Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Suggestions For Nhl Discipline?


This topic has been archived.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

Poll: Suggestions For Nhl Discipline? (22 member(s) have cast votes)

Should Brendan Shanahan and the NHL make decisions this way?

  1. Yes (6 votes [27.27%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.27%

  2. No (10 votes [45.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 45.45%

  3. Shanny's doing alright (6 votes [27.27%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.27%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Urethra_Franklin

Urethra_Franklin

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 12

Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:55 AM

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:


Posted Image

#2 Jeebus Loves You

Jeebus Loves You

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:32 AM

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.

Edited by Jeebus Loves You, 13 April 2012 - 09:33 AM.


#3 Zach Morris

Zach Morris

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,321 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 09

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:41 AM

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.
Posted Image

"Incredulous"

#4 vancouvercanucks#1

vancouvercanucks#1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 10

Posted 13 April 2012 - 10:06 AM

lol at the NESN broadcasters thinking Paille's hit was completely clean.

i am so sick of don cherry. get him the hell off ...hes way past his expiry date. I'm trying to watch hockey I don't want some senile blowhard talking about respecting baby jesus's birthday and not taking the lord's name in vain.


#5 Fugasi

Fugasi

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 10:12 AM

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

#6 precipice

precipice

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Joined: 22-December 07

Posted 13 April 2012 - 10:17 AM

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.

#7 gettheNUCKouttahere

gettheNUCKouttahere

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 10:19 AM

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


Word up, I agree. To be honest, the NHL is being a bunch of ladies with all theese hits and suspensions, and so are the players. I cannot stand it when players defend eachother over a clean hard hit. For instance if a star player gets destroyed and it is a clean hit, why does everyone on the team need to fight that guy. Only Push and fight when it's cheap or blatant. People are a bunch of babies about everything now, you signed up for a sport that you might get crushed in. DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES!!!

#8 sting

sting

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,038 posts
  • Joined: 09-November 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 10:34 AM

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.

#9 Wheels22

Wheels22

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,128 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:08 AM

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!

Edited by Wheels22, 13 April 2012 - 11:10 AM.


#10 kmotamed

kmotamed

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,055 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 06

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:40 AM

That's actually what they have begun to do since the Shanny era!

#11 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,891 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:46 AM

The Weber incident was 100% nothing to do with hockey.


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.
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#12 nuckin_futz

nuckin_futz

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 12

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:57 AM

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.

#13 Wheels22

Wheels22

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,128 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 13 April 2012 - 12:06 PM

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.


Everyone knows what I mean. Stop being a douche, if you can handle that

#14 JamesTW

JamesTW

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 10

Posted 13 April 2012 - 12:14 PM

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.

You are being obtuse, the term hockey play denotes a type of act that regularly occurs in a hockey game as opposed to grabbing a guys head and smashing it into the glass face first.

#15 JamesTW

JamesTW

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 10

Posted 13 April 2012 - 12:19 PM

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.

Edited by JamesTW, 13 April 2012 - 12:23 PM.


#16 JamesTW

JamesTW

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 10

Posted 13 April 2012 - 12:21 PM

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.

#17 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,891 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 12:42 PM

Everyone knows what I mean. Stop being a douche, if you can handle that


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 obtuse, the term hockey play denotes a type of act that regularly occurs in a hockey game as opposed to grabbing a guys head and smashing it into the glass face first.


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. ;)
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#18 Wheels22

Wheels22

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,128 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 13 April 2012 - 12:57 PM

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. ;)


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 just being an asshole on purpose and for no reason

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....

Edited by Wheels22, 13 April 2012 - 01:00 PM.


#19 Jeebus Loves You

Jeebus Loves You

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:06 PM

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. ;)


Oh STFU already, you douche monkey. You spend all this time knit-picking on this guy's use of the term "hockey" instead of "hockey play". You are translating his statement literally without any context, and if that is truly what you understood him to mean, you've got some serious literacy issues.

And seriously, you can't say you were misunderstood based on his misused terminology, because just look at your original response and all that sarcasm. You're just being a fckin troll.

#20 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,891 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:13 PM

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....


Wow. Where to start?

First of all, I'm not a guy.

Secondly, if I didn't understand what you posted, clearly "everyone" did not.

Thirdly, saying "it's not a hockey play" (which wasn't even your wording, but rather someone else who replied in your defense) still explains nothing. Again, does that mean it should have been punished more severely, less severely or not at all? This is a discussion forum where we actually say what we think, not state general phrases and assume everyone just thinks exactly like us and will know what we mean. If that were the case, there'd be no point in posting to begin with.

Fourthly, if you feel that my responding to what you actually said instead of what you assume we all just "know" you meant makes me any of the names you resorted to calling me, that might explain the problems you seem to have with people online. If you actually have something to say it should be deeper than a single unclear statement and you should be able to back it up with something more concrete than blanket insults and bullying tactics. Resorting to name calling only makes you appear that you don't have an actual argument to make and must resort to lashing out as your only means of defending your own words.

As for your last paragraph, well, if there was anything adult in it I would have bothered to reply to any points you made. But, I'm long past the playground so you'll have sling the mud by the swingset all by yourself.

Oh wait, actually, I see a few others in this thread I'm sure can keep you company.
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#21 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,891 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:15 PM

Oh STFU already, you douche monkey. You spend all this time knit-picking on this guy's use of the term "hockey" instead of "hockey play". You are translating his statement literally without any context, and if that is truly what you understood him to mean, you've got some serious literacy issues.

And seriously, you can't say you were misunderstood based on his misused terminology, because just look at your original response and all that sarcasm. You're just being a fckin troll.


"Douche monkey"?! Really? You have to actually make up ridiculous insults and you want to question my literacy? :lol:
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#22 Vaeneir

Vaeneir

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Joined: 22-May 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:21 PM

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. ;)


It's pretty clear what the intended message was in the original post. Grabbing the back of a player's head and smashing his face into the glass is not a normal hockey related event.

You are being deliberately argumentative and nitpicking semantics. If you choose to do that you should expect to get people's backs up, which I'm pretty sure is what you intended anyway. Don't act so surprised that they are calling you on it, and quit being so sensitive about gender issues; while the one response was perhaps inflammatory, it was not sexist, and calling your behaviour obtuse is simply an accurate description of how you chose to address the situation.

Edit: All that being said, the other responses are significantly more inflammatory, offensive and unnecessary. While I think that your approach the discussion was deliberately argumentative and wholly unnecessary, there's no need for personal attacks that these others have resorted to.

Edited by Vaeneir, 13 April 2012 - 01:26 PM.


#23 Wheels22

Wheels22

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,128 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:23 PM

Wow. Where to start?

First of all, I'm not a guy.

Secondly, if I didn't understand what you posted, clearly "everyone" did not.

Thirdly, saying "it's not a hockey play" (which wasn't even your wording, but rather someone else who replied in your defense) still explains nothing. Again, does that mean it should have been punished more severely, less severely or not at all? This is a discussion forum where we actually say what we think, not state general phrases and assume everyone just thinks exactly like us and will know what we mean. If that were the case, there'd be no point in posting to begin with.

Fourthly, if you feel that my responding to what you actually said instead of what you assume we all just "know" you meant makes me any of the names you resorted to calling me, that might explain the problems you seem to have with people online. If you actually have something to say it should be deeper than a single unclear statement and you should be able to back it up with something more concrete than blanket insults and bullying tactics. Resorting to name calling only makes you appear that you don't have an actual argument to make and must resort to lashing out as your only means of defending your own words.

As for your last paragraph, well, if there was anything adult in it I would have bothered to reply to any points you made. But, I'm long past the playground so you'll have sling the mud by the swingset all by yourself.

Oh wait, actually, I see a few others in this thread I'm sure can keep you company.


Didn't bother reading all of your post. Why would I? Waste of time/space in this thread.

Looks like you're the odd one out though, seeing how everyone is agreeing with me. I suggest going to a different site to waste all the time you have on your hands.

..

But before you go, you should really take your time dissecting every post I make into little columns and post useless comments on them periodically. Haha...

Edited by Wheels22, 13 April 2012 - 01:26 PM.


#24 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,891 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:33 PM

It's pretty clear what the intended message was in the original post. Grabbing the back of a player's head and smashing his face into the glass is not a normal hockey related event.


Ignoring the reality that you don't know what's clear to me, that means what exactly? I get, it's not normally a part of hockey. That's the clear part. What that simple statement is supposed to mean is not. That he should have been suspended, shouldn't have been punished at all, or was punished appropriately? I've asked repeatedly and stated rather clearly my questions and yet the ony responses I've gotten are people piling on to call me obtuse or whatever creative insults they can come up?!

You are being deliberately argumentative and nitpicking semantics. If you choose to do that you should expect to get people's backs up, which I'm pretty sure is what you intended anyway. Don't act so surprised that they are calling you on it, and quit being so sensitive about gender issues; while the one response was perhaps inflammatory, it was not sexist, and calling your behaviour obtuse is simply an accurate description of how you chose to address the situation.


First of all, jumping into an argument that's not yours just to call someone else argumentative is pretty much the defniition.

Secondly, you don't get to tell me what I can be "sensitive" about any more than you or any of your little friends get to tell me what I know, think, feel or mean. Welcome to reality.

Thirdly, referencing feminine hygiene as an insult is sexist.
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#25 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,891 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:39 PM

Didn't bother reading all of your post. Why would I? Waste of time/space in this thread.

Looks like you're the odd one out though, seeing how everyone is agreeing with me. I suggest going to a different site to waste all the time you have on your hands.

..

But before you go, you should really take your time dissecting every post I make into little columns and post useless comments on them periodically. Haha...


Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point. That you didn't have one. You didn't bother to read replies to judge them on their merits, just judged them blindly and responded with nothing more than blanket insults. And that you think discussions are ruled not by logic but gang mentality and bulling tactics.

But you're right, this is a complete waste of my time because only one of us actually wanted to talk about the issue....
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#26 snucks

snucks

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 03

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:52 PM

They need more playing refs on the ice. That way they could manage the game better. Unless its Boston!

#27 Jeebus Loves You

Jeebus Loves You

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 02:26 PM

"Douche monkey"?! Really? You have to actually make up ridiculous insults and you want to question my literacy? :lol:


Actually, yes. I called you a douche monkey. What is the problem with that? Are you now suddenly the expert opinion on what is an appropriate insult and what is a "ridiculous" insult? I must have missed that job posting.

Now how about I nitpick you a little bit. Just because I may use, what in your personal opinion is, a "ridiculous" insult, how does that question my literacy. I challenged your literacy based on what I perceived as an inability to follow context. What is the basis for your challenge?

#28 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,891 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 03:03 PM

Actually, yes. I called you a douche monkey. What is the problem with that? Are you now suddenly the expert opinion on what is an appropriate insult and what is a "ridiculous" insult? I must have missed that job posting.

Now how about I nitpick you a little bit. Just because I may use, what in your personal opinion is, a "ridiculous" insult, how does that question my literacy. I challenged your literacy based on what I perceived as an inability to follow context. What is the basis for your challenge?


Actually, I am the expert opinion on what I consider to be a ridiculous insult and combining random words pretty much sums it up. There was no job posting because I don't outsource my opinion or get it by committee.

And I questioned your qualifications to question my literacy because instead of offering your opinion and backing it with fact based arguments you resorted to childish name calling.

As for your point about context: The context of this thread is about punishment in the NHL. Given that context I was able to know that the comment I responded to referenced a specific incident (though no specific identifying details were given other than the name of a single person involved) and exactly which person named Weber was being discussed (though no other identifying information was given.) But that is where the assumptions that can be made end because those are the only facts. There is no one opinion about that incident, that player, or how the NHL dealt with that incident that we all share and therefore simply stating that that hit "had nothing to do with hockey" does not have a context that would explain it to mean anything other than what those words actually mean. If you supplied your own context based on your own opinion of the hit or the fine, that is your right but it is not part of the context of this thread nor is it part of the context all readers here can be assumed to share.

Consider for a second a view different from your own. That comment could have meant the hit didn't have anything to do with the game of hockey and therefore should be ignored by the NHL so the players could sort it out as individuals. It could have meant it was so far outside the realm of hockey related behaviour the cops should be called and the NHL should stay out of it. It could have meant that the fine itself was related to something outside the game more so than the actions in the game and been a comment on that bias. I could go on but I'm sure you get the point. There's a big difference between your assumptions of what was meant and a context that would limit the assumptions of all readers. And your assumed context is no more valid than my own and no amount of name calling will change that.
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#29 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,891 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 04:04 PM

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!


I wanted to quote and reply to your entire edited message because I only now just saw it. Though my original reply was posted a signficant amount of time after your edit, I did not see what you had added in your edit until now. I began my reply to the original message (which included the first sentence only) before your edit and posted my reply (after a delay caused by a long-ish phone call) some time later. So, having seen your complete edited message you obviously did include some context for your opinion that would have clarified it had I seen it earlier. I felt it simply fair to note that.

I still stand by my statement, however, that I have no idea what exactly that first sentence is supposed to mean (the hit had nothing to do with hockey? the punishment was decided by outside factors? etc.) Nor do I understand why someone would think stating that confusion is so horrible.



It's pretty clear what the intended message was in the original post. Grabbing the back of a player's head and smashing his face into the glass is not a normal hockey related event.

You are being deliberately argumentative and nitpicking semantics. If you choose to do that you should expect to get people's backs up, which I'm pretty sure is what you intended anyway. Don't act so surprised that they are calling you on it, and quit being so sensitive about gender issues; while the one response was perhaps inflammatory, it was not sexist, and calling your behaviour obtuse is simply an accurate description of how you chose to address the situation.

Edit: All that being said, the other responses are significantly more inflammatory, offensive and unnecessary. While I think that your approach the discussion was deliberately argumentative and wholly unnecessary, there's no need for personal attacks that these others have resorted to.


And I wanted to quote your edited message because I replied to your message prior to the edit as well. (That is the problem with an active thread I suppose...) Thank you for realizing we can have a difference of opinion without resorting to name calling.

Edited by poetica, 13 April 2012 - 04:06 PM.

Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#30 The Brahma Bull

The Brahma Bull

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,224 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 08

Posted 13 April 2012 - 04:10 PM

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.


Bertuzzi does play for the red wings...





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.