Don't you think that the extent of a player's injury playing a role in suspension length is stupid?

Question

It loans too much credence to dumb luck. Take for instance, the Ovechkin hit on Briere where he missed the corner of the open door by a few inches-had he hit it, Ovechkin would have gotten a ton of games. The intent was there, it was a dirty play-MUCH DIRTIER than the Tootoo incident and he gets 0 games while Tootoo gets 5 games because Robidas left on a stretcher. Guys get a worse suspension because a guy has a glass jaw or falls awkwardly (Moore). It should be more of the act than the less of the result of the act. Stupid of the NHL.

Blondie-that is a different situation considering Neil's hit was borderline clean. I don't intend the "intent" in that manner or every hard check would be intent to injure. I mean malicious acts.
Also, the only thing Ruff did wrong (if anything) was that maybe he should have waited for Ottawa's brawlers to be on the ice too if he wanted to go that route.

Drew-you contradict yourself. You think the suspension should be the result of the injury, yet you think Simon should have gotten more for 2 stitches?? Can't have it both ways. Get off the fence.

Another good example tonight-Avery sort of jumped into Thibeault, had Thibeault been taken off on a stretcher then maybe they suspend him. Doesn't make sense to me.

Answer 1

Finally, someone that gets it. If the intent is there, the punishment should go accordingly. Mike Modano clearly slashed at Tootoo, but did he even get a 2 minute penalty? No. And no one can say it was a reflex, it was a slash, the same type that Simon got villified for. The result was different, but the intent was there. I didn't see the Ovechkin hit, but if it was that dirty, why didn't he get 10 games? The league may want to protect it's stars, but they should get some type of punishment when they deserve it.

Answer 2

Bob, I agree that the extent of an injury affecting the time of suspension doesn't make much sense. How much time off would Tootoo have gotten if Robidas had just sprained a knee while falling and was able to limp off the ice on his own? Tootoo's intent would have been the same, but the outcome would have been drastically different. How would the NHL look at the incident - as a malicious act, or just another part of the game? Unfortunately, there is not a set of game suspension standards that exist for the NHL, e.g., 10 games for swinging a stick, whether you hit someone or not, or 3 games if you sucker punch somebody from behind, or 1 game if you check someone from behind. There are, however, standards for penalties (2 minutes for slashing, tripping, interference, etc). The suspension issue(s) are not that clear cut, so I think they believe they have to take into account the injury factor to help them arrive at a fair and equitable suspension length.
The result of the supposedly malicious action, then, usually influences the severity of the suspension, and unfortunately, intent is something very subjective and is not easily identifiable in each case. Suppose you check an opposing player from behind and he falls into the boards, unhurt. Two minutes in the penalty box....what was your intent with the check? What if he was paralyzed? Now what is the penalty? Suspension? And what was your intent? Who could read your mind? Maybe in the first case, you really wanted to light the guy up and injure him somehow, and in the second case, you just wanted to take him out of the play, and he caught an edge and fell awkwardly into the boards.
Since there are no set rules on suspensions or suspendable acts, the NHL tries to set examples with their decisions on suspensions, however unfair they may seem. I think they really try to arrive at suspension times fairly. As we know, there will be complaints that it is too long (or not long enough).
Personally, having played the game and watched the game from the 50's, stick swinging is something that really should be penalized. The stick can be wielded as a lethal weapon at times, and can cause devastating injuries (remember Wayne Maki hitting Teddy Green over the head?)

Answer 3

I think the penalty should fit how bad it was, not the intent. In a court of law, if you kill someone, you get tried for it. It doesn't matter what you intended to do, but what you did. Marty McSorely hit Brashear from behind and basically ended his career. Brashear was back after a few weeks. Todd Bertuzzi ended a man's career and is playing again. I'm a big Chris Simon fan, from his days in D.C. but I don't think he got suspended long enough. It should have been remainder of season, playoffs and the first 10 of next year. I mean honestly, I could throw a dirty hit intending to injure and miss, should I get a year ban for that?

Answer 4

I agree completely, I think you're details explains it all. Tootoo really didn't have to smuck Robidas like that (he was just going to to help out Modano) but Tootoo definently got was disciplined harshly. The NHL just has a real stick up their butt with the anniversary of Moore, Bertruzzi's hit, Simon's hit... they're just taking something small too far.

Answer 5

Yes it is. The intent should be penalized,not the outcome. If it was me, for a Tootoo, Simon cheapshot, you'd get a year suspension, and second offense, a ban for life.

Answer 6

As a Sabres fan i regret to bring it up but Danny did spear AO in the nads....which caused him to retaliate.

However, i do feel that players who DO intent to injure other players such as bertuzzi, neil, simon, nichols should get the amount of games that the player was out for, if not more.

Just my opinion


tootoo should not be suspended IMO

Answer 7

I agree with you. It's much like the rest of the world we live in OUTSIDE of Hockey, where people judge others by RESULTS instead of INTENTIONS.

It IS important however, in certain cases to send ALL NHL players a message that sucker punches and stick swinging ruin the image of the NHL and will not be tolerated.

Answer 8

i think intent is all that should matter. for example, the hit on chris drury by neil was a hit intended to hurt. i think he should have been suspended. i also dont think how ruff responded to this hit was right.

Answer 9

I agree. Intent is everything.

Drew-your reasoning does not make sense. If you kill someone you can be tried for manslaughter instead of murder if you did not intend to kill that person, if it was an accident. It all comes down to INTENT.