How does this sound ?...

[bdcsports]

Suspensions

First Offence
3 games for player, $50,000 fine for the team
Team can't replace player in lineup for first game of suspension.

Second Offense (same infraction type)
10 games for player, $200,000 fine for the team
Team can't replace player in lineup for first 4 games of suspension.

Third Offense (same infraction type)
25 games for player, $500,000 fine for the team
Team can't replace player in lineup for first 15 games of suspension.

Fourth Offense (same infraction type)
Otherwise known as the "You're a Moron" penalty..

50 games to player, $1,000,000 fine to the team
games suspended can and should carry over to the following season
Team can not replace this player in the lineup for the full suspension period...otherwise known as "why haven't you fired this idiot yet?" penalty.

Do you think this might help teams decide if they want players on their teams that have no obvious use other than to goon it up and look like idiots?

Just a thought.

[durangatang]

Seems like REALLY stiff penalties, but I guess that is the point to try and stop people from doing stuff they shouldn't be. It may have a negative effect on things though, people may shy away from any contact for fear of hitting someone the wrong way. Also, tall people will have to stop hitting all together basically because the simple height difference can sometimes lead to a so called head hit unless the tall person bends down to hit haha.

[30ranfordfan]

The number of games increases a little bit quicker than I would have them do it..... I would say start at 2, and double it each time (2, 4, 8, 16, etc). I'd also suggest that if a player can go 246 games (equal to 3 full regular seasons) without getting suspended, you could subtract 1 from their runing total.

Fines for the team, IMO, won't do a thing. Make them steeper..... sure..... but I don't think it will do much.

I don't like the notion that the team has to play short handed for a portion of the suspension. Their regular player is out, but they should be able to put someone else on the roster.


The key to standardizing suspensions though, is that it has to be automatic. Take the decision out of Colin Campbell's hands. List every single offense that is suspension worthy, and make it know that there will be zero leway. It doesn't matter if you're the best player in the league, or the worst. Doesn't matter if you ended a career, or the victim didn't miss a shift. The rules will be applied equally.


As for rules like this getting rid of goons, no.... it won't. If you don't want goons in the league, you have to ban fighting. It's the only way you'll get rid of them.

[RGM81]

I'm assuming that this is for headshots.

While I do agree that some sort of mandatory minimum is required, I think that the League and especially the PA will balk mightily at the stiffness of these penalties, particularly those to the team. There are some plays which do happen very quickly without premeditation and shall we say "guidance" to send a message from the coach. The Heatley example is a case in point - if Todd McLellan's going to send somebody after Steve Ott, it's not going to be Dany Heatley. Or is that just what they want us to think? LOL

But it's a good working formula. I had a similar idea about this in my latest article, in which I suggested starting out with 5 games and increasing it from there. The player who makes a million dollars getting suspended for 5 forfeits just over $60K in salary, which goes to the PA pension fund. The team fines I think would have to go on a case-by-case basis.

[habsheaven]

Any incremental system in suspensions will only have one result. FEWER SUSPENSIONS overall. Not because players will wisen up, it will be because the League will be more reluctant to issue them.

[RGM81]

Can't be much more reluctant than they are now, though, can they? Sure they dole out some token one and two gamers here and there (punishment goes up exponentially if you play for the Islanders) but when you look at the number of people that are escaping supplementary discipline because they've never had previous infractions because they weren't caled on the carpet for those infractions, it gets a little silly.

[30ranfordfan]

Well, if you're using head shots as the example (and I'm not sure if the OP was talking about head shots, or just suspensions in general) it should be so simple.

Don't use any judgment:

- Did player 'X' hit player 'Y' ?
- During the hit, did player 'X' make contact with the other player's head?

That's it. If the answers are both 'Yes' then suspend him. Nothing else realy matter.

He didn't mean to do it - Who cares? He did do it.
He doesn't have a history of doing this - Great. Then he probably won't do it again.
The other guy didn't get injured - Fantastic. But the play was still dangerous.
He's 6'7" and the guy he hit was only 5'8" - Too bad. If you're 6'7" then you're going to need to be even more careful.


You can apply that same logic to any offence you want removed from the game. Players will very quickly get the message, if suspensions are being handed out.

[habsheaven]

Well, if you're using head shots as the example (and I'm not sure if the OP was talking about head shots, or just suspensions in general) it should be so simple.

Don't use any judgment:

- Did player 'X' hit player 'Y' ?
- During the hit, did player 'X' make contact with the other player's head?

That's it. If the answers are both 'Yes' then suspend him. Nothing else realy matter.

He didn't mean to do it - Who cares? He did do it.
He doesn't have a history of doing this - Great. Then he probably won't do it again.
The other guy didn't get injured - Fantastic. But the play was still dangerous.
He's 6'7" and the guy he hit was only 5'8" - Too bad. If you're 6'7" then you're going to need to be even more careful.


You can apply that same logic to any offence you want removed from the game. Players will very quickly get the message, if suspensions are being handed out.

And then we can get used to watching European hockey, because that is what we will have. 82 games of "all-star game" quality intensity. Payback will turn into a two-hander across the wrist, rather than a solid check for fear of being suspended. A year or two of increased stickwork will bring about a call for stiffer penalties/suspensions for stickwork. I can't wait for the lovefest to begin.

[30ranfordfan]

This is the thing I don't understand.

Why does banning hits to the head, lead to less contact? Flaten the other guy. Hammer him into the boards. Stick out your hip and send him flying.

I think people give the players too little credit (or maybe I'm giving them too much?). When you see a big collision on the boards, or at center ice..... a head shot is involved (for the most part) only when the attacking player wants it to be. The 'accidental' ones, at least IMO, are very few and far between. Of course we can never prove 'intent' so the rule makers need to stop trying.

And then we can get used to watching European hockey, because that is what we will have. 82 games of "all-star game" quality intensity. Payback will turn into a two-hander across the wrist, rather than a solid check for fear of being suspended. A year or two of increased stickwork will bring about a call for stiffer penalties/suspensions for stickwork. I can't wait for the lovefest to begin.

[habsheaven]

Banning head shots does not necessarily lead to less contact. But telling a player like Chara or Myers to "be more careful" or risk suspension, will lead to less contact. And who is going to check Nathan Gerbe? At 5'6", his head is involved in every check. You cannot have a rule that is "automatic" with regards to contact with the head. And if you do, they will have to ban fighting. You cannot condone hitting the head in one way and strictly outlaw it in every other way. Especially when the intent is evident in a fight and harder to discern in a check.