What’s the point of asking about if it was something it wasn’t?
The point is that everything the NHL said to justify the 8 games was immaterial, as none of them would've made the hit illegal if he had contacted the shoulder.
The point is that everything the NHL said to justify the 8 games was immaterial, as none of them would've made the hit illegal if he had contacted the shoulder.
So a repeat offender wouldn't get punished for not breaking the rules, but he does get punished for breaking them? How interesting.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
48.1 Illegal Check to the Head - A lateral or blind side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principle point of contact is not permitted.
48.2 Minor Penalty - There is no provision for a minor penalty for this rule.
48.3 Major Penalty - For a violation of this rule, a major penalty shall be assessed (see 48.4).
48.4 Match Penalty - An automatic game misconduct penalty shall be assessed whenever a major penalty is assessed under this rule.
48.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent with an illegal check to the head.
48.6 Fines and Suspensions - Any player who incurs a total of two (2) game misconducts under this rule, in either regular League or playoff games, shall be suspended automatically for the next game his team plays. For each subsequent game misconduct penalty the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.
If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).
What year is it where you live Seb? 1978 or so?
Yup. And this must have been copied from before they added this bit to 48.1 (from the 20/21 book):
Quote:
In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered:
(i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward.
(ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable.
(iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact.
Seems like it fits quite clearly to me.
Had he not broken the rules (which he obviously did), he wouldn’t have been suspended. Had he not recklessly broken the rules repeatedly, leading to multiple suspensions, he might have got the rest of that game and that’s it (does this need to be explained further?? Seriously?)
To me, that honestly looked like Kadri just mistimed a big open ice hit by a split second.
Either way, he popped his guy in the head, and you get suspended for that now. I think most people are ok with that.
But 8 playoff games seems like a pretty spicy suspension for what I saw.
Disagree; he mis-aimed it in a cowardly way. There was a big, clean hit to be made there torso to torso, but he shied away from feeling any of it himself.
As mentioned, I think he’s talked his way into this suspension, in his previous suspensions. The hit on Debrusk was a lot worse.
But on that, he probably said that he meant to hit lower but Debrusk moved and nothing he could do. He probably used a similar argument here and gets no benefit of the doubt...as they do keep notes of previous comments. The “woe is me” argument may work once, it won’t work twice or thrice.
Goes to show he hasn’t learned his lesson as his intent is and has been malicious, and he’s trying to dupe the DOPS, so 8 games it is.
Good.
Nazem Kadri had his hearing today with commissioner Gary Bettman and there's no timetable for a decision as per the story on NHL.com.
I didn't see the hit at first but 8 games sounded like a lot in the playoffs and I wasn't surprised Kadri appealed it.
But after seeing the hit I think 8 games is okay and he maybe even got lucky it wasn't more. I just think that type of hit doesn't belong in the game anymore, guys are just to big and fast even if the hit is within the guidelines. It's a blindside hit.
Justin Faulk didn't play the last 2 games either and he probably has a concussion.
Maybe it will get reduced by a game or 2 but I also think this is Kadri's last chance, he's going to be gone for a while if it happens again.
Nazem Kadri had his hearing today with commissioner Gary Bettman and there's no timetable for a decision as per the story on NHL.com.
I didn't see the hit at first but 8 games sounded like a lot in the playoffs and I wasn't surprised Kadri appealed it.
But after seeing the hit I think 8 games is okay and he maybe even got lucky it wasn't more. I just think that type of hit doesn't belong in the game anymore, guys are just to big and fast even if the hit is within the guidelines. It's a blindside hit.
Justin Faulk didn't play the last 2 games either and he probably has a concussion.
Maybe it will get reduced by a game or 2 but I also think this is Kadri's last chance, he's going to be gone for a while if it happens again.
There are guys in the league that can hit still. Not a whole bunch though. They aren't repeatedly taking suspensions at this rate either.
__________________
I hate just about everyone and just about everything.
It's still true that he's lucky it's only 8 games, but yeah, the appeal is definitely a "might as well try" situation for him.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I don't think there should be, actually. I don't think you want to use the prospect of lost money alone to disincentivize third party oversight of a process that would otherwise be a unilateral exercise of league discretion, particularly when the league in question is so bad at it. That would either just disproportionately affect players who don't make as much (if the player bears the cost), or more likely, shift money out of the pockets of the NHLPA and into the pockets of the NHL.
I think what should happen is it should effectively be a hearing de novo - with the result that there's a risk that the arbitrator hands down a bigger suspension than what was originally put in place by the DOPS.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
There should be a risk of paying costs for a lost appeal, at the very least.
The appeal is filed by the NHLPA. It's not like this is tying up actual courts. As for the cost, Betttman earns a large salary to do his job, this is part of the job.
Gary should have waited a little longer for his verdict, let another few games pass
Most suspensions are short enough and the appeal process takes so long that it's not really worth it to appeal. Even in this situation, if St Louis had forced the first round to 7 games, he'd already have served 6 games of the suspension so the appeal to an arbitrator would be virtually moot at this point. If it had happened in the regular season, he would also likely be 6 or 7 games into it by now.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
