Perry suspension incoming?

[ThirdManIn]

fwiw

Fair enough. So they don't have to automatically suspend him. They can still make a point if they want to. They most likely will not want to.

 

[Getzmonster]

I think a suspension was warranted here, if he gets off with a warning I'd say he was pretty fortunate, and I would understand some fans being annoyed with that. He needs to be smarter, the team already had an issue with Vermette abusing an official, this is the last thing the team needs going forward.

 

[NoShowWilly]

Kassian got beat down in that series but I love these alternative facts.

I don't really care if he did or didn't. Go back and watch that altercation. Nothing is happening other than Kassian and kesler chirping. Linesman removes Kassian and suddenly the ducks are tough **** with the extra player in the skirmish.

 

[North Cole]

The real question is did the interaction between the actual players rise to an "altercation". That's part of the fighting rule.






There was a pretty clear scrum in that DeAngelo clip (he also had his gloves off, was being escorted away, and tried to break loose to get back, so no, what Perry did is neither similar nor worse), there needs to be video of the players actually engaged to use this rule.

Perry is an asshat, and idiot, and is a dirty fool, but that doesn't mean this rule is appropriate to this situation. The 1 game seems more appropriate IMO.

Well they both got misconducts, so that would count as being penalized.

 

[PredsV82]

fwiw

This was my first thought early this am, but then I saw he got a misconduct. But I'm guessing the misconduct was a "generic" misconduct and not abuse of officials.

Anyway, as I've said elsewhere, I am fine with Ryan not getting suspended, it deprives the Ducks of a rallying point

Edit. Furthermore, shouldn't we have head something by now if supplemental discipline was being considered?

 

[SoupGuru]

fwiw

I don't buy that.

Says who?

I see nothing in the rule that says any such thing

 

[dechire]

I don't buy that.

Says who?

I see nothing in the rule that says any such thing

Physical abuse of an official is a penalty. If the penalty is called an automatic suspension is applied. If the penalty is not called it is not an automatic suspension.

 

[SoupGuru]

Physical abuse of an official is a penalty. If the penalty is called an automatic suspension is applied. If the penalty is not called it is not an automatic suspension.

Says dechire on an internet forum. I'm sorry, but I'd like a more "official" source.

 

[vipera1960]

Physical abuse of an official is a penalty. If the penalty is called an automatic suspension is applied. If the penalty is not called it is not an automatic suspension.

I agree, but fwiw the Wideman thing wasn't called "abuse of officials" in game either.

 

[dechire]

Says dechire on an internet forum. I'm sorry, but I'd like a more "official" source.

Says the rule book, quoted by dechire on an internet forum. SoupGuru on the same internet forum could have just googled it.

Rule 40 – Physical Abuse of Officials
40.1 Game Misconduct - Any player who deliberately applies physical
force in any manner against an official, in any manner attempts to
injure an official, physically demeans, or deliberately applies physical
force to an official solely for the purpose of getting free of such an
official during or immediately following an altercation shall receive a
game misconduct penalty. In addition, the following (40.2, 40.3, 40.4)
disciplinary penalties shall apply.
40.2 Automatic Suspension – Category I - Any player who deliberately
strikes an official and causes injury or who deliberately applies
physical force in any manner against an official with intent to injure, or
who in any manner attempts to injure an official shall be automatically
suspended for not less than twenty (20) games. (For the purpose of
the rule, “intent to injure” shall mean any physical force which a player
knew or should have known could reasonably be expected to cause
injury.)
40.3 Automatic Suspension – Category II - Any player who deliberately
applies physical force to an official in any manner (excluding actions
as set out in Category I), which physical force is applied without intent
to injure, or who spits on an official, shall be automatically suspended
for not less than ten (10) games.
40.4 Automatic Suspension – Category III - Any player who, by his
actions, physically demeans an official or physically threatens an
official by (but not limited to) throwing a stick or any other piece of
equipment or object at or in the general direction of an official,
shooting the puck at or in the general direction of an official, spitting at
or in the general direction of an official, or who deliberately applies
physical force to an official solely for the purpose of getting free of
such an official during or immediately following an altercation shall be
suspended for not less than three (3) games.
40.5 Automatic Suspension – Process - Immediately after the game in
which such game misconduct penalty is imposed, the Referees shall,
in consultation with the Linesmen, decide the category of the offense.
They shall make a verbal report to the League’s Director of Hockey
Operations and advise of the category and of the offense. In addition,
they shall file a written report to the Director of Hockey Operations in
which they may request a review as to the adequacy of the
suspension. The NHLPA, the player and the Club involved shall be
notified of the decision of the Referees on the morning following the
game. The League will then hold a conference call with the NHLPA to
review the Referees application of this rule, and will refrain from
issuing public comment affirming the Referees application of Rule 40
until that call is complete.
The player or the officials may request the Commissioner to
review, subject to the provisions of this rule, the penalty imposed by
the Referees. Such request must be filed with the Commissioner in
writing not later than seventy-two (72) hours following notification of
the penalty.
If a review of the incident is requested by either the player or by
the officials, a hearing will be conducted by the Commissioner on an
expedited basis, and best efforts will be used to provide a hearing
before the second game missed by the player due to the automatic
suspension imposed under this rule. The player’s suspension shall
continue pending the outcome of the hearing by the Commissioner.
For Category III offenses only, the Commissioner may conduct the
hearing by telephone. For Category I and II offenses, the hearing shall
be conducted in person.
After any review as called for hereby, the Commissioner shall
issue an order that:
(i) sustaining the minimum suspension, or
(ii) increasing the number of games within the category, or
(iii) changing to a lower category, or
(iv) changing to a lower category and increasing the number of games
within this category, or
(v) in the case of a Category III suspension only, reducing the number of
games of the suspension.
The penalties imposed under this rule shall not be deemed to limit
the right of the Commissioner with respect to any action that he might
otherwise take pursuant to Article 18 of the CBA.
40.6 Supplementary Discipline - In the event that the player has
committed more than one offense under this rule, in addition to the
penalties imposed under this offense, his case shall be referred to the
Commissioner of the League for consideration of supplementary
disciplinary action.

I agree, but fwiw the Wideman thing wasn't called "abuse of officials" in game either.

The Wideman suspension likely wasn't an automatic suspension. This is my interpretation: a player abuses an official and gets called for it. He is suspended automatically. Another player abuses an official and isn't called. The league decides to apply one of the categories of suspension to him.

There are other factors involved as well. The league and player's union planned to reduce Vermette's recent suspension but the official's union refused. After the Wideman hit they aren't interested in compromising. If that's still the case then the official's union may be pressing for Perry to be suspended. Or maybe this incident isn't even on their radar.

 

[Osprey]

It appears as though Perry got off of the hook by being issued a misconduct penalty, instead of the game misconduct penalty that the rulebook called for. A game misconduct penalty would've carried with it an automatic suspension of no less than 3 games, so the referee did Perry and the Ducks a favor by leniently giving only a plain (non-game) misconduct that he really deserved more than.

 

[broinwhyteridge]

I mean he did exactly what the rule says not to do. If he doesnt get suspended then the league is basically saying do whatever you want

That's been the message the whole playoffs

 

[SoupGuru]

Says the rule book, quoted by dechire on an internet forum. SoupGuru on the same internet forum could have just googled it.





The Wideman suspension likely wasn't an automatic suspension. This is my interpretation: a player abuses an official and gets called for it. He is suspended automatically. Another player abuses an official and isn't called. The league decides to apply one of the categories of suspension to him.

There are other factors involved as well. The league and player's union planned to reduce Vermette's recent suspension but the official's union refused. After the Wideman hit they aren't interested in compromising. If that's still the case then the official's union may be pressing for Perry to be suspended. Or maybe this incident isn't even on their radar.

Thank you. I thought the rule had already been posted and it turns out it was only a snippet.

If a player chicken wings another player in the jaw and it's not called in a game, they review it and dish out punishment after the fact. They can't just pretend it didn't happen.

Perry is obviously in violation of that rule and whether the appropriate call was made in the game, the league can't just pretend it doesn't exist, can it?

 

[vipera1960]

Says the rule book, quoted by dechire on an internet forum. SoupGuru on the same internet forum could have just googled it.





The Wideman suspension likely wasn't an automatic suspension. This is my interpretation: a player abuses an official and gets called for it. He is suspended automatically. Another player abuses an official and isn't called. The league decides to apply one of the categories of suspension to him.

There are other factors involved as well. The league and player's union planned to reduce Vermette's recent suspension but the official's union refused. After the Wideman hit they aren't interested in compromising. If that's still the case then the official's union may be pressing for Perry to be suspended. Or maybe this incident isn't even on their radar.

100% agree. I think he will either get 3 games, or none, depending on how hard the NHLOA decides to fight.

 

[Quiet Jack]

Says the rule book, quoted by dechire on an internet forum. SoupGuru on the same internet forum could have just googled it.

Awesome reply

 

[GordonGecko]

I think it would be funny if the refs all boycotted the next game

 

[KaseMeOutside]

Is there any ducks player hf won't cry about to be suspended? Bieksa I guess.

 

[vipera1960]

Thank you. I thought the rule had already been posted and it turns out it was only a snippet.

If a player chicken wings another player in the jaw and it's not called in a game, they review it and dish out punishment after the fact. They can't just pretend it didn't happen.

Perry is obviously in violation of that rule and whether the appropriate call was made in the game, the league can't just pretend it doesn't exist, can it?

There are penalties, like this one, that, if called in the game, require supplemental discipline. However, the league can suspend players for plays that do not require it (see the Wideman play, not called on ice so no suspension "mandatory"). I think the league and the PA would prefer to ignore it, but the refs' union has been taking a hard line wrt this kind of thing recently.

 

[The Duck Knight]

Is there any ducks player hf won't cry about to be suspended? Bieksa I guess.

Exactly. Because that wouldn't benefit their team. They want Bieksa on the ice making snow angels.

 

[Marty Party]

Whatever happens, I don't think 10 can look for any calls here on out.

 

[kducks]

The lack of ducks fans posting in this thread is pretty telling.

Clearly should be suspended

It's because it's like arguing to a brick wall. Everything we say gets turned into 'oh, yeah? Well dirty Ducks'. It gets exhausting to argue with people who have no opinion other than that because of their so called reputation the Ducks deserve everything and the opposing team nothing.

 

[hockeyisgud]

Can he claim insanity and therefore not responsible for his actions? I guess that could be one argument for no suspension.

 

[Quiet Jack]

It's because it's like arguing to a brick wall. Everything we say gets turned into 'oh, yeah? Well dirty Ducks'. It gets exhausting to argue with people who have no opinion other than that because of their so called reputation the Ducks deserve everything and the opposing team nothing.

I'm not buying it. I think it's solely because ducks fans are sitting there thinking "ugh, he probably should be suspended." And I'm not calling out ducks fans AT ALL. It's just that this happens to be about a ducks player.

And if you disagree that's fine. I won't pretend that my opinion is fact and that I can read everyone's minds.

 

[aufheben]

Is there any ducks player hf won't cry about to be suspended? Bieksa I guess.

Honestly what Perry did should be an automatic suspension by the rules.

 

[nabob]

Honestly what Perry did should be an automatic suspension by the rules.

Obvious biases are obvious though. How that's not abuse of an official and people think it's ok is mind bottling.