HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Gretzky NOT fined for instigator

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-23-2005, 02:32 PM
  #1
multiball
Registered User
 
multiball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NoHo
Posts: 1,253
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to multiball
Gretzky NOT fined for instigator

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=144237&hubname=nhl

The double standard that the NHL applies to Wayne Gretzky continues... Shane Doan instigates a fight with under 5 minutes and the new rule made for this particular situation is NOT applied. If it was George Parros or Sean Avery or Billl Guerin or Ian Laperriere out there, would THEY have been fined? Well, ok, Avery would be fined double...

This opens up a huge Pandora's Box over who IS and ISN'T a "goon" (Canadian Press' words) and who exactly this "rule" applies to.

Can someone post the official language of the rule? Does it say "automatically receive" or "may receive"?

multiball is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 02:36 PM
  #2
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
It's all in your link.


Quote:
But NHL disciplinarian Colin Campbell, who pushed for the new rule, also reserves the right to determine whether the rule applies on a case-by-case basis
On why he didn't issue the fine, etc

Quote:
The spirit of the rule was to get rid of coaches putting out their tough guys with a minute left in the game to settle a score.

In this case, Doan is the captain and top player on the Coyotes, not a goon, so Campbell decided not to fine Gretzky and not to suspend Doan

'And that would be, is this guy a two-shift guy who was out to send a message? Was it a tough guy doing his thing and leaving his calling card? Obviously, when you're talking about Doan, he played the most minutes in the game, you're not sending him out to send a message. So I'm going to assess each and everyone when it happens.''

 
Old
11-23-2005, 03:03 PM
  #3
multiball
Registered User
 
multiball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NoHo
Posts: 1,253
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to multiball
Here's what I was looking for. Not the language of application, but the official wording of the rule. http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule56.html:

(NEW for 2005-06) A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5) minutes of regulation time or at any time in overtime, shall be assessed an instigator minor penalty, a major for fighting, a ten minute misconduct and an automatic one-game suspension. The length of suspension will double for each subsequent offense. In addition, the player's coach shall be fined $10,000 -- a fine that will double for each subsequent incident.

The language seems unambiguous. "Shall" and "automatic" as opposed to "may be" or "unless the player is determined not to be a 'goon'".

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreport...6/GS020321.HTM shows Doan with an instigator at 20:00 of the third. Why again is this rule not being applied? Doan is not going to be suspended and the Coyotes coach won't be fined - which strikes me as a double standard. An even application of the rules during the game - to Gauthier - would've decreased the chances of this game getting out of hand in the first place.


Last edited by multiball: 11-23-2005 at 03:42 PM.
multiball is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 03:08 PM
  #4
Bandit
Registered User
 
Bandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 6,047
vCash: 500
Lame. Based on the rule, Gretzky should be fined, Doan should be suspended, end of story.

Bandit is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 03:15 PM
  #5
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 32,506
vCash: 50
did you expect anything less? seriously. the NHL would never DARE fine Gretz. EVER.

GoneFullHextall is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 03:21 PM
  #6
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
I think Campbell made the right call here.

Also, If he had upheld the "letter of the law" this could have been very ugly. IF the Doan incident happened after the final horn...

From the NHL rule book:

Any Teams whose players become involved in an altercation, other than during the periods of the game, shall be fined automatically twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) in addition to any other appropriate penalties that may be imposed upon the participating players by supplementary discipline or otherwise.
Any player who would be deemed to be an instigator pursuant to Rule 56(a) at a time other than during the periods of the game shall be suspended automatically for ten (10) games.

Such determination may be made by the Referee at the time of the incident or subsequently by the Commissioner or his designee based upon such reports and other information as he deems sufficient, including but not limited to television tapes.

(NOTE) In the case of altercations taking place after the period or game the fine under this Rule shall be assessed only in the event that an altercation is commenced after the period or game has terminated.


$25k and 10-games....

King Blazer is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 03:25 PM
  #7
Bandit
Registered User
 
Bandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 6,047
vCash: 500
Why write the rules if you're not going to enforce them?

Bandit is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 03:35 PM
  #8
multiball
Registered User
 
multiball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NoHo
Posts: 1,253
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to multiball
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Blazer
I think Campbell made the right call here.

Also, If he had upheld the "letter of the law" this could have been very ugly. IF the Doan incident happened after the final horn...
$25k and 10-games....
I can't agree with ya on the Campbell call, but that's a good point on the other rule application. I think the assignment of Doan's penalty (and all other similar end-of-game-action-penalties) at "20:00" is to stipulate that it was "during the game" and that "other than during periods the game" rule is for guys fighting during pre-game warm ups and such. I think rule 56a is the one that was designed to apply here, but the NHL said "well, it's Wayne and Shane Doan, and that's not who we meant to punish" - and for that reason, I think they are hypocrites in this particular case. That said, I'm in their corner on the way the refs are calling the new rules and how that has affected the game. This is just a glaring excpetion.

multiball is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 03:37 PM
  #9
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit
Why write the rules if you're not going to enforce them?
They are using discretion and in this case I think they're right...

King Blazer is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 03:37 PM
  #10
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit
Why write the rules if you're not going to enforce them?
Not that I agree with what happened but Doan was out. Not Scatchard, not Ricci, not O' Donnell. Doan. Their franchise player

And notice Doan fought Vishnevski. Not Selanne, Not Rob or Scott N, Vishnevksi.
Vishnevksi is as much of a cheap shot artist as Doan. At least Doan will drop the gloves.

 
Old
11-23-2005, 04:01 PM
  #11
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by multiball
I can't agree with ya on the Campbell call,
I put up some comments a while back regarding officiating and wrote about "the spirit of the rules" vs. "the letter of the law".

From what I can gather by this statement:

The spirit of the rule was to get rid of coaches putting out their tough guys with a minute left in the game to settle a score.

In this case, Doan is the captain and top player on the Coyotes, not a goon, so Campbell decided not to fine Gretzky and not to suspend Doan.


Campbell decided that in this case the incident was not within the spirit of the rule and therefore did not apply the letter of the law...

Basically, life is much more grey than it is black and white...

King Blazer is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 04:19 PM
  #12
XX
Lots of Try
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Executionville
Country: United States
Posts: 28,842
vCash: 500
Doan is not a goon
Doan was repsonding to Vishnevski's two hander on mara
Doan was facing him
Doan took off his gloves

Doan gets 27 PIMs

If it was someone throwing Boogard, Oliwa etc out there to beat someone senseless the rule would apply.

XX is online now  
Old
11-23-2005, 04:40 PM
  #13
multiball
Registered User
 
multiball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NoHo
Posts: 1,253
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to multiball
Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierX
Doan is not a goon
Doan was repsonding to Vishnevski's two hander on mara
Doan was facing him
Doan took off his gloves

Doan gets 27 PIMs

If it was someone throwing Boogard, Oliwa etc out there to beat someone senseless the rule would apply.
Let me say up front that I absolutely love Shane Doan as a player. And I'm not saying Visnevsky didn't deserve a swat. And believe me, I'm no Ducks fan. Doan instigated in the last 5 minutes of a game and should be suspended. Your post asserts that the rules apply differently to Shane Doan because he "was facing him and took off his gloves"? All I'm saying is that Doan deserves to be suspended - for doing what he most likely should've been doing.

What if it were Tyson Nash or Gauthier in that situation? Would the suspension be levied? (Not that Gauthier would drop his gloves, but hypothetically...)

multiball is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 05:14 PM
  #14
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
If the rule was intended to leave a level of discretion in the hands of the NHL, then the rule should have stated "may" and not "shall". - Basic Statute Construction 101

What happens if someone like a Rick Tocchet were to get the instigator at the end of the game? A former "goon" that became a pretty damn good player and captain. How would Campbell address that. Too much gray if you start make determinations based upon a player's "role" on the team.

Not saying that KB is wrong in his assessment, only that the rule should not vest such discretionary power. I'm going to put on my Scalia mask and say that the clause is clear irrespective of what the "intent" or "spirit" of the clause is/was. I can see it when it comes to suspensions over injuries because every injury is different from the next. But an instigator penalty is an instigator penalty is an instigator penalty.

The very next time this happens will be interesting because that coach/player is going to appeal and say that "Player X is like Shane Doan because..." and the many shades of gray begin.

__________________
Saxon Sports Information and Research

Last edited by David A. Rainer: 11-23-2005 at 05:26 PM.
David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 05:20 PM
  #15
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierX
If it was someone throwing Boogard, Oliwa etc out there to beat someone senseless the rule would apply.
That's fine, then state it in the rule.

I don't know if only part of or the entire rule was stated in this thread above, but no where in what was quoted does it state that (i.) the fine "may" be assessed; or (ii.) that the NHL has ultimate discretionary power to review it. It does, however, say this in the after-game altercation rule that was quoted.

Can anyone confirm or deny that such a power to review is also included in the last 5-minutes rule as shown in the after-game altercation rule?

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 05:52 PM
  #16
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Rainer
But an instigator penalty is an instigator penalty is an instigator penalty.
Basically I look at it as Campbell rescinded the instigator penalty on Doan without cutting off the refs nuts in public...

If there isn't a specific clause in the rulebook I'd be very surprised if there isn't something somewhere that gives the League discretionary power over the enforcement of all rules...

King Blazer is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 06:07 PM
  #17
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Blazer
Basically I look at it as Campbell rescinded the instigator penalty on Doan without cutting off the refs nuts in public...

If there isn't a specific clause in the rulebook I'd be very surprised if there isn't something somewhere that gives the League discretionary power over the enforcement of all rules...
But if that is the case then the league is acting with prejudice. That would be like the people who make laws putting in clauses that they do not apply to people of a certain race or religion. That kind of thinking is very dangerous and can invite legal repercussions.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 06:15 PM
  #18
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
But if that is the case then the league is acting with prejudice. That would be like the people who make laws putting in clauses that they do not apply to people of a certain race or religion. That kind of thinking is very dangerous and can invite legal repercussions.
The League isn't a public municipality, it's a business. These aren't laws their enforcing they're their rules. Them's the rules and it appears that the League feels they have the right to interpret the rules as they see fit.

King Blazer is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 06:23 PM
  #19
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Blazer
The League isn't a public municipality, it's a business. These aren't laws their enforcing they're their rules. Them's the rules and it appears that the League feels they have the right to interpret the rules as they see fit.
Even business have to abide by the rules of business or they are in violation of the law. If an employee can prove that another co-worker commited the same offense but was given preferential treatment then that person could file a descrimination lawsuit against the employer. Businesses are not able to make their own rules.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 07:36 PM
  #20
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
Even business have to abide by the rules of business or they are in violation of the law. If an employee can prove that another co-worker commited the same offense but was given preferential treatment then that person could file a descrimination lawsuit against the employer. Businesses are not able to make their own rules.
A professional sports league is able to make their own rules. They are self governing. If they get ridiculously out of line, Congress steps in.

Colin Campbell wrote this rule, he got it enacted. It was enacted to stop teams from putting their enforcers out with 1:00 to go in a game that was a blowout.
This wasn't the case , so the rule wasn't applied.

 
Old
11-23-2005, 07:39 PM
  #21
jstreet
Smashville
 
jstreet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 8,178
vCash: 8000
let's just change the rule book to the "objective suggestion book"

jstreet is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 07:42 PM
  #22
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
 
King'sPawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,285
vCash: 500
The front offices and officiating are turning into the biggest joke. As DARE said, don't use "shall" when you say "may." They hold these long discussions for a reason.

This is simply shameful.

King'sPawn is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 07:48 PM
  #23
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
 
King'sPawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn
A professional sports league is able to make their own rules. They are self governing. If they get ridiculously out of line, Congress steps in.

Colin Campbell wrote this rule, he got it enacted. It was enacted to stop teams from putting their enforcers out with 1:00 to go in a game that was a blowout.
This wasn't the case , so the rule wasn't applied.
KJ, I truly thought you better than to defend this blatant breaking of a rule. If his intention was to discourage sending goons out in the final few minutes, he should have added "at the discretion of the league office."

Doan, Iginla or any respectable star can take cheap shots and provoke a fight with less than five minutes in the game, but if Avery or someone else less respected does it, then it's okay?

It's more important for the league to discourage goons being sent out, than to discourage poor sportsmanship and cheapshots? That's pathetic.

King'sPawn is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 07:57 PM
  #24
ILuvLA
Registered User
 
ILuvLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lost in LA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King'sPawn
KJ, I truly thought you better than to defend this blatant breaking of a rule. If his intention was to discourage sending goons out in the final few minutes, he should have added "at the discretion of the league office."

Doan, Iginla or any respectable star can take cheap shots and provoke a fight with less than five minutes in the game, but if Avery or someone else less respected does it, then it's okay?

It's more important for the league to discourage goons being sent out, than to discourage poor sportsmanship and cheapshots? That's pathetic.
KP, I wholeheartely concur with you. The way the rule is written, it doesn't appear to give Cambell any leeway. Yet, he chose to give Gretz & Doan latitude. Any player, of any stature can take cheap shots. Why should they be excused? Makes absolutely no sense. Parity should be across the board, otherwise it's just laughable.

ILuvLA is offline  
Old
11-23-2005, 08:11 PM
  #25
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILuvLA
KP, I wholeheartely concur with you. The way the rule is written, it doesn't appear to give Cambell any leeway. Yet, he chose to give Gretz & Doan latitude. Any player, of any stature can take cheap shots. Why should they be excused? Makes absolutely no sense. Parity should be across the board, otherwise it's just laughable.
Apparently Campbell DOES have the leeway to do it becuse he just did...

King Blazer is offline  
Closed Thread

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 12:36 AM.

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.