HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Intent or injury?

View Poll Results: Should the league's suspensions be based solely on intent?
Yes 14 73.68%
No 5 26.32%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-19-2009, 02:54 PM
  #1
TomPlex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,138
vCash: 500
Intent or injury?

I was having an argument with a friend of mine last night. I truly believe that this league should be punishing based on intent and not on the ensuing injury or lack thereof. FFS, sometimes players get suspended after injuring someone when there was no visible intent whatsoever. Kosto should be suspended for that attempted high elbow. Lucic should be suspended for the slash to Komo's leg and for dropping him down to the ice and also for the high-stick on Lappy.

His argument was that there will always be a grey line and it adds a lot of collusion if you have to review plays like that. He wonders what will happen when they're on the grey line? Who will make the decision?

Let me know what you think.

TomPlex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2009, 02:58 PM
  #2
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
In order to answer this question, you'd have to define what you mean by "intent".

For example, the Kostopoulos almost elbow in game one. Was that an intent or did he pull back or missed?

On the other hand, you have Lucic crosschecking someone on the head with a stick. That's a much bigger intent.

In the first case, don't punish the intent. On the second, regardless if a player is injured or not, punish it the same.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2009, 02:58 PM
  #3
Max et Guillaume
Registered User
 
Max et Guillaume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 970
vCash: 500
If you're too incompetent to injure the player when trying to injure the player, you shouldn' be rewarded...

You "attempted" to injure? then you're out. I know the "attempt" will always be a judgement call, but an easy one nonetheless..

Max et Guillaume is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2009, 03:00 PM
  #4
TomPlex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asterix View Post
In order to answer this question, you'd have to define what you mean by "intent".

For example, the Kostopoulos almost elbow in game one. Was that an intent or did he pull back or missed?

On the other hand, you have Lucic crosschecking someone on the head with a stick. That's a much bigger intent.

In the first case, don't punish the intent. On the second, regardless if a player is injured or not, punish it the same.
That's the issue. Do you think that's it's not worth having a panel that can review these plays without bias? I'm pretty sure a panel of 10 people would've voted that Kosto showed some clear intent on that play.

TomPlex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2009, 03:06 PM
  #5
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomPlex View Post
That's the issue. Do you think that's it's not worth having a panel that can review these plays without bias? I'm pretty sure a panel of 10 people would've voted that Kosto showed some clear intent on that play.
I would personally push hard to draw the line if there was contact or not. No contact, no risk right?

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2009, 03:07 PM
  #6
CrazyShea
Registered User
 
CrazyShea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Rock
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asterix View Post
I would personally push hard to draw the line if there was contact or not. No contact, no risk right?
Like don cherry said there's a difference in attempted murder and murder. Kosto never hit him therefore he shouldn't be punished but lucic crosschecked lappy in the head so he should be gone

CrazyShea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2009, 03:10 PM
  #7
Pascal
Registered User
 
Pascal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,467
vCash: 500
I voted yes. The intent shouldn't be tied in with the success or failure of the action.

That's like saying someone who shot another person in the chest but didn't kill him is free to go since he "failed".

Pascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2009, 03:26 PM
  #8
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascal View Post
I voted yes. The intent shouldn't be tied in with the success or failure of the action.

That's like saying someone who shot another person in the chest but didn't kill him is free to go since he "failed".
I would only agree with this if contact is made.

How many times in a game do you see players trying to hit the puck in the air? If they hit someone in the face, it's a high stick. If they don't, should they call a high sticking penalty for "attempt to hit the puck which could result in a high stick or injuring someone" ?

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2009, 03:29 PM
  #9
TomPlex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asterix View Post
I would only agree with this if contact is made.

How many times in a game do you see players trying to hit the puck in the air? If they hit someone in the face, it's a high stick. If they don't, should they call a high sticking penalty for "attempt to hit the puck which could result in a high stick or injuring someone" ?
Yes but that is in no way an intent to INJURE. That's the intent that I'm referring to.

Obviously you could argue that a player would be trying to mask an intent to injure with a play like that, but that's what a governing panel of 10 would have to investigate. Has this player ever acted like this before? Do these two have a history? Was it more than a meaningless play?

TomPlex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2009, 03:30 PM
  #10
kent_carlson
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyshea View Post
Like don cherry said there's a difference in attempted murder and murder. Kosto never hit him therefore he shouldn't be punished but lucic crosschecked lappy in the head so he should be gone
I love this one, Cherry is such an intellectual. The difference in attempted murder and murder: the victim is not dead! but the sentence could be the same. Maybe he wanted to say manslaughter which is different.

Anyway, punish the intent and with longer suspension than what they are giving now. Why? Because it does'nt help hockey in any way and because most of the time those attempt are made by marginal players that hockey don't really need (i.e. Downey, Nichols and so-on, Pronger is the exception but he got a lot of short suspensions, no deterrence there).

kent_carlson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2009, 03:37 PM
  #11
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomPlex View Post
Yes but that is in no way an intent to INJURE. That's the intent that I'm referring to.

Obviously you could argue that a player would be trying to mask an intent to injure with a play like that, but that's what a governing panel of 10 would have to investigate. Has this player ever acted like this before? Do these two have a history? Was it more than a meaningless play?
I fully understand the difference between the two. I was simply trying to demonstrate and focus on "intent". I'm saying that you simply can't justify punishing a gesture as "intent" arbitrarily as no one knows what the actual intentions were. It's even worse if there's no contact made! I can see them being more severe if there is contact though...

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2009, 03:40 PM
  #12
One Trick Pony
Registered User
 
One Trick Pony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,585
vCash: 500
Well you have to look at why we suspend in the first place. Is it because you want to punish the guy who injured the other player, or you want to punish him because if you punish him, he will learn from his mistakes? I think it should be to make the players learn, even if they didn't injure the other player. That way, their should be less attempts to injure so less injuries in general.

One Trick Pony is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:40 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.