Lucic hit - any chance of further discipline?

[dino7c]

Zero chance as it turns out

[jayswin]

Well it wasn't zero chance. It was a certain chance and ended up not happening.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Glad that there was no further punishment meted out.

Me too. Lucic is an important cog.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Looks like no further discipline

https://twitter.com/user/status/1465045105232924676

Thanks to Ryan Pike for the update and sureLoss for noting

[powderjunkie]

I've long felt that 2,4,5 is a poor 'menu' for penalties.

Why should getting your stick caught up in a guy during an overzealous forecheck or puck over the glass be penalized the same as tackling a guy on a breakaway? Ticky-tack fouls also seem more likely to see more 6v5 time than more egregious fouls.

I'd much prefer: 1-3-5 or 75-150-300 (1:15-2:30-5:00)

5 - reckless/dangerous/intent to injure...aka non "hockey-plays"
3 - on scoring chances (and developing chances on breakouts), bloody high sticks, boarding
1 - everything else

Still some ambiguity on dangerous plays...I'd lean towards the Lucic hit being a 3 on my scale, but borderline to 5

[Macman]

It was Darryl Sutter in his post game presser that said a 2 minute penalty was enough, and smiled when he said that Dylan DeMelo wasn't hurt and returned to the game. That Lucic shouldn't have even got the major or the game misconduct.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

Common sense? Not one iota? Shoul driving while impaired have the same penalty as dangerous driving causing death? Of course intent matters but consequences of one's misdeeds should always factor into punishment. Especially when looking at reckless rather than deliberately malicious hockey plays.

Glad he escaped suspension though. In my view, 5 and a game was sufficient.

I don't think anyone is calling it a "good" hit.

The original point was the Kylington hit in comparison, which I felt was more dangerous, but because Kylington got up quickly it's only two minutes.

Assess them on how dangerous the decision/play was, not a quick response from the player that isn't proven.

[FanIn80]

That little "victim blaming" comment during the intermission Saturday night really pissed me off. Hockey is a full-contact sport. You don't go into the boards bending over and turning your back to the play, period, never mind when you know a 6'4" 230lbs guy is coming in to finish his check.

This notion that people should never have to worry about being hit is going to cause way more injuries than anything else. Should you be allowed to step into traffic? Sure. Should you be allowed to step into traffic with your eyes closed, and a firm belief that anyone who hits you is gonna get a fine and not be allowed to drive the rest of the day? I guess, if that's the way you wanna play it, but they're gonna be driving again tomorrow and you're gonna be in the morgue. So, you know, there's that.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I've long felt that 2,4,5 is a poor 'menu' for penalties.

Why should getting your stick caught up in a guy during an overzealous forecheck or puck over the glass be penalized the same as tackling a guy on a breakaway? Ticky-tack fouls also seem more likely to see more 6v5 time than more egregious fouls.

I'd much prefer: 1-3-5 or 75-150-300 (1:15-2:30-5:00)

5 - reckless/dangerous/intent to injure...aka non "hockey-plays"
3 - on scoring chances (and developing chances on breakouts), bloody high sticks, boarding
1 - everything else

Still some ambiguity on dangerous plays...I'd lean towards the Lucic hit being a 3 on my scale, but borderline to 5

Interesting idea. I tend to agree although the biggest problem would continue to be the inconsistency of the officials. It's embarrassing that the only sure penalty is the puck going over the glass.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

Come on, the comparison is if you take a swing with intent and graze my head vs taking a swing and cracking my skull. You're telling me the punishment should be the same?

That's essentially what Transplant is arguing when he says you can only look at the intent.

The action was identical. The first example should be catch a break because the offender was less successful in his attempt to injure.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The action was identical. The first example should be catch a break because the offender was less successful in his attempt to injure.

What if he was trying to make was taking a swing with intent to crack his skull, but only grazing him vs intending to just graze him and accidentally cracking his skull.

Which one is worse, attempt to injure without an injury or no attempt to injure with an accidental injury? I mean, in terms of the action, I'd say the first swing is worse than the second -- but in terms of the result, the second is clearly worse than the first.

Which one should be punished more, or should they both be treated equally?

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The action was identical. The first example should be catch a break because the offender was less successful in his attempt to injure.

Yeah, I went back and read Transplant's initial commented and I have to apologize. His comment was with respect to the call being made on the ice. I agree the hit by Lucic was probably no worse than the hit on Kyllington.

However this thread is about whether supplemental discipline was merited. I didn't think it was and glad there wasn't any. But whether or not a recless/dangerous hit or intent to injury results in an actual injury can and should factor into supplemental discipline decisions. That's all I meant to argue.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

Yeah, I went back and read Transplant's initial commented and I have to apologize. His comment was with respect to the call being made on the ice. I agree the hit by Lucic was probably no worse than the hit on Kyllington.

However this thread is about whether supplemental discipline was merited. I didn't think it was and glad there wasn't any. But whether or not a recless/dangerous hit or intent to injury results in an actual injury can and should factor into supplemental discipline decisions. That's all I meant to argue.

And I don't think the severity of the injury matters as much, unless it's related to the force used. I think the actual action and the force used are far more relevant.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

Interesting idea. I tend to agree although the biggest problem would continue to be the inconsistency of the officials. It's embarrassing that the only sure penalty is the puck going over the glass.

Inconsistency is inevitable, but right-sizing punishments to each foul would at least help mitigate the impact of bad calls.

I also think increasing actual enforcement of the rules would be more likely when most of the current 'game management' calls would only be 1 minute. Just call them all...and they'll quickly diminish.

[Itse]

Personally I'm not crazy about trying to evaluate intent. It's too arbitrary, and sneaky rats are often really good at doing stuff in a way that doesn't look intentional even when it totally was.

I also don't care that much why you made a bad hit. Being stupid and being malicious can be equally dangerous to others.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

Personally I'm not crazy about trying to evaluate intent. It's too arbitrary, and sneaky rats are often really good at doing stuff in a way that doesn't look intentional even when it totally was.

I also don't care that much why you made a bad hit. Being stupid and being malicious can be equally dangerous to others.

Maybe intent isn't the right word.

But Kylington was put head first into the boards from behind ... two minutes.
Demelo was hit from the side but his head hit the dasher ... five minutes.

The first one had a much larger chance of the player never walking again and a substantial injury in my opinion.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Maybe intent isn't the right word.

But Kylington was put head first into the boards from behind ... two minutes.
Demelo was hit from the side but his head hit the dasher ... five minutes.

The first one had a much larger chance of the player never walking again and a substantial injury in my opinion.

I get that it's very imperfect, but this is one are where I would rather have the refs look at the part you can make at least somewhat objective claims about.

Of course I would just give them both five minutes, because again, I don't care that much what you intended, you still did the thing. Not exactly the same thing, but close enough for me.

I also think players need to be allowed to make a mistake now and then in protecting themselves, without getting their head bashed into the boards.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

I get that it's very imperfect, but this is one are where I would rather have the refs look at the part you can make at least somewhat objective claims about.

Of course I would just give them both five minutes, because again, I don't care that much what you intended, you still did the thing. Not exactly the same thing, but close enough for me.

I also think players need to be allowed to make a mistake now and then in protecting themselves, without getting their head bashed into the boards.

Once again not defending the hit ... neither of them.

But Demelo had little chance of spinal chord injury from that angle.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Once again not defending the hit ... neither of them.

But Demelo had little chance of spinal chord injury from that angle.

I don't disagree, like strongly at least. I'm not an expert.

[Flames_Gimp]

It wasn't intent to injure, they were going shoulder til the last second when the player turned. 5 mins and game misconduct was sufficient punishment.