Gustav Nyquist 'accidental' high-stick to Jared Spurgeon

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Here is Beaulieau's spear to the nards on Chara yesterday also. Ouch.

Is a spear to Chara's nards considered high-sticking?

Oh, and 6 games is too low. I hate the way the NHL seems to base the punishment on the damage caused, rather than the intent or recklessness of the act.

[Benched]

Step right up! SPIN THE WHEEL OF JUSTICE!

[sureLoss]

NHL essentially buys Nyquist's explanation that he mean to crosscheck Spurgeon and accidentally speared him

[dash_pinched]

Helene St. James‏@HeleneStJames
Per Ken Holland, Red Wings will not appeal six-game suspension of Gustav Nyquist.

Even Kenny Holland knows they got off light.

[N-E-B]

This league is a joke.

[Machiavelli]

The NHL and hockey gods have always smiled upon that insufferable franchise

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

NHL essentially buys Nyquist's explanation that he mean to crosscheck Spurgeon and accidentally speared him

Note to Nyquist: Don't use the pointy end, when trying to crosscheck.

[Karl]

Accidentally speared him my ass. He wouldn't have speared him in the face at all if it was an accident, and certainly not make a vicious move like that if there was truly no bad intent. What a joke.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Way too low, not even surprised anymore. Maybe if he took his eye right out he might get 10 to 15 games. Thank goodness it was just an innocent stick right to the face.

[FireGilbert]

Haha, I called a 6 game suspension. NHL discipline is such a joke.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Oh, and 6 games is too low. I hate the way the NHL seems to base the punishment on the damage caused, rather than the intent or recklessness of the act.

Exactly.

[devo22]

I know it's probably apples and oranges, but I can't get my head around the fact that Nyqvist gets 6 games for an extremely dangerous play which could have resulted in a horrible eye injury, while Vermette is going to get 10+ for giving a linesman a little tap (unbelievably stupid, but not dangerous at all). Those 6 games IMO show once again that this league is all bark and no bite when it comes to player safety.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by devo22

I know it's probably apples and oranges, but I can't get my head around the fact that Nyqvist gets 6 games for an extremely dangerous play which could have resulted in a horrible eye injury, while Vermette is going to get 10+ for giving a linesman a little tap (unbelievably stupid, but not dangerous at all). Those 6 games IMO show once again that this league is all bark and no bite when it comes to player safety.

And that they care more about the refs than the guys that actually make the league as exciting as it can be.

[Resolute 14]

Time for the periodic reminder that injury, or lack thereof, is explicitly stated in the CBA as a factor when considering supplemental discipline. This has been agreed to by both the owners and the players.

[PepsiFree]

I think it's fair. As I said earlier it didn't look that intentional to me based on how Nyquist reacted. He still did it, so the suspension is deserved, but I'm not viewing him as some aggressive menace.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think it's fair. As I said earlier it didn't look that intentional to me based on how Nyquist reacted. He still did it, so the suspension is deserved, but I'm not viewing him as some aggressive menace.

I agree.

I do generally think that the suspension should match the potential for injury rather than the injury itself, but that's based on the idea that discipline of this sort should be focused on the potential for deterring harm to players in the future. So, in the normal circumstance where someone tries to hurt someone and fails, I want the book thrown at them.

Here, I don't believe that this was really what he was trying to do or that he's likely to do anything similar again in the future, so there's less need to deter him... he still has to be punished, because the message needs to be that you're responsible for your own stick regardless of your intentions. But six games is pretty fair from where I sit.

[alan21]

The way he looked up and positioned his hands didn't signify an intent to cross check. That looked like he aimed but just immediately regretted doing that because he came to the realization he was going to get into trouble.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I agree.

I do generally think that the suspension should match the potential for injury rather than the injury itself, but that's based on the idea that discipline of this sort should be focused on the potential for deterring harm to players in the future. So, in the normal circumstance where someone tries to hurt someone and fails, I want the book thrown at them.

Here, I don't believe that this was really what he was trying to do or that he's likely to do anything similar again in the future, so there's less need to deter him... he still has to be punished, because the message needs to be that you're responsible for your own stick regardless of your intentions. But six games is pretty fair from where I sit.

Hmm, not sure I completely agree here. I agree with the first paragraph, however, while there may not be a need to deter 'him', there is a need to deter his 'action'.

The NHL penalizes players for not having control of their sticks. This type of penalty acts as a deterrent because it is supposed to apply regardless of intent, which players must make a conscious effort to avoid situations where they may receive a high sticking penalty.

Sure, they still happen, but the idea is that you are responsible for your actions on the ice regardless of whether the intention is there or not. Intention for me is a matter for extended sentencing in my opinion, not culpability and in an instance like this is a secondary consideration.

You absolutely have to be responsible for your own stick, and whether you meant to commit a different sort of penalty (crosscheck) than the penalty you actually committed (high sticking/spear) shouldn't be mitigating in my opinion.

The NHL needs to come down hard on matters of supplemental discipline in circumstances like this in order to act as a deterrent to the rest of the league.

[Nage Waza]

Makes no sense why the players aren't using full cages. I went from no visor, to visor (sucked to switch), and then to full cage (no problem at all).

[Jason14h]

Cause they are adults and get to make their own decisions !

Also bad for marketing if you can't see a players face