HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

NHLPA appealing Vermette automatic 10-game suspension UPDATE 2/25 Appeal denied

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-18-2017, 11:30 AM
  #1
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 66,690
vCash: 500
NHLPA appealing Vermette automatic 10-game suspension UPDATE 2/25 Appeal denied

http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2017/02/17/...me-suspension/

After review, the call on the ice is disputed.


So, the appeal is for "no" suspension after official abuse which has automatic 10-game (for unintentional abuse/hit) as opposed to intentional 20-game suspension.


Last edited by Fenway: 02-25-2017 at 06:12 PM.
LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 12:36 PM
  #2
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 17,093
vCash: 500
Will be interesting if the league reduces the suspension. Per the rulebook it could be difficult for them to do:

Quote:
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE OFFICIAL RULES 2016-2017
Rule 40 – Physical Abuse of Officials

40.1 Game Misconduct - Any player who deliberately applies physical force in any manner against an official, in any manner attempts to injure an official, physically demeans, or deliberately applies physical force to an official solely for the purpose of getting free of such an official during or immediately following an altercation shall receive a game misconduct penalty. In addition, the following (40.2, 40.3, 40.4) disciplinary penalties shall apply.

40.2 Automatic Suspension – Category I - Any player who deliberately strikes an official and causes injury or who deliberately applies physical force in any manner against an official with intent to injure, or who in any manner attempts to injure an official shall be automatically suspended for not less than twenty (20) games. (For the purpose of the rule, “intent to injure” shall mean any physical force which a player knew or should have known could reasonably be expected to cause injury.)

40.3 Automatic Suspension – Category II - Any player who deliberately applies physical force to an official in any manner (excluding actions as set out in Category I), which physical force is applied without intent to injure, or who spits on an official, shall be automatically suspended for not less than ten (10) games.

40.4 Automatic Suspension – Category III - Any player who, by his actions, physically demeans an official or physically threatens an official by (but not limited to) throwing a stick or any other piece of equipment or object at or in the general direction of an official, shooting the puck at or in the general direction of an official, spitting at or in the general direction of an official, or who deliberately applies physical force to an official solely for the purpose of getting free of such an official during or immediately following an altercation shall be suspended for not less than three (3) games.
Quote:
After any review as called for hereby, the Commissioner shall
issue an order that:
(i) sustaining the minimum suspension, or
(ii) increasing the number of games within the category, or
(iii) changing to a lower category, or
(iv) changing to a lower category and increasing the number of games within this category, or
(v) in the case of a Category III suspension only, reducing the number of games of the suspension.
The rulebook doesn't allow the commissioner to uphold a Category II offense and reduce the # of games below 10. The only way to reduce the penalty would be for the commissioner's office to switch the incident to a Category III, after which they have the option to increase the suspension to more then 3 games.

Would love to hear the arguments why what Vermette did should be considered Category III instead of II.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 02:30 PM
  #3
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 66,690
vCash: 500
But players do have the right to appeal any 6+ game suspension, no?

So, could be hoping for bending of rule.

(But after neutral arbitrator collapsed the Wideman suspension on the last appeal, I don't see the league moving to the player's side in an attempt to ensure the NHLOA union is placated with full league support of 10-games.)

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 03:48 PM
  #4
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 17,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
But players do have the right to appeal any 6+ game suspension, no?

So, could be hoping for bending of rule.

(But after neutral arbitrator collapsed the Wideman suspension on the last appeal, I don't see the league moving to the player's side in an attempt to ensure the NHLOA union is placated with full league support of 10-games.)
Players can appeal a 6+ game suspension, but the arbitrator is still bound by the rules. The Wideman arbitrator ruled it should have been a Category II (10 games) suspension instead of a Category I (20 game) suspension. The NHL disagreed with that interpretation, but the arbitrator still followed the category suspension length requirements.

Likewise, for the arbitrator to reduce Vermette's suspension he would have to rule it should be Category III instead of II.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 05:14 PM
  #5
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,070
vCash: 50
I can't picture the NHLPA saying "Yeah you have a great shot at this being reduced to no suspension" in this case. But it's their role to support him so they will. Unlike with Wideman's concussion situation, Vermette has no excuse to muddy the waters beyond basic stupidity so I expect no change on appeal.

Out of curiosity, could the suspension be increased to 20 on appeal if an arbitrator thought there was intent to harm ? I don't believe there was but just wondering if it could theoretically happen.

dechire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 05:25 PM
  #6
Nino33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 657
vCash: 500
I can't believe they're appealing this! For me, just one more reason not to respect/support the NHLPA

Nino33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 05:29 PM
  #7
Hynh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,558
vCash: 500
The NHLPA is trying to normalize their involvement in suspensions rather than let the NHL unilaterally decide on them. I think that's stupid but I think everything the PA does is stupid.

Hynh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 05:35 PM
  #8
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,070
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nino33 View Post
I can't believe they're appealing this! For me, just one more reason not to respect/support the NHLPA
The NHLPA is a union. A union represent its members in conflicts with their employers. Vermette is a member of the NHLPA and he is having a conflict with his employer. I don't know what people expect because they're literally doing their job. A much bigger concern would be if they refused to represent Vermette in the appeal.

dechire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 05:39 PM
  #9
Nino33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
The NHLPA is a union. A union represent its members in conflicts with their employers. Vermette is a member of the NHLPA and he is having a conflict with his employer. I don't know what people expect because they're literally doing their job. A much bigger concern would be if they refused to represent Vermette in the appeal.
What I'd expect is
  1. you'd realize I'm a fan, and have a right to express my view, and be just as unsurprised by it as you are by the NHLPA's actions
  2. owners are in it as a business, so you should allow for/support them in anything they choose to do too, like lockouts (do you?)

Nino33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 05:44 PM
  #10
Nino33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 657
vCash: 500
I've heard some say that Calgary "hasn't got the calls" ever since the Wideman incident (but nothing that can be "proven") - if so, I'm fine with that, and hope the same thing happens to the Ducks/any team that Vermette's on

Such abuse of the officials is inexcusable IMO (and the penalties are already minimal)

Nino33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 05:45 PM
  #11
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,070
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nino33 View Post
What I'd expect is
  1. you'd realize I'm a fan, and have a right to express my view, and be just as unsurprised by it as you are by the NHLPA's actions
  2. owners are in it as a business, so you should allow for/support them in anything they choose to do too, like lockouts (do you?)
Saying that you support the NHLPA less for literally doing their job doesn't suggest that you understand the NHLPA's role. But maybe you do understand and just don't care. Which is fine. You're a fan and can feel whatever you want about the NHLPA or the NHL. But they don't represent or particularly care about the feelings of fans(mine included) nor should they. And yes I believe in both the NHLPA and owners' rights to lockout. Why wouldn't I ? It is a business.

dechire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 05:56 PM
  #12
Nino33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
And yes I believe in both the NHLPA and owners' rights to lockout. Why wouldn't I ? It is a business.
The players would have to go on strike, they don't have the ability to "lockout" - maybe worry more about your own understanding of things rather than questioning mine

My comment was directed to your comment about my comment, and I explained what I expected is you understood a fan's role (to have/express an opinion) as well as a union's role (to support a member), and not be "surprised" that a fan might care as little about the NHLPA (and their role) as you note the NHLPA cares about fans

I'm done with this now; have a good evening

Nino33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 07:46 PM
  #13
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 17,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nino33 View Post
I can't believe they're appealing this! For me, just one more reason not to respect/support the NHLPA
The sole reason for the NHLPA's existence is to represent the players' interests. That includes representing those players in disputes over suspensions.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 08:03 PM
  #14
Clint
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 6,485
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Clint
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nino33 View Post
The players would have to go on strike, they don't have the ability to "lockout" - maybe worry more about your own understanding of things rather than questioning mine

My comment was directed to your comment about my comment, and I explained what I expected is you understood a fan's role (to have/express an opinion) as well as a union's role (to support a member), and not be "surprised" that a fan might care as little about the NHLPA (and their role) as you note the NHLPA cares about fans

I'm done with this now; have a good evening
Pretty obvious you need to read up on labor law and collective bargaining a little bit. The Player's Association - just like any trade association or labor union or collective bargaining unit in the United States or Canada - would be derelict in their duty to their dues paying members if they didn't explore every avenue possible in representing Vermette.

In short, the NHLPA isn't concerned with whether or not you're a fan of them. They're concerned with ensuring their members, the players, aren't unfairly treated by their employers.

Clint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 08:26 PM
  #15
Crosbyfan
Registered User
 
Crosbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 9,837
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Will be interesting if the league reduces the suspension. Per the rulebook it could be difficult for them to do:





The rulebook doesn't allow the commissioner to uphold a Category II offense and reduce the # of games below 10. The only way to reduce the penalty would be for the commissioner's office to switch the incident to a Category III, after which they have the option to increase the suspension to more then 3 games.

Would love to hear the arguments why what Vermette did should be considered Category III instead of II.
I think they would have to try to claim it was "none of the above" but simply trying to get the officials attention. If, say, Vermette had done what he did to alert an official to some danger on the ice it might have seemed reasonable and would no doubt been considered acceptable.

So, IMO, his best defence is that he did something stupid, but hopefully did nothing Category anything.

Not that I think that would hold water, but what else does he have?

I think the NHL has to call this Category II, but should allow the NHLOA to reduce it below 10 games if they deem it reasonable.


Last edited by Crosbyfan: 02-18-2017 at 08:32 PM.
Crosbyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 08:35 PM
  #16
Nino33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 657
vCash: 500
Not sure what's so difficult to understand for you all...I'm a hockey fan, and I expressed my opinion


I guess you spend all your time explaining labour issues to people on this site? In particular you point out that every move ownership makes is because they have shareholders to answer to? HFBoards has tons of posts badmouthing owners...do you take the time to explain to people how ownership shouldn't care about the fans or players and has an obligation to maximize profits above all else?


I don't need to read up on labour laws, or understand/care about the reason for the NHLPA, I'm a fan! And I have no obligation to agree with any labour laws/union justifications to express my opinion (especially while I'm being told the NHLPA doesn't care about me/fans, they exist for the players...so what? doesn't change my opinion at all)


There is nothing I don't understand about it, but I don't care, my opinion doesn't have to coincide with labour laws/union purposes


It's stunning to me that none of you can understand that...maybe you need to think about what a hockey fan website's purpose is (I really thought it was a place for fan's to express their opinions, and not a place for others to dismiss said views by claiming others are uneducated/ignorant of labour laws/union purposes - fan opinions are not subject to labour laws/union purposes)


I suspect just like some Calgary fans are expressing the opinion that they're "not getting the calls because of the Wideman incident" there'll be Duck fans that express the same thing over this incident (something I already said)...and labour laws and union purposes will be as irrelevant there as they are to my expressing my opinion

Nino33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 09:45 PM
  #17
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 17,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nino33 View Post
It's stunning to me that none of you can understand that...maybe you need to think about what a hockey fan website's purpose is (I really thought it was a place for fan's to express their opinions, and not a place for others to dismiss said views by claiming others are uneducated/ignorant of labour laws/union purposes - fan opinions are not subject to labour laws/union purposes)
You're posting on the Business of Hockey forum. The purpose of this forum is to discuss the business issues in hockey. It's to be expected posters responding to you will engage you on the business aspects of your posts.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 09:58 PM
  #18
Nino33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
You're posting on the Business of Hockey forum. The purpose of this forum is to discuss the business issues in hockey. It's to be expected posters responding to you will engage you on the business aspects of your posts.
You seriously expect me to believe that this Business of Hockey forum is only for legal reports and explanations about labour laws and how unions work? No opinions allowed to be expressed?

I'm posting on a hockey website, not a legal/union website, right?

Right from my first post I said "I" and "For me" and then I added "IMO" when I noted my views further - I don't think there should have been any confusion that I was somehow discussing labour laws/union processes (and why do I not have the right to my view just because the NHLPA doesn't care about me/the fans and because labour laws/union processes exist?...that somehow means fans can't even have opinions? really?)

Nino33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 10:00 PM
  #19
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 50,159
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nino33 View Post
Not sure what's so difficult to understand for you all...I'm a hockey fan, and I expressed my opinion
Your statement was essentially, "I can't believe they're doing their job!"

If you think the suspension should stand, that's all good because it's a reasonable opinion.

The idea that the NHLPA shouldn't do what they're paid to do is not a reasonable opinion. Sorry you had to be informed this way, but the internet does not exist to reinforce your right to be unreasonable.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 10:18 PM
  #20
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,070
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nino33 View Post
You seriously expect me to believe that this Business of Hockey forum is only for legal reports and explanations about labour laws and how unions work? No opinions allowed to be expressed?

I'm posting on a hockey website, not a legal/union website, right?

Right from my first post I said "I" and "For me" and then I added "IMO" when I noted my views further - I don't think there should have been any confusion that I was somehow discussing labour laws/union processes (and why do I not have the right to my view just because the NHLPA doesn't care about me/the fans and because labour laws/union processes exist?...that somehow means fans can't even have opinions? really?)
I think the issue comes from saying you're unsurprised by the NHLPA's action and understand that they're doing their job while also saying "I can't believe they're appealing this!" That's not an opinion disagreeing with the NHLPA. That's a suggestion that you don't know what the NHLPA does.

dechire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 10:20 PM
  #21
Nino33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Your statement was essentially, "I can't believe they're doing their job!"
I don't think it was (and IMO any doubt was clarified in follow-up posts to anyone who didn't want to call me ignorant or make condescending statements); not everyone thinks that everything lawyers do and every legal action is a good thing (in fact, I'm surprised that those posting in support are seemingly so unaware the masses of people that often disagree with lawyers/legal actions/appeals/etc...I thought that many held such opinions were "common knowledge")


I'm not the only poster in this thread that doesn't see a value in the NHLPA's actions/doesn't think they'll make any difference & I'm not the only one that thinks in no way is the player being "unfairly treated by their employers"

Not every decision in life is appealed just because a union is involved, and sometimes such appeals are not only rejected but they're considered frivolous - I guess I'm surprised that those lecturing me on business/labour laws/unions don't know this too


So, I think essentially I was expressing an opinion, and still can't understand why it seemed to cause people to question my knowledge/understanding of things...but whatever


Have a nice night everyone





Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
I think the issue comes from saying you're unsurprised by the NHLPA's action and understand that they're doing their job while also saying "I can't believe they're appealing this!" That's not an opinion disagreeing with the NHLPA. That's a suggestion that you don't know what the NHLPA does.
I think my post above explains it (not everyone agrees with the actions of lawyers/unions...their "doing their job" doesn't mean no one's allowed to have a negative opinion about it!) - do you work for the NHLPA or something?

Nino33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 11:11 PM
  #22
Nino33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
I think the issue comes from saying you're unsurprised by the NHLPA's action and understand that they're doing their job while also saying "I can't believe they're appealing this!" That's not an opinion disagreeing with the NHLPA. That's a suggestion that you don't know what the NHLPA does.
By the way, that's not what I said...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nino33 View Post
The players would have to go on strike, they don't have the ability to "lockout" - maybe worry more about your own understanding of things rather than questioning mine

My comment was directed to your comment about my comment, and I explained what I expected is you understood a fan's role (to have/express an opinion) as well as a union's role (to support a member), and not be "surprised" that a fan might care as little about the NHLPA (and their role) as you note the NHLPA cares about fans

I'm done with this now; have a good evening
I expected you to not be surprised that not only could a union "do their job" (as you said) but that a fan could "have an opinion and not care about the NHLPA" (just like the NHLPA doesn't care about the fans)...it was the latter idea (that a fan could have an opinion that didn't support the union's actions) that you didn't seem to understand


I think they have no case (like others), and the likely result regardless of what happens with an arbitrator is the Ducks are probably going to be less likely to "get the calls" - so it is surprising to me they'd appeal it, it seems like a bad idea/a no-win situation (regardless of what the arbitrator decides)

Nino33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 11:21 PM
  #23
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 50,159
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nino33 View Post
So, I think essentially I was expressing an opinion, and still can't understand why it seemed to cause people to question my knowledge/understanding of things...but whatever
It's because you're doing way too much talking and not enough listening.

Your opinion isn't worth squat if it's founded on incorrect judgments. Instead of taking good information for what it's worth, you're doubling down on a bad position because it's the opinion you started with. Again, the internet does not exist to reinforce your right to be misinformed. If you want to stick to a questionable statement, you're going to have to deal with valid expressions of disagreement.

Also, in regard to the last line of your previous post -- the NHLPA doesn't represent the Ducks and couldn't care less whether they get calls or not. Any call that goes against the Ducks is a benefit to 20 of their members on the other bench. That aspect is an absolute non-factor in what they're doing here.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 11:43 PM
  #24
TheLegend
Moderator
Megathread Gadfly
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Orbiting BoH
Country: United States
Posts: 7,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nino33 View Post
You seriously expect me to believe that this Business of Hockey forum is only for legal reports and explanations about labour laws and how unions work? No opinions allowed to be expressed? ,
In this part of the site we talk the business aspects about hockey. So if you post a general opinion about something then people are going to respond questioning you about your "opinion" from a business perspective.

Quote:
I'm posting on a hockey website, not a legal/union website, right?
.

As was clearly explained to you above this area of the site covers the business aspects of hockey. There are several other areas of the site where you can scream how "unbelievable" things are just for the sake of it. If that was your only purpose and do not care to discuss the process of the appeal then you need not say anything further.

Quote:
Right from my first post I said "I" and "For me" and then I added "IMO" when I noted my views further - I don't think there should have been any confusion that I was somehow discussing labour laws/union processes (and why do I not have the right to my view just because the NHLPA doesn't care about me/the fans and because labour laws/union processes exist?...that somehow means fans can't even have opinions? really?)
Again.... you've made you opinion known. If you want to know more about the process or why these things happen then all means just keep following along. If you have nothing else to add to the discussion then nothing else needs to be said.

TheLegend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2017, 11:46 PM
  #25
Nino33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Your opinion isn't worth squat if it's founded on incorrect judgments.
Thanks for that, I sure needed you to inform me that my opinion isn't worth squat and I'm not sure what makes you think you're the arbitrator of the judgments my opinion is based on (I don't care what YOU think about my opinion about the legal process/unions, I didn't just develop my views this evening, and NOTHING that's been said by anyone changes my views at all)


I for one am not going to have MY OPINION dictated to me by the NHLPA, the NHL, or HFBoard posters (your inability to understand what an opinion is means what you're saying to me is based on incorrect judgments); it's like you (and some others) have never heard someone express an opinion disagreeing with a legal action/decision before...it's actually not unheard of at all!

Nino33 is offline   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 12:48 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.