Re: Any word on Scott's supension?
posted at 11/1/2013 1:17 PM EDT
You take 2 screens, put them beside each other. One has Scott hitting Eriksson, the other has the newest culprit. And you play them, compare & show the player what he did & check off the similarities between the two! The precedent needs to be that if they're having an in person hearing & it's a head shot you're getting at LEAST 10 games until there's evidence to prove other wise. And that happens with the player present to review the hit with him frame by frame.
But how is 10 games going to change what 7 doesn't? To use isla's logic, now the Sabres will be without John Scott for 30 minutes. The equivalent of what Eriksson plays in about five periods. Whoop di flippin do.
And with a guy like Scott, losing $75K in salary is meaningless because the $750K he earns this season is based on being a goon. If he's not a goon, if teams aren't a little worried he might hurt someone, he doesn't have a job and doesn't earn the other $650K at all. In reality, Scott's only losing about $26.5K in real cash after you'd have taxed those 7 game cheques.
I'm also not advocating a two-tier system, nite. I agree that that's the wrong way to look at it, but the tone of response to the Scott hit on Eriksson has been markedly more lynch-mobby than the usual discussions of player safety vs. the integrity of the game. My issue, though, is that guys who hit are inevitably going to find themselves in these situations, and guys whose games are based on a combination of skill and physical intimidation - the skilled predator - are going to suffer if you have a hard and fast rule. Physical intimidation and domination have been part of this game for forever. Take it out - take out the risk that a guy who tries a ridiculous dangle with his head down and his body upright to present a perfect target will get blown up - and I will rapidly lose interest in basketball on ice. Lucic is a predator, and while he's not always clean, he hits the right way most of the time. But there will be times that a guy doubles back at the last second a la Kronwall, with even less time to pull off of the hit, so that the only way for a guy like Lucic to avoid 30 games in what you're proposing is - never hit. That's not a solution in my mind.
I'm thinking a 0% solution for head injuries is simply fool's gold and it's keeping the game from developing a more meaningful way of improving player safety. I don't know what that is - I'm caught up in the 0 head injuries thing too - but someone should stop chasing the flavour of the day and the solution of the day (suspension length, fines) to think about it.
Read my above paragraph again Book & Shupe. We're all in agreement here that Scott's hit is the exact definement of what rule 48 is. So, what I'm trying to say is that this clip is the example. So let's just say Luc...No better yet Chara (since he seems to be talked about a lot lately) is the next one in front of Shanahan. Chara shows up, And he see's a screen with Scott hitting Eriksson's head as the still frame. Then let's say it was Chara who hit Kronwall. Shanny & co. then go through that incident frame by frame along with the Scott hit. And they make comparisons. Kronwall himself admitted he turned & put himself in the bad position & the video shows that. So Chara's suspension has now been reduced from 10 to 8 games. Then they go through the rest of other happenings. Is there a chicken wing, does Chara attempt to avoid making contact to the head & so on. I'm saying 10 games is automatic until "proven" otherwise. It doesn't have to stay at 10 games. This way every incident is still considered different. I'm also not saying every contact to the head is an automatic 10 game suspension. I'm saying that only happens when there's questions about how the contact happens.
And Shupe yes I have a shot a lot of guns. Mostly handguns & I'm a decent shot with a 9mm Beretta. And yes a moving target is far more difficult to shoot.