View Single Post
02-16-2012, 06:05 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 955
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I don't think people are overreacting. People are just fed up with the inconsistency.
Just like if someone throws a gentle light elbow that clips the face without causing much injury, as opposed to going full on speed with the elbow high and taking someone's head off. I don't think there is a difference in either case. Both are elbows out, directed to the head. The act should be punishable, not the outcome of it.
You stick your elbow out to clip someone's head, suspended. Simple.

Same thing should apply here. You duck to clip the knees of a player, then you get suspended. It's dangerous and it's stupid. Not to mention, he got suspended for the exact same thing not too long ago. Because he was going slow he didn't injure Emelin, so the act becomes okay? That's retarded.
Good post. You actually explained exactly why the NHL is so inconsistent. It's because they often look at the victim of the hit to determine whether the offending player is guilty. So you end up with illegal hits resulting in long suspensions, and similar hits going completely unpenalized. Then you have legal hits being left alone as they should and similar legal hits resulting in long suspensions (Rome on Horton). It's no wonder players have no idea what's going on. How can they know the full extent of the damage they're going to cause? It could depend on which inch of your opponent's body you hit at a closing speed of 60km/h. (I used the word 'often' deliberately because there is the occasional case when an illegal play results in a significant injury and there is inexplicably no supplementary discipline. The hit on Seabrook last playoffs, for example and, of course, Chara's hit on Pacioretty. These defy any reasoning, are not consistent with judgments before or since, and thereby appear completely arbitrary.)

The way to solve this isso simple I guess they just haven't thought of it yet:

Evaluate a play on its own merits. An illegal play is an illegal play. Prior record and injury to the opponent should be used more as secondary considerations that help to determine the severity of the penalty, not whether the player is guilty in the first place. If you do that, you end up with a consistent scaled system (unless you have idiots running these things, which I am not ruling out). Suspend illegal plays, and make the length of the suspension relative to (and not the same as) the injury. Don't suspend legal plays, even if there is an injury. Very very simple.

Catch-22 is offline   Reply With Quote