I don't think the issue is Parros really, or the NHL not giving a crap. I just don't think it should be on any one single person's shoulders. Have a committee. At this point, of course you fire Parros because it is an obvious 'miss' on discipline, but you don't replace him with someone else.
I think better consistency will be achieved by having a committee - let's say 9 people. Could be a mix of former players, former referees, whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
This is the dream.
There is nothing worse than a beautiful clean hit and then that player having to fight because the laid that clean hit.
I see this sentiment often, I have always disagreed with it. If you back at the those very legal (for the time) Stevens hits, they were made to hurt people, right? They might have been 100% clean for that time, but they were meant to hurt players and take them out of the game.
My argument is that the same happens today, though the clear head-shots and so on are (mostly) taken out. Why are there huge hits? Just to separate the player from the puck? Doesn't have to be that big of a hit to achieve that desired outcome. So of course they are meant to 'hurt'.
To me, it doesn't matter if a hit is clean or dirty - if my teammate just got hit HARD and was either injured or could have been injured, I would feel the need to make that person answer for it and discourage further such hits.
To me, it has always made total sense to go after a guy who has just laid out my teammate hard, even if the hit was clean. The line gets fuzzier when it was obviously accidental, like the Keith hit on Dube a couple of seasons ago.
To me, it doesn't matter if the hit was clean or not. What matters is that you hurt my teammate, and now my job is to hurt you. (I am obviously speaking from the standpoint of a teammate here).
I wave rugby around pretty heavily here, but it is the same in rugby. You do something stupid you deal with the repercussions.
A foul is a foul.
I still see warnings a lot in rugby. The ref (or the eye in the sky) sees illegal plays that they don’t seem automatic penalties and they tell players to knock it off or get a penalty.
Versteeg is on fire on 960 this morning about this.
Let the superstars play or bring back the enforcers to prevent this crap.
I don’t like the “superstars” aspect of that. Wilson’s actions would be as reprehensible if he knocked Dillon Dube out of his season, or even a Nesterov. In fact, the risk to those guys is a lot more if their career suddenly ends. Panarin is set for life financially.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
I don't think the issue is Parros really, or the NHL not giving a crap. I just don't think it should be on any one single person's shoulders. Have a committee. At this point, of course you fire Parros because it is an obvious 'miss' on discipline, but you don't replace him with someone else.
I think better consistency will be achieved by having a committee - let's say 9 people. Could be a mix of former players, former referees, whatever.
Just to nitpick one thing. I don’t think you truly need a committee, but rather a smart law person to be making these decisions. Parros got the stint through a connection as his background is simply a player. The league is a business and a committee costs too much money. Get the right person who understands a little about enacting justice in a fair way and it’s fine. The league to this point has been treating the position as a retired player job when it should be more deeper than that.
Just to nitpick one thing. I don’t think you truly need a committee, but rather a smart law person to be making these decisions. Parros got the stint through a connection as his background is simply a player. The league is a business and a committee costs too much money. Get the right person who understands a little about enacting justice in a fair way and it’s fine. The league to this point has been treating the position as a retired player job when it should be more deeper than that.
Stu Grimson is a lawyer.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
I still see warnings a lot in rugby. The ref (or the eye in the sky) sees illegal plays that they don’t seem automatic penalties and they tell players to knock it off or get a penalty.
You see a lot of game management warnings to the players, ie: 'Step back you are off side" "Stop chasing that kick"
What you don't see is penalties call different as they apply to player safety.
For example, pool stages of the World Cup a tip tackle is a Red Card, World Cup Final a tip tackle is a Red Card.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
I see this sentiment often, I have always disagreed with it. If you back at the those very legal (for the time) Stevens hits, they were made to hurt people, right? They might have been 100% clean for that time, but they were meant to hurt players and take them out of the game.
My argument is that the same happens today, though the clear head-shots and so on are (mostly) taken out. Why are there huge hits? Just to separate the player from the puck? Doesn't have to be that big of a hit to achieve that desired outcome. So of course they are meant to 'hurt'.
To me, it doesn't matter if a hit is clean or dirty - if my teammate just got hit HARD and was either injured or could have been injured, I would feel the need to make that person answer for it and discourage further such hits.
To me, it has always made total sense to go after a guy who has just laid out my teammate hard, even if the hit was clean. The line gets fuzzier when it was obviously accidental, like the Keith hit on Dube a couple of seasons ago.
To me, it doesn't matter if the hit was clean or not. What matters is that you hurt my teammate, and now my job is to hurt you. (I am obviously speaking from the standpoint of a teammate here).
Yeah I can't understand this line of thinking. Sometimes clean hit result in injuries. I have hit a number of guys and sent them to the hospital a number of times in rugby games and never once had to fight or to be frank faced any retaliation outside of the confines of the Laws (rules). As long as the hit is clean then it is game on. There is no need to exact revenge or create some kind of frontier justice.
If you don't want your teammates to be hit in a physical sport perhaps physical sport isn't for you.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
1 ref somehow manages 30 gigantic and fast men on a big field. I know people complained about the last World Cup, but it was still way way better than anything we see in the NHL.
1 ref and 2 Assistant Refs (touch judges in old terms).
It makes me wonder if you should open up the linesman to call dangerous play or some category of penalties.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Hate to say it but if the NHL isn't going to do anything to Wilson, and the Rangers don't have anyone who can fight Wilson, the next step is to run anyone you can specifically the goalie.
Go out of your way to try and put Samsonov out for the playoffs. Kreider knows how to do this already and he won't even be a repeat offender because apparently Tom Wilson isn't even a repeat offender because enough time has passed since his last incident which was this year. ridiculous.
On top of that, you throw elbows at Backstrom's and Kuznetsov's (if he's playing) head. It sounds bad but the NHL doesn't give a #### about protecting star players, and if Tom Wilson isn't going to learn, maybe seeing his teammates put out for the season because of something he did will get through to him.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BigErnSalute_16 For This Useful Post:
Yeah I can't understand this line of thinking. Sometimes clean hit result in injuries. I have hit a number of guys and sent them to the hospital a number of times in rugby games and never once had to fight or to be frank faced any retaliation outside of the confines of the Laws (rules). As long as the hit is clean then it is game on. There is no need to exact revenge or create some kind of frontier justice.
If you don't want your teammates to be hit in a physical sport perhaps physical sport isn't for you.
That's because it is a physical/savage game played by gentlemen. Rugby has gotten it right when it comes to respect of opponents/officials, and not tolerating nonsense.
They should bring in a bunch of officials from some of the European leagues. It might just be my perception, but it doesn’t seem like this kind of stuff happens in places like Germany, Austria, or Switzerland.
Back when I was in Croatia, I went to some Austrian league games and hockey there is considered a more family friendly event than soccer.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
