Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from nrguy. Show nrguy's posts

    Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    While Shannahan claims that this isn't true, it appears that the resulting injury rather than the hit or the intent of the hit is the determining factor in suspensions. Although I believe that injuries should play a part for the really bad hits - Savard for example - I don't understand why a guy needs to be injured for a suspension to occur.

    I thought Bitz hit was worse than Haggelin's and I thought what Haggelin did was less than what Weber did with Zetteberg. 2 for Bitz, 3 for Haggelin and $2,500 for Weber.

    If injuries are a major factor, what's to stop a whining team from claiming a concussion everytime. That would be huge in a playoff series, no? If Seguin makes a questionable hit, claim a mild concussion, if Paille does, claim he's fine.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from matttt87. Show matttt87's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    I think it should mainly depend on the severity of the hit**, intent, and past history.

    Injury maybe, but that can be so random sometimes, and the message needs to be sent for the style of hit or intent, not the fact someone got injured.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    In Response to Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?:
    While Shannahan claims that this isn't true, it appears that the resulting injury rather than the hit or the intent of the hit is the determining factor in suspensions. Although I believe that injuries should play a part for the really bad hits - Savard for example - I don't understand why a guy needs to be injured for a suspension to occur. I thought Bitz hit was worse than Haggelin's and I thought what Haggelin did was less than what Weber did with Zetteberg. 2 for Bitz, 3 for Haggelin and $2,500 for Weber. If injuries are a major factor, what's to stop a whining team from claiming a concussion everytime. That would be huge in a playoff series, no? If Seguin makes a questionable hit, claim a mild concussion, if Paille does, claim he's fine.
    Posted by nrguy

    The intent is (should be) more important than the result.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    Injury should have no bearing what so ever on punishment.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    It should be based on how dirty it is, not the ensuing result.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    The only place degree of injury should come in to play is when trying to determine the strength of the hit.

    If you board someone and they just get up, it's only a penalty.  If you board them hard enough to leave them "shaken up" but nothing more, it could be 5 and the game.  If you hit them hard enough to seriously injure them, it needs to be a suspension.

    Of course, you could board them "lightly" and it result in an unpredictable injury, but that shouldn't be a suspension; meanwhile the hittee could get lucky and skate away from a really viscous hit and it should still be a suspension.

    That's a big part of the difficulty here.  There's no simple rule that can be applied universally when deciding on suspensions.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    Injuries should not be the determining factor, but they should be a factor.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    it's simply ludicrous. if you're being called to the shanahans office, it's because you did something that threatened injury to another player. whether they actually got hurt or not is besides the point. this approach taken by shanahan is puzzling to me. if he's using this as criteria(which he is), why not sit the offender for as long as the injured player? this way, there would be no mis-diagnosed injuries in attempt to persuade the rulings. it should be either this, or don't take injury into account at all.  i'd rather they didn't. i 've got no problem with judging length of suspensions by history. that's it. when he starts talking "predatory", and injuries.... he loses objectiveness. what he's saying is the dirty  hit on chara doesn't mean as much because he wasn't hurt.  so basically the bigger, stronger, more able to take big hit teams are at a disadvantage when it comes to league discipline- because they can shake off the big dirty hits. yet when the bigger more physical teams hurt smaller players, there's a different set of rules. this makes zero sense. basically if horton would have stayed on the ice instead of challenging sestito- there would have been a suspension? doesn't change the hit at all. a real head scratcher
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

                  http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=628071

    "Neal's hearings focus on the hit against Sean Couturier in the third period, as well as the charging penalty he received for a hit on Claude Giroux later in the period. Neal was not penalized on the Couturier hit."

    Neal better not be in the lineup for game 4! Asham is done and should be for some games to begin the next season.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    The nrefs missed some nasty hits, including the Neal hit on Couterier. Neal should be suspended as it was a hit targeting the head from behind. I'm no fan of the Flyers, but they have sure shown up to play, and the Pens, with the exception of a few like Stall, are all looking for cheap shots.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    I want to say he does look at the injury factor to determine length of suspension, an maybe he does, but what about the Sestito hit on Horton?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    two questionable hits in the same game. each seemingly "predatory" in the shanny world. after the first questionable hit, doesn't he have a "history"? and yet nothing? at this point i wish they'd go back to the "try and guess for yourself why" days of campbell. the explanations cause more confusion than not knowing why in the first place.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RawrBear. Show RawrBear's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    He actually has stated that injuries play a huge part in rulings. And no, I don't agree. It's ridiculous.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    In Response to Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?:
    He actually has stated that injuries play a huge part in rulings. And no, I don't agree. It's ridiculous.
    Posted by RawrBear

    correct... in his video explanations it's one of the factors used in every hit. "players was/ was not injured as a result of the play", is written on the tv screen for all to see it was a factor in his decision.   
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    I've been preaching this all season.  No he shouldn't focus on injury if suspension or not and/or the length of the suspension.
    Also some teams say the player is injured knowing that Shannahan will suspend on the basis of injury and once the ruling is out the they make a miraculous recovery.
    Funny how yesterday nobody knew how Alfredsson was doing or if he would be available for the morning skate and after the hearing/decision I started hearing he was doing fine.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mb30. Show mb30's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    Injuries should have ZERO affect on whether or not the hit is suspendable.  The hit should be deemed suspendable based on intent, severity, situation, and whether or not it is a hockey play(and even that leaves too much for interpretation..)
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    Shanahan has hoplessly backed himself into a corner.  Strong judgement skills have never, and will never, be a useful tool in mediating pro sport issues.  Rules are the preferred method there.  The league has to better define it's rules, which will in turn, take away a lot of the fickleness, fog, and opinion, that seems to steer whoever is doing that particular job.  Willfulness, and severity of the infraction should be a guiding principle, but not injury.  If player A chooses to give b, a two hander across the head...it's totally unacceptable, regardless of the outcome, and should be dealt with accordingly. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from nrguy. Show nrguy's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    By Shannahan making injury a determining factor on suspensions or fines, the NHL is really just trying to CYA from a legal standpoint. It shows to me that they are not trying to clean up the dirty play but simply minimizing their liability.

    My wish is that the league would clean up dirty plays without the lawyers glasses on. Just be strict on dirty play and try to get rid of it regardless of the resulting injury. By focusing on injuries, you're focusing too much on the result of the dirty hit rather than the severity and the intention of the actual hit. 

    If you penalize the dirty action, you'll have less resulting injuries.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    It's crazy.  The result cannot be predicted when making rules, only the action.  If the rule addresses the action, the result is not a factor.

    If a guy gets called for boarding, the result is X, no matter if the victim is uninjured or dead.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    Shanahan is a moron.  Enough said. 

    How on earth is James Neal not suspended? 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    In Response to Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?:
    Shanahan is a moron.  Enough said.  How on earth is James Neal not suspended? 
    Posted by BassFishing


    Because the hearing isn't until tomorrow. He'll be suspended then.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    Didn't he suspend Adams though from the same game? Even their scheduled hearings don't make sense.
     

    What is the hold up?  What's Shanny busy banging other people's wives? 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    Injury should not be the basis for suspension, yet if a player is injured then the suspension should fit the supposed injury.  
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from UCONN. Show UCONN's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    In Response to Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?:
    While Shannahan claims that this isn't true, it appears that the resulting injury rather than the hit or the intent of the hit is the determining factor in suspensions. Although I believe that injuries should play a part for the really bad hits - Savard for example - I don't understand why a guy needs to be injured for a suspension to occur. I thought Bitz hit was worse than Haggelin's and I thought what Haggelin did was less than what Weber did with Zetteberg. 2 for Bitz, 3 for Haggelin and $2,500 for Weber. If injuries are a major factor, what's to stop a whining team from claiming a concussion everytime. That would be huge in a playoff series, no? If Seguin makes a questionable hit, claim a mild concussion, if Paille does, claim he's fine.
    Posted by nrguy


    I voted "no", but feel like there are times when it should factor into the length of a suspension. A blatant head shot that that causes no injury should still get 4 games or whatever BS decides, but that same head shot that end a guys career or forces him to miss a season, should be penalized more.  

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bruinfaninnewjersey. Show Bruinfaninnewjersey's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Shannahan focusing on injuries as the basis for suspension?

    Sad actually, because I won't remember Shanny for his play... just his poor judgement on this

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share