I'm fine with the suspension, based upon the rules. However, when taken in context of the Edler hit on Hall, it makes no sense whatsoever. All of the reasons that were given for the Edler hit resulting in no suspension are in play here.
I think Sutton was just guilty of being "too big".
Definitely didn't target the head, & landeskog definitely put himself in a very vulnerable situation.
I get the notion that players need to ease up when they see players in vulnerable situation, but there is only so much you can do when you're 6'6(or whatever Sutton is).
Absolutely pathetic that, a few months later, this play leads to a 5 game suspension, when Shanahan's predecesor gave Chara nothing for a far more violent and damaging hit.... pretty much sums up the bias that was the Campbell regime.
too many games for the hit, maybe 2 or 3 games would be fair IMO, but sutton is a jackass so im happy, and Shanny kind of adressed how this was different from the Edler hit, in that there was no sudden movements of the head in this hit.
So Shannahan says he's not a repeat offender, but his past hits can't be ignored. What's the point designating people repeat offenders then?
Well, if you are repeated offender you are automatically evaluated more strictly (and punished more severly).
Shanahan's statement can basically means two things:
a.) Also history of borderline icnidents will be taken into consideration, even if any of those incidents as such would not have resulted in suspension. This would most likely especially refer to incidents which would have carried a minor suspension had the perpetrator been repeated offender
b.) Shanahan thinks that one or more of Sutton's previous incidents should have resulted in suspension and only reason Sutton is not officially considered repeated offender is that Campell failed in his position.