Injury is a factor in punishment for on ice actions, just as it is for off ice actions. I don't understand why this shocks so many people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Just curious, do you feel that same approach should apply to things in the real world?
You're a smart guy, you know the difference. The sole purpose (ideally) of NHL supplemental discipline is to make the NHL safer for players to play hockey in.
In the "real" world, depending on whether we're talking criminal or civil penalties, there are a whole bunch of complex, interrelated policy objectives at stake, and punishment isn't the least of them.
If your central purpose is to make the league safer it makes total sense to punish intentional plays most significantly, and to punish based on how dangerous a play was rather than what the actual result was, whether it was less or more severe. If I drill a guy in the face with my elbow and he somehow miraculously doesn't get a severe concussion as a result I should still sit for a long, long time, in my view.
The Following User Says Thank You to 19Yzerman19 For This Useful Post:
I thought Kessel should of been punished with his cheap shot 2 handed slashes against the flyers. 2 games later he does the same thing against the sabres plus a spear. pre season suspensions a joke.
I don't think Kessel's actions were that bad considering the circumstances. You often see harder slashes in the course of a game that are more vicious, and they are hardly ever reviewed for suspensions.
Having said that, either punish him or don't. Suspending someone for only the preseason is a confusing message. It sounds like a punishment, but it really isn't. It's like your boss sending you home from work for the day, but still paying you. If they wanted to send a message, at least one regular season game should have been given. I would have been fine with no punishment though.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
You're a smart guy, you know the difference. The sole purpose (ideally) of NHL supplemental discipline is to make the NHL safer for players to play hockey in.
In the "real" world, depending on whether we're talking criminal or civil penalties, there are a whole bunch of complex, interrelated policy objectives at stake, and punishment isn't the least of them.
If your central purpose is to make the league safer it makes total sense to punish intentional plays most significantly, and to punish based on how dangerous a play was rather than what the actual result was, whether it was less or more severe. If I drill a guy in the face with my elbow and he somehow miraculously doesn't get a severe concussion as a result I should still sit for a long, long time, in my view.
Where did I indicate I don't know the difference? I asked KFF's opinion because I was interested to see if he thinks that actions, not results, should play a larger role in real world punishments as well. Plenty of people think that it should, I was curious if he is one of them.
And I disagree that the sole purpose of NHL punishment is to make the league safer. Pretending that there aren't a number of other considerations that go into the crafting of rules, enforcement and discipline decisions loses sight of the reality of a multi billion dollar league. I don't think that bias exists on a large scale when it comes to handing out punishment, but I do think that things are structured to protect and enhance certain aspects of the game, and certain players, while targeting less desirable aspects or players.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
I don't think Kessel's actions were that bad considering the circumstances. You often see harder slashes in the course of a game that are more vicious, and they are hardly ever reviewed for suspensions.
Having said that, either punish him or don't. Suspending someone for only the preseason is a confusing message. It sounds like a punishment, but it really isn't. It's like your boss sending you home from work for the day, but still paying you. If they wanted to send a message, at least one regular season game should have been given. I would have been fine with no punishment though.
I don't think many people have much of an issue with the first slash, that's just instinctive when a 6 foot 8 guy is coming at you gloves off.
The second slash and the spear while Scott is being held down was very childish and I think a lot of players around the league took exception and will consider him fair game. You don't poke the bear.
I don't think Kessel's actions were that bad considering the circumstances. You often see harder slashes in the course of a game that are more vicious, and they are hardly ever reviewed for suspensions.
Having said that, either punish him or don't. Suspending someone for only the preseason is a confusing message. It sounds like a punishment, but it really isn't. It's like your boss sending you home from work for the day, but still paying you. If they wanted to send a message, at least one regular season game should have been given. I would have been fine with no punishment though.
Please provide an example of a recent, harder slash - especially if it wasn't reviewed.
And I disagree that the sole purpose of NHL punishment is to make the league safer. Pretending that there aren't a number of other considerations that go into the crafting of rules, enforcement and discipline decisions loses sight of the reality of a multi billion dollar league. I don't think that bias exists on a large scale when it comes to handing out punishment, but I do think that things are structured to protect and enhance certain aspects of the game, and certain players, while targeting less desirable aspects or players.
Which is why I said "Ideally". I absolutely recognize that this isn't the case. In fact player safety is not even the primary consideration in reality, much less the only one. As a normative matter, there shouldn't be multiple standards. As a descriptive matter there obviously are.
Please provide an example of a recent, harder slash - especially if it wasn't reviewed.
The thing is, if they aren't reviewed, then you are unlikely to find video readily available and are often behind the play. Things that go missed are... well, missed and forgotten rather quickly.
I'll be sure to point them out throughout the season if you like.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I don't think many people have much of an issue with the first slash, that's just instinctive when a 6 foot 8 guy is coming at you gloves off.
The second slash and the spear while Scott is being held down was very childish and I think a lot of players around the league took exception and will consider him fair game. You don't poke the bear.
That is really the only issue I have. Kessel had some cool down time and still tried provoking him. The actual force of the slashes and spear (which seemed more like him just touching him with his stick than an actual thrust with meaningful force) were not the big issue. It still didn't seem nastier than a lot of other things that happen in melees.
I would have been fine if they gave him a regular season punishment if they wanted to send a message for this season. This issue certainly isn't a hill for me to die on. I just want them to be consistent and I agree that a preseason suspension is meaningless.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Which is why I said "Ideally". I absolutely recognize that this isn't the case. In fact player safety is not even the primary consideration in reality, much less the only one. As a normative matter, there shouldn't be multiple standards. As a descriptive matter there obviously are.
I go back and forth on whether there should be multiple standards. On the one hand it's obviously pretty unfair to hold players to varying standards. On the other hand I don't really care to watch guys like Scott, and the league doesn't want to sell itself around guys like Scott, so I'm not really that bothered if he gets stiffer punishment.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
That is really the only issue I have. Kessel had some cool down time and still tried provoking him. The actual force of the slashes and spear (which seemed more like him just touching him with his stick than an actual thrust with meaningful force) were not the big issue. It still didn't seem nastier than a lot of other things that happen in melees.
I would have been fine if they gave him a regular season punishment if they wanted to send a message for this season. This issue certainly isn't a hill for me to die on. I just want them to be consistent and I agree that a preseason suspension is meaningless.
One thing the suspension does, pre season or not, is turn Kessel into an offender for purposes of review of any future incidents.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
So if Hartley sends out McGrattan to line up beside Mcintyre, and they fight, Hartley deserves a fine?
Just not sure where the line is.
Obviously not. And I should not have to explain to you the contextual difference between that scenario and what Buffalo did.
Quote:
I'm trying to track down examples of when the league fined someone for "gooning it up", but I can't find any...
The Canucks were fined $250k for Todd Bertuzzi's actions in the Moore incident. The Flames and Gilbert were fined for perpetuating that legendary brawl against the Ducks back in the day. Roslton, obviously, was just fined. The instigating in the last five minutes rule carries an automatic $10k fine to the coach for this exact reason.
Where did I indicate I don't know the difference? I asked KFF's opinion because I was interested to see if he thinks that actions, not results, should play a larger role in real world punishments as well. Plenty of people think that it should, I was curious if he is one of them.
And I disagree that the sole purpose of NHL punishment is to make the league safer. Pretending that there aren't a number of other considerations that go into the crafting of rules, enforcement and discipline decisions loses sight of the reality of a multi billion dollar league. I don't think that bias exists on a large scale when it comes to handing out punishment, but I do think that things are structured to protect and enhance certain aspects of the game, and certain players, while targeting less desirable aspects or players.
I would argue that it does apply in the real world. Intent is extremely important, the difference between manslaughter versus first degree murder, for example. No argument that the analogy isn't quite right, as it depends on the same result (dead guy), but in my view, intent is key. I might be in the minority, but I was disgusted by the Bertuzzi/Moore attack because of the clearly pre-meditated nature of it, not because of the injury sustained.
Obviously not. And I should not have to explain to you the contextual difference between that scenario and what Buffalo did.
The Canucks were fined $250k for Todd Bertuzzi's actions in the Moore incident. The Flames and Gilbert were fined for perpetuating that legendary brawl against the Ducks back in the day. Roslton, obviously, was just fined. The instigating in the last five minutes rule carries an automatic $10k fine to the coach for this exact reason.
-I can't remember exactly, but weren't the flames/D. Sutter fined for sending oliwa out late in a game once?
