Torres suspended until next round

[mikey287]

That's fine, MR. My point still remains. This is a borderline "follow through" hit that causes damage. I don't disagree with your point. Look at the Gryba on Eller hit, a case where "follow through" causes the damage as well (plus Kyle Turris' stick). So, let's say for the sake of argument that we're penalizing "incidental contact"...so what do we do with instances like the Dustin Brown attempt there, there was a boarding midway through the Washington/New York series that probably would have been looked at if it caused injury, etc.

I mean, let's even go extreme. Marty McSorley swings at Donald Brashear's head and misses him. What do we do with that?

[Rylan]

That's fine, MR. My point still remains. This is a borderline "follow through" hit that causes damage. I don't disagree with your point. Look at the Gryba on Eller hit, a case where "follow through" causes the damage as well (plus Kyle Turris' stick). So, let's say for the sake of argument that we're penalizing "incidental contact"...so what do we do with instances like the Dustin Brown attempt there, there was a boarding midway through the Washington/New York series that probably would have been looked at if it caused injury, etc.

I mean, let's even go extreme. Marty McSorley swings at Donald Brashear's head and misses him. What do we do with that?

Apparently nothing. And for the record, I disagree with the point as well.

[pfim]

That's fine, MR. My point still remains. This is a borderline "follow through" hit that causes damage. I don't disagree with your point. Look at the Gryba on Eller hit, a case where "follow through" causes the damage as well (plus Kyle Turris' stick). So, let's say for the sake of argument that we're penalizing "incidental contact"...so what do we do with instances like the Dustin Brown attempt there, there was a boarding midway through the Washington/New York series that probably would have been looked at if it caused injury, etc.

I mean, let's even go extreme. Marty McSorley swings at Donald Brashear's head and misses him. What do we do with that?

I don't see how the two issues are related. One, a foul is committed, we can observe it. There are standards in place and whether or not a suspension is levied is based on a review of the video footage.

The second is intent. While intent may sometimes be obvious to infer, it's still an inference and not observed. I don't really have a problem suspending on intent, but the standards must be much higher.

[mikey287]

That's what I'm trying to determine, the relation.

Is the line getting pushed back closer towards intent? And if so, as this evolution continues, will we start to see reviews for things like the Dustin Brown gif that I posted upthread?

[Rylan]

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=123678

[Idoit40fans]

That's fine, MR. My point still remains. This is a borderline "follow through" hit that causes damage. I don't disagree with your point. Look at the Gryba on Eller hit, a case where "follow through" causes the damage as well (plus Kyle Turris' stick). So, let's say for the sake of argument that we're penalizing "incidental contact"...so what do we do with instances like the Dustin Brown attempt there, there was a boarding midway through the Washington/New York series that probably would have been looked at if it caused injury, etc.

I mean, let's even go extreme. Marty McSorley swings at Donald Brashear's head and misses him. What do we do with that?

I don't see how the two issues are related. One, a foul is committed, we can observe it. There are standards in place and whether or not a suspension is levied is based on a review of the video footage.

The second is intent. While intent may sometimes be obvious to infer, it's still an inference and not observed. I don't really have a problem suspending on intent, but the standards must be much higher.

Intent seems to only be looked at if there is contact. I feel like they're gonna go more towards suspending guys doing what Brown did. If you considered intent on all plays, Brown would definitely be a repeat offender by now.

[pfim]

I don't see a relation. Which suspensions do you feel were based on intent? I don't see the Torres suspension based on intent, quite the opposite.

[Idoit40fans]

Wut? I was just commenting on the second part of your post where you brought up intent. The way the changes are trending, I think thats what is going to happen.

[pfim]

Wut? I was just commenting on the second part of your post where you brought up intent. The way the changes are trending, I think thats what is going to happen.

I was responding to Mikey. I apologize for not quoting him.

[Idoit40fans]

Wut? I was just commenting on the second part of your post where you brought up intent. The way the changes are trending, I think thats what is going to happen.

I was responding to Mikey. I apologize for not quoting him.

In turn, I apologize for being egocentric.

[Rylan]

For the record, the video I posted is what the NHL deems to be legal hits. Seems to me there is a lot of grey area.

[shmenguin]

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=123678

this video refutes your stance from earlier. i assume you think that these hits were comparable to torres', but that's incorrect.

[ExPatriatePen]

The second is intent. While intent may sometimes be obvious to infer, it's still an inference and not observed. I don't really have a problem suspending on intent, but the standards must be much higher.

The problem with intent, is that you never never prove it comletely, unlike outcome based approaches.

[Rylan]

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=123678

this video refutes your stance from earlier. i assume you think that these hits were comparable to torres', but that's incorrect.

My stance is not whether or not the hit was clean. I think the hit was borderline. My stance was the suspension is ridiculous. That was not a hit worth 3-6 games, variable suspensions are stupid, and suspending names, not plays is absolutely deplorable.

I posted the video so people could see what is considered clean by the NHL.

[MRandall25]

For the record, the video I posted is what the NHL deems to be legal hits. Seems to me there is a lot of grey area.

They're different because it's pretty obvious Raffi Torres is targeting the head. He had ample opportunity to take the body (the still frame I posted) and instead went for the head.

The video has no bearing on this hit.

[shmenguin]

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=123678

this video refutes your stance from earlier. i assume you think that these hits were comparable to torres', but that's incorrect.

My stance is not whether or not the hit was clean. I think the hit was borderline. My stance was the suspension is ridiculous. That was not a hit worth 3-6 games, variable suspensions are stupid, and suspending names, not plays is absolutely deplorable.

I posted the video so people could see what is considered clean by the NHL.

a clean hit is when you don't propel yourself upwards towards someone's head. that's the big difference in this video and torres' hit. there's nothing borderline about it.

it's deplorable to punish guys with a history of head shots more than guys who are first timers? do you honestly believe that?

[Idoit40fans]

If he went upwards into that hit, he would have gone over Stoll.

[pfim]

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=123678

this video refutes your stance from earlier. i assume you think that these hits were comparable to torres', but that's incorrect.

My stance is not whether or not the hit was clean. I think the hit was borderline. My stance was the suspension is ridiculous. That was not a hit worth 3-6 games, variable suspensions are stupid, and suspending names, not plays is absolutely deplorable.

I posted the video so people could see what is considered clean by the NHL.

I think the variable suspension is dumb.

I'm not sure I get the bolded part. Certainly, the length of the suspension should be altered if a player continues to recklessly check others. No? Sure, he was clean for the regular season, but 39 games between suspensions isn't a whole lot.

[Rylan]

Yes. Repeat offenders seem to be the only players getting any real punishment. Players like Dustin Brown and Rene Bourque (sp?) are allowed to get away with more and not get suspended. Do you honestly think that system works?

And yes, it is a borderline hit. Propel? He went pretty straight through Stoll. He didn't launch, kept his elbows down, and went through the man. He missed the shoulder and hit the head. Fine, suspend him if you want for being repeat, but that is no more than a 2 game suspension.

[Idoit40fans]

Yeah, I definitely agree with the name determining the length of the suspension. I don't think it should determine whether or not a suspension is issued though. I think its borderline whether or not Torres should be suspended, but i'm not all that bothered by the length of the suspension...if that makes sense.

[Rylan]

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=123678

this video refutes your stance from earlier. i assume you think that these hits were comparable to torres', but that's incorrect.

My stance is not whether or not the hit was clean. I think the hit was borderline. My stance was the suspension is ridiculous. That was not a hit worth 3-6 games, variable suspensions are stupid, and suspending names, not plays is absolutely deplorable.

I posted the video so people could see what is considered clean by the NHL.

I think the variable suspension is dumb.

I'm not sure I get the bolded part. Certainly, the length of the suspension should be altered if a player continues to recklessly check others. No? Sure, he was clean for the regular season, but 39 games between suspensions isn't a whole lot.

What I mean by the bolded part is that too often we see players get off because they weren't repeat offenders (thus never becoming offenders) and players like Torres get silly suspensions for hits 98% league doesn't even get a call for. I want consistency rather than nuking the bad boys and letting the others off.

[shmenguin]

bourque has been suspended before. if there was a witch hunt for repeat offenders, he would have gotten nailed. the league just blew that one - it wasn't related to his history.

i agree that the consistency sucks. there should have been suspensions from that Ott-Mtl game, but just because the league screws up one thing doesn't mean they should just sit on their hands until the fairness evens out.

[JoseCuervo]

If conacher launches himself at someone's head and hits their chest, should he be suspended?

[mikey287]

If conacher launches himself at someone's head and hits their chest, should he be suspended?

That's kind of where I was going with my posts, but I wasn't explaining myself well enough...

[shmenguin]

you'll know when you see it