This is where I'm at. I expected less, but I'm sick of this shit from him. Maybe 5 gets the point across.Not much to complain about IMO given how often he finds himself in these unnecessary situations.
I thought he'd get off lighter given some of the plausible deniability but can't say he hasn't earned this.
I just wonder if he's capable of controlling himself. It's impulse control, not stopping a premeditated plot, so how does he change in the heat of battle? I really don't know.Five suspensions before this one. The league says that was a factor. It should be. The next one is going to be longer.
I hope Cassidy, Bergeron and everyone on the team make it clear to Marchand at every opportunity how much he is letting his teammates down.
And if he does pull it off, and relax that part of how he functions, does it have any spillover affect on the rest of his performance? While it’s understandable to say that a little impulse control shouldn’t detract from everything else, maybe things aren’t that readily divisible.I just wonder if he's capable of controlling himself. It's impulse control, not stopping a premeditated plot, so how does he change in the heat of battle? I really don't know.
Ha. No I mean that sometimes the jerk in a player is all bound up in everything else, so if you tame the jerk, everything else suffers, too. But you probably know what I meant.Do you mean like the dropoff in production from missing 5 games?
It was intentional but let's remember Rinaldo only got 6 games for what he did a couple weeks ago. 5 is about right.Yeah. I think it was intentional and I think he got off light.
The repeat offender rules are collectively bargained so that throws a monkey wrench in the works a bit, but I’m with you that the “repeating non-repeat offender” stuff makes me crazy. Hopefully the next CBA tightens up that if a player is constantly having to justify themselves to DOPS that it starts to count against them in some way vs only having been suspended before....gets nothing because he's not a "repeat offender" despite getting nothing for not being a repeat offender over and over and over agin. And on and on and on. DOPS is a joke and everyone knows it. Why is this so hard to fix?
If you could describe the actual logic was used to reach 5 games, I would be all ears. The DPS is a black box whose actions are rife with inconsistencies.I don't understand the criticism of the NHL here. Marchand elbowed the guy in the head. While I wouldn't call it a true intent to injure, throwing the elbow was reckless and unnecessary. And resulted in a player being injured. Marchand has been through this before, so that counts against him as well.
There is nothing illogical or "a joke" about the suspension. It was deserved. And it certainly wouldn't be described by anyone as "light" either.
If he was bigger, he'd be a lunkhead. Dumbshit will have to do.ASG reception was amusing.
God he’s a dumbshit ... but he’s our dumbshit.
Could it be as simple as that the player can’t appeal on less than 6? Not that that’s right or wrong, but simply ‘give him the max we don’t have to waste time listening to him about it’.If you could describe the actual logic was used to reach 5 games, I would be all ears. The DPS is a black box whose actions are rife with inconsistencies.
And for the record, I'm fine with 5 games. I would just love to know how they got there outside of throwing a dart and adjusting up and down based off various criteria.
Similar to the logic the DPS used when Neal got 5 games for kneeing Marchand in the head. At the time, Neal wasn't a "repeat offender" as defined in the CBA, but he had a history.If you could describe the actual logic was used to reach 5 games, I would be all ears. The DPS is a black box whose actions are rife with inconsistencies.
And for the record, I'm fine with 5 games. I would just love to know how they got there outside of throwing a dart and adjusting up and down based off various criteria.
Sounds right as to the rationale. It was in some sense a maximum penalty for yet another incident. Next time he'll have appeal rights, because he's going to get more than 5.Could it be as simple as that the player can’t appeal on less than 6? Not that that’s right or wrong, but simply ‘give him the max we don’t have to waste time listening to him about it’.
I only follow hockey tangentially, but I’m aware of his reputation and think five is certainly called for. That was a cheap blow and we’ve all seen what Savard has gone through. There’s no place for it, imo.