So does Eager get 10 games because his hit was far more dirty than Brashears? Or does he get zero because no one was hurt on the play, and that's all that matters?
Unfortunately, the face that Eager's probably a better player than Rypien means he probably gets off lightly. If Brashear's is worth 5 that's definitely worth more, as that was a blatant penalty and much more vicious (ironically it was again McCreary watching the play). But the league is terrible with consistency and justification of its punishments, and the fact that there's significantly less whining coming from the Canucks and the media (at least as far as I can tell) means it won't matter as much.
The problem with reputation is that there is a clause in the CBA. You are only allowed to take into consideration what has happened with that player in the last 18 months when considering a suspension. Brashear has been suspended once in the past 18 months going into the post season. Eager, by the rules put forth in the CBA has a much MUCH worse reputation than Brashear having already been suspended twice this season.
I'm still trying to find a really good view of the Eager hit, I've only seen one so far, and it was an overhead view without that much leadup to the play.
It just doesn't work that way.
The league has jealously guarded its discretion to carry out case-by-case decionmaking on the subject of suspensions.
If you're looking for the league to be bound by its own rules, keep looking. There are reasons that major gaps exist in how players will be evaluated, reasons why standard criteria that apply across the board do not exist, and reasons why the rules are intentionally vague. Those few that do exist are typically ignored. The league does not want a single standard to apply, for there to be a set of guidelines, for there to be a head hit policy written in stone.
The league wants to maintain the ability to say, 'this was egregious; that was not.' Until that changes, suspensions are going to be carried out largely on the whim of the league disciplinarian, and if the case is sufficiently high profile, the commissioner. There are a few trends you can note (reputation matters, over whatever period, and so does the extent of the injury, sometimes moreso than intent), but even those can be set aside. There are exceptions.
The bottom line is that the league decides suspensions on an ad hoc basis. Players don't know what is and is not a suspendable offense. They can surmise only that they should tread lightly if they have a record, and that they should prepare for the worst if the victim is in a bad way.
Whether it should or should not be this way is immaterial.
Then I see the potential for a labor lawsuit. When you put forth rules in your collective bargaining agreement, that's a pretty important contract to have to live up to. I'm not saying it's now, but the league is just asking for a former player that gets nailed a little too harshly to get legal support, either with or without the union's support and take the league to task for failing to live up to the CBA. Why have that clause in the CBA if you aren't going to honor it. I always thought it was a weird clause, and it's even weirder when the league flat out ignores it.
EDIT: for the record, I agree completely with what you are saying in how things ARE, I'm merely saying that it's BS, and this is how things should be, especially based on the league's own legal documents and rules.
I do agree that it's interesting. This is nothing new, and the league has been ruling this way on these issues for a long time. Yet the challenges have not been forthcoming.
I think one of the reasons that the NHLPA has resisted the urge to challenge the league on aspects of the CBA where suspensions are concerned is that the PA, and Kelly in particular, have hinted that the player base is more inclined to want to get head hits and other dangerous plays out of the game, more than the player base is clamoring for a lighter/fairer treatment of players up for suspensions.
The head hits, in particular, seem to be worrying the players and by extension their representation, more and more each year. Fear of concussions keep players up at night; they end careers and put an end to players' earning power.
On a sheer procedural question, the PA might be inclined to protest, for the record, and show the flag. Yet on the core issues, head hits and plays that endanger careers... the PA might fundamentally agree with the league on this one.
What it comes down to is that most players feel that they are more likely to get nailed in the head than to accidentally hit someone in the head. Whether that's true or not is up to debate. Sometimes guys get in the wrong position in a fast paced game and the wrong thing happens, look at the hit on the Sutter kid earlier this year. No one was going for a headshot there, but it happened. That's what kills me, there was nothing on that hit in the regular season, then Brashear gets nailed in the post season on a somewhat similar play.
What it comes down to is that most players feel that they are more likely to get nailed in the head than to accidentally hit someone in the head. Whether that's true or not is up to debate. Sometimes guys get in the wrong position in a fast paced game and the wrong thing happens, look at the hit on the Sutter kid earlier this year. No one was going for a headshot there, but it happened. That's what kills me, there was nothing on that hit in the regular season, then Brashear gets nailed in the post season on a somewhat similar play.
You aren't going to get consistency on this one. Brashear is an enforcer and Weight is a respected star. The injury is one part of it, intent another, as is the reputation of the hitter. In the Sutter-Weight case, there was injury but there was no reputation or perceived intent. In the Betts case, there was reputation, there was injury, and there is (charitably) uncertainty on intent. Brashear gets the book thrown at him.
Enforcers get suspended, that is never going to change, and seeking out a standard that applies across the board is pointless. Campbell would come right out and say that suspensions are not handed out based on a pre-existing chart or matrix and boxes checked, but rather his gut call based on the situation, the players, and his read of the situation.
The policy is deliberately vague. The league wants it that way, and recoils from a standard that binds Campbell to a given course of action.
About the Carolina/Bruins series...does anyone else think the Canes have a chance? I know I do.
Sure they do. It should be an entertaining match-up at any rate. I don't know that Carolina quite has the offensive depth to win unless their D (Pitkanen, Corvo, Babchuk) really gets involved.
I figured out what Maggie the Monkey is going to do after TSN: she's going to take over for Colin Campbell.
Well... sort of. If a player gets injured, and the player who did the hitting has a sordid reputation, and/or there is uncertainty about intent, that's a suspension.
If the hitter seems contrite, apparently there was no intent, has a good reputation and/or is a star, then he might even get off if the recipient of the hit sustained long-term injury.
There isn't a matrix for these things, but there are vague trends that hold up. You just don't like them. It's not a monkey spinning a wheel; it's just that you don't like enforcers facing a double standard.
Whatever the CBA says, in reality there is no statute of limitations on reputation. Someone like Brashear always has a record, and the 18 months are irrelevant.
Then I see the potential for a labor lawsuit. When you put forth rules in your collective bargaining agreement, that's a pretty important contract to have to live up to. I'm not saying it's now, but the league is just asking for a former player that gets nailed a little too harshly to get legal support, either with or without the union's support and take the league to task for failing to live up to the CBA. Why have that clause in the CBA if you aren't going to honor it. I always thought it was a weird clause, and it's even weirder when the league flat out ignores it.
EDIT: for the record, I agree completely with what you are saying in how things ARE, I'm merely saying that it's BS, and this is how things should be, especially based on the league's own legal documents and rules.
I think the problem there is it's tough to prove. We all know they're using the past reputation, but unless he's got an Excel file somewhere with the super secret formula for suspensions then I think the way it's outlined is too vague to prove much of anything. He'll say he's not looking at reputation, but at intent and the result or something like that.
It's wrong, but it's the way it is and it's not likely to change any time soon. Maybe the next CBA will have these things spelled out more clearly.
Maybe the next CBA will have these things spelled out more clearly.
The two major parties here do not seem to be clamoring for it. Neither the league office nor the NHLPA is making a stink over the less than clear parameters for suspensions.
Ron MacLean grilled Campbell over it, so you might say that the media and perhaps the fans want to see a level of consistency, but the league and the player's association seem satisfied, and they are the only parties at the table when it comes time to draw up a CBA.
There is a certain attraction to flexibility when it comes to evaluating a hit, and the appropriate penalty. Not all situations are the same. I would think that the PA could see situations where it would hurt as much as it would help the membership.
When you get down to it, the current policy only really screws over enforcers and the very physical fourth liner or #5 through #7 defenseman. Those guys aren't setting PA policy, and aren't first and foremost in the mind of Kelly when it comes time to sound out his membership, and bring their concerns to the league.
wow what a nice pass... wham. I think Hudler freaked out seeing all the blood all over his shield. Most folks black out, he went with red. I think Browns hit was a bit later than Brashears but otherwise they are very similar. Hudler turned to him and never saw him watching his pass. Betts saw his at the last moment.
