Any word on Scott's supension?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    Go to the 1:50 mark of this clip -- it's one of the most blatant elbows I remember:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GL5OS3EFjc

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Go to the 1:50 mark of this clip -- it's one of the most blatant elbows I remember:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GL5OS3EFjc

    [/QUOTE]


    I've seen less elbows in a bowl of macaroni salad.

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?


    Even the keeper threw one.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Al-Samarraie. Show Al-Samarraie's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    Just read that Scott textes Loui and apologized for the hit. Doesn't change what he did, but nice to see that he recognized what he did. Perhaps trying to shore up the damage he's done to his image.

     

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    A suspension of seven games with zero priors is pretty high.  I can't recall anyone getting more than five games on a first time offense. 

     

    It would be great if they'd lump all the losers together and make it escalate each time.  The next head shot gets eight games.  The next gets nine etc.  Each season starts at seven.  By the time March rolls around, someone would get 18 games.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It would be great if they'd lump all the losers together and make it escalate each time.  The next head shot gets eight games.  The next gets nine etc.  Each season starts at seven.  By the time March November rolls around, someone would get 18 games.

    [/QUOTE]


    Fixed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Kelv its obvious the current set up is major fail.  Just about any suggestion we can come up with has flaws.  the prime example is that a lot of people want longer suspensions for repeat offenders.  sounds great until the playoffs come around.  the risks of playing hockey are always gonna be there.  I just hope they dont ruin the game in the process.  

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree shupe, what we have isn't working and any aggressive method could have a bunch of drawbacks.  Even repeat offenders is a dicey one sometimes.  There still seems to be a ton of disagreement on which hits are even dirty, as we can't agree on this board about most of them.  It's brutal.  I'm still not sure I would have given Garbutt more than a game, but I would have punished some other guys more than they got.  The next five posters will disagree with that...brutal...

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    I think under the current CBA a repeat offender is someone who has been suspended within the past 18 months or something (i def could be wrong on this, but this is my understanding). I think one good place to start is to redefine what a 'repeat offender' is.  Go back through 2 or 3 seasons. If someone has been suspended for an illegal check to the head within the past 2 or 3 seasons (doesnt make a difference to me) they should be considered a repeat offender and in turn, are subject to stiffer suspensions. 

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    Agreed with Fletch everyone has varied opinions on this, with the only agreement being that we want the dirty stuff out. How to go about that is a matter of great consternation. In reality I don't think we'll see any major changes until the current CBA is up and they go through major negotiations again.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Agreed with Fletch everyone has varied opinions on this, with the only agreement being that we want the dirty stuff out. How to go about that is a matter of great consternation. In reality I don't think we'll see any major changes until the current CBA is up and they go through major negotiations again.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agreed. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Agreed with Fletch everyone has varied opinions on this, with the only agreement being that we want the dirty stuff out. How to go about that is a matter of great consternation. In reality I don't think we'll see any major changes until the current CBA is up and they go through major negotiations again.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agreed, I think the only real hope now is what we just saw happen with Kaleta -- that the price and risk of having some of the players who look to injure oppenents on your roster just isn't worth it.  Lemieux looked like a complete fool whining about Crosby's concussion when he employed Matt Cooke and I think other GM's may be slowly realizing thatit is less of a headache not to have some of these guys.

    But for the most part, I can't see how the problem won't continue for a while.

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    Eight years is a long time.  Let's hope nothing happens to force change before then.

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to DaveyN's comment:[QUOTE]I think under the current CBA a repeat offender is someone who has been suspended within the past 18 months or something (i def could be wrong on this, but this is my understanding). I think one good place to start is to redefine what a 'repeat offender' is.  Go back through 2 or 3 seasons. If someone has been suspended for an illegal check to the head within the past 2 or 3 seasons (doesnt make a difference to me) they should be considered a repeat offender and in turn, are subject to stiffer suspensions. [/QUOTE]


    I agree but too Books point it's probably the NHLPA that balked at anything longer than 18 months.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DaveyN's comment:[QUOTE]I think under the current CBA a repeat offender is someone who has been suspended within the past 18 months or something (i def could be wrong on this, but this is my understanding). I think one good place to start is to redefine what a 'repeat offender' is.  Go back through 2 or 3 seasons. If someone has been suspended for an illegal check to the head within the past 2 or 3 seasons (doesnt make a difference to me) they should be considered a repeat offender and in turn, are subject to stiffer suspensions. [/QUOTE]


    I agree but too Books point it's probably the NHLPA that balked at anything longer than 18 months.

    [/QUOTE]

    You/Book are most likely right, which is a shame bc the PA is more worried about bottom tier players getting punished and getting a fair chance than guys that actually deserve to play and play the game right.

    The idiots that play are such a small minority of players too.

     

     

Share