Shouldn't a player get suspended if he intentionally injures another for the length that the injured is out?

Answer 1

If he intentionally injures a player.....then YES!!!!!

Answer 2

No. Let's think of it in these terms. Take an incident with 15 games left in the season. The hurt player is on a team that won't be in the playoffs. The offender is on a team with a shot at the Stanley Cup. Knowing a rule such as what you propose is in place, the team doctors 'report' that the injured player won't return until next season. As a result the offender would have to sit out until then.

Could it be the injured player might actually be OK in this scenario? I sure think so, and your idea would open up this type of thing.

Answer 3

you cannot base punishments on the injury inflicted on the other player. the nhl does this way too much. it has got to be action and intent-based. i think that is a big problem with the way the nhl deals with dirty play. if somebody whacks a guy and breaks his jaw, he gets a suspension and a big fine. somebody else does the same but maybe catches the guy on the helmet so hes just bruised, he gets 2 minutes. the punishments need to be more equal whether you seriously injure someone or not. if the intent is there, punishment is necessary. on the other hand, if a clean hit just shakes a guy up, no penalty, no problem. if he's injured on the play, the media and league go back and analyze every inch of the hit and maybe decide that a relatively clean hit deserves a fine or suspension or the media gives the guy a bad rep for a hit that was more unlucky than anything else. you can't base suspensions on the injuries in my mind.

Answer 4

That gets messy. You would have to prove intent to injure to the extent the person got hurt in my opinion. How do you prove there is THAT intent. Intent to injure MAYBE. Also what about that Simon and Holliwig thing. Simon got suspended 25 games, even though Holliwig threw him into the boards head-first. Simon got a concussion. Clearly BOTH should have been suspended, although Simon should have been suspended longer.

Answer 5

This area has always bothered me. Number one because other teams benefit from what goes on with time lost through injury and suspension. I'd love to see the suspended player be forced to sit out a minimum number of games against the team he caused harm to at the very least. And I also don't think anyone who does something with intent should be allowed to play the rest of the season if he knocks the other player out for more than a few games.
I see this as a hangover from some of modern day society's failures. And that is that few people really pay the full price for the consequences of their actions. The slap on the wrist method isn't working but make a few examples by coming down with a heavy hand on the perpetrator and perhaps more people will think before they act for fear of their being imposed severe consequences for their actions.

Answer 6

I think if the injury is intetional like 100% u know fosure they wanted to injure the guy they should be suspeded for as long as they put out the injured guy but thts not how they are gonna do this i guess it makes sense to suspend um for that long tho lol

Answer 7

I've said this in the past.....YES! Just like what happened to Bergeron this past weekend when hit from behind by Randy Jones. If Bergeron misses 3 games then thats how long Jones sits out, 6 games? Then it's 6, 9, then it's 9. and so forth. Yes it could work. All the league has to do is look at the replay. You don't have to be a genius to see if someone is intentional at injuring someone. And.....you have league doctors who can determine if someone is screwing around and not really injured. If a league doctor thinks someone can play then the suspension is over.

Answer 8

I agree with Mr. Taco but will add an example case senario:
- in Chris Simon's case....say he intended to injure Hollweg last season. Hollweg ended up not getting injured (or at least he says he did but didn't miss a single game as a result)...but Simon ended up getting suspended 25 games....

So in Simon's case I would answer YES....because Hollweg didn't lose any games due to injury.

Answer 9

Theoretically, you would think so. But I think there would eb a lot of situations where it becomes difficult to differentiate between an accident that had horrible results and an intentional injury. Sure, if its a blatant bludgeoing, suspension, if not permanenet barring.
Then you have to wonder if embelleshment would be the number one call in games when players (and by players I mean Chris Neil) cry bloody murder to get someone else out of the game.

Answer 10

If you can prove intentionality, then I think I am on for this. That said, there is a gray line where it is not so certain. How do you define "intentional?" How do you prove motive? Sounds like a great idea until your favorite player gets suspended for 150 games for an accident that looked worse than it really was.

Answer 11

That would never work.

For example

Joe Career Minor-Leaguer slashes Sidney Crosby all the way down the ice and Mick 'Mr. Magoo" Mcgeough doesn't see it. Crosby gets pissed off and does his best Manny Ramirez impression into Minor-Leaguers gut rupturing the guys spleen and breaking a rib or two.

McGeough suddenly wakes up and sees Crosby's retaliation. He gives Crosby a major for intent to injure.

Turns out that Joe Career Minor-Leaguer plays for Pittsburghs arch-rival Philadelphia. Philadelphia successfully gets Crosby suspended for the length of Minor-Leaguer's injury.

What's stopping Philadelphia from keeping Minor-Leaguer out all year? and the next? claiming injury layoff? He's cheap to keep on the roster......so they would have no qualms about it since Crosby stays suspended.

So, such a situation would never work!