me, an infraction is an infraction, and it shouldn't matter who did it, or how badly the guy is injured. They make the system arbitrary so that they can make examples of guys who don't matter and skew it so that their stars, who the fans come to see, spend more time on the ice, especially in the big games. I still think suspensions should be based on the other guy's time off the ice due to any resulting injury + a set number of games on top of that. And yes, i know that means that the other team can fake a prolongued injury to keep you off the ice, but I'm ok with that because maybe then it'll make you think twice about running someone and knowing you're at their mercy afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Morris Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 To play Devils advocate...... Shanaban, and the NHL "should" make all decisions dependng on consequesncesw. IF the player is injured suspensions should be given. If a player ios not injured than a fine. The CBA will be reworked and the max fine will be much higher than $2500.00. Look at the NFL fining players like James Harrison $50,000 - $75,000. That is a message that the NHL players will get for sure. LEts say you run a red light, and nobody gets hurt, you will get a hefty fine. But, if you run a red light and tbone somebody there will be major consequences. I'm fine with the Bitz suspension, in fact I am happy he's not in the lineup, what a stupid penalty to take. I'm fine with the Fine on Weber (wish it could have been more, but current CBA dictates no), and am sure after this summer there will be many changes with regard to disciplinary actions in the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vancouvercanucks#1 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 lol at the NESN broadcasters thinking Paille's hit was completely clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fugasi Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I still dont get it. The Bitz hit was a hockey play,but was worth a suspension. The Webber incident was not a hockey play,was a definate intent to injure another player,and no suspension.Gets fined lunch money that means nothing. Hmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
precipice Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Look at it this way. Playing hockey is what these guys do. It is how they make their living. Suppose you are at work and some other person, with intent and malice, takes a weapon (ie an elbow pad) and smacks you, blindsided, in the jaw and gives you a concussion, because they were PO'd. As a result, can't work again. You are out of a job until anf if your concussion heals. Meantime the boss sends the other person home for five days, that's it. And you, well you, may never work again. This has to stop. It would only take a few decisions for equal time off for the offender, including ending a career if necessary, for all this to change and get that element out of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettheNUCKouttahere Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I still dont get it. The Bitz hit was a hockey play,but was worth a suspension. The Webber incident was not a hockey play,was a definate intent to injure another player,and no suspension.Gets fined lunch money that means nothing. Hmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sting Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 If Keith was facing 20 games for intentionallly injuring Sedin do you think he would have done it?? Me thinks no. NHL needs to wake the hell up. Weber deserves 3 games IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheels22 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 The Weber incident was 100% nothing to do with hockey. Aren't they trying to get rid of head injuries? Weber specifically grabbed his HEAD and smashed it into the glass. Apparently that's fine though, no big deal... I have no idea what is going to happen in the future now. I mean, the NHL is a joke right now, but in like 5 years time? it's going to be hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmotamed Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 That's actually what they have begun to do since the Shanny era! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 The Weber incident was 100% nothing to do with hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I like the way they do it now. Nothing wrong with rolling dice to choose how many games. For the slow witted, that was sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheels22 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 You mean, other than the fact that it was the action of a hockey player against another hockey player in a hockey game during hockey play? Other than that, you're right, it had nothing to do with hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesTW Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 You mean, other than the fact that it was the action of a hockey player against another hockey player in a hockey game during hockey play? Other than that, you're right, it had nothing to do with hockey. ..... I think everyone knows the fine limit is bogus. A fine that would actually matter to a hockey player should be more than enough to at least bust most hockey fans' bank accounts. Even having a set amount is stupid when players' salaries vary so much. Some players at the top of the scale might think the fine was more than worth the entertainment value given how little it means to their bottom line. I think in the new agreement they should include a percentage based fine system. That way the fine will porportionally hurt all players the same rather than punishing lower earning players more severely than higher earning players for the same actions. I agree with the OP that something needs to be done to ensure consistency. I don't know that a black and white "if this, then that" punishment system will always work since hockey is fluid and any number of factors come into play. There is definitely a good argument for judging each incident individually. However, having a guiding list of recommendations to consider would be a good place to start. Maybe a flow chart kind of punishment scale system where incidents are divided by types of incident and then subdivided by intention and previous record with a range of recommended punishments for each accordingly. Then, Shanny would not be bound to a specific punishment and would still have the room to take into account all of the factors specific to each case, but would have a guiding range from which to start which would hopefully ensure some level of consistency. Of course, he may already be working with something like that and just disregarding it whenever he sees fit resulting in the inconsistency we see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesTW Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 The fine should be a percentage of what the offending player earns in a season. This would make the most sense and still protect the major junior players that come up for a handful of games as their fines would still be in 2500 dollar range but a guy like Weber would have been fined about 2 million. edit: The money taken from a fined player should go directly to the victim of the act not the NHL or anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesTW Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 In regards to the Weber incident the NHL's lack of discipline will lead to a very ugly series with the potential for a very ugly incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Everyone knows what I mean. Stop being a douche, if you can handle that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheels22 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Unless I'm the only non-psychic on the forum I'm pretty sure we can only know what you actually said, not what you meant by what you said. And what you actually said was that that incident had "nothing to do with hockey." If you meant something else perhaps you should have been more clear. And if you felt I misunderstood your comments you should have explained instead of resorting to a childish (and sexist) insult when your words were taken at their face value. And I still have no idea what you mean because you never bothered to explain it. You said it had nothing to do with hockey, which means what exactly? That he should have gotten more punishment because it was so outside of what's normal in hockey? That the NHL shouldn't have dealt with it at all because it was so outside of what's normal in hockey? That he got the right punishment because there's no existing guideline for something like that to compare it with? No one here is your psychic friend and we're not charging you by the minute, so feel free to complete a thought. You are being unnecessarily rude. And wrong. The message I quoted and responded to was, "The Weber incident was 100% nothing to do with hockey." If you read it carefully this time you will notice that no where in that quote is the term "hockey play" used nor is there any reference to the play at all. And even assuming the term "hockey play" does not make the original statement I was responding to any more clear. But way to have your boy's back I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Loves You Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Unless I'm the only non-psychic on the forum I'm pretty sure we can only know what you actually said, not what you meant by what you said. And what you actually said was that that incident had "nothing to do with hockey." If you meant something else perhaps you should have been more clear. And if you felt I misunderstood your comments you should have explained instead of resorting to a childish (and sexist) insult when your words were taken at their face value. And I still have no idea what you mean because you never bothered to explain it. You said it had nothing to do with hockey, which means what exactly? That he should have gotten more punishment because it was so outside of what's normal in hockey? That the NHL shouldn't have dealt with it at all because it was so outside of what's normal in hockey? That he got the right punishment because there's no existing guideline for something like that to compare it with? No one here is your psychic friend and we're not charging you by the minute, so feel free to complete a thought. You are being unnecessarily rude. And wrong. The message I quoted and responded to was, "The Weber incident was 100% nothing to do with hockey." If you read it carefully this time you will notice that no where in that quote is the term "hockey play" used nor is there any reference to the play at all. And even assuming the term "hockey play" does not make the original statement I was responding to any more clear. But way to have your boy's back I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Haha.. Who the frack is this guy?.. Everyone understands what I posted. Clearly it has nothing to with hockey because it's not a hockey play. You're a total idiot/douche/prick. You are the type of person who tries to act smarter than people because they make a spelling error or type something unclear on the internet, which is the worst type of person. I'm surprised you haven't killed yourself yet. That much lack of value can really get to a person, but it's only a matter of time I guess.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.