In Response to Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?
[QUOTE]Steve, I don't know if you reside in Canada or the US but could you show me some examples where judges get fired for not doing their jobs ? Where I grew up and where I reside now it almost takes an act of god to remove a robe from a judge becuase they are so protected by the law they helped right as former district attorney's. If you would rather have a former attorney, a real "Suit" do this job or an ex player who needed the NHL job as a disciplinarian for the money because he didn't make any money as a player then I feel for you. Shanahan doesn't need this job like Colin does or did. Brendan could do anything he wants with the money he made through his career. So for you to suggest that he doesn't know what to look for in a rules book is laughable because of the years he played in the league. I'm sure Bettman could find plenty of clueless attorneys in New York who work for the NBA or comb some hockey history books for ex-NHL'ers who would hold grudges against current players that are better than they were and made more money than Colin Campbell types.
Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]
I reside in Canada. No disrespect, but i've written plenty about this subject, and the spirit in which I'm attempting to make my points doesn't hone in on Canadian, or US judges, although, there are plenty of examples in both countries where judges are axed due to poor judgement. I think a recent example is the family court judge in Texas, being removed for beating his daughter. The crux being, how can we trust a guys judgement in family matters, when he treats his own family like crap.
Anyway, that isn't the point, and I really have no interest in debating that. I'm not suggesting lawyers/judges run the sport. I'm not suggesting anything about who does or doesn't need the job/money. I'm not talking about clueless attorneys in New York. I'm not playing a Bettman card here to further convolute things.
Gee !!! I don't know how anyone could possibly attempt to distort what I'm actually saying here....any more than your comments above.
What I'm suggesting is that anyone in a high paying, private/public sector position, which carries a great degree of power and influence, working a very public file, that should serve as precedent.........Anyone making the decision Shannahan did...a decision so easy, a child should have figured out.....proves he is totally incompetent, and would be fired.
And..before you start attempting to pick more fly sh*t out of pepper, please be advised there is a bit of hyperbole in that statement. I don't mean every single person of power always makes the right decision, and everyone would get fired for making a bad one.....it's a general comment...kind of an exclamation point on my assertion that Shannahan has shown he is hopelessly incompetent.
That's the jist, and most get it.
There is only one line in your above post which has anything whatsoever to do with anything I've written on this subject:
"...for you to suggest that he doesn't know what to look for in a rules book is laughable...."
That's the only thing you've said, that's of any relevance whatsoever. To say thats "laughable" suggests you disagree vehemently.
Allow me to answer. Again.
I've stated my logic more than once here. It's black and white, and by the way, that is supposed to be the job of anyone dispensing judgement. You take the rules, and the evidence, and you make that black and white.
Shannahan "proved" he doesn't know what to look for in a rule book, when he went outside of the rulebook to justify his decision. The hit in question, was conclusively above the knees, so according to the NHL rules of fair play, it was a legal hit. End of Story. Shannahan's following address, was even dimmer. Whether the hit was predatory, is nothing more than fluff. It's irrelevant. This is clearly a make-up call, and that should never come from the league office. The most basic grasp of critical thinking makes this one crystal clear.
Not because I'm right...or I need to win...but because the answer lies right in front of us. The NHL rule book.
Let me delve further into the fundamental, inexcusable flaw here, and explain how a reasonable, thorough, professional, but not overly academic individual would have made this black and white, and caused no negative repurcussions for the league down the road.
1. The league isn't obliged to uphold the referee's interpretation of a penalty when dispensing supplemental discipline. e.g. player gets taken into the boards, injured badly. Other guy gets boarding call, ejected, and now he's being reviewed for discipline. Replay shows it's a very "regular hit", and the real issue is an elbow to the head. A reasonably inteligent adjudacator will start with "while we find the offense to be an elbowing infraction, not a boarding infraction....."
This clears the way for the honest,meaningul evolution of rules of engagement and player safety.
2. Why, because it puts the onus where it needs to be. If this isn't done, the increased source of debate, and drama becomes "what exactly is boarding?" This guy got hit harder than that guy, why isn't he suspended. The game doesn't move forward, problems aren't solved, they're created.
3. Thanks to Shannahans clear misunderstanding of, not only the rules, but his position within the industry, no one has any idea what is legal, regarding the hip.
He is totally incorrect in attempting to justify this as a clip. Conclusively it isn't, and that causes big problems for himself, and the league, down the road.
4. There's an article in the Vancouver Province a couple days ago, that reads something to the effect of NHL not putting up with any more of BM's antics. It goes into some detail of the "clip", and Brandon's childish explanation.
For you, and anyone else reading this, watch Bieksa's hit on Moore, Tuesday night. Then go watch BM's on Salo. You'll see the point of impact is roughly the same, around the lower buttocks. Read the newspaper article again, and tell me that you couldn't replace Marchands name with Bieksa's, and have a pretty logical story. Yet, Bieksa gets, no penalty ...nothing. Cripes, the precedent is only a couple days old, and this isn't even a penalty? Isn't Bieksa acting predatory here? A trip is a trip, they're all different, but we know one when we see one. Same as a clip...only now, nobody knows. Despite the rulebook being very, very clear.
5. Some will say, oh...it doesn't matter. BM had it coming, it's just semantics.
Uh uh. One is vigilantisim, the other isn't. One is smart, one is dumb. One deals with sh*t, the other just creates more of it.
6. If Brendon had just a little bit of smarts, he would have said, "while we don't see the infraction as clipping, we're unanimous in our decision this was a deliberate attempt to injure". In this situation, he's playing by the rules, cementing his authority to do what he feels is necessary, and providing consistent leadership. The rules, and they're interpreatation are very clear.
That's why I think Brendan's a dope. I've explained it in detail, more than once here. I've not seen one ounce of back up from any of those who feel he is doing a good job.
If you disagree, or would like to debate, I'd be interested in your take.
Please stick to the topic.