Perron 6 game suspension - Did they get it right?

[SNES]

How do you see the 6 games he got for cross checking Zub to the face ?

Click to read more...

 

[Midnight Judges]

 

[norrisnick]

Perron's suspension is correct. Almost every other incident of disciplinary action hasn't been.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

Should have been more, but by NHL standards, it's on the high end.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Perron should have been suspended for more than 6 games.

He assessed the situation, made a decision and took action. It wasn't some split-second play where he exercised poor judgment during a hockey play happening at high speed.

Every single person who watched that play understands that Perron was trying to injure Zub. The only defense that has been made for Perron was "he thought Zub deserved it because he thought Zub did something to Larkin."

You intentionally attempt to injure someone and the book should be thrown at you. No room for that in this league.

And before anyone mentions it, plenty of players in the past have gotten off way too easy for their dangerous actions as well, doesn't mean that I'm willing to let Perron off the hook just because others weren't punished properly. We needed to start drawing the line a long time ago.

 

[Connor McConnor]

It’s honestly just frustrating how inconsistent they are. By the standards that have already been set you could argue it’s too harsh. But those standards are whack and he clearly deserved this if not more.

 

[Machinehead]

It seems fine. Dissecting the exact number of games like a bunch of lawyers always seemed silly to me.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I guessed it would be 5-6 so I’m not surprised, but if they want to get this sort of trash play out of the game they need much harsher penalties.

And no, losing your temper doesn’t excuse it just because you’re in a hockey game or got “emotional”. Grow up.

 

[Devilsfan2326]

Perron should have been suspended for more than 6 games.

He assessed the situation, made a decision and took action. It wasn't some split-second play where he exercised poor judgment during a hockey play happening at high speed.

Every single person who watched that play understands that Perron was trying to injure Zub. The only defense that has been made for Perron was "he thought Zub deserved it because he thought Zub did something to Larkin."

You intentionally attempt to injure someone and the book should be thrown at you. No room for that in this league.

And before anyone mentions it, plenty of players in the past have gotten off way too easy for their dangerous actions as well, doesn't mean that I'm willing to let Perron off the hook just because others weren't punished properly. We needed to start drawing the line a long time ago.

Seems some human empathy came into the equation, as from his point of view it appeared as if his captain were either dead or paralyzed. He is a reckless idiot, but he is a fine teammate as well. Cause of the incident seems to have played a role in the ruling, rather than just intent.

They may have been softer on him since he was not just some envious, sociopathic goon, but rather a heroic moron.

 

[Moon Man]

Should have been less.

 

[General Fanager]

6 seems light to me....

 

[Bounces R Way]

They got it right.

6 games is about 2 weeks

 

[Kcb12345]

Minimum 6 games imo so I'm okay with it. Clear as intent to injure gets

 

[Neutrinos]

With what we now know about the seriousness of brain injuries leading to CTE, assaults like this to the head should come with a minimum 20 game suspension for the first offense

And before some of you protest "20 games!?!?", concussions can have a serious impact on a person's quality of life after their career to the point where their head is so scrambled, they end up taking their own life

And given the viciousness of the attack, I'd also like to see criminal charges filed against Perron

Common law doesn't end when a hockey game begins

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

In a vacuum yeah its fair. In a world where Trouba can go Marty McSorley and not miss a game? no

 

[AvroArrow]

Here is the problem on judging it. Are we judging it based on how dirty the act was ? Or based on what similar plays have gotten previously ?

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

20% think its too much, 56% think its about right, 24% think its too little. Thats a very even distribution. HF as a n aggregate seems to agree with the DOPS.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Perron's suspension is correct. Almost every other incident of disciplinary action hasn't been.

Ya, I like how Parros pretty much said “if you’re pissed punch the guy. That’s.. kinda ok. Like, you and your team will get more out of being goons than you’ll be punished. Safety?”

 

[thefutures]

I can't say it's the correct decision only because the same thing will happen again and will be ignored, and it will not be explained.

 

[Incognito]

It’s so hard to even quantify anymore, because the ineptitude of Parros and the DoPS makes for goalpost that gets moved around more than Mike Sillinger did.

 

[Taluss]

I'd say it's too little. He made an intent to injure in a cowardly way that could clearly cause harm. 6 games seems like peanuts considering that.

This suspension should've set a standard. It definitely didn't imo.

 

[RedHawkDown]

6 games is fine, the problem is that there is no consistency or standard

 

[gritdash60]

I think 6 games is fine, even 10 would have been fine for me and im a Wings fan. It was a stupid assault on a unexpecting dude. But in context, if Gudbranson gets 1 game for jumping a dude and punching him in the back of the head while he is on the ice and cant defend himself like 7 times, i dont understand how this one is 6 games? It needs to be 5 games for Gudbranson and 7games for Perron and then im ok with it.