John Scott suspension [7 games; won't appeal]

[vcv]

You realize that was his first non-fighting major?

Huh? Rabble rable, he's a thug goon who goes head-hunting every game!

 

[OkimLom]

We were told that repeat offenders would be dealt harshly. How much BS is that?

Yet, when you see guys like Scott, who is a first time offender and pretty much the only thing he's being suspended for is a blindside hit, get 7 games, then ANYTHING they say should be taken with a grain of salt.

Regardless of skill, ALL players should be held to the same standards. Basing this on a player's role on a team, and saying "goons" and "enforcers" are going to be held more accountable than say a team's "Star" player, opens up the game for "stars" to take more liberties.

Honestly, they are suspending Scott for pretty much the idea of a blindside hit, which IMO, I have no problem with the suspension. There was nothing else in the hit or situation that deems the hit suspension worthy. There was NO elbow, until AFTER the follow through which didn't affect the hit, it wasn't TOO late. This hit should've received 3 games at MOST because of Scott's LACK of history and the kind of hit. Hell, Kaleta, if I remember received 5 games for the 2nd time he got suspended and it was much worse.

The Wheel of Justice strikes again.

 

[vcv]

Okim: There is no language in the rule book anymore about blindside regarding hits to the head. It was a lateral hit anyway, not blindside (both terms were in the previous rule book).

 

[Jacob582]

Gods honest truth.... John Scott needs to go away.... useless player in the new world of "concussion" ..... think about this.

He is not a useless player yet. Until all teams cease to employ Orr, Thorton, Parros .......and the league enforces dangerous plays by star players like Chara and Lucic.

 

[RazielMoshman]

Scott is the team's designated fighter. Nothing more, and nothing less. You can't go deciding to suspend one player longer than another because of their skill on the ice. Unless, of course, you're Shanahan.

There has to be some consistency in discipline.

I see no logic there. Whats more I remember Sabres fans crying out for players to be banned when the roles are reveresed.

 

[wunderpanda]

7 seems fair, it was a bad hit, Scott doesn't do anything except fight, no complaints from me. Was expecting 10, that would be okay as well, longer than 10 would have irked me.

 

[Jacob582]

I see no logic there. Whats more I remember Sabres fans crying out for players to be banned when the roles are reveresed.

I think there is a lot if logic here. Most of us are saying that Scott needs to be treated like any other player in the league.
And I will defend Scott. From what I've seen of him on camera, he is a friendly, thoughtful person. He is respectful and professional on the ice who wants to do his job for the team. He made a mistake and should be suspended for it.

 

[Kyndig]

7 seems fair, it was a bad hit, Scott doesn't do anything except fight, no complaints from me. Was expecting 10, that would be okay as well, longer than 10 would have irked me.

Your logic must come from some other planet.

 

[OkimLom]

Okim: There is no language in the rule book anymore about blindside regarding hits to the head. It was a lateral hit anyway, not blindside (both terms were in the previous rule book).

I pretty much was grasping at straws to try and convince myself the reasoning why they think they should suspend him this long.

 

[OkimLom]

7 seems fair, it was a bad hit, Scott doesn't do anything except fight, no complaints from me. Was expecting 10, that would be okay as well, longer than 10 would have irked me.

Without saying he has no role on this team, or anything criticizing his skill set, WHY do you think he deserve 10 games?

 

[26CornerBlitz]

@Real_ESPNLeBrun
Also good stuff here from @WharnsbyCBC on NHL suspensions in the opening month: http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/ho...-7-game-ban-ends-wild-first-month-in-nhl.html

 

[BowieSabresFan]

I see no logic there. Whats more I remember Sabres fans crying out for players to be banned when the roles are reveresed.

1. I've never cried out for other players to be banned.

2. What I want is consistency. How many players have been suspended for 7 games on a first offense? There have been equal or arguably worse hits this year that have not received equal punishment. By the way, fans from lots of teams agree that Shanahan's discipline is inconsistent. It's not just Sabres "homers."

3. What logic do you not see?

 

[26CornerBlitz]

For comparison purposes:

@SNHockeyCentral
NHL 2013-14 Suspension Tracker, with all video: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nhl-suspension-tracker-2013-14/ @sportsnet

 

[wunderpanda]

Without saying he has no role on this team, or anything criticizing his skill set, WHY do you think he deserve 10 games?

Never said he deserved 10, said I expected 10. It was a national game, the hit created a bit of an uproar, Sabres already had the Kaleta suspension/appeal and the preseason Leafs incident when Rolston was fined. Would have been easy to give him 10 games and justify it by blaming the culture of the organization or to make an example of Scott to deflect bad publicity. Exploit it to take a stand against hits to the head and the league being serious about it. NHL is a business, need to look responsible and stay far away from the Reggie Dunlop-Hanson Brothers stereotype.

He deserved 5 for this hit, I can understand 7 because of Toronto and media backlash.

 

[OkimLom]

Never said he deserved 10, said I expected 10. It was a national game, the hit created a bit of an uproar, Sabres already had the Kaleta suspension/appeal and the preseason Leafs incident when Rolston was fined. Would have been easy to give him 10 games and justify it by blaming the culture of the organization or to make an example of Scott to deflect bad publicity. Exploit it to take a stand against hits to the head and the league being serious about it. NHL is a business, need to look responsible and stay far away from the Reggie Dunlop-Hanson Brothers stereotype.

He deserved 5 for this hit, I can understand 7 because of Toronto and media backlash.

Fair enough,

Though I find it troubling that if the NHL looked at suspensions this way, then this game would be in trouble. If this kind of thinking goes into any kind of suspensions, then players and teams will be at a disservice.

BTW, I disagree with the 5 games and Toronto and media backlash shouldn't ever be considered when a players career and source of income is at stake.

 

[Jim Bob]

I think 7 games is two games too long.

McLeod got 5 games for his first time offense recently. I think Garbutt's 5 gamer was a first time offense, as well.

The bigger question is why did Lapierre only get 5 games for his hit on Boyle as that was his second suspension of his career.

 

[Woodhouse]

Bill Hoppe ‏@BillHoppeNHL 5m
#Sabres John Scott isn't appealing his seven-game suspension.

 

[vcv]

Bill Hoppe ‏@BillHoppeNHL 5m
#Sabres John Scott isn't appealing his seven-game suspension.

Wrong decision. He has more grounds to stand in than Kaleta did.

 

[Paxon]

Wrong decision. He has more grounds to stand in than Kaleta did.

It'd only be a symbolic victory. By the time they get through the process it'll probably have been 7 games anyhow. A few game checks back as well.

 

[Kyndig]

Wrong decision. He has more grounds to stand in than Kaleta did.

By the time they heard his appeal he probably would've served the 7 games already anyways.

I'm sure Scott just thinks appealing is a waste of time. Nobody here actually thinks he would have it reduced right...?

 

[Paxon]

By the time they heard his appeal he probably would've served the 7 games already anyways.

I'm sure Scott just thinks appealing is a waste of time. Nobody here actually thinks he would have it reduced right...?

I think it would be.

 

[jamers]

I think it would be.

I do as well.

I think the NHL felt that they could throw a large suspension at him because it comes on the heels of the failed Kaleta appeal, and because pretty much everyone is comfortable trashing Buffalo right now.

Is it unfair? Absolutely seems so.

 

[vcv]

I agree it would be as well and considering he doesn't make much (in the nhl world), it's worth it.

 

[jamers]

I agree it would be as well and considering he doesn't make much (in the nhl world), it's worth it.

Yep, it's a decent chunk of change for him. I would have thought the NHLPA would have jumped at the chance to appeal, but maybe they're waiting for a non-4th liner suspension. Just feels like the NHL is outmaneuvering them at every turn, which isn't a big surprise.

 

[brian_griffin]

Yep, it's a decent chunk of change for him. I would have thought the NHLPA would have jumped at the chance to appeal, but maybe they're waiting for a non-4th liner suspension. Just feels like the NHL is outmaneuvering them at every turn, which isn't a big surprise.

This post raises a lot of thoughts / hypotheticals.

I assume whether to appeal or not is the decision of the player (and not his club), as Shanahan's office and the machinations of the wheel of justice are part of the terms of the CBA, and therefore the NHLPA vs. the NHL and it's member clubs. I do not know the extent to which a club formally or informally counsels a player (or his agent) on whether to appeal or not (or even whether they are allowed to or not).

All that said, I firmly believe, as a show of unity against the NHL office of Player Safety and Discipline, each and every Sabre with a hearing henceforth, whether suspended as a result of that hearing or not, should appeal each and everyone of those decisions, if only to have a voice (even if the same argument is repeated verbatim on each appeal) about the capricious discipline for dangerous plays and hits to the head.

Each time a Sabre appeals, regardless of whether he views his personal punishment as lenient, fair, or excessive, he should use the pulpit to cite inequities in meted discipline, and in particular cite, since the time of the most recent Sabre appeal, head hits which were not reviewed by the NHL, hits which were reviewed yet not disciplined, and apparently "equitable" hits with disparities in discipline.

jamers cites waiting for a non-4th liner suspension. Significant attention should be brought to the disparity in discipline between 4th liners and star players for hits to the head and dangerous plays (Chara, Lucic, just to name a couple - not singling out the Bruins).

Use the appeal process (even if the details of the appeal must be kept secret due to labor law) to drive for change - that change being consistency, not leniency. If, after X number of appeals, it is apparent (1) Bettman rubber stamps every Shanaban as originally ruled, and (2) there is no demonstrably more consistent review and discipline of head hits and dangerous plays, appeal to the NLRB, or hockey fans, or some niche group of GMs or NHL governors who could push more effectively for consistency.