[GDT] Around the NHL [January 2024]

[Jaimito]

5 hours ago, Alflives said:

We would demolish the Kings. Like you point out their two best players are old and decrepit. Their younger guys are selfish puck suckers. Easy sweeparoo for us. 

 

I think Avs and VGK will be toughest match up for Nux.  JR and PA need to add enough to beat those teams in the playoffs. 

[Rip The Mesh]

Maybe an ankle? Hard to tell.

 

[PureQuickness]

17 hours ago, qwijjibo said:

You can think that. But the fact remains that there's no precedent for giving a 41 game suspension for a hit like that.  Your Rome example isn't remotely close and Pinto situation has no baring on it.  In fact the players association helped negotiate the pinto suspension. 

 

Was there a precedent for a player caught gambling?
 

Was there a precedent for a player who faked the use of a COVID vaccine card? Kane got 21 games btw for that. Yes, Evander.

 

I understand the purpose of a precedent. I really do. The standard is set based on precedents and we've seen it in law. But precedents can't always be relied upon because events have not happened SIMILAR TO THAT, like the Bertuzzi incident with Moore. Your stance is proof that we all need to scrutinize how supplementary penalties are assessed for the good of the game and players' health.

 

Gallagher's maximum suspension of five is predicated on the fact that it was a phone call. It was also his first suspension.

 

And Rome's suspension was his first. The impact of the penalty was SUBSTANTIALLY different for one player over the other.

 

The more you think about it, the precedent argument that you're bringing up does not hold water IN the NHL - and that's a problem.

Edited January 29 by PureQuickness

[qwijjibo]

2 hours ago, PureQuickness said:

 

Was there a precedent for a player caught gambling?
 

Was there a precedent for a player who faked the use of a COVID vaccine card? Kane got 21 games btw for that. Yes, Evander.

 

I understand the purpose of a precedent. I really do. The standard is set based on precedents and we've seen it in law. But precedents can't always be relied upon because events have not happened SIMILAR TO THAT, like the Bertuzzi incident with Moore. Your stance is proof that we all need to scrutinize how supplementary penalties are assessed for the good of the game and players' health.

 

Gallagher's maximum suspension of five is predicated on the fact that it was a phone call. It was also his first suspension.

 

And Rome's suspension was his first. The impact of the penalty was SUBSTANTIALLY different for one player over the other.

 

The more you think about it, the precedent argument that you're bringing up does not hold water IN the NHL - and that's a problem.

The 5 max was because the department of player satey decided it wasn't Wirth more than 5 when they reviewed it.  If they felt it was potentially worth more than 5 he would have been given an in person hearing.  And the problem with breaking precedent to such and extreme degree as you suggest( 41 games for a hit that traditionally assessed 4-6 games) is that the players have a union and they have the right to appeal to the league. And if they don't like that outcome they can go to an independent arbitrator.  No independent arbitrator is going to uphold an arbitrary increase in punishment that's 10 times what's been previously handed out on similar infractions. 

 

[PureQuickness]

12 hours ago, qwijjibo said:

The 5 max was because the department of player satey decided it wasn't Wirth more than 5 when they reviewed it.  If they felt it was potentially worth more than 5 he would have been given an in person hearing.  And the problem with breaking precedent to such and extreme degree as you suggest( 41 games for a hit that traditionally assessed 4-6 games) is that the players have a union and they have the right to appeal to the league. And if they don't like that outcome they can go to an independent arbitrator.  No independent arbitrator is going to uphold an arbitrary increase in punishment that's 10 times what's been previously handed out on similar infractions. 

 

 

I appreciate your insights, having read your posts in the past. I genuinely feel you're intelligent and I'm not meaning to sound condescending at all (I will say sorry ahead of time if this comes across as that). However, what you're describing here isn't what I was intending to talk about. You are merely summarizing/justifying what the league has SET, which is the basis of my criticism.

 

In other words, I am not needing a rehash of what the league THINKS is appropriate. I am questioning the punishment and approach they are taking in issuing penalties. Now, one might say I am not in position to do that (I'm not an expert on head injuries for example). I accept that. This is a discussion purely for shits and giggles, with little to no impact on any meaningful change.

 

So as I said, I understand the precedent. But the examples I mentioned in the previous post DIDN'T have precedents (i.e. lying about vaccination in the case of Kane). Relying on precedents is justifying the status quo, which is problematic.

 

Aaron Rome (yes, the incident happened many years ago in a different setting - the playoffs) received a 4 game suspension in the playoffs. A very heavy punishment. Is it justified? Debatable, but let's let it run as such.

 

A 5 game season suspension is SUBSTANTIALLY lighter in impact. It's about weighing the punishment. The punishment is supposed to set the tone for future incidents.
 

I think everyone agrees that headshots should be out of the game. If a punishment is too light (i.e. the precedents have capped the punishments to be the same), we are reasonably not going to see much change in improvements.

 

THAT is my point. Gallagher's hit was TERRIBLE. I'm trying not to be biased here. If a Canuck player did that, I'd lose whatever respect I had for them. That's how I feel about the nature of the hit. I don't think I'm alone in that way.

Edited January 29 by PureQuickness

[Alflives]

Sens getting embarrassed (again) at home. Already down 3 doughnut. How much more of this losing before Brady Tkatchuk shakes loose? Put him on Petey’s wing!!!

[qwijjibo]

4 hours ago, PureQuickness said:

 

I appreciate your insights, having read your posts in the past. I genuinely feel you're intelligent and I'm not meaning to sound condescending at all (I will say sorry ahead of time if this comes across as that). However, what you're describing here isn't what I was intending to talk about. You are merely summarizing/justifying what the league has SET, which is the basis of my criticism.

 

In other words, I am not needing a rehash of what the league THINKS is appropriate. I am questioning the punishment and approach they are taking in issuing penalties. Now, one might say I am not in position to do that (I'm not an expert on head injuries for example). I accept that. This is a discussion purely for shits and giggles, with little to no impact on any meaningful change.

 

So as I said, I understand the precedent. But the examples I mentioned in the previous post DIDN'T have precedents (i.e. lying about vaccination in the case of Kane). Relying on precedents is justifying the status quo, which is problematic.

 

Aaron Rome (yes, the incident happened many years ago in a different setting - the playoffs) received a 4 game suspension in the playoffs. A very heavy punishment. Is it justified? Debatable, but let's let it run as such.

 

A 5 game season suspension is SUBSTANTIALLY lighter in impact. It's about weighing the punishment. The punishment is supposed to set the tone for future incidents.
 

I think everyone agrees that headshots should be out of the game. If a punishment is too light (i.e. the precedents have capped the punishments to be the same), we are reasonably not going to see much change in improvements.

 

THAT is my point. Gallagher's hit was TERRIBLE. I'm trying not to be biased here. If a Canuck player did that, I'd lose whatever respect I had for them. That's how I feel about the nature of the hit. I don't think I'm alone in that way.

It was an indefensible hit. I would have no issue with him getting a longer suspension.  What I'm arguing against is "he deserves 41 games".  I think there's an argument to be made to lengthen suspensions for this kind of hit.  But it can't be mid season when suspensions have already been handed out.  If the league and the players association want to address it, it needs to be in the offseason where they can come to agreement to what the new benchmark looks like.  That gives them time to roll it out to players. 

 

One problem (as I see it) is that as much as the league and PA say they want to protect players, it's still a business. It's not a big deal for a team to lose Gallagher for an extended period, but what if someone like Matthews lost his head and threw that hit? Do you think the Leafs management would be ok losing Matthews for 40 games? It certainly wouldn't be good for the league. Plus, there's the question of the inequity of the punishment. A player making league minimum loses what? 400k for half a season lost? Matthews would lose over $6m for the same suspension.  So although it's easy to say the league needs to come down hard on hits like this, putting it into action is far more complicated. 

Edited January 30 by qwijjibo

[Alflives]

Big comeback by the Sens in P 2. Even the bustaroo bobble head Stutzle scored. 

[Rip The Mesh]

The old snatch routine. Grandstanding? Nah....

[Coconuts]

Sens roar back and win

[Rip The Mesh]

 

[PureQuickness]

15 hours ago, qwijjibo said:

It was an indefensible hit. I would have no issue with him getting a longer suspension.  What I'm arguing against is "he deserves 41 games".  I think there's an argument to be made to lengthen suspensions for this kind of hit.  But it can't be mid season when suspensions have already been handed out.  If the league and the players association want to address it, it needs to be in the offseason where they can come to agreement to what the new benchmark looks like.  That gives them time to roll it out to players. 

 

One problem (as I see it) is that as much as the league and PA say they want to protect players, it's still a business. It's not a big deal for a team to lose Gallagher for an extended period, but what if someone like Matthews lost his head and threw that hit? Do you think the Leafs management would be ok losing Matthews for 40 games? It certainly wouldn't be good for the league. Plus, there's the question of the inequity of the punishment. A player making league minimum loses what? 400k for half a season lost? Matthews would lose over $6m for the same suspension.  So although it's easy to say the league needs to come down hard on hits like this, putting it into action is far more complicated. 

 

Yes, I can definitely get behind this response by you. And I also agree partially with this (not to say that I disagree with you). I just feel there's a lot of dragging of the feet, so to speak, on making real change. That is, change that substantially punishes BAD hits to send a message. But I also agree with you that a standard has to be set. The problem is that even on a reffing standard (not an easy job), there's too much variety. For example, the Myers penalty IS a penalty. There's a penalty for elbowing. A vicious one or a careless one is still elbowing. If the elbow is used in a hit (in the case of Gallagher), that should not be an elbowing penalty because speed was involved. There's also the fact that they called the penalty on the wrong player, used the 5 minute major to review, and then re-assessed the penalty on another player. I mean, it's good that they "got it right" in the end, but there's a debate about whether the means is justified. I suppose there is no easy solution. If Myers had gotten off scot-free, there could be more penalties, particular those involving retribution.

 

The league had the right idea in the beginning by having a player describe the reasoning behind the suspension, but the punishments did not seem to curb the similar incidents afterwards.

 

I think in the case of the pay proportion, that is a really good point. I didn't think about that part.

Edited January 30 by PureQuickness

[Coconuts]

 

 

[Coconuts]

 

 

[RupertKBD]

This doesn't belong in the NHL thread, but I don't really think it merits it's own.

 

Did anyone else catch the story about this guy from the Richmond Sockeyes, who started a brawl and then choked out the opposing goaltender, despite being repeatedly told to let him go by the linesman?

 

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/junior-hockey/b-c-player-suspended-after-alleged-chokehold-on-goalie-during-junior-a-fight

 

I watched the video and this asshat acts like he's in the WWE:

 

 

[GrammaInTheTub]

29 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

This doesn't belong in the NHL thread, but I don't really think it merits it's own.

 

Did anyone else catch the story about this guy from the Richmond Sockeyes, who started a brawl and then choked out the opposing goaltender, despite being repeatedly told to let him go by the linesman?

 

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/junior-hockey/b-c-player-suspended-after-alleged-chokehold-on-goalie-during-junior-a-fight

 

I watched the video and this asshat acts like he's in the WWE:

 

 

Wow that is absolutely horrific. I hope the player is suspended indefinitely (only because I don’t think I’ve ever heard the term expelled). That has no place in the game - I don’t care if emotions run high. “Things happen in a split second” is clearly not the case here. 

[RupertKBD]

25 minutes ago, GrammaInTheTub said:

Wow that is absolutely horrific. I hope the player is suspended indefinitely (only because I don’t think I’ve ever heard the term expelled). That has no place in the game - I don’t care if emotions run high. “Things happen in a split second” is clearly not the case here. 

 

The guy is a repeat offender as well. I believe this will be his third suspension already this season.

 

If I'm the league commissioner, it's a lifetime ban....the rest of this season, at the absolute least.

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

The guy is a repeat offender as well. I believe this will be his third suspension already this season.

 

If I'm the league commissioner, it's a lifetime ban....the rest of this season, at the absolute least.

Lifetime ban and he should be charged with assault. That behaviour was cowardly. He needs to go to prison and for a long time. Very cowardly behaviour. He could have killed that other player and 100% knew what he was doing. These are the duck MOFUs we don’t want on our streets. 

[RupertKBD]

15 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Lifetime ban and he should be charged with assault. That behaviour was cowardly. He needs to go to prison and for a long time. Very cowardly behaviour. He could have killed that other player and 100% knew what he was doing. These are the duck MOFUs we don’t want on our streets. 

 

I agree. This warrants an investigation, at the very least.

 

Nobody can reasonably expect to have to deal with something like that in a hockey game.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

I agree. This warrants an investigation, at the very least.

 

Nobody can reasonably expect to have to deal with something like that in a hockey game.

The perpetrator knew exactly what he was doing. IMHAO if investigated it would show he’s trained in that mma fighting. And bringing that crap to a junior game, intentionally, shows intent. Prison time for this coward. Seriously what kind of a loser does something like that? 

[Alflives]

Watching CBJ. Sillinger needs a new home. We should try and steal this player. 

[Herberts Vasiljevs]

Oof. Seattle just lost a must-win vs. San Jose. Seattle had zero goals.

[Alflives]

7 hours ago, Herberts Vasiljevs said:

Oof. Seattle just lost a must-win vs. San Jose. Seattle had zero goals.

Krackheads got embarrassed bad on home ice by the lowly Sharks. Too funny. Francis “The Talking Mule” is doing such a good job. 

[Bob Long]

12 hours ago, Alflives said:

Watching CBJ. Sillinger needs a new home. We should try and steal this player. 

 

Jarmo is too arrogant to make a fair deal with us.

[Rip The Mesh]