My problem is, is that enough to stop some goon from doing this again? unlikely. Kelly gets paid to play on the line, and, on occasion, cross it. I can't stand players like him. They toil in the AHL or ECHL and never make any noise until they throw a cheap shot on a good player. Johnson isn't a blue chipper but he's a good prospect, and likely an NHL player, and some bum just delivered brain damage to him. Hockey has moved beyond beer league-like skilled players, they have no place in the NHL anymore. The sport has moved past bums like this. And before people point to players like Orr or any other goon who's played for the Leafs, I didn't like those players. They have no place in the NHL. Face punchers are not hockey players.
But the reality is, some are both. Our President was a hockey player and "face-puncher".
Ten games I've read, is a "fair" initial disciplinary action. I disagree. That hit was egregious, whether it was a reflex or was loaded for Johnson before Kelly left the bench doesn't matter. I think the action appeals to the intentional fallacy in a certain way. The effect is the effect for all to see. And the trade off is a potential game-breaker sent off the ice for a face-puncher. You're an AHL coach who wants an NHL job and your goal is a championship, the trade-off is a simple one. And if people think that "that kind of thing" doesn't still go on (where one coach encourages a player to do one thing or another), then there's some lambs out there that need to know that the wolves haven't gone anywhere.
Intermediate disciplinary action isn't going to achieve the ultimate goal of ridding cheap-short artists from the game. Never has and never will. And what's more, it's funny to read how many seem to think that that idea is a new idea. It isn't. The game is the game and in a small area (comparatively to the increase in size to players) with increased speed and superior coaching strategies and training regiments, material change needs aggressive application. And there's no better incentive than non-negotiable suspensions that are measured in thirds. Start with 1/3 of a season, move to 2/3 on the second infraction, with a year suspension the third time and with subsequent infractions with exponential increase. This to say, a 5th infraction is essentially the end of one's career in the AHL and the NHL.
Let the Kellys of the hockey world dumb their way into invisibility.
If a Raffi Torres or a Matt Cooke is fourth-time cheap-shotting an NHL player, then a league is endorsing a pattern that's potentially career-ending to real hockey players. It's unacceptable to me to provide opportunity after opportunity to players whose contribution to the game is defined by erasing the contributions of others with potential permanency.
In the meantime, an enforcer that can play hockey is still a necessary asset. Call the enforcer by another name, or don't mention it all and simply refer to the hockey player that's also a face-puncher, by his name. But critics like Don Cherry are right from a pragmatic necessity. Players that can fight and give hired goons pause to think are still necessary.
It's always been the same and until a time when it isn't if a league won't enforce suitable protection,teams have to.
10 games...