184 replies to this topic

[TheShynessClinic]

That's Masterson candidate Matt Cooke to you.

As much as it pains me to say it, Matt Cooke did not participate in a single questionable thing yesterday. He's one of the few Penguins who wasn't a complete asshole.

[Toe Nash]

To be honest, I almost hope Neal/Adams/Asham aren't suspended. I want them playing in the next game, so when Philly has a lead going into the 3rd, all bets are off. I'm not calling for injuries, I'm calling for actual accountability. I'd love to see Rinaldo absolutely tune up one of these guys and embarrass them on National TV. It's the only way shit like this will end.

Hanging consecutive 8s on his team and sweeping the unbeatable Penguins isn't embarrassing?

If you don't suspend them one of them (or a Flyer) could get seriously hurt. The league just wants this series to be over as quickly and uneventfully as possible.

[cshea]

Asham is looking at 5+ since it's in person.

Good to see the league is preparing to drop the hammer on Neal. I thought he might skate off because there was no penalty called on the ice, and a suspension is an admission that the officials screwed up. The league doesn't like to do that.

[Dropkick Izzy]

At this point, as crazy as it sounds, it seems semi clear that injury to the player is the controlling element. It's complete fucking madness if you ask me, but it seems like Shanahan strongly values the extent of injury in determining suspensions. I'm sure this will result in exaggerated injuries to lousy players, but that seems to be the thing that he keys in on.

Didn't Shanahan and/or Bettman bleat on and on about "changing player behavior"? If you're decision to mete out punishement is pinned to whether a guy has a thick skull or is a raging pussy, clearly that statement was a load of horse crap.

BTW, can we come up with a new nickname for Shanahan (ala Dickface)?

[Alternate34]

Let me try that again more succinctly: has the league ever come out and said why resulting injury is factored into SD decisions?

I'll give it a try, though this isn't obviously anything based on what the league has said. Suspension being tied to injury can be justified from a few standpoints:

(1) It's used to compensate for the detriment to the other team caused by the player's misconduct. An egregious act that does not injure the other team arguably causes less problems than one that does. This reason would also justify a star system of hit enforcement as stars are more valuable to their team than "average schmoes". Of course, the clear reason this is bullshit is that suspensions are not done because of team activities but individual bad acts.

(2) It's used as a measure on just how bad the hit was. If the hit was really bad, then it should lead to injury. The worse the hit, the worse the injury. This has a little more cogency than the previous point, as a large reason for regulating these hits is to prevent injury, especially head injuries. The problem with this has been pointed out. It neuters the anti-hit's policy's deterrent effect. Players are more likely to roll the dice because there is no guarantee of a serious suspension. Additionally, it robs the policy of general effectiveness in preventing injury. Head injuries are among the largest concerns. While major concussion events do present unique dangers, studies in general demonstrate that constant pounding a head takes contributes to long term effects. Small events build up, so if the policy isn't enforced on an intent basis, then you don't get at the systemic problem.

I don't think injury should be entirely out of the calculus (I suspect most people agree) but that Shanahan is being ridiculous in seemingly considering it. It can be helpful in determining the viciousness of the hit and to some degree, how hard the hit was intended, but really, the focus should primarily be on intent. Grabbing people's heads and smashing them into the glass, even if it turned out to have little effect, should be an automatic suspension.

[TheShynessClinic]

I hate to agree with someone like Brian Burke, but he was correct in saying the rats are now running the league.

One of the biggest facilitators of cheap shots is the instigator penalty. As long as the instigator exists, people like James Neal will be able to run two players on the ice, and then hide on the bench without facing true reprecussions.

Meanwhile, players like Asham and Engelland will take and give few shots to "defend" their player. If there was any accountability whatsoever in this league for a players actions, I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't see half of the cheap/dangerous hits that currently exist.

I mean, look at who is executing these hits that are causing players to miss games due to injurie. It's certainly not the goons/traditional tough guys - it's players like Neal (Coutourier and Girouix), Duncan Keith (D. Sedin), Raffi Torres, Carl Hagelin. If those players had to actually stand up to the goons whenever they laid out a particularly dirty hit, they probably would think twice before running a guy from behind, or throwing a high elbow.

[SidelineCameras]

I'll give it a try, though this isn't obviously anything based on what the league has said. Suspension being tied to injury can be justified from a few standpoints:

(1) It's used to compensate for the detriment to the other team caused by the player's misconduct. An egregious act that does not injure the other team arguably causes less problems than one that does. This reason would also justify a star system of hit enforcement as stars are more valuable to their team than "average schmoes". Of course, the clear reason this is bullshit is that suspensions are not done because of team activities but individual bad acts.

(2) It's used as a measure on just how bad the hit was. If the hit was really bad, then it should lead to injury. The worse the hit, the worse the injury. This has a little more cogency than the previous point, as a large reason for regulating these hits is to prevent injury, especially head injuries. The problem with this has been pointed out. It neuters the anti-hit's policy's deterrent effect. Players are more likely to roll the dice because there is no guarantee of a serious suspension. Additionally, it robs the policy of general effectiveness in preventing injury. Head injuries are among the largest concerns. While major concussion events do present unique dangers, studies in general demonstrate that constant pounding a head takes contributes to long term effects. Small events build up, so if the policy isn't enforced on an intent basis, then you don't get at the systemic problem.

I don't think injury should be entirely out of the calculus (I suspect most people agree) but that Shanahan is being ridiculous in seemingly considering it. It can be helpful in determining the viciousness of the hit and to some degree, how hard the hit was intended, but really, the focus should primarily be on intent. Grabbing people's heads and smashing them into the glass, even if it turned out to have little effect, should be an automatic suspension.

Thanks for this. I agree with everything you said. Taking injury into account works on paper, but clearly not in practice, as you have explained.

Edit: Also, according to the Shanny interview I posted below, taking injury into account is part of the CBA. I didn't know that.

Edited by SidelineCameras, 16 April 2012 - 11:32 AM.

[SidelineCameras]

Haven't listened to this yet, but Shanny was on WFAN this AM with Boomer and Carlton:

http://newyork.cbslo...endan-shanahan/

[Greg29fan]

Craig Adams is out for game 4 for his instigator in the last 5 minutes (I do think the "hair-pulling" was an accident but the rule is in place for a reason). Bylsma also gets a 10k fine.

[AimingForYoko]

10K less than Torts.

[kenneycb]

I'm pretty sure the coaches fine is written into the rules for an instigator.

[cshea]

I think 10K is the automatic fine for a coach when one of his players gets booted for the instigator with less than 5 to go. Similar to when managers always get run from baseball games when the pitcher throws at a guy after being warned.

Damn you kenney

Edited by cshea, 16 April 2012 - 04:17 PM.

[wibi]

NBC sports just lambasted Shanny for lack of consistency about playoff suspensions

[LondonSox]

I will say that there is room to consider injury but only in addition.
What I mean is the penalty is on intent three games regardless of injury but potentially more if a player is injured for more games.
I can get on board with that, ie you intentionally head hunt and knock a guy out with a concussion you can be ruled out until he returns.
You try to hurt someone and end their career you can end your own.
The nhl needs to take this seriously or they will end up on the end of lawsuits too.

[TheStoryofYourRedRightAnkle]

Yeah, they really need ro get a retired judge or something to do discipline. Shanny clearly has taken too many pucks to the head.

[Saints Rest]

I'll give it a try, though this isn't obviously anything based on what the league has said. Suspension being tied to injury can be justified from a few standpoints:

(1) It's used to compensate for the detriment to the other team caused by the player's misconduct. An egregious act that does not injure the other team arguably causes less problems than one that does. This reason would also justify a star system of hit enforcement as stars are more valuable to their team than "average schmoes". Of course, the clear reason this is bullshit is that suspensions are not done because of team activities but individual bad acts.

(2) It's used as a measure on just how bad the hit was. If the hit was really bad, then it should lead to injury. The worse the hit, the worse the injury. This has a little more cogency than the previous point, as a large reason for regulating these hits is to prevent injury, especially head injuries. The problem with this has been pointed out. It neuters the anti-hit's policy's deterrent effect. Players are more likely to roll the dice because there is no guarantee of a serious suspension. Additionally, it robs the policy of general effectiveness in preventing injury. Head injuries are among the largest concerns. While major concussion events do present unique dangers, studies in general demonstrate that constant pounding a head takes contributes to long term effects. Small events build up, so if the policy isn't enforced on an intent basis, then you don't get at the systemic problem.

I don't think injury should be entirely out of the calculus (I suspect most people agree) but that Shanahan is being ridiculous in seemingly considering it. It can be helpful in determining the viciousness of the hit and to some degree, how hard the hit was intended, but really, the focus should primarily be on intent. Grabbing people's heads and smashing them into the glass, even if it turned out to have little effect, should be an automatic suspension.

In my mind, the "lack of injury = lack of suspension" calculus pretty much then demands the converse (inverse?): If a malicious hit knocks a player out of the next game (multiple games) then that player must be suspended for an equal length of time. In fact, I would guess that that exact theory has been argued many time in many places, including on this board. We have yet to see this scenario play out this playoff season, but I will withhold judgement on Shanny until that time. If he is going to take this tact, it must be consistent.

I think that professional athletes value time on the ice (or field or court), especially during the playoffs, more than money. So not only would this prove a deterrent from the act itself, but it would also imply that the risk of someone faking an injury to maximize a suspension would be minimal. I can imagine that if an Ovechkin takes out a Caron, Caron will be "injured" for the rest of the series (with considerable "caution" from team management), but an independent medical exam could help prevent that sort of thing.

[AMcGhie]

I'll just completely disagree with how injuries are factored in. Injuries should make the suspensions WORSE, lack of injury should NOT make the suspensions easier. If you maliciously or recklessly hit someone, you should be suspended regardless of injury. If that player misses games, you should miss more.
Hell, I'd even support a "suspended til the player returns" policy. You knock someone out for the season with a reckless, dangerous, or malicious hit, your season is done to.

[Alternate34]

In my mind, the "lack of injury = lack of suspension" calculus pretty much then demands the converse (inverse?): If a malicious hit knocks a player out of the next game (multiple games) then that player must be suspended for an equal length of time. In fact, I would guess that that exact theory has been argued many time in many places, including on this board. We have yet to see this scenario play out this playoff season, but I will withhold judgement on Shanny until that time. If he is going to take this tact, it must be consistent.

I think that professional athletes value time on the ice (or field or court), especially during the playoffs, more than money. So not only would this prove a deterrent from the act itself, but it would also imply that the risk of someone faking an injury to maximize a suspension would be minimal. I can imagine that if an Ovechkin takes out a Caron, Caron will be "injured" for the rest of the series (with considerable "caution" from team management), but an independent medical exam could help prevent that sort of thing.

There is no reason to withhold judgment on Shanny because that interpretation is untenable. As noted, it is a terrible way at addressing the real reason behind suspending players and that is to reduce injuries. If he waits until a player is taken out for a season to unload a suspension, then you have a serious problem. Additionally, intent has to matter in those situations because there are some hits that are borderline in whether they intend to take a player out and target the head. A nuanced approach is necessary with some level of minimum punishments like LondonSox suggested or else you risk letting these things escalate.

[Haunted]

Further, they should be cracking down much harder on "intent" actions vs "dumb or reckless" actions.

[The Napkin]

Shaw gets 3 games for his hit on Smith.

[The Napkin]

In unrelated news, Smith is no longer a game time decision and will play tonight.

[TheShynessClinic]

Wow.

1.) That wasn't even a bad hit.
2.) This system is fucked.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

In unrelated news, Smith is no longer a game time decision and will play tonight.

The Gods are funny. What amazing timing to figure out that, why yes! Smith will be able to go after all!

Shanahan has made a mockery of the process, and teams have taken note. Feign injury and tilt a series in your favor. Way to go Shanny!

[SidelineCameras]

Wow.

1.) That wasn't even a bad hit.
2.) This system is fucked.

I won't argue #2. But #1? How can anyone defend a hit to a head, especially on a goalie right there? If someone did that to Thomas, Jack Edwards would probably die on the spot.

[PedroSpecialK]

The system is having its flaws exposed. Simple as that.

[Greg29fan]

Shanny is such a fucking clown - he gets ripped for a couple days after screwing up every possible suspension handed to him so now he totally reverses course. Shaw's hit is a 1 game suspension, if that.

Edited by Greg29fan, 17 April 2012 - 02:58 PM.

[kenneycb]

I won't argue #2. But #1? How can anyone defend a hit to a head, especially on a goalie right there? If someone did that to Thomas, Jack Edwards would probably die on the spot.

Because he wasn't going in for a hit, rather trying to seal off the passing lane. Only he did a really crappy job of that and instead of skirting by on the boards, he nearly killed Mike Smith, at least that's how I judged what happened based on his reaction. I would also love to hear reasons for why Smith wasn't shown to the Quiet Room for 15 minutes.

[j44thor]

Has CHI accepted the suspension? Shanny did say during the NY Radio interview that a player/team can appeal the suspension which would then turn it over to Gary B. If Shanny suspended him based on the idea that Smith might not play I would think it makes sense to appeal. He would probably get 1-2 games knocked off based on the lack of injury.

[mikeford]

[Dummy Hoy]

Twitter-sphere says 1 game for Neal and 4 for Asham.

[Spaulding Smails]

1 game is a joke.

[PedroSpecialK]

1 game.

That's a joke, right? A really funny, late April Fool's joke?

[The Napkin]

Greg Wyshynski ‏ @wyshynski
Also, per a source: Expect Torres suspension to be significant. #CaptainObvious

So... 2 games?

[MiracleOfO2704]

Yeah, the Shanahan experiment was fun for a preseason, but it's obvious that James Neal tried to concuss two different players and got away with it. It's bad when your owner refuses to defend your actions and the league still buys whatever BS argument you came up with.

Bring back Dickface already.

EDIT: Now I wish I hadn't watched the video. You admit there were two questionable hits, but write off the first charge as "he was just bracing for impact"? And the injury thing still! I'm sure we'll get the tweet in about 24 hours about how Backstrom's match penalty was rescinded because there was no apparent injury to Peverley. If it were just the Couturier hit, the BS line MIGHT'VE had a chance to fly, but Neal tried to maim two people inside five real-time minutes, and because both aren't hurt, he gets a relative slap on the wrist. If I'm Philly, I tank Game 4, dress Sestito in Game 5, get the big lead late, and send Sestito out there to end careers. Again, bring back Dickface and the random punishments, at least we know what to expect there.

Edited by MiracleOfO2704, 17 April 2012 - 09:50 PM.

[Spaulding Smails]

"collision" and "transitioning from offense to defense" that video is absurd regarding Neal.

[Greg29fan]

the series isn't going to last longer than 1 more game anyways

[PedroSpecialK]

"collision" and "transitioning from offense to defense" that video is absurd regarding Neal.

That's what got me the most. "While we accept Neal's assertion that [insert explanation of attempt to go up ice/play to the whistle and refute any logic that would imply that a team down 2-0 in the series and in another blowout would try to goon it up]" is truly a garage-league execution of "player safety" protocol.

Edited by PedroSpecialK, 17 April 2012 - 09:48 PM.

[erfus]

So... 2 games?

Torres shouldn't be in the league. He's been trying to paralyze people for years. If you can't make an example out of a scumbag like that who doesn't score 40 goals a year or get nominated for Norris trophies then you can't make an example out of anyone. This is the lowest of low hanging fruit.

[MiracleOfO2704]

Torres shouldn't be in the league. He's been trying to paralyze people for years. If you can't make an example out of a scumbag like that who doesn't score 40 goals a year or get nominated for Norris trophies then you can't make an example out of anyone. This is the lowest of low hanging fruit.

And yet, I hear that line from one of the SNL Celebrity Jeopardy! skits: "Let's see how [he manages] to screw this up."

[dylanmarsh]

Maybe they can recycle this one: http://video.nhl.com...nsole?id=146713 and change the number of games. Almost identical hit.

[Alternate34]

The Neal video is absurd. You have a player who was previously warned, had just 42 second earlier charged another player, and went for the head. He in fact went so high that he chipped the player's helmet off. One game. In a series they are going to lose.

The league needs to hire someone who gives a shit about player's heads. That is basically it. Though maybe they will retroactively change these suspensions in 10 years when irrefutable evidence of the damage of head injuries comes to light.

[Greg29fan]

Neither guy was injured = 1 game. Hey I agree with you guys but this league has shown time and again they rule on the result of the act, not the intent.

[cshea]

"He's been suspended once, fined once, and warned twice"

1 game!

[ForceAtHome]

I am cross-posting this from the Caps-Bruins thread because it might fit more here...

I just saw that Neal got 1 game. WHAT IN THE FUCK? I'm pretty calm and rational usually, but I feel that this is outrageous. Neal got NOTHING for leaping (which Shanahan acknowledges!) into Couturier and 1 game for the Giroux hit? Couturier was shaken up on the play before returning (whereas Peverley was totally fine) which supposedly influences these decisions. Also, Neal has been suspended before and this year alone has had 2 warning calls and a fine while Backstrom has never had any disciplinary issues? The fuck? Somehow what Backstrom did was WORSE than Neal's initial hit and Weber's slam and equal to Neal's second run? Wow.

Edited by ForceAtHome, 17 April 2012 - 10:20 PM.

[cshea]

I am cross-posting this from the Caps-Bruins thread because it might fit more here...

I just saw that Neal got 1 game. WHAT IN THE FUCK? I'm pretty calm and rational usually, but I feel that this is outrageous. Neal got NOTHING for leaping (which Shanahan acknowledges!) into Couturier and 1 game for the Giroux hit? Couturier was shaken up on the play (whereas Peverley was fine) which supposedly matters. Also, Neal has been suspended before and this year alone has had 2 warning calls and a fine while Backstrom has never had any disciplinary issues? The fuck? Somehow what Backstrom did was WORSE than Neal's initial hit and Weber's slam and equal to Neal's second run? Wow.

I agree 100%. It really sucks, Shanny has no idea what he is doing. I have no idea how Backstrom's offense is equal to what Neal did.

It really sucks that seemingly after every game the prime debate is who is going to get suspended, and for how long. It's overshadowing what, to this point, has been some fantastic hockey.

Edited by cshea, 17 April 2012 - 10:26 PM.

[RedOctober3829]

Backstrom's suspension is upheld for Game 4.

[j44thor]

I agree 100%. It really sucks, Shanny has no idea what he is doing. I have no idea how Backstrom's offense is equal to what Neal did.

It really sucks that seemingly after every game the prime debate is who is going to get suspended, and for how long. It's overshadowing what, to this point, has been some fantastic hockey.

The worst part is that we aren't talking about plays that happened weeks apart. He is making these ridiculous rulings on the same day. I think the idea of having a single person responsible for handing out punishment is a very bad idea and even worse when that person is a former player who may harbor bias even subconsciously.

All SD should be handled by a 3 or 5 person committee made up of non players with no previous links to any teams.

[Jed Zeppelin]

The worst part is that we aren't talking about plays that happened weeks apart. He is making these ridiculous rulings on the same day. I think the idea of having a single person responsible for handing out punishment is a very bad idea and even worse when that person is a former player who may harbor bias even subconsciously.

All SD should be handled by a 3 or 5 person committee made up of non players with no previous links to any teams.

I think this is crucial. Shanny has all these meetings where the players give their explanations and the ex-player in him says "yeah that makes a lot of sense." There's nothing wrong with getting all sides of the story and putting a play in the proper context, but that's not what he's doing. He's choosing which context to use and his choice generally seems to be the one that makes the least sense.

edit: It'll be mildly annoying when he gives Torres a message-sender so the league can say "Look! Look! Harshness! Crackdown!"

Edited by Jed Zeppelin, 17 April 2012 - 10:47 PM.

[Domer]

The worst part is that we aren't talking about plays that happened weeks apart. He is making these ridiculous rulings on the same day. I think the idea of having a single person responsible for handing out punishment is a very bad idea and even worse when that person is a former player who may harbor bias even subconsciously.

All SD should be handled by a 3 or 5 person committee made up of non players with no previous links to any teams.

It would be pretty hard to find a someone with no links to an NHL team who is qualified for this position.

[AimingForYoko]

I've been busy with the Sox but what the actual living fuck at that Neal ruling?

Jesus Christ Shanny, at what point in the year did you fall the fuck apart...

And at this point Torres needs the indefinite boot. And how in the hell did the refs let that shit go.

Edited by AimingForYoko, 17 April 2012 - 11:16 PM.