[Report] Matt Calvert suspended 1 game

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[Down by the River]

*Puts on tinfoil hat*

 

NHL leaked the story this morning that Calvert would escape suspension. They then suspend him for one game so that people think "at least he got something".

[Ghostsof1915]

1 minute ago, Down by the River said:

*Puts on tinfoil hat*

 

NHL leaked the story this morning that Calvert would escape suspension. They then suspend him for one game so that people think "at least he got something".

Busta deal, spin the wheel. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Down by the River said:

*Puts on tinfoil hat*

 

NHL leaked the story this morning that Calvert would escape suspension. They then suspend him for one game so that people think "at least he got something".

The NHL...DOPS is a friggin' joke.  It's anyone's guess what is a suspension, and how many games.  

[Gurn]

1 game for the crosscheck is a joke, but what may have been a head shot with the check after- on a defenseless player, gets nothing extra.

Someday soon a player is going to have to sue both the league and the player that did the illegal hit, in order to get the league to pull it's head from it's arse.

[-AJ-]

Given that 1 playoff game is worth more like 2-3 regular season games in my mind, this is a fine suspension considering that Calvert also had no history. I don't expect he'll get off so easy if he tries anything like that soon.

[Gurn]

I wonder what the suspension would be if the Penguin ended up with a broken arm?

[JM_]

Seems to me 10 and the rest of the game would have been sufficient had this occurred 2nd period, but it was pretty stupid to do this in the last minute, you're kind of asking the NHL to act. 

[on the cycle]

Would have thought 2 games but at least the league actually did something.

[Master Mind]

55 minutes ago, ajhockey said:

Given that 1 playoff game is worth more like 2-3 regular season games in my mind, this is a fine suspension considering that Calvert also had no history. I don't expect he'll get off so easy if he tries anything like that soon.

The whole no prior history mentality is terrible. Essentially giving every player one free pass to do what they want. 

 

This isn't just a hit gone wrong, this is a clear attempt to injure. Throw the book at that punk. No place in the game for something like that.

[elvis15]

1 hour ago, ajhockey said:

Given that 1 playoff game is worth more like 2-3 regular season games in my mind, this is a fine suspension considering that Calvert also had no history. I don't expect he'll get off so easy if he tries anything like that soon.

Maybe you can say it'd be worth 2 in the first round, but I'd say less if anything. Remember how the NHL explained that suspendable games increased in value through each round and Rome still got 4?

 

That said, I wouldn't have given too much more, probably 2. I'd have given him 3-4 in the regular season, but that there was a sequence of illegal plays by Calvert in a row and considering the score and time of the game it deserved more than just the 1-2 regular season games/playoff equivalent.

[Wonder__Bread]

2 hours ago, Master Mind said:

The whole no prior history mentality is terrible. Essentially giving every player one free pass to do what they want. 

 

This isn't just a hit gone wrong, this is a clear attempt to injure. Throw the book at that punk. No place in the game for something like that.

That's a pretty cynical way of looking at it.

 

No priors helps establish two things:

1. Does the player in question usually make dirty plays or is he known to be a dirty player (every player when asked about their infraction by the DOPS is gonna say it was unintentional).

2. Maybe the player in question made the play accidentally or maybe the player experienced a brief lack of discipline leading to the infraction.

 

Think about this like a courtroom. If someone has a prior conviction and they commit the same offense once again, it's more likely that they have bad intentions no matter what they say. Someone with no priors who commits the same offense essentially has a clean record before hand so you tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, regardless they still get punished either way, but the difference will be the severity of the sentence. 

['NucK™]

4 hours ago, gurn said:

1 game for the crosscheck is a joke, but what may have been a head shot with the check after- on a defenseless player, gets nothing extra.

Someday soon a player is going to have to sue both the league and the player that did the illegal hit, in order to get the league to pull it's head from it's arse.

If you watch the video they do mention the bodycheck so obviously that was considered. 

 

From what I see, Calvert had no idea the broken piece of his stick jabbed (more like grazed) Kuhnhackl's neck, and thought he was embellishing. IMO one game is more than enough. 

 

[Borvat]

17 hours ago, gurn said:

1 game for the crosscheck is a joke, but what may have been a head shot with the check after- on a defenseless player, gets nothing extra.

Someday soon a player is going to have to sue both the league and the player that did the illegal hit, in order to get the league to pull it's head from it's arse.

Todd Bertuzzi

[Master Mind]

20 hours ago, Wonder__Bread said:

That's a pretty cynical way of looking at it.

 

No priors helps establish two things:

1. Does the player in question usually make dirty plays or is he known to be a dirty player (every player when asked about their infraction by the DOPS is gonna say it was unintentional).

2. Maybe the player in question made the play accidentally or maybe the player experienced a brief lack of discipline leading to the infraction.

 

Think about this like a courtroom. If someone has a prior conviction and they commit the same offense once again, it's more likely that they have bad intentions no matter what they say. Someone with no priors who commits the same offense essentially has a clean record before hand so you tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, regardless they still get punished either way, but the difference will be the severity of the sentence. 

Hard to argue that was accidental. Repeat offenders should get more, but I think first  time offenders get off far too easy. 

 

Even repeat offenders don't get properly punished, just look at Marchand. The league doesn't like handing out long suspensions, and they've managed to convince many that it's because of no prior history. Only time we've actually seen history play a major role was Torres.