Confirmed with Link: Lapierre suspended for 5 games for hit on Boyle

[CrypTic]

Boyle's health is far more important to me than whatever sentence Lapierre is going to get. I care about Boyle as a person and was very relieved to hear that he and his family will be OK.

The incident was very ugly for the NHL. A player, let alone a star player, was stretchered off the ice during a nationally-televised game. I think that is going to have a bigger impact on the hearing.

I completely agree that Boyle's health is the most important. I'm still concerned about it because TBI symptoms don't always show up immediately and because Boyle has a great deal of incentive to minimize or ignore any symptoms he may have. (I'm not saying that he's doing that but I've known grade school kids to hide injuries because they wanted to play and didn't want to let down their teammates. Yes, Boyle is wiser and more informed than grade school kids - or high school or college athletes - but he's also under a lot more pressure to play quickly.)

However, I'm concerned about the sentence handed to Lapierre because I hope that whatever sentence he receives will send a clear message to him and other players that reckless hits will no longer be tolerated in the NHL and that they will be severely punished. In the long run, for the NHL as a whole, getting rid of reckless plays (and reckless players if they don't change the way that they play) is more important than any one player because it will affect many players. There will always be injuries and some bad hits are very difficult to avoid but there is no need for reckless play.

 

[ChubbChubby]

Boyle's health comes first obviously, but I'm not like you guys who said they don't care about suspension length. I hope Lapierre gets the book thrown at him and then another book for good measure, even though that likely won't happen. His public statement was just the same cliche crap players always say after the fact. He's not sorry for what he's done. He's just sorry he's getting punished and is trying to damage control.

 

[slocal]

Boyle's health comes first obviously, but I'm not like you guys who said they don't care about suspension length. I hope Lapierre gets the book thrown at him and then another book for good measure, even though that likely won't happen. His public statement was just the same cliche crap players always say after the fact. He's not sorry for what he's done. He's just sorry he's getting punished and is trying to damage control.

Just because I said that Boyle's health, and knowing that he's heathy, outweighs whatever "extra" days may be tacked on by keeping mum, doesn't mean I don't care about Lapierre having the book thrown at him. I don't think I've seen anyone say they don't care what happens to Lapierre.

 

[sharkbite3]

Boyle's health comes first obviously, but I'm not like you guys who said they don't care about suspension length. I hope Lapierre gets the book thrown at him and then another book for good measure, even though that likely won't happen. His public statement was just the same cliche crap players always say after the fact. He's not sorry for what he's done. He's just sorry he's getting punished and is trying to damage control.

Oh, I want the book to be thrown at Lapierre. I wish he would get 10-15 games. My point was that if I had to choose between a lengthy suspension or Boyler being okay and back on the ice pretty soon, the choice would be obvious.

 

[JPE123]

I've been thinking that these suspensions should require the offender to sit as long as the injured player is out. You knock a guy out for the year- you sit for a year with no pay. Players gotta start respecting each other. Injuries can happen but obvious cheap shots need to be stopped

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Lapierre's punishment should be standing along the boards with his back exposed with Brent Burns planting him into the boards.

Eye for an eye, right?

 

[Levie]

I've been thinking that these suspensions should require the offender to sit as long as the injured player is out. You knock a guy out for the year- you sit for a year with no pay. Players gotta start respecting each other. Injuries can happen but obvious cheap shots need to be stopped

Terrible way to suspend people. Thornton would be gone for the year for the Perron hit if it were decided by that. Players involved in dirty plays can have no injury or severe ones. There is no standard if you suspend based on injury.

 

[hockeyball]

Lapierre's punishment should be standing along the boards with his back exposed with Brent Burns planting him into the boards.

Eye for an eye, right?

The reason that wouldn't work is because Brent Burns would refuse to do it because he has some class.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

I chuckled a bit while reading Lapierre's apology to Boyle. Yeah, everything is forgiven if you just say you're sorry he's in the hospital and you tried to call him. It's easy to act sorry when you've done something stupid and you're facing punishment for it. To me it was clearly a move so the DoPS would see that "he's sorry". I think he regrets having injured Boyle, but regretting it and actually being remorseful are different. He's not gonna change. He won't. Ever. He's gonna cripple someone like Bertuzzi did and get a lifetime ban. That's the road he's on, and there's no way he'll change. I'm sure he'll make a public apology each time.

I can replace "Lapierre" with "Torres" and everyone in the NHL would agree with you.

 

[WTFetus]

Terrible way to suspend people. Thornton would be gone for the year for the Perron hit if it were decided by that. Players involved in dirty plays can have no injury or severe ones. There is no standard if you suspend based on injury.

Probably in the minority, but I'm fine with the suspension length being affected by injury. But I do agree that the length should not equal the amount of time the injured player is out.

Ie
A dirty play but no injury: 5 games
A dirty play but bad injury: 8 games

Of course, that brings into question teams who exaggerate the injuries just to make the suspension longer.

I can replace "Lapierre" with "Torres" and everyone in the NHL would agree with you.

There's a difference between saying it and actually doing it though. We'll have to wait and see if Lapierre really changes his playstyle like Cooke and Torres.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

I think there should be a suspension, but also think that Dan put himself in a bad position on the play and that should be taken into account on any suspension.

 

[matt trick]

My problem with Lapierre is he always has that huge grin when screwing with people. Torres is extremely physical (and consistently on/across the line) but I would say by and large isn't a ******** after the whistle type guy.

Don't get me wrong, prior to joining the sharks, I would have viewed a Torres apology in a similar light, but Lapierre's issues aren't limited to bad hits.

 

[one2gamble]

Probably in the minority, but I'm fine with the suspension length being affected by injury. But I do agree that the length should not equal the amount of time the injured player is out.

Ie
A dirty play but no injury: 5 games
A dirty play but bad injury: 8 games

Of course, that brings into question teams who exaggerate the injuries just to make the suspension longer.



There's a difference between saying it and actually doing it though. We'll have to wait and see if Lapierre really changes his playstyle like Cooke and Torres.

But why, players get major injuries from relatively mundane plays all the time. You are introducing to much randomness by taking into account the injury of the player

 

[WTFetus]

But why, players get major injuries from relatively mundane plays all the time. You are introducing to much randomness by taking into account the injury of the player

Just how I feel about it. If you committed a dirty play and it resulted in a severe injury, your length should be adjusted.
I mean, if you hit someone cleanly and it resulted in an injury, of course you wouldn't see any time off.

 

[one2gamble]

Just how I feel about it. If you committed a dirty play and it resulted in a severe injury, your length should be adjusted.
I mean, if you hit someone cleanly and it resulted in an injury, of course you wouldn't see any time off.

I guess my problem with it is that two plays, that are exactly the same would result in vastly different punishments. I am not sure that is the correct way to go about it

 

[crunchyblack*]

I can replace "Lapierre" with "Torres" and everyone in the NHL would agree with you.

Yea except Torres' apology was probably genuinely ******** because he didn't have anything to apologize for even according to Stoll.

It's pretty telling when you get Stoll saying Torres' hit was fine and it's all good versus Boyle not even answering Lapierre's call.

 

[WTFetus]

I guess my problem with it is that two plays, that are exactly the same would result in vastly different punishments. I am not sure that is the correct way to go about it

I'm fine with that problem. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Lapierre's play was dirty and he has a history. That should be like a 5 game standard. If Boyle wasn't severely injured, then you keep it at the 5 games. If Boyle was injured, you bring it up to like 7 or 8 games.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

The reason that wouldn't work is because Brent Burns would refuse to do it because he has some class.

I wasn't being serious.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I think we're getting a little carried away with what Boyle getting stretchered off actually means in the grand scheme of things for the league. People have very short memories of these types of instances. Once Boyle is back and the game after Lapierre's suspension is over, most people won't even remember it happened.

 

[CBJenga]

Yea except Torres' apology was probably genuinely ******** because he didn't have anything to apologize for even according to Stoll.

It's pretty telling when you get Stoll saying Torres' hit was fine and it's all good versus Boyle not even answering Lapierre's call.

I think we should back off on that one. The tweet was from the day after saying "left a message last night." I REALLY don't know that Boyle was doing much of anything with the phone the night he got hit, save calling his wife and even then.... maybe?

 

[Wedontneedroads]

Lapierre's punishment should be standing along the boards with his back exposed with Brent Burns planting him into the boards.

Eye for an eye, right?

The reason that wouldn't work is because Brent Burns would refuse to do it because he has some class.

I wasn't being serious.

Would a member of PETA stomp a cockroach running across the floor?

I think so.

 

[CBJenga]

Yea except Torres' apology was probably genuinely ******** because he didn't have anything to apologize for even according to Stoll.

It's pretty telling when you get Stoll saying Torres' hit was fine and it's all good versus Boyle not even answering Lapierre's call.

I think MORE important on the Stoll hit is that by all accounts those two men are good friends. Unless I'm mistaken, Stoll was Torres' best man, that is NOT someone that one would generally target in the head (rule at the time) regardless of team loyalties. I can tell you for sure, I would not concuss my best man by aiming for his head even for the cup. So that to me demonstrates that that hit, while reckless, was definitely NOT something Torres did with malicious intent and something he would legitimately feel terrible about.

Plus I don't think he said, "Oh man, and this is really hard on me too."

 

[Linkster]

My problems with the "eye-for-an-eye" or "Biblical" approach of suspending an offender until the victim returns to play still revolve around the definition of 'dirty' and the determination of 'intent'.

(1) In Thornton's hit on Perron it was very difficult to determine the 'intent' of a player with no history of dirty play.

(2) In Lapierre's hit on Boyle, would Couture's postgame comments about what Lapierre said from the Blues' bench be 'addmissable' support of 'intent'?

(3) No rational owner wants a non-fudgable system that sidelines a healthy $7m in cap space for a season.

I appreciate the spirit of the 'Biblical' approach, but administrating / adjudicating it is pretty darn complex and not any more 'objective' than the current regime.

 

[hockeyball]

I wasn't being serious.

I know, it was just an opportunity to point how big a toolbag LaPierre is.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Yea except Torres' apology was probably genuinely ******** because he didn't have anything to apologize for even according to Stoll.

It's pretty telling when you get Stoll saying Torres' hit was fine and it's all good versus Boyle not even answering Lapierre's call.

I think MORE important on the Stoll hit is that by all accounts those two men are good friends. Unless I'm mistaken, Stoll was Torres' best man, that is NOT someone that one would generally target in the head (rule at the time) regardless of team loyalties. I can tell you for sure, I would not concuss my best man by aiming for his head even for the cup. So that to me demonstrates that that hit, while reckless, was definitely NOT something Torres did with malicious intent and something he would legitimately feel terrible about.

Plus I don't think he said, "Oh man, and this is really hard on me too."

All of these things. Torres may have been Lapierre before, but I think the Hossa hit scared him ****less. Combined with the fact that he's got a target on his back from Shanny, I have every reason to believe Torres when he says he doesn't want to headshot guys.