Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Tom Wilson fined $5000... wait, what!?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I know Vintage had a John Scott comment video up earlier. He just finished an interview with Sportsnet, Ken Read. He's bang on again. Hopefully someone smarter than me can get that posted on this thread. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It is pretty disgusting that Tom Wilson did not get suspended. The Rangers had every right to voice their displeasure and call for a new director for player safety.

 

The act was more than one, very dirty, injury causing to one of the best players,  not just in the Rangers, but in the NHL. The icing on the cake was that this was done so by a repeat offender. There is no logic in how this was swept under the rug. 
 

The only thing I can say is that perhaps some owners have better control than others. Jeremy Jacobs, who owns the Bruins, had been somewhat of a puppet master of the NHL and Bettman. This is why the player got suspended when he did his antics on a Bruin (let’s not forget how the 2011 Finals reffing were one sided towards the Bruins favour).

Edited by grandmaster
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

It is pretty disgusting that Tom Wilson did not get suspended. The Rangers had every right to voice their displeasure and call for a new director for player safety.

 

The act was more than one, very dirty, injury causing to one of the best players,  not just in the Rangers, but in the NHL. The icing on the cake was that this was done so by a repeat offender. There is no logic in how those was swept under the rug. 
 

The only thing I can say is that perhaps some owners have better control than others. Jeremy Jacobs, who owns the Bruins, had been somewhat of a puppet master of the NHL and Bettman. This is why the player got suspended when he did his antics on a Bruin (let’s not forget how the 2011 Finals reffing were one sided towards the Bruins favour).

Don't be surprised to see Kelly Sutherland assigned to a ton of Rangers games next year as payback, similar to the league rigging our games in retaliation for Burrows exposing a corrrupt ref.  Hopefully honesty and integrity is made a priority before a judge forces the NHL to clean up their act.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw what happened and the rangers statement, they are 100000% correct and even though it’s the rangers (still not over 94) they are probably one of the few franchises that could get away with that kind of statement. Parros was a clown as a player and even worse in head office but this speaks to a greater issue in head office, one we all saw in 2011. Wilson should be done for the season after that gutless attack 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on the Rangers for their statement, I'm sure they'll get slapped with a fine but more teams need to come out and challenge Parros because this is outrageous. At the end of the day the teams and players should decide their own safety, not a couple of board members.

 

Time for a reshuffle of the DOPS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The league will probably fine the rangers more than Wilson. But they probably want that as the ammo that would give them would be absolutely huge. The league have backed themselves into a corner with this one. 

 

the closest thing I can remember to this was Horton and he I believe for a 15 game ban (albeit in the Shanahan era)

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QzZvG5O9Rg0&feature=youtu.be
 

Im struggling to see where Wilson gets off with just a fine.

 

in regards to player safety the NHLPA also needs to take a hard look at themselves. Whilst their purpose is to look after the player interests they also need to ensure that they are protecting the players and they should not be supporting players who go outside the rules and they really shouldn’t be entrenching themselves on the fines issue. 
 

The NHL is a laughing stock and it seems we are right back to the Colin Campbel era of supplementary discipline . The owners have to also face some of the blame 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I saw the lowlights I thought 20 games for sure. DOPS is beyond incompetent. It's now an impediment to player safety. \

 

Sucker punching a prone defenceless player is worth $5,000? And pulling a helmetless player to the ice by his hair is worth no suspension?

 

If you're going to turn this into street justice then don't be surprised by the outcome. It's like they want to bring back the Broad Street Bullies.

 

Russell Peters 1 - Somebody's gonna get a hurt... real bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

I couldn't have said it any better. The league needs to hire NHL All-Star MVP John Scott to be the head of NHL's Department of Player Safety.

 

 

Well, I agree with him, apart for the bit where he said he loved everything Wilson was doing up to that point. Basically, he would have suspended Wilson for this, but not for anything else Wilson has done in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • elvis15 changed the title to Tom Wilson fined $5000... wait, what!?

On Tuesday, the Department of Player Safety opted to not suspend Wilson for a sixth time, instead fining him $5,000 – the maximum allowed under the Collective Bargaining Agreement – for roughing Buchnevich. There was no supplemental discipline for his takedown of Panarin, who will miss the final three games of the season as a result of the injury he sustained in the ugly episode.

Wilson has now forfeited $1,296,456.50 in salary to the NHL’s Emergency Assistance Fund as a result of supplemental discipline, all over the last four calendar years.

Based on his $5.17-million salary cap hit, Wilson earned more than enough money ($21,527) during his 14 minutes in the box to pay the $5,000 fine.

https://www.tsn.ca/rangers-call-for-parros-firing-over-wilson-ruling-nhl-justice-system-heading-for-overhaul-1.1634630

He made enough money to pay his fine in the penalty box LOL

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

The Rangers have called up a goon for tonight’s game. 

which one. I don't see anything on cap friendly..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ok just want to play devils advocate. I'm in no way defending Wilsons actions because it was gutless hockey, however I work with legislation all the time, and when it comes to laying a charge or fine, the action must clearly be in contravention to whats written in legislation.

In other words, maybe the issue is there is no "body slamming" clause which can be put in affect. Maybe the DOPS hands are tied. Wasn't a hit from behind, wasnt a stick infraction, technically wasn't a hit to the head etc. The issue is if the DOPS suspended him 20 games because it was a dangerous play, Wilson's team will point to the rule book and say specifically what rule was broken, if no one can answer, then the suspension will be overturned in a blink of an eye.

 

So again, not defending Wilson, just saying the punishment must fit the crime, maybe the issue is this particular crime isn't a crime because its not in the rule book as such.

I'm speaking specifically on the Panarin incident

Edited by JayDangles
Clarifying which incident i'm referring to
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JayDangles said:

Ok just want to play devils advocate. I'm in no way defending Wilsons actions because it was gutless hockey, however I work with legislation all the time, and when it comes to laying a charge or fine, the action must clearly be in contravention to whats written in legislation.

In other words, maybe the issue is there is no "body slamming" clause which can be put in affect. Maybe the DOPS hands are tied. Wasn't a hit from behind, wasnt a stick infraction, technically wasn't a hit to the head etc. The issue is if the DOPS suspended him 20 games because it was a dangerous play, Wilson's team will point to the rule book and say specifically what rule was broken, if no one can answer, then the suspension will be overturned in a blink of an eye.

 

So again, not defending Wilson, just saying the punishment must fit the crime, maybe the issue is this particular crime isn't a crime because its not in the rule book as such.

Surely there's something broad that covers unnecessary and/or excessive violent acts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Chickenspear said:

Surely there's something broad that covers unnecessary and/or excessive violent acts. 

You might be right, I mean wasn't a player suspended for spitting last year? That would fall under unsportsmanlike conduct, which also includes pulling hair.

 

I've reviewed the rule book. Only thing it could fit under is "roughing" but the rule book specifically says that roughing can only be a minor penalty, not a major, or game misconduct, so definitely cant provide a suspension for excessive roughing. Maybe unsportsmanlike conduct for the hair pulling. I don't know where they could apply a suspension that would stick if challenged. That said, seems like there's an opportunity for the league to look at this and create some sort of new rule based on dangerous play under extenuating circumstances. 

i.e. "Where through a players deliberate dangerous action, another player sustains an injury that otherwise could have been avoided" You would have to further define "dangerous action", but this could be done. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JayDangles said:

You might be right, I mean wasn't a player suspended for spitting last year? That would fall under unsportsmanlike conduct, which also includes pulling hair.

 

I've reviewed the rule book. Only thing it could fit under is "roughing" but the rule book specifically says that roughing can only be a minor penalty, not a major, or game misconduct, so definitely cant provide a suspension for excessive roughing. Maybe unsportsmanlike conduct for the hair pulling. I don't know where they could apply a suspension that would stick if challenged. That said, seems like there's an opportunity for the league to look at this and create some sort of new rule based on dangerous play under extenuating circumstances. 

i.e. "Where through a players deliberate dangerous action, another player sustains an injury that otherwise could have been avoided" You would have to further define "dangerous action", but this could be done. 

 

 

We'll call it the "douchebaggery clause"

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...