An Argument For Standardizing League Discipline, And Discussion On How To Do It.

[Brambojoe]

Whatever the penalties are they need to be more severe because it's pretty obvious the message hasn't gotten through.

[The Guy]

Hmmm, while I don't have a problem with your approach, OP, I do think it will be ineffective. I believe firmly that the way games are handled IN-GAME needs to change, and perhaps not all that drastically. Currently, the league has a reactionary policy, with offenders' actions being analyzed after the game in which the incidents occur. A reactionary policy is typically the easiest and most used in our society, as it has been throughout history. I, however, disagree with this philosophy being the focus of efforts to reduce anything from crime to bullying to racism to abuse to dirty and disrespectful hockey plays - all of these stem from a lack of respect for others and a lack of compassion. As humans, we have a choice between whether we commit acts to hurt others for selfish motives or even just because we feel like throwing our weight around a bit in a dominant display. But this is exactly why the reactionary approach isn't entirely effective and can be even anti-productive in cases, as some of you seem to feel is the case with the NHL disciplinary measures this year.

So me and my friend came up with this idea that the league needs to have more presence in-game. I'm not talking about on-ice referees who have no advantage of playbacks and have a hard enough job trying to manage the players and make correct calls. I'm talking about in-game, independent mediators with the advantage of replays. If a dirty hit comes up, the mediator takes the decision on discipline right there. IF a suspension is warranted, the player should always be removed immediately from the game with this approach and more fairness would be observed by fans and coaches. While this might still seem to be reactionary, it would remove the pressure from the refs to make everybody happy. The decision would come from above and the coaches and players couldn't bitch at anybody; they'd just have to accept it. I believe this would calm intense games down more, analogous to studies which have shown that discipline become less effective the longer after the incident the disciplinary act occurs. Now, I've heard one downside to this is the time it may take which may slow the game down, however I believe that this will not, overall, be the case. I think if implemented properly, this approach would reduce scrums and subsequent retaliatory runs at players, allowing good, solid, clean, physical hockey to be played.

-The Guy

[TheOtherVancouver]

The links I've seen didn't say Hagelin got 3 games for an "unintentional" hit, but whatever. It's still nonsense, no matter how you slice it, especially when compared to the infamous Rome hit from last year.

Q: How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Only 1, but it has to *want* to change.

Does the NHL even want to change? If it does, much like the poster above said, it's going to have to go to the root. That means there will have to be a clear message from the top that sportsmanship is something that this league actually values. There would be many implications to that approach.

Any league that purports to value sportsmanship would not have things like the Marchand speed-bag stuff from last year. That's an instant ejection, period. It means much lower tolerance for scrums and facewashing. Also, snow-showering, chirping and yes, diving. None of those things are necessary for intense, physical hockey; all of them detract from the *actual game* that's to be played on the ice.

But it would have to come from the top. Do you give a crap about sportsmanship, NHL? Why not try it?