|
|
Post by BigTed3 on Nov 27, 2023 11:53:20 GMT
Don't hold your breath. You need to be a gambler to get that type of suspension. Attempted murder is only a slap on the wrist in this League. Definitely didn't have control of his stick and one could even argue that it was intentional. Either way it should have been a suspendable offense. Dirty players will do what dirty players will do. Until they are punished for their offenses, they'll continue to play dirty. Should have gotten 5 games minimum. Just re-inforces their bush league ratings. Looked intentional to me. Someone explain to me how it was any different than what Perezhogin did in the AHL... this should have been at least 25 games and probably longer. Not sure how he got off with no penalty and no suspension. Some clear bias here in favor of the Rangers yet again. |
|
|
|
Post by electron58 on Nov 28, 2023 5:32:43 GMT
Minnesota Wild forward Ryan Hartman will have a hearing on Monday for slew-footing/tripping Detroit Red Wings forward Alex DeBrincat. Minnesota’s Ryan Hartman has been suspended for two games for tripping Detroit’s Alex DeBrincat. |
|
|
|
Post by BigTed3 on Nov 28, 2023 11:53:46 GMT
Minnesota Wild forward Ryan Hartman will have a hearing on Monday for slew-footing/tripping Detroit Red Wings forward Alex DeBrincat. Minnesota’s Ryan Hartman has been suspended for two games for tripping Detroit’s Alex DeBrincat. Should have tripped his face instead, that would have been allowed. |
|
|
|
Post by electron58 on Nov 28, 2023 19:23:09 GMT
Ottawa Senators forward Zack MacEwen has been fined $2,018.23, the maximum allowable under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, for unsportsmanlike conduct during NHL Game No. 323 in Ottawa on Monday, Nov. 27, the National Hockey League’s Department of Player Safety announced today. The incident occurred at 5:13 of the third period. MacEwen was assessed a match penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by electron58 on Dec 6, 2023 22:42:40 GMT
Charlie McAvoy is happy to have it in his tool belt. The art of landing a reverse hit — when a player, usually a defenceman, with the puck initiates contact before an opponent looking to do the same — is fairly straightforward. The satisfaction in the immediate aftermath is also part of the package. "Look like you're going for the puck," McAvoy, a star blueliner with the Boston Bruins, explained of his process. "And then just stop and drill him." Philadelphia Flyers head coach John Tortorella said last week the NHL is turning into a "no-hit league." There's no doubt physical play has scaled back in the regular season over the last decade as hockey zeroed in on speed and skill. There are, however, still plenty of bodies running into each other. "Yea, I have," Detroit Red Wings captain Dylan Larkin said with a smile when asked before the season if he's been caught by a reverse hit. "It's a weapon. When you're not expecting it and you get reverse hit, it hurts. "You're not ready for it." A defenceman standing his ground when the opposition is bearing down on the forecheck can earn that extra split-second to make a play. One of Larkin's Detroit teammates, Moritz Seider, is adept at the move. "He's got some guys," said the centre. "I'm sure guys are second-guessing. I would be if I was forechecking him." Toronto Maple Leafs defenceman Morgan Rielly said a good reverse hit can propel a clean breakout. "You're trying to create a little bit space," he said. "(The contact) can be satisfying. But if you don't get him, it's tough. There's a time and a place." Minnesota Wild winger Matt Boldy said players hunting the puck have to wary of elite reverse-hitting defenders like McAvoy, Seider and Cale Makar of the Colorado Avalanche. "Part of the game," Boldy said. "Hard to have someone follow you into the corner and expect to make a play that's half-decent. "It's the smaller guys that you don't expect to (reverse hit), but are just so strong in their skates that they really catch you by surprise." Seattle Kraken centre Matty Beniers said forwards have the option to turn the tables and create separation. "It's a good play," he said. "Definitely something that (attacking players) can use more in the offensive zone." Leafs winger Noah Gregor said he's yet to be put flat on his back by reverse hit. "There's some really good players that can catch guys," he said. "It's a skill ... they know the timing of it. "If I get caught, I'm not going to be too pissed off. You've got to be aware." McAvoy said from a defenceman's perspective, the protection and self-preservation aspect of a reverse hit is as important as the contact or gaining that extra step. "If you know someone's coming, if you get the chance to initiate contact instead of the other way around ... it's a vulnerable area," he said. "Gotta be a little calculated with it. But if you can initiate contact and knock him down, it's even better."
So after reading all this, why did Mike Matherson get a penalty for the reverse hit he did quite a few games ago? Was is because he hurt the guy? Because it seems to be an acceptable, almost a preferred play.
|
|
regis
Le Gros Bill
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by regis on Dec 6, 2023 23:13:54 GMT
Didn’t matheson get fined $5000 for the interference hit on staal in January 2023 ( if that’s what’s termed a reverse hit )
|
|
|
|
Post by electron58 on Dec 6, 2023 23:17:04 GMT
Didn’t matheson get fined $5000 for the interference hit on staal in January 2023 ( if that’s what’s termed a reverse hit ) Yeah............That's the one. And it was a reverse hit. |
|
|
|
Post by electron58 on Dec 6, 2023 23:56:14 GMT
Detroit Red Wings forward Jake Walman has been fined $2,500 for high-sticking Buffalo Sabres' Jeff Skinner, the NHL's department of player safety announced. The incident happened late in the third period as Skinner and Walman were battling in the crease in front of the Red Wings' net and Walman appeared to hit the side of Skinner's face with his stick.
|
|
|
|
Post by electron58 on Dec 8, 2023 18:02:12 GMT
The NHL's Department of Player Safety has fined Tampa Bay Lightning forward Austin Watson $2,022.57, the maximum allowable under the CBA, for unsportsmanlike conduct during last night's game against the Nashville Predators. Watson was given a two-minute minor for roughing and a 10 minute misconduct at the end of Thursday's game against the Predators after he fired a slapshot at Nashville defenceman Jeremy Lauzon that resulted in a scrum afterwards. Lauzon went down in pain as the Predators skated away with the 5-1 victory.
|
|
|
|
Post by electron58 on Dec 8, 2023 18:02:55 GMT
Player Safety also fined New Jersey Devils defenceman Brendan Smith $2,864.58, the maximum allowable under the CBA, for a dangerous trip on Devin Shore of the Seattle Kraken. Smith was given a two-minute minor penalty for tripping at 8:48 of the third period in the Devils' 2-1 win over the Kraken.
|
|
|
|
Post by electron58 on Dec 10, 2023 17:17:40 GMT
Detroit Red Wings forward David Perron has been offered an in-person hearing by the NHL's Department of Player Safety for cross-checking Ottawa Senators defenceman Artem Zub. During the first period of Saturday's game, Red Wings captain Dylan Larkin took a hit from Senators forward Mathieu Joseph and was pushed into Ottawa's Parker Kelly who also hit Larkin as he fell. Larkin was face down and motionless on the ice for about a minute before he was able to leave the ice with the help of his teammates and did not return to the game. Afterwards, Perron cross-checked Zub in the side of the head and was given a match penalty for intent to injure. Joseph and Kelly were both given two-minute minor penalties for roughing. The Senators skated away with the 5-1 victory.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigTed3 on Dec 12, 2023 1:53:29 GMT
So Perron gets 6 games. Trouba got nothing. Someone explain to me the difference between these two incidents. Both deliberate sticks to the head...
Meanwhile, Cousins gets nothing for smacking Gudbranson's head into the boards from behind. Gudbranson will get suspended for retribution. Buffalo had a guy tossed for a similar hit against Barron (which was the right call). But sometimes this is called a major and sometimes it's just let off without anything.
ZERO CONSISTENCY across the boards. And DOPS can't even plead that they didn't see these in real time like a ref. They're reviewing these with the luxury of replay from multiple angles. Parros is like every guy before him and needs to be fired. And if he's just a frontman for Campbell (who is still potentially calling the shots here, especially since Bos and NYR seem to get the most favoritism), then Campbell and Bettman also need to be removed. Time to bring in someone who is not an ex-player and has no ties to any team. In fact, I'd almost say we'd be better off having an independent 3-person committee that includes someone with a law background (to produce more fair and consistent rulings) and someone with a background in medicine (to help protect players' health and make that a priority instead of selling tickets or helping certain teams win).
|
|
|
|
Post by electron58 on Dec 12, 2023 1:59:55 GMT
So Perron gets 6 games. Trouba got nothing. Someone explain to me the difference between these two incidents. Both deliberate sticks to the head... Meanwhile, Cousins gets nothing for smacking Gudbranson's head into the boards from behind. Gudbranson will get suspended for retribution. Buffalo had a guy tossed for a similar hit against Barron (which was the right call). But sometimes this is called a major and sometimes it's just let off without anything. ZERO CONSISTENCY across the boards. And DOPS can't even plead that they didn't see these in real time like a ref. They're reviewing these with the luxury of replay from multiple angles. Parros is like every guy before him and needs to be fired. And if he's just a frontman for Campbell (who is still potentially calling the shots here, especially since Bos and NYR seem to get the most favoritism), then Campbell and Bettman also need to be removed. Time to bring in someone who is not an ex-player and has no ties to any team. In fact, I'd almost say we'd be better off having an independent 3-person committee that includes someone with a law background (to produce more fair and consistent rulings) and someone with a background in medicine (to help protect players' health and make that a priority instead of selling tickets or helping certain teams win). Agree. Can't really add much more. You covered it. |
|
RCAF48
Captain Kirk
Posts: 359
|
Post by RCAF48 on Dec 12, 2023 18:51:46 GMT
I did see a difference between the Trouba and Perron incidents after watching tapes taken from different angles.  A couple of major differences for me were the targeting and forethought involved in the Perron hit. I thought the Trouba incident was more of a hockey over reaction gone wrong rather then a calculated rage directed towards injuring an individual. My interpretation is not meant as an explanation of the rulings but rather as an example of how events may be viewed differently. " A tale is but half told when only one person tells it" an Icelandic proverb. I do agree that the "Player Safety" executive branch of the NHL is "broken". However, I will give them the benefit of doubt in that I don't think their questionable decisions are a result of a bias conspiracy but rather a result of simple incompetence and stupidity. |
|
|
|
Post by electron58 on Dec 13, 2023 3:39:47 GMT
So Perron gets 6 games. Trouba got nothing. Someone explain to me the difference between these two incidents. Both deliberate sticks to the head... The National Hockey League Players' Association announced Tuesday that it has filed an appeal on behalf of Detroit Red Wings forward David Perron regarding the league's decision to suspended him for six games. |
|
|
|
Post by ChiLla on Dec 13, 2023 8:19:07 GMT
The problem is the completely inconsistent reffing itself, which is then compounded by the DOPS' blatant incompetence. I mean take just last week as a baseline, you have the Kane hit on Brodin and you have the hit on Barron, which are essentially identical. Kane doesn't even get a penalty while the Buffalo player (forgot who and too lazy to look it up) gets 5 and a game. Then there's Cousins hitting Gudbranson, which is also similar to those plays, and Cousins initially gets 5 which is then reduced to 2 upon review?! There's just no league-wide standard, so what are players supposed to do? I'm not saying what Gudbranson did afterwards was okay but inconsistency by the zebras will inevitably lead to situations like that. I totally get that reffing a professional hockey game isn't a walk in the park and there will always be grey areas, but in those 3 incidents you just can't come to 3 completely different rulings ranging from "it's fine and not deserving of a penalty" to 5 and a game.
As for Perron, I also think it's different from Trouba in that it's premeditated with clear intent to injure and aimed towards retribution. Once he realizes Larkin is knocked out cold, he takes a couple of strides towards the first Sens player and cross-checks the guy right in the face, whereas Trouba is definitely more of a heat-of-the-moment thing, i.e. closer to a hockey play (which still should have been a suspension of course).
|
|
|
|
Post by BigTed3 on Dec 13, 2023 12:25:09 GMT
The problem is the completely inconsistent reffing itself, which is then compounded by the DOPS' blatant incompetence. I mean take just last week as a baseline, you have the Kane hit on Brodin and you have the hit on Barron, which are essentially identical. Kane doesn't even get a penalty while the Buffalo player (forgot who and too lazy to look it up) gets 5 and a game. Then there's Cousins hitting Gudbranson, which is also similar to those plays, and Cousins initially gets 5 which is then reduced to 2 upon review?! There's just no league-wide standard, so what are players supposed to do? I'm not saying what Gudbranson did afterwards was okay but inconsistency by the zebras will inevitably lead to situations like that. I totally get that reffing a professional hockey game isn't a walk in the park and there will always be grey areas, but in those 3 incidents you just can't come to 3 completely different rulings ranging from "it's fine and not deserving of a penalty" to 5 and a game. As for Perron, I also think it's different from Trouba in that it's premeditated with clear intent to injure and aimed towards retribution. Once he realizes Larkin is knocked out cold, he takes a couple of strides towards the first Sens player and cross-checks the guy right in the face, whereas Trouba is definitely more of a heat-of-the-moment thing, i.e. closer to a hockey play (which still should have been a suspension of course). 100% agreed with you on the hits from behind. And it's not just those three, it's many like that which end up with a range of outcomes.
On Trouba, my thought is that there are more similarities between the two incidents than differences. This isn't a guy who is swatting for the puck and misses. This isn't a guy who is about to take a check and reflexively gets his stick up to try and block the opponent. The whistle had gone and Trouba lifts back his stick and swings it at the opponent. Sure, I get that Perron had more time to think about what he was doing and skate over, but Trouba's gesture is also 100% intentional. To me, this is not really any different than the Perezhogin incident nor the McSorely incident nor the Bertuzzi incident nor the Perron incident. They are all cases of a guy being angry and deciding they were going to take a cheapshot at an opponent's head. Trouba also gets a lot of force on his swing, and he has a history of dirty hits and crossing the line, whereas in Perron's case, he's actually more of a first-time offender. Now according to NHL rules, being a repeat offender doesn't determine whether you get suspended or not, but it does lead to a longer suspension if you're found guilty... so in theory, if you think both plays are suspension-worthy, you could argue Trouba deserves a longer suspension on that basis too. Finally, I don't like the degree of wind-up Trouba takes. Perron could theoretically argue he meant to cross-check the guy in the chest or shoulders but accidentally got up too high (I don't think he did, but it's possible). Trouba really takes a a big wind-up, and there's really zero doubt he's swinging to enact a large amount of velocity against his opponent's head. So even though he has less distance to cross to get to his opponent, his stick gesture itself is a more aggressive and higher-velocity motion,.
All that to say that I don't think "it was the heat-of-the-moment" excuses either player. Neither player likely left his bench thinking he would try to go and stick someone in the face. Both reacted to being angry in the moment. Perron had a little more time and distance to cross to exert his action, but that difference was small compared to the type of action taken and the potential seriousness of what can happen to the opponent. In the end, I think both players need to be held accountable for their actions, and the thoughts behind the DOPS decisions should be
1. Was the player's gesture clearly accidental, was it not intentional but flagrantly careless, or was it likely intentional? In both cases, I see these as being intentional stick gestures up high. We'll never know whether there was intent to do something as risky as they ended up doing, but there was clear intent to use the stick to inflict damage to a vulnerable area. And in both cases, they were after dead whistles, so there was really no mistaking either gesture for a hockey play gone wrong.
2. What was the potential consequence to the player who took the hit? In this case, it's high. Look at what happened to Brashear or Steve Moore. Vicious hits to the head like this can be career-ending or even fatal. Look at what Chara did to Pacioretty, breaking his neck. Maybe a guy doesn't mean to cause severe injury, but when you violently go after an opponent's head, you risk something serious. Same thing to some degree with hits from behind or knee on knee hits, you risk breaking a guy's neck, you risk tearing up their knee and putting them out for 4-6 months. The NHL needs to think about what could have happened and whether it wants that type of play removed from the game. If the answer is yes, then the suspensions needs to match the willingness to see that type of play removed. If you want knee on knee hits or hits to the head removed, then you need to make the offenders think about their actions. If all they're going to suffer is a 2 minute penalty or a 25% chance that they get a major but very little chance of a suspension, then why bother thinking of the safety of your opponent? If they know they could face a 5 or 10 or 20 game suspension, suddenly you think about what might happen if you go in for your hit at the wrong angle. Imaging in real life if the same applied... let's say you go into a store and could steal something. In one country, let's say the punishment for stealing something is 5 to 10 years in jail. Let's say in another, the only punishment is someone tells you that you screwed up and makes you put the item back. Which one makes you think about what you're doing a little bit more and which one probably doesn't deter you much? Degree of punishment matters in making people think about their actions. Stuff will happen regardless, as it's a fast-paced game. But players will undoubtedly be a bit more thoughtful about being wreckless if they know there are more dire consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChiLla on Dec 13, 2023 13:45:37 GMT
100% agreed with you on the hits from behind. And it's not just those three, it's many like that which end up with a range of outcomes.
On Trouba, my thought is that there are more similarities between the two incidents than differences. This isn't a guy who is swatting for the puck and misses. This isn't a guy who is about to take a check and reflexively gets his stick up to try and block the opponent. The whistle had gone and Trouba lifts back his stick and swings it at the opponent. Sure, I get that Perron had more time to think about what he was doing and skate over, but Trouba's gesture is also 100% intentional. To me, this is not really any different than the Perezhogin incident nor the McSorely incident nor the Bertuzzi incident nor the Perron incident. They are all cases of a guy being angry and deciding they were going to take a cheapshot at an opponent's head. Trouba also gets a lot of force on his swing, and he has a history of dirty hits and crossing the line, whereas in Perron's case, he's actually more of a first-time offender. Now according to NHL rules, being a repeat offender doesn't determine whether you get suspended or not, but it does lead to a longer suspension if you're found guilty... so in theory, if you think both plays are suspension-worthy, you could argue Trouba deserves a longer suspension on that basis too. Finally, I don't like the degree of wind-up Trouba takes. Perron could theoretically argue he meant to cross-check the guy in the chest or shoulders but accidentally got up too high (I don't think he did, but it's possible). Trouba really takes a a big wind-up, and there's really zero doubt he's swinging to enact a large amount of velocity against his opponent's head. So even though he has less distance to cross to get to his opponent, his stick gesture itself is a more aggressive and higher-velocity motion,.
All that to say that I don't think "it was the heat-of-the-moment" excuses either player. Neither player likely left his bench thinking he would try to go and stick someone in the face. Both reacted to being angry in the moment. Perron had a little more time and distance to cross to exert his action, but that difference was small compared to the type of action taken and the potential seriousness of what can happen to the opponent. In the end, I think both players need to be held accountable for their actions, and the thoughts behind the DOPS decisions should be
1. Was the player's gesture clearly accidental, was it not intentional but flagrantly careless, or was it likely intentional? In both cases, I see these as being intentional stick gestures up high. We'll never know whether there was intent to do something as risky as they ended up doing, but there was clear intent to use the stick to inflict damage to a vulnerable area. And in both cases, they were after dead whistles, so there was really no mistaking either gesture for a hockey play gone wrong.
2. What was the potential consequence to the player who took the hit? In this case, it's high. Look at what happened to Brashear or Steve Moore. Vicious hits to the head like this can be career-ending or even fatal. Look at what Chara did to Pacioretty, breaking his neck. Maybe a guy doesn't mean to cause severe injury, but when you violently go after an opponent's head, you risk something serious. Same thing to some degree with hits from behind or knee on knee hits, you risk breaking a guy's neck, you risk tearing up their knee and putting them out for 4-6 months. The NHL needs to think about what could have happened and whether it wants that type of play removed from the game. If the answer is yes, then the suspensions needs to match the willingness to see that type of play removed. If you want knee on knee hits or hits to the head removed, then you need to make the offenders think about their actions. If all they're going to suffer is a 2 minute penalty or a 25% chance that they get a major but very little chance of a suspension, then why bother thinking of the safety of your opponent? If they know they could face a 5 or 10 or 20 game suspension, suddenly you think about what might happen if you go in for your hit at the wrong angle. Imaging in real life if the same applied... let's say you go into a store and could steal something. In one country, let's say the punishment for stealing something is 5 to 10 years in jail. Let's say in another, the only punishment is someone tells you that you screwed up and makes you put the item back. Which one makes you think about what you're doing a little bit more and which one probably doesn't deter you much? Degree of punishment matters in making people think about their actions. Stuff will happen regardless, as it's a fast-paced game. But players will undoubtedly be a bit more thoughtful about being wreckless if they know there are more dire consequences.
Well, I completely get what you're saying, but in Trouba's defense (and I don't like typing these words  ) it looks like he's a little tangled up with that Bruins guy and more or less off-balance, trying to get his arm free and regain upright body position. So that's really what I meant by using the term heat-of-the-moment, I probably worded that poorly, but I think there's a point to be made that Trouba's thought process wasn't necessarily 'I'm going to whack this guy right across the head with my stick', which I believe is a little different from Perezhogin, McSorley et al.
That said, and even though it's impossible to clearly determine intent here, I don't think it was an accident at all. It's reckless/careless/probably gross negligence on Trouba's part and it's his responsibility to have his stick under control in a situation like this. Given his history, that should have been a suspension no doubt. The fact that it wasn't speaks volumes about the DOPS competence or rather lack thereof.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigTed3 on Dec 13, 2023 20:07:35 GMT
100% agreed with you on the hits from behind. And it's not just those three, it's many like that which end up with a range of outcomes. On Trouba, my thought is that there are more similarities between the two incidents than differences. This isn't a guy who is swatting for the puck and misses. This isn't a guy who is about to take a check and reflexively gets his stick up to try and block the opponent. The whistle had gone and Trouba lifts back his stick and swings it at the opponent. Sure, I get that Perron had more time to think about what he was doing and skate over, but Trouba's gesture is also 100% intentional. To me, this is not really any different than the Perezhogin incident nor the McSorely incident nor the Bertuzzi incident nor the Perron incident. They are all cases of a guy being angry and deciding they were going to take a cheapshot at an opponent's head. Trouba also gets a lot of force on his swing, and he has a history of dirty hits and crossing the line, whereas in Perron's case, he's actually more of a first-time offender. Now according to NHL rules, being a repeat offender doesn't determine whether you get suspended or not, but it does lead to a longer suspension if you're found guilty... so in theory, if you think both plays are suspension-worthy, you could argue Trouba deserves a longer suspension on that basis too. Finally, I don't like the degree of wind-up Trouba takes. Perron could theoretically argue he meant to cross-check the guy in the chest or shoulders but accidentally got up too high (I don't think he did, but it's possible). Trouba really takes a a big wind-up, and there's really zero doubt he's swinging to enact a large amount of velocity against his opponent's head. So even though he has less distance to cross to get to his opponent, his stick gesture itself is a more aggressive and higher-velocity motion,.
All that to say that I don't think "it was the heat-of-the-moment" excuses either player. Neither player likely left his bench thinking he would try to go and stick someone in the face. Both reacted to being angry in the moment. Perron had a little more time and distance to cross to exert his action, but that difference was small compared to the type of action taken and the potential seriousness of what can happen to the opponent. In the end, I think both players need to be held accountable for their actions, and the thoughts behind the DOPS decisions should be 1. Was the player's gesture clearly accidental, was it not intentional but flagrantly careless, or was it likely intentional? In both cases, I see these as being intentional stick gestures up high. We'll never know whether there was intent to do something as risky as they ended up doing, but there was clear intent to use the stick to inflict damage to a vulnerable area. And in both cases, they were after dead whistles, so there was really no mistaking either gesture for a hockey play gone wrong.
2. What was the potential consequence to the player who took the hit? In this case, it's high. Look at what happened to Brashear or Steve Moore. Vicious hits to the head like this can be career-ending or even fatal. Look at what Chara did to Pacioretty, breaking his neck. Maybe a guy doesn't mean to cause severe injury, but when you violently go after an opponent's head, you risk something serious. Same thing to some degree with hits from behind or knee on knee hits, you risk breaking a guy's neck, you risk tearing up their knee and putting them out for 4-6 months. The NHL needs to think about what could have happened and whether it wants that type of play removed from the game. If the answer is yes, then the suspensions needs to match the willingness to see that type of play removed. If you want knee on knee hits or hits to the head removed, then you need to make the offenders think about their actions. If all they're going to suffer is a 2 minute penalty or a 25% chance that they get a major but very little chance of a suspension, then why bother thinking of the safety of your opponent? If they know they could face a 5 or 10 or 20 game suspension, suddenly you think about what might happen if you go in for your hit at the wrong angle. Imaging in real life if the same applied... let's say you go into a store and could steal something. In one country, let's say the punishment for stealing something is 5 to 10 years in jail. Let's say in another, the only punishment is someone tells you that you screwed up and makes you put the item back. Which one makes you think about what you're doing a little bit more and which one probably doesn't deter you much? Degree of punishment matters in making people think about their actions. Stuff will happen regardless, as it's a fast-paced game. But players will undoubtedly be a bit more thoughtful about being wreckless if they know there are more dire consequences.
Well, I completely get what you're saying, but in Trouba's defense (and I don't like typing these words ) it looks like he's a little tangled up with that Bruins guy and more or less off-balance, trying to get his arm free and regain upright body position. So that's really what I meant by using the term heat-of-the-moment, I probably worded that poorly, but I think there's a point to be made that Trouba's thought process wasn't necessarily 'I'm going to whack this guy right across the head with my stick', which I believe is a little different from Perezhogin, McSorley et al. That said, and even though it's impossible to clearly determine intent here, I don't think it was an accident at all. It's reckless/careless/probably gross negligence on Trouba's part and it's his responsibility to have his stick under control in a situation like this. Given his history, that should have been a suspension no doubt. The fact that it wasn't speaks volumes about the DOPS competence or rather lack thereof.
Sure, he's engaged with Frederic before the stick swing. That's not enough to justify things in my view. I don't really buy the whole trying to get untangled argument because 1. he's staring at Frederic the entire time and can see where he's aiming with the stick and 2. he really swung the stick with a lot of velocity. Just like with the Chara-Pacioretty incident, I don't think "intent" matters at all here in the sense of being able to determine whether Trouba intended to try and injure Frederic. Most of the time, I'll give guys the benefit of the doubt and say they don't really want to cause serious injury for their peers. BUT, there was intent to swing the stick at high velocity here. As you said, it wasn't an accident that he did that. And as I mentioned, he sees the target the entire time. You can re-watch the clip if you like, but Trouba is literally staring Frederic in the eyes as he swings the stick. At best, this is reckless, high-velocity stick swinging at an opponent's head. At worst, he's trying to injure him because he's upset. We'll never know. Both of these gestures in my view deserve long suspensions. You can't have that in the game and you need an actual consequence that reflects that. The NHL actually admits that it was a bad foul in fining Trouba, but the "maximum $5,000 fine" isn't deterring anyone from doing that again. So yes, I get that Perron's perceived intent may be worse here. I hate both incidents and think both guys deserve long suspensions. My overall point was not to debate the number of games one guy gets versus another. My intent was to say that the two incidents are far more similar than different and that the punishments should have been more similar. 5,000$ fine vs. 6 game suspension is a huge difference IMO and I don't think the acts were that different to warrant that discrepancy. If I were in charge of DOPS, Trouba would have gotten 25 games and Perron probably 30-40. That sends a message that you're protecting players and their well-being and that future acts like it won't be tolerated. DOPS right now sent zero message. Even Perron missing 6 games doesn't affect much. If the average guy changes a team's win total by maybe 2-3 wins per season compared to not being there, 6 out of 82 games might cause the Wings to finish half a point lower in the standings than they otherwise would. Much smaller consequence than the potential risk to the player getting hit and how that impacts his team...
|
|
|
|
Post by electron58 on Dec 19, 2023 7:31:14 GMT
Sometimes it's hard not to laugh. youtu.be/XRBSWyawrQM& we could have had this guy FOR FREE!!! 2023-24 Season Games.......33 Goals..........9 Assists......12 Tot.Points..21 ...............+0 He would be tied for 3rd on our team. |
|
) it looks like he's a little tangled up with that Bruins guy and more or less off-balance, trying to get his arm free and regain upright body position. So that's really what I meant by using the term heat-of-the-moment, I probably worded that poorly, but I think there's a point to be made that Trouba's thought process wasn't necessarily 'I'm going to whack this guy right across the head with my stick', which I believe is a little different from Perezhogin, McSorley et al.