Some venting on the NHL's Officiating and Suspension Ruling

[michiganice91]

either way interference was the incorrect call...the puck was in his feet!!!

[richied98]

I dont believe it was the right call.

at all

[Cerialthriller]

Think about it like this. If you are doing something you are not allowed to do, and someone gets hurt because of this, there should definitely be extra punishment. If you are drunk driving and happen to hit someone and seriously injure or kill them should you not get an extra penalty then if you were just drunk driving? I'm not saying its really similar but society works on the same principles. You do something you arent supposed to do, people get hurt, you pay the price, simple enough.

Edit:

As for the ruling, look at boarding penalties. If you get a boarding or checking from behind its only a 2 minute penalty. If you board or check from behind and the guy is out for months you get a 5 minute, a match, and a suspension.

Is that really the rule? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't know that an INJURY causes a 5 minuteu and a match penalty. That's just terrible, how awful is that???

That's about the worst rule this game has if thats really the case.

The league needs to look at the ACTION of the player, and not the result. Injuries can be caused by any things. Sometimes its by a ferocious hit that is MEANT TO DO HARM, and other times it just happens. Sometimes a player will go and MEAN TO DO HARm but NOTHING happens to the victim of the hit, so there is no penalty. That's what im saying is unfair.

Let's say a player is TRYING to hurt someone but fails. Many times there will be no penalty. But in this case, Kronwall just made a great hockey play, and got penalized for it. The game is bs.

[Cerialthriller]

After looking at the rules because I was curious myself, the call that was made fits well within the guidelines and the call is by the book. Here are the rules I refered to, all available on nhl.com

Rule 56: Interference (removed irrelevant portions, very long rule)
Possession of the Puck:
The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.

A minor penalty shall be imposed on an attacking player who deliberately checks a defensive player, including the goalkeeper, who is not in possession of the puck.

56.4 Major Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence, to a player or goalkeeper guilty of interfering with an opponent (see 56.5).

56.5 Game Misconduct Penalty – When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

So, under the rules this is a legit penalty. He never touched the puck because it took a bad hop, it was overly violent, and an injury resulted.

[dal_johnson]

They just need consistancy, and Star power shouldn't count

[doniceage]

They just need consistancy, and Star power shouldn't count

Amen,
On that for being consistent.

Cerialthriller,
If your into rules so much let me ask you this. Was the right call made in the case of Scott Walker? Just asking as I thought the rules stated should have been suspended and not just given a fine according to the rules. Just asking as if that truly was the case then why doesn't the NHL apply the rules they have written. Just using that as a example to share the comment above that consistency if far from the norm in the NHL.

DON

[richied98]

One of my main concerns, Don. The inconsistency in the league is what leads players an fans to question the game. They basically never know how things will be called.


And still I don't think it was a penalty. Perfectly times hit, and I don't think it was overly vicious. Just my opinion.

[Cerialthriller]

i thought Walker should have been suspended. I think you should be suspended for any sucker punch, hitting bare knuckle before the other guy has dropped the gloves is truly "gutless".

it wasnt overly viscious? the guy got knocked unconscious.. I really don't get why people enjoy watching activities that may end a plays career or for that matter permanently injure him. I just don't get it. When I played of course we played physically, but I never was trying to kill someone out there. I mean I was a 6'2 220 lb grinder half my job was hitting people. But everyone was able to play next game because back then we had respect for each other, and it was sickening the one time i hit someone and he didn't get up for a few minutes.

[30ranfordfan]

Without responding to any 1 point individually, I'll give my take on the joke that is the NHL rule book, as a message onto itself.

If the NHL ever wants to remove dirty hits / sticks / general dirty play from the game.... they need to set up clear rules as to what offences get what suspensions. Right now, the rule is pretty much "If you make a play that we consider dirty, for whatever reason, we will suspend you for the amount of games we feel appropriate".

Take hitting from behind. Stop suspending people because they injure someone on a hit from behind. Suspend them for hitting from behind. The first time, they get two games. The second time they get five games. Then ten games. Then 25 games. An so on. I don't care if it's Sidney Crosby, and game 5 of the Stanley Cup finals. If he hits a guy from behind, make him sit out games. (This is just an example, using Hitting from behind and Crosby.... I actually can't think of a time when he's hit someone from behind).

The point is, we see different rules for star players vs grinders vs enforcers. I fully agree that you 3rd offence should be MORE games than your 1st offence.... but even with your first offence, these guys need to get suspended. "He's not a dirty player" should NEVER be an excuse to not suspend someone. If last year's Lady Byng winner wants to swing his stick at someone this season, suspend him.

There was a message poster higher up in the thread comparing to Drunk Driving. That the offender is given a harsher punishment if he injures, or kills someone.... than if he were to just wrap his own car around a pole.

While I'm no legal expert, if I'm not mistaking.... the additional punishment comes from additional charges, not a more sever DUI penalty. The driver would now be convicted of DUI, but also something like Vehicular Manslaughter, or Criminal Negligence Causing Death.

The NHL would be fine to do something like that. You hit a guy from behind? You get two games. You really went out of your way to drill him head first into the boards, and as a result gave him a bad concussion? Okay... you still get your two games, but you're getting another 15 for intent to injure.

The rules need to be applied to everyone, and they need to be applied equally... no matter who's doing it, or when they're doing it. A penalty in the 1st period of an exhibition game, should still be a penalty during overtime of game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals. Either it's against the rules or it's not. Each suspendable offence should mean the number of games goes up.... but that's it. Star Players and goons should be getting suspended for the same types of offences.

[Cerialthriller]

There was a message poster higher up in the thread comparing to Drunk Driving. That the offender is given a harsher punishment if he injures, or kills someone.... than if he were to just wrap his own car around a pole.

While I'm no legal expert, if I'm not mistaking.... the additional punishment comes from additional charges, not a more sever DUI penalty. The driver would now be convicted of DUI, but also something like Vehicular Manslaughter, or Criminal Negligence Causing Death.

well the difference is that if i got into an accident and someone got killed or seriously injured, if I wasn't drunk in the first place there would be no charges. The charges would only come because I was doing something I wasn't supposed to be doing in the first place ie checking from behind or slashing or elbowing.