My personal opinion is intent- A hit that hurts someone but isn't especially dirty is the same to me as a guy getting hit in the head or foot by a puck and sustaining serious injury, or getting tangled up while racing to touch up an iced puck and sliding into the boards. Like if a guy drops to block a shot and gets hit by a follow through.
The same illegal hit could potentially end a career, or it could be brushed off. And the offender should not have his carreer end if its the former, nor should he get away clean if its the latter.
A susspension should not match the injury, it should match the offense.
Consider a hypothetical example. Lets say its the first game of the conference final between the Pens and Caps, not an unlikely matchup. And lets say Evgeni Malkin(6' 3") accidentally gets an elbow up on Keith Aucoin(5' 8"). Not a malicious hit, no intent to injure, not a repeat offender. But it's an illegal elbow, and results in an injury. The early estimate from the trainers is that Aucoin will be out for one game.
If the suspension matches the injury, then when Aucoin, a player who plays more AHL games than NHL, misses time then so does Malkin. So, healthy or not, would Caps managment sit Aucoin more games with an 'injury' to keep the other teams Conn Smythe winner and superstar off the ice? Or what if Aucoin really does take a turn for the worse? Would anyone believe the Caps when they say he'll miss the rest of the playoffs? No, they would riot with the same conspiracy theory I just proposed.
And whats more.. What if Malkin sits the whole series because Aucoin is out, and the Penguins still advance? Does Malkin now get to play because Aucoin is no longer 'missing games'? Or does he sit because Aucoin is still 'unable to play'?
This has nothing to do with the topic. Sure, the event brought up this issue, but we're not arguing about it. There are other threads for it. Not tryna play mod, but I'm making it clear that my purpose for making this thread was not to discuss the Chara hit.
In response to Pheasant the peasant:
I didn't really mean match suspension to the duration of the injury, what I meant was just increase the severity. Like a hit that deserved 3 games but causes a huge, life changing injury, gets 8 games instead of the 3 that the hit, by the books, warranted. That's what I mean by basing it on injury
How can you be 100% certain about someone's intent? Some would say Chara intended to hurt Pacioretty, others would beg to differ. The only one that really knows is the offender themselves and good luck getting them to admit they intended to hurt someone.
In short, neither intent nor injury is a good basis for determining suspension length.
What looks like bad intent but turns out to be essentially harmless shouldn't be punished, what looks harmless and has no intent but winds up injuring also shouldn't be punished.
There should be some intent and an injury or near injury if there is to be a suspension.
I can remember being so furious when Paul Kariya was taken out after scoring a goal when playing for the Ducks. Think Suter only got a few games for that, but Kariya was never the same.
When players commit violent acts like these, why in the world shouldn't they be suspended for as long as the injured players have to sit out?
It's not that hard to draw a line on this one. If you're hitting a guy cleanly. If you're not spearing someone or knocking their head off with your stick. If you're not using your legs to take someone down. If you're not hitting someone after the play has obviously gone dead. If you're not using your arms to hold someone while you're hitting them.
Players claim that it's so complicated. That you can't be so careful in the heat of the moment. Sounds pretty savage to me.
Neither/both. If you can somehow prove intent, ok go ahead and use it. But good luck with that. Well, except a punch or a golf swing at a guys head after the whistle, there are some cases where intent can't really be doubted.
Injury can happen lots of ways in hockey. If it happens on a clean play (e.g. where there is no penalty assessed/should be no penalty assessed), then I don't see how a suspension should follow. On the other hand, if there's a play that is against the rules (i.e. a penalty is assessed) that results in an injury... well... I think the injury outcome ought to at least be factored into the decision.
it really depends on the situation, in Charas case he might not have intended to hurt him but he did intend to give an illegal hit that happened to result in a serious injury. and still deserves a suspension imo
I remember ovi getting suspended for making a hit/shove to Brian Campbell from behind and Campbell missing time and ovi getting suspended, the hit wasnt intended to hurt him or be malicious he kind of ran into him after the play and shoved him, Campbell just happened to be a little off balance when he got hit and hit the board.
if Campbell gets up and skates off with no injury ovi doesnt get suspended and maybe gets a minor penalty and shouldnt be. however with campbell being hurt and ovi known for dirty hits at times he deserves the suspension...this is where an injury DOES draw a Suspenion
obviously stuff like mcsorley hitting brashear and the stuff gillies has pulled is intent and deserves suspension
but if for instant someone lands a clean hit on someone open ice or against the boards within the rules and happens to hurt anybody they shouldnt get suspended even if the outcome is severe
I voted injury, but if there's proof of intent, it should be punished severely. There's absolutely nothing wrong with punishing based on injury You make a reckless play and injure an opponent, you suffer the consequences. The plus sides of this are:
1) Suspensions based on the injury are a much better deterrent, since reckless and dangerous plays where someone gets injured will automatically be punished, which means that......
2) ..... players would no longer be able to get away with bsing their way out of a suspension, since their intent won't matter if they injure an opponent.
3) There would be no more bias towards certain players and organizations.
Neither. Punishing intent is far too subjective, and most players know pretty well how to disguise their intents if they have malicious intent. Intent is almost entirely about perception of the player, rather than looking at the play in question. Penalizing injury is slightly less absurd, since injuries are obvious. Injury should be a factor, but obviously not the whole picture. They should be weighed to determine how long a suspension should be, but not if a suspension should occur. Sort of like aggravating circumstances in law.
My personal opinion is intent- A hit that hurts someone but isn't especially dirty is the same to me as a guy getting hit in the head or foot by a puck and sustaining serious injury, or getting tangled up while racing to touch up an iced puck and sliding into the boards. Like if a guy drops to block a shot and gets hit by a follow through.
Anyways, I've stated my opinion... whats yours?
NHL going have to do something because system they have in place now is not working. Too many top players gone and too hard to tell if intent or not, or level of intent. They should set it up if do injury to player that player is responsible for the injury he caused regardless if he meant to it or not. This would create a certain lot of respect especially for the top players
Every club use to have a policeman to instill a intimidation factor, but today can't do that with rule changes in fighting and players have no fear or respect for opposing players. I don't think you will see fighting come back in game because too many bleeding heart liberals who don't want it to be part of the game. So, need major rule changes to protect stars more
In response to Pheasant the peasant:
I didn't really mean match suspension to the duration of the injury, what I meant was just increase the severity. Like a hit that deserved 3 games but causes a huge, life changing injury, gets 8 games instead of the 3 that the hit, by the books, warranted. That's what I mean by basing it on injury
Fair enough, and that assesment makes alot of sense. I mostly posted my hypothetical to people coming into the thread later who want suspensions to match injuries. I pretty much voted intent just because I didn't like the 'injury' option. I agree with many that both should be taken into account to a degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorz
Both. Maybe NHL should establish simple rule. Season ending injury = automatic suspension. The number of games of course based on circumstances.
I would love if the NHL added a rule like this. At some point, like the Max injury, the offending player should get a token suspension to show that the NHL doesn't turn a blind eye to the situation. But I would never go as far as matching a suspension with the injury.
Both, Intent is more important to me, but if there is a dirty play that killed a player, and he didn't get suspended.... NHL fans would go crazy, and right-fully so. If it was a total fluke and the player didn't mean to do that, he should still get a suspension.
I think if you gave a smaller suspension for just intent, a similar one for injury (maybe a bit smaller than one for an intent) and if both occured, you give a larger suspension.... and by injury I don't mean bruised finger ... I mean a legit injury such as a concussion, or any serious injury.
So something like this(#of games changes for how bad it was)
2-3 games for Intent
2-3 games for Injury
3-6 games for Intent+Injury
Based on this Chara would get a suspension(since it seems like this thread is about it)
I'm not a fan of the Habs or the Bruins, but Chara was looking at the turnbuckle, the puck was nowhere near, and after he made the hit he knew what happened and didn't even look like he cared(seems like intent to me) and then there is the obvious injury... I think he should get a suspension, based on what the NHL has been doing with head-shots, concussions, and all the suspensions, you have to suspend him ... even if it is just for 1-2 games.
@Zors ... I kind of agree with the season ending injury = suspension, but it would have to be modified. What i mean is, a non-illegal and harmless play that resulted in a freak accident should not get a suspension. But anything borderline/dangerous should get a suspension.
