How to get useless plugs/goons out of the NHL

[Artemis]

In the case of John Scott I fail to see what the union could rightfully do for him other than to sight precedence . His actions are a clear violation of the rules, how can one defend one member of the union (SCOTT) while not defending another (ERIKSSON). To defend Scott is to offend Eriksson and how other members of the union stand for it baffles me. I get that the union has to defend all members but if your guilty your guilty and that is a fact that can not be changed.

I have never been a fan of unions for just this reason, it defends what should not be defended.

We're getting ahead of ourselves a bit here. The judgement on Scott is yet to be handed down, and nobody can say for sure what it will be, or if he will appeal.

But as for the appeals process, it's based on the law. You just can't pick and choose who can or cannot appeal. Everyone has that right. As I said, if the appealer is guilty, the appeal will fail. You have to trust the process.

 

[DominicT]

We're getting ahead of ourselves a bit here. The judgement on Scott is yet to be handed down, and nobody can say for sure what it will be, or if he will appeal.

But as for the appeals process, it's based on the law. You just can't pick and choose who can or cannot appeal. Everyone has that right. As I said, if the appealer is guilty, the appeal will fail. You have to trust the process.

Precisely.

And to add to that, if one chooses to read Bettman's decision in turning down the appeal of Kaleta, you can see that the union's lawyers argument was their interpretation of the CBA. Which I might add that Bettman did an admirable job in making them (the union lawyers) look like complete and utter fools.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/inco...y+Bettman's+decision+on+the+Kaleta+suspension

 

[Grasshopperking]

Precisely.

And to add to that, if one chooses to read Bettman's decision in turning down the appeal of Kaleta, you can see that the union's lawyers argument was their interpretation of the CBA. Which I might add that Bettman did an admirable job in making them (the union lawyers) look like complete and utter fools.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/inco...y+Bettman's+decision+on+the+Kaleta+suspension

That was a really interesting read, thanks for posting it.

God, Kaleta's history is so extensive.

 

[JOKER 192]

We're getting ahead of ourselves a bit here. The judgement on Scott is yet to be handed down, and nobody can say for sure what it will be, or if he will appeal.

But as for the appeals process, it's based on the law. You just can't pick and choose who can or cannot appeal. Everyone has that right. As I said, if the appealer is guilty, the appeal will fail. You have to trust the process.

Can't argue with that. I guess I am getting ahead of myself.

 

[SPV]

you guys know the rule book better then me; is there a suspension or fine that goes along with getting multiple game misconduct penalties?

how about making a fight carry the five minutes and then a ten minute misconduct as well. If there isn't already a rule about the number of misconducts, then put that in and add fines/suspensions for multiple offenses. You'll still get some guys fighting in the heat of the moment but I think you'd see less of the Scott type of players.

 

[JOKER 192]

Why the difference? What makes a stage fright worth 3 games more than an instigated fight, and 5 games worth some other form of fight? Who decides what a "staged" fight is? What happens when a player on your team is suspended for 5 games for a "staged" fight that you don't think was staged? Kaboom goes this board.

A fight is either ok or not ok. You can't have the league drawing random distinctions just because some fans find some fights have merit and some don't. It would be a crazy way to run a league.

When two guys line up for a face off and drop the gloves as soon as the puck hits the ice, it's pretty hard to make anyone believe it's not a staged fight.
A fight should be the product of heated tempers that result when the playing gets rough not when two guys line up beside each other and player A says "you wanna go" and player B say "let's do it".

 

[Dr Quincy]

When two guys line up for a face off and drop the gloves as soon as the puck hits the ice, it's pretty hard to make anyone believe it's not a staged fight.
A fight should be the product of heated tempers that result when the playing gets rough not when two guys line up beside each other and player A says "you wanna go" and player B say "let's do it".

1) Why?
2) Who says?

Why does it matter to you why 2 guys are fighting and why should it matter to the league? Why in the world would the league have separate penalties, for the same act, because a couple of fans think one is cooler than the other?

 

[bruinsfan46]

Why the difference? What makes a stage fright worth 3 games more than an instigated fight, and 5 games worth some other form of fight? Who decides what a "staged" fight is? What happens when a player on your team is suspended for 5 games for a "staged" fight that you don't think was staged? Kaboom goes this board.

A fight is either ok or not ok. You can't have the league drawing random distinctions just because some fans find some fights have merit and some don't. It would be a crazy way to run a league.

1) Why?
2) Who says?

Why does it matter to you why 2 guys are fighting and why should it matter to the league? Why in the world would the league have separate penalties, for the same act, because a couple of fans think one is cooler than the other?

Completely agree with everything here. I wish people would just choose a camp, either they're for allowing fights or not allowing them. Drives me nuts the people who complain about staged fights or fights after clean hits, if fighting is gonna be allowed the players will decide when they want to go, not the fans who only like a heated fight of the moment over a legitimate reason (i.e. Not a clean hit). I'm for fighting, but I understand people who aren't, don't get the people who complain only about staged fights because what dictates a staged fight exactly?

 

[DOGSTARMAN]

First, let's help Don Quixote with that windmill problem.

What is going to happen when John Scott comes back from suspension? Is he going to be cut by Buffalo? Sent to the minors? No, chances are 90% that he'll be in the lineup, maybe + or - some minutes, certainly with more scrutiny on him. He's not going anywhere: no "stance" will be taken, no "statement" will be made, no "line" has been crossed. He made a big mistake, was penalized for it, the end. And similar things will happen several more times this year, and next, and the next, and...

Despite all the media attention on this issue, all the fan talk about it, this has been hockey since the get go. Eddie Shore, Wayne Mackie, Marty McSorely, the parade of ignominious behavior goes back a long way and will stretch into the future a long way too. And who exactly is spearheading this move to "eliminate" certain behavior from the game? Let's not mistake the need for the media to create theater and to stir emotions, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, with a genuine expression of outrage and concern.

Players are still hurting each other, almost nightly. There are a lot of fights. GMs sign tough guys and dirt bags. Coaches play them. They take up NHL jobs and get paid NHL dollars. Arenas and TV show highlights of big hits and fights and blood (literally). Fans love it, at least a lot do. Players and ex-players talk about the role and need for fights and tough guys. Bobby Orr defends it. Wayne Gretzky defends it. The Bruins have used guys like John Scott in the past and someday, somehow, they probably will again.

So who is it exactly that wants to clean up the game? What is propelling this issue to the forefront? Because I see an awful lot of investment in not changing things from virtually all the stakeholders. Otherwise... it would not be like this. If the desire for change was really that strong, it would have been changed. The most excessive incidents stir anger, no question. But maybe a lot of people just don't like being made to feel guilty about liking something that is deemed to be barbaric... and there's a lot more tacit support for keeping the status quo than some like to admit.

 

[JOKER 192]

1) Why?
2) Who says?

Why does it matter to you why 2 guys are fighting and why should it matter to the league? Why in the world would the league have separate penalties, for the same act, because a couple of fans think one is cooler than the other?

Or a couple of fans don't see the difference, let's agree to disagree if you don't see the difference it isn't me who's gonna make you see it.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

First, let's help Don Quixote with that windmill problem.

What is going to happen when John Scott comes back from suspension? Is he going to be cut by Buffalo? Sent to the minors? No, chances are 90% that he'll be in the lineup, maybe + or - some minutes, certainly with more scrutiny on him. He's not going anywhere: no "stance" will be taken, no "statement" will be made, no "line" has been crossed. He made a big mistake, was penalized for it, the end. And similar things will happen several more times this year, and next, and the next, and...

Despite all the media attention on this issue, all the fan talk about it, this has been hockey since the get go. Eddie Shore, Wayne Mackie, Marty McSorely, the parade of ignominious behavior goes back a long way and will stretch into the future a long way too. And who exactly is spearheading this move to "eliminate" certain behavior from the game? Let's not mistake the need for the media to create theater and to stir emotions, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, with a genuine expression of outrage and concern.

Players are still hurting each other, almost nightly. There are a lot of fights. GMs sign tough guys and dirt bags. Coaches play them. They take up NHL jobs and get paid NHL dollars. Arenas and TV show highlights of big hits and fights and blood (literally). Fans love it, at least a lot do. Players and ex-players talk about the role and need for fights and tough guys. Bobby Orr defends it. Wayne Gretzky defends it. The Bruins have used guys like John Scott in the past and someday, somehow, they probably will again.

So who is it exactly that wants to clean up the game? What is propelling this issue to the forefront? Because I see an awful lot of investment in not changing things from virtually all the stakeholders. Otherwise... it would not be like this. If the desire for change was really that strong, it would have been changed. The most excessive incidents stir anger, no question. But maybe a lot of people just don't like being made to feel guilty about liking something that is deemed to be barbaric... and there's a lot more tacit support for keeping the status quo than some like to admit.

You make a lot of good points here, but the main point of this thread is not how to eliminate fighting, but how to get useless plugs/goons out of the NHL.

I think most have said that we like guys who can play the game and will fight at times, hit, provide intimidation, etc.

Of the stars that you mentioned, Gretzky was the only one who didn't fight his own battles.

Not that they were good hockey players, but even in their worst years, guys like McSorely and Maki probably exceeded Scott's carreer point totals.

 

[Mazzie]

Reduce the number of players a team can dress when a player is on suspension. Losing Scott for 10 games is a who cares thing, they just dress someone who is probably a better player, playing a man short on the roster is something quite different.

I like this idea, but it would be easy to argue it being a safety/health issue for the players that have to log more minutes than normal. Say Chara gets a 10 game suspension and he can't be replaced in the line up... his 28 minutes have to be spread over only 5 other d-men... unless you can choose not to dress a forward?

Good idea on paper, but would never get past the NHLPA.

 

[nycpunk1]

This nonsense needs to stop. The rules are the rules, or they are a joke. If you throw the book at a guy because he's a "useless plug", you might as well give guys extra points if they score a really pretty goal. Nice one Sid, we're calling that a three-pointer! Because the rules are different for superstars....

If Scott is given a roster spot on an NHL team, by definition he has the skills needed to succeed in the NHL. Period. Holding him to a higher standard of conduct because he's at the bottom of the roster is bush league BS. And claiming that he and Rolston conspired to take Eriksson out with that hit is a paranoid delusion Bruins fans would mock if it came from fans of other teams.

If a coach and player target an opponent for an illegal hit, they should be banned and possibly prosecuted. That kind of **** has nothing to do with playing hockey. It also has nothing to do with Scott's hit on Eriksson. Punishment should reflect the actual play, not an imaginary scenario in the heads of fans.

 

[DOGSTARMAN]

>>You make a lot of good points here, but the main point of this thread is not how to eliminate fighting, but how to get useless plugs/goons out of the NHL.

Understood. My point, in general, is that there seems to be a lot of inertia and a lot of tacit support for something that people, whether few or a lot in quantity, are looking to eliminate. I just wonder how strong the desire to change things really is.

But let's put that aside for a minute. John Scott is without question a poor hockey player by NHL standards and the only reason he is in the league is because he's an effective tough guy. But it seems that most of the complaining about him is coming from the Eriksson hit and not so much because of his fighting, which truth be told, has not been a path of maiming, despite him being pretty good at it. The premise seems to be that the only reason Scott is in the league is because he can fight and if you somehow filtered Scott-like players out of the league, you wouldn't have side effects such as a poor player delivering a bad hit on Eriksson. That seems to be the equation. That's where the "why is this guy in the league" talk is coming from.

But of much greater concern to me is that getting Scott out of the league won't really do much to cut down on these vicious head shots, which in my view are the biggest violence problem the league faces. Problem is, bad, average, and good players are dealing out these hits. Get rid of Scott, you'll still have Grabner and Ference and Paille and Kaleta and Hanzal and on and on handing out hits periodically.

Somehow, Scott has become a poster child for reckless violence in the NHL and the need to affect reform via weeding out goons. Ironically, Scott is probably one of the more sensitive tough guys in the league and he does not have a long track record of bad offenses. As bad as some of his play has been this year and as much as he certainly has the potential to hurt somebody in a fight, he is simply not one of the sociopaths or chronic offenders that seem to plague the league. Point being, the mission here should be to severely punish all players who dish out illegal, injurious hits and to not obsess about a token goon who is just an easy punching bag for a much larger problem. Otherwise you are not really solving much at all.

Let's say that one problem is that the way he is being used by a very poor coach is part of the problem. Beyond that, get rid of Scott... you'll still be watching guys wheeled out on stretchers the next night. It's a much bigger problem than just getting rid of "goons." It is a problem with how many players in general show little regard for each other and are willing to or unable to avoid inflicting serious injury. It would be nice to believe that we could rely on basic human decency and good sportsmanship to cut down the problems but in reality it will probably have to happen by seriously biting into the careers and wallet of offenders. Matt Cooke seems to have changed a bit but only because he knows his leash is non-existent. Inside, he's still the same sociopath as always.

 

[DOGSTARMAN]

>>And claiming that he and Rolston conspired to take Eriksson out with that hit is a paranoid delusion Bruins fans would mock if it came from fans of other teams.

That may be true in a literal sense. But I do believe that Rolston is a poor coach who is not deserving of an NHL job. While he may not have told Scott to injure anyone, you will have to work pretty hard to convince me that Rolston is instilling a strong message about aggressive but disciplined play, say like Julien does. Scott (and Kaleta) are playing like loose canons with no real direction about how to channel or apply their aggressiveness. They are being used in situations that don't seem to make sense and they don't seem to suffer any organizational reprimand for playing a style that (presumably) is not good for the player, the team, or the sport. I really doubt that these guys are getting a clear, firm message about what the coach/team/organization wants out of it's players, including role players like Scott.

It may not be the sin of commission that some would have you believe, but it probably is a sin of omission (that being, good coaching and player management). In the end, is there much difference? I mean, when you watch Behind the B you see these scenes of players in meetings, hearing from various members of the organization about what is expected of them and how to comport themselves. This stuff does happen. Ingrained messages and expectations. When you see a total breakdown of that such as we seem to see in Buffalo right now and which happens to other teams from time to time... sorry maybe I'm just very naive, but it seems to me that this is an organizational failing as much as it is an individual failing. Otherwise explain Patrick Kaleta to me.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

I wish I were able to convey my opinions half as eloquently as Black Eye.

Very nicely stated indeed.

 

[nycpunk1]

My point is that guys like Kaleta or Torres need to be tossed long before someone like Scott. I'm pretty sure Rolston sent Scott out there for the same reason Julien sends the Merlot line out-- to try to spark a team and get the energy to shift back in their favor. Our guys are better. That doesn't mean we should ban fourth liners who can't score.

There's a huge difference between sending Scott out to lay down big hits and sending him out with the intent to injure. The fact that Scott injured Eriksson does not mean that he intended to do so, or that Rolston intended it to happen.

Speaking of coaching-- the Bruins hammer home the concept of "playing on the edge" constantly. Anyone who thinks Lucic and Marchand haven't crossed that line on occasion needs to start doing voiceovers for the Simpsons.

 

[Ludwig Fell Down]

First, let's help Don Quixote with that windmill problem.

So who is it exactly that wants to clean up the game? What is propelling this issue to the forefront? Because I see an awful lot of investment in not changing things from virtually all the stakeholders. Otherwise... it would not be like this. If the desire for change was really that strong, it would have been changed. The most excessive incidents stir anger, no question. But maybe a lot of people just don't like being made to feel guilty about liking something that is deemed to be barbaric... and there's a lot more tacit support for keeping the status quo than some like to admit.

Kevin, you summed up the problem nicely. At the end of the day, I blame the players and the union first and foremost. The union belongs to the players, and instead of having the PA have a pavlovian approach to automatically defend every wrongdoer, I have said for years that the union should instead protect the vast majority of their membership that plays the game correctly. The union could agree to double the suspension handed out by the league, to teach their members that cheap shots will not be tolerated. Instead, the union fights each and every suspension like it is an affront to their way of living.

From the league's perspective, I would echo an idea that others have discussed, and give the league the right to impose a "bizarro" suspension. The league should be able to force a team to play their goon for 15 minutes a night for X number of games. If that were an option, the goon who plays 2-3 minutes a night would become extinct.

Finally, I would have each team keep a ranking of their players based on value to the team, 1-20. If player #3 gets knocked out of a game for a cheap shot, the offending player AND player #3 on the offending player's team both get suspended. That would reduce the nonsense in a hurry.

 

[DOGSTARMAN]

>>From the league's perspective, I would echo an idea that others have discussed, and give the league the right to impose a "bizarro" suspension.

Yes, it would be interesting to see what effect that would have.

But I do look at the A-Rod suspension in baseball as an example of the excessive litigation and muckraking that would surely follow. It is always hard to get away with an anomalous penalty.

But that does not mean they should not try it to see what kind of impact it has. Something different needs to happen. Steve Yzerman is right - the league is kind of stuck in the middle deciding what it wants to be. This half-measures stuff isn't working.

 

[DominicT]

>>From the league's perspective, I would echo an idea that others have discussed, and give the league the right to impose a "bizarro" suspension.

Yes, it would be interesting to see what effect that would have.

But I do look at the A-Rod suspension in baseball as an example of the excessive litigation and muckraking that would surely follow. It is always hard to get away with an anomalous penalty.

But that does not mean they should not try it to see what kind of impact it has. Something different needs to happen. Steve Yzerman is right - the league is kind of stuck in the middle deciding what it wants to be. This half-measures stuff isn't working.

Will disagree with the bolded.

Baseballs collective bargaining agreement does not specify (from what I can find) an end to appeals and such, which is basically what litigation would be, appealing the leagues decision.

The NHL has closed that availability to the player via its CBA. The independent arbitrator in discipline appeals allowed under the CBA works

under then-current Labor Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association.

(through their international association in Canada) and

The arbitrator's decision shall be final and binding in all respects and not subject to review.

 

[Artemis]

Completely agree with everything here. I wish people would just choose a camp, either they're for allowing fights or not allowing them. Drives me nuts the people who complain about staged fights or fights after clean hits, if fighting is gonna be allowed the players will decide when they want to go, not the fans who only like a heated fight of the moment over a legitimate reason (i.e. Not a clean hit). I'm for fighting, but I understand people who aren't, don't get the people who complain only about staged fights because what dictates a staged fight exactly?

The classic description of pornography could apply to staged fights: "I know it when I see it."

Anyway, if you read his new book, you'll discover that one of those who complains about staged fights and fights after clean hits is Bobby Orr (who is not anti-fighting). So I don't think it's an outlier of a POV.

 

[DOGSTARMAN]

Will disagree with the bolded.

Baseballs collective bargaining agreement does not specify (from what I can find) an end to appeals and such, which is basically what litigation would be, appealing the leagues decision.

The NHL has closed that availability to the player via its CBA. The independent arbitrator in discipline appeals allowed under the CBA works (through their international association in Canada) and

Point taken Dom. In which case, the NHL should pick the next egregious head shot and throw the book at the guy. A 20 game suspension or more may get some attention, and not just for an easy target like Kaleta or Cook. Challenge the union and players to say that their agenda is not aligned with eliminating this crap.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

I think fighting has a place in hockey.

Hits to the head do not.

I am in agreement with the guys that suggested a CHL like approach where there is an automatic 10 game suspension for any hit to the head, and more for a repeat offender.

 

[LouJersey]

My point is that guys like Kaleta or Torres need to be tossed long before someone like Scott. I'm pretty sure Rolston sent Scott out there for the same reason Julien sends the Merlot line out-- to try to spark a team and get the energy to shift back in their favor. Our guys are better. That doesn't mean we should ban fourth liners who can't score.

There's a huge difference between sending Scott out to lay down big hits and sending him out with the intent to injure. The fact that Scott injured Eriksson does not mean that he intended to do so, or that Rolston intended it to happen.

Speaking of coaching-- the Bruins hammer home the concept of "playing on the edge" constantly. Anyone who thinks Lucic and Marchand haven't crossed that line on occasion needs to start doing voiceovers for the Simpsons.

Amen....love the "but they can play" defense...They are criminals on ice...

 

[doc5hole]

Glad you asked

http://ohlwriters.com/articles/ohl-s-ten-fight-rule-one-year-later

Very good ...

Having believed from the day I heard about it that the realignment (that leaves the NHL wanting for 2 more teams to round the edges) is only a precursor to expansion, I now wonder if the expansion will come at the expense of a reduction of game rosters by one from 20 to 19 (and rosters from 23 to 22)? Add 44 NHL salaries and subtract 30 is a net gain of 14 spots. NHL teams can manufacture a four-line attack with 11 forwards more easily than they can defend with five, but dropping the enforcer is a no-brainer in this era of the hyper-competitive regular season.