League News: NHL Talk - (News n' Scores n' Stuff) - COVID Season Edition - Vol. 1

[Langway]

LOL Flyers.

 

[max21]

Man Philly sucks lmao on national TV too

 

[twabby]

Why do you keep trying to make legal arguments when discussing sports? You know this is a game with rules, and not criminal misconduct with laws, right?

The circumstances are COMPLETELY different. The complexities of the legal system in managing a diverse society with countless moving parts and competing interests vs rights is nowhere close to the same thing as a professional sports league with grown ass men playing a violent sport they all KNOW is violent.

But if you must insist on making this about law (another bizarre twist) then the NHL carries a known Assumption of Risk for all players. And when dealing with guys like Tom Wilson, everyone on the ice knows and assumes the risk involved. Same goes for two players willingly dropping the gloves. Or skating with your head down. Or going into the boards. Or lowering your head. Or....

All of these are things you seem to want to treat more like criminal beatings or offenses rather than willing combatants accidentally injuring each other.

Assumption of risk - Wikipedia

I'm just saying that there is some reason that outcome is considered in punishment in pretty much every legal system in the world, and I imagine that it's analogous to why outcome matters in the suspension of players in the NHL. One of the more interesting arguments that I read in favor of punishing outcome as well as intent is that if only intent mattered, then it would incentivize the perpetrator to be as injurious as possible since the outcome wouldn't be a factor, only the intent. If you're going to hit a player in the head, might as well get really good at turning their brain into dog food since the punishment will be the same regardless.

Punishing intent only also frees the perpetrator from any negligence from being better equipped to cause damage to another player. I think we can all agree that Tom Wilson is more likely to injure a player than Connor McDavid, based solely on the strength differential between the two players. Given that, doesn't Tom Wilson carry a greater responsibility to make sure his hits are legal since he should know that his negligence is more likely to cause a devastating outcome?

 

[kicksavedave]

Congrats Sabers. Philly LOL.

Just watched the opening of the Flyers post game show... Taryn Hatcher (their version of Alexa) looks like someone just ran over her puppy. Not trying to hide her disgust. I'm loving it.

 

[g00n]

I'm just saying that there is some reason that outcome is considered in punishment in pretty much every legal system in the world, and I imagine that it's analogous to why outcome matters in the suspension of players in the NHL. One of the more interesting arguments that I read in favor of punishing outcome as well as intent is that if only intent mattered, then it would incentivize the perpetrator to be as injurious as possible since the outcome wouldn't be a factor, only the intent. If you're going to hit a player in the head, might as well get really good at turning their brain into dog food since the punishment will be the same regardless.

Punishing intent only also frees the perpetrator from any negligence from being better equipped to cause damage to another player. I think we can all agree that Tom Wilson is more likely to injure a player than Connor McDavid, based solely on the strength differential between the two players. Given that, doesn't Tom Wilson carry a greater responsibility to make sure his hits are legal since he should know that his negligence is more likely to cause a devastating outcome?

I know what you're saying, and it doesn't apply to a professional sports league. You can keep repeating it but it doesn't change the fact that criminal law is not the same as hockey rules. Apples/oranges.

You can't punish competitors for things they can't control. Your argument about guys like TW boils down to a massive unknown, which is figuring out in a microsecond whether the same hit/force/technique that's worked 400 times without incident will suddenly produce an injury to a player he may even have hit exactly like that before. The only difference may be a slight change in body position by the other player, or some bit of fatigue that makes him more prone to injury.

This is the crux of the complaints the Caps have lodged over some of the recent suspensions. They've adjusted TW's play per the DOPS critiques and suggestions more than once, and even when following their directions he's still been suspended. In the most recent case it seems because the player lowered his head at the last minute.

Injury is not predictable or manageable enough to base punishment on it when the sport itself is already prone to so many collisions at high speed, accidents, etc.

Are you also going to hold players with hard slapshots accountable for their injuries to players hit by the puck? Shouldn't they dial down their slapper speed to avoid injury?

 

[ALLCAPSALLTHETIME]

The Slugs crush the Flyers 6-1! Lol.

Glad the Slugs finally won a game.

Fogarty had a 2 point game for the Slugs. I wonder if he is related to Brian Fogarty?

 

[twabby]

Are you also going to hold players with hard slapshots accountable for their injuries to players hit by the puck? Shouldn't they dial down their slapper speed to avoid injury?

No, because slapshots are not against the rules. Clobbering someone in the head is against the rules.

The word "and" is a conjunction. It means that both conditions needs to be satisfied in order to make the statement true. Intent and outcome matter. If the intent is to score a goal, then even if the outcome is that a puck smashes the face of a player then I think no punishment should be levied. Similarly, if someone attempts to hit someone through the boards but completely whiffs and makes no body contact, then I think no punishment should be levied.

 

[Corby78]

You’re basically entering a more philosophical argument at this point.

The NHL has made it crystal clear that injury is a factor when filing out punishment. I get why you might think that results shouldn’t matter and only intent, but there is a reason why legal systems around the world including in the US heavily factor in results and not just intent when doling out punishment.

I’m not really well equipped to argue the legal philosophy, but as is results do matter.

You keep using the word “intent” and I didn’t. Did the player break the rule (intentionally or not). That is the bar. You get two minutes for tripping, it doesn’t matter if it’s on purpose, and it doesn’t matter if the player gets hurt.

 

[g00n]

No, because slapshots are not against the rules. Clobbering someone in the head is against the rules.

HITS are not against the rules, either. But accidents happen. Injuries happen. It's part of the game. Anyone who's played a violent sport understands this, especially if it's fast developing.

If you're going to punish based on OUTCOME you're bringing in this massive factor that's partially random and/or unknown and out of the control of the player being punished. The same hit affects different people differently, even on different days/shifts/etc.

And you're asking for TW to dial back his hitting, but you're not making the same demand for guys who blast slappers. By your logic above regarding not punishing outcome, wouldn't players with hard shots be able to abuse the system and injure other players at will?

If the supposed goal is "player safety" then why are these shots still legal? How many slapshot injuries are there per season?

 

[twabby]

You keep using the word “intent” and I didn’t. Did the player break the rule (intentionally or not). That is the bar. You get two minutes for tripping, it doesn’t matter if it’s on purpose, and it doesn’t matter if the player gets hurt.

If you want to make every violent penalty (boarding, elbowing, hit to the head, etc.) regardless of intent or outcome a suspension then that's fine. I'm not going to argue your opinion on it, and I'm not entirely sure I disagree with you because I don't like seeing players' heads turned into dog food. Maybe it would be better for every instance of boarding to result in a heavy suspension.

But if you're making this case and also complaining that Tom Wilson's suspension for clobbering Brandon Carlo's head into the boards was wrong, then it seems like you're not actually interested in fair punishment but rather are just upset that one of your favorite players got caught breaking the rules.

 

[twabby]

HITS are not against the rules, either. But accidents happen. Injuries happen. It's part of the game. Anyone who's played a violent sport understands this, especially if it's fast developing.

If you're going to punish based on OUTCOME you're bringing in this massive factor that's partially random and/or unknown and out of the control of the player being punished. The same hit affects different people differently, even on different days/shifts/etc.

And you're asking for TW to dial back his hitting, but you're not making the same demand for guys who blast slappers. By your logic above regarding not punishing outcome, wouldn't players with hard shots be able to abuse the system and injure other players at will?

If the supposed goal is "player safety" then why are these shots still legal? How many slapshot injuries are there per season?

Hits are not against the rules, but clobbering someone's head into the boards in a violent way is against the rules, intentional or not. Again, if Tom Wilson hit someone with an open ice hit that broke the other player's sternum, caused his lungs to collapse, and the player died on the ice, as long as no rules were broken I'd say no punishment should be levied. But that's not what happened. He broke the rules by clobbering Brandon Carlo's head into the boards and turned his head into dog food.

As far as I can tell, slap shots are not against the rules. If they are illegal, please point me to where the rulebook says they are illegal, and I will happily revise my opinion.

If you could make a convincing argument that Shea Weber is not actually trying to score goals with his slap shots, but is rather trying to shatter the tibiae or tarsals of his foes, then I'd agree with you 100% and he should be suspended.

 

[Langway]

Still can't believe Philadelphia's response to losing Niskanen was Erik Gustafsson.

 

[twabby]

Still can't believe Philadelphia's response to losing Niskanen was Erik Gustafsson.

Realistically what else could they have done? It's not like there has been an active trade market since COVID struck.

 

[ALLCAPSALLTHETIME]

Colorado scores 5 times in the first 7:31 against Arizona. *Ow*

Doskoi scored 3 of those goals.

6 goals scored in 3:27, overall.

5-2 Avs in the second period.

 

[g00n]

Hits are not against the rules, but clobbering someone's head into the boards in a violent way is against the rules, intentional or not. Again, if Tom Wilson hit someone with an open ice hit that broke the other player's sternum, caused his lungs to collapse, and the player died on the ice, as long as no rules were broken I'd say no punishment should be levied. But that's not what happened. He broke the rules by clobbering Brandon Carlo's head into the boards and turned his head into dog food.

As far as I can tell, slap shots are not against the rules. If they are illegal, please point me to where the rulebook says they are illegal, and I will happily revise my opinion.

If you could make a convincing argument that Shea Weber is not actually trying to score goals with his slap shots, but is rather trying to shatter the tibiae or tarsals of his foes, then I'd agree with you 100% and he should be suspended.

Are you a politician? Because you duck questions and turn issues upside down way too frequently for it to be a hobby.

In your world outcomes matter if the hit is illegal. Yet by the book nearly every hit beyond a bump could be called "violent" and against the rules.

So relying on hit legality to sort good from bad injury is highly subjective and ripe for abuse.

This does seem to be what we see now. Similar plays get totally different treatment.

It doesn't matter if slappers are legal now. If safety is the concern maybe they shouldn't be. Aren't they dangerous?

 

[ALLCAPSALLTHETIME]

Garland with his 10th goal of the year. 6-3 Avs after 2 periods.

 

[twabby]

Are you a politician? Because you duck questions and turn issues upside down way too frequently for it to be a hobby.

In your world outcomes matter if the hit is illegal. Yet by the book nearly every hit beyond a bump could be called "violent" and against the rules.

So relying on hit legality to sort good from bad injury is highly subjective and ripe for abuse.

This does seem to be what we see now. Similar plays get totally different treatment.

It doesn't matter if slappers are legal now. If safety is the concern maybe they shouldn't be. Aren't they dangerous?

Yes, if the hit is illegal then outcomes matter.

It's why killing a person while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol is punished more severely than a DUI where nobody is killed, and why a sober person following all traffic laws who runs over and kills a kid who jumps out in front of their car is typically not punished.

 

[hb12xchamps]

Realistically what else could they have done? It's not like there has been an active trade market since COVID struck.

Tanev, Shattenkirk, Schultz, Brodie, Barrie, Gudas etc. we’re all UFAs at the time. Maybe try hard to sign any of them? Hell I might even take some of the dumpster dive guys. Gustafsson seems like a redundant player on that blue line

 

[twabby]

Tanev, Shattenkirk, Schultz, Brodie, Barrie, Gudas etc. we’re all UFAs at the time. Maybe try hard to sign any of them? Hell I might even take some of the dumpster dive guys. Gustafsson seems like a redundant player on that blue line

Fair enough. I don't know how much advance notice Niskanen gave the Flyers regarding his plans to retire, but most of those UFAs signed with other teams within a week of Niskanen formally retiring. I suppose Philadelphia could have scrambled and made offers to any of those players instead of going with Gustafsson.

 

[ALLCAPSALLTHETIME]

8-3 Avs. Rant up to 43 points on the year and MacK up to 40. That’s a scary offence they have up there.

9-3 final. Bura with 2 goals. Up to 9 on the year.

 

[trick9]

8-3 Avs. Rant up to 43 points on the year and MacK up to 40. That’s a scary offence they have up there.

9-3 final. Bura with 2 goals. Up to 9 on the year.

Rantanen is such an underrated player. He's right up there with Kane as the best winger in the game now.

 

[AussieCapsFan]

8-3 Avs. Rant up to 43 points on the year and MacK up to 40. That’s a scary offence they have up there.

9-3 final. Bura with 2 goals. Up to 9 on the year.

Favourite team after the Caps. Always exciting to watch because anything can happen, especially when Mac and Rantanen are on the ice.

 

[Hivemind]

@txpd your “point” in the GDT was that teams aren’t targeting Fox, and you made that “point” by comparing him to a two time Norris finalist. I “ignored it” because you’re blind if you think teams aren’t trying to attack any puck carrying D in the league, and you’re also blind if you think Fox and Mike Green are particularly similar. Fox is an elite player for more than just his point totals, and this isn’t a dig on Green. Fox has taken just one penalty in his past 26 games. He’s incredibly good positionally, and incredibly good in terms of awareness. He doesn’t get himself isolated or caught out of position frequently. Since I know you don’t put any faith in defensive metrics, just watch a couple more Rangers game. The kid is the real deal, and anyone scoffing at that concept is out to lunch.

 

[Bieronymus Trotz]

Are you a politician? Because you duck questions and turn issues upside down way too frequently for it to be a hobby.

I don't agree with twabby about this, but you asked this question to one of like three people here who always makes arguments in good faith. Really, for your own sake, take a hard look at your own posts and try to grasp at whatever fleeting self-awareness you do have to see the irony here.

I'm just saying that there is some reason that outcome is considered in punishment in pretty much every legal system in the world, and I imagine that it's analogous to why outcome matters in the suspension of players in the NHL. One of the more interesting arguments that I read in favor of punishing outcome as well as intent is that if only intent mattered, then it would incentivize the perpetrator to be as injurious as possible since the outcome wouldn't be a factor, only the intent. If you're going to hit a player in the head, might as well get really good at turning their brain into dog food since the punishment will be the same regardless.

To be clear, intent to hit a player in the head or intent to hit a player hard with indifference to whether the player's head might be hurt are different from intent to hit a player's head and turn his brain into dog food, and in theory at least those different degrees of intent would be met with different degrees of punishment.

 

[ovikovy817]

Dirty dirty intentions by Mackinnon