Suspension System

[bobc222]

Given all the constant discussion we seem to be having around the length of suspensions for various plays, I think that there should be a simple, almost formulaic way of determining the floor length of the suspension.

I think what makes the most sense, is for plays that cause an injury, suspend the offending player for at least a length of time equal to the injured player's recovery time. This would be the floor of the suspension length, while history etc... would lengthen the suspension.

In order for this system to work, you need 2 extremely simple areas of oversight in place:

1. In order for players to qualify for this suspension length floor, the act must have been intentional as judged by DOPS. (DOPS is not determining the length of the suspension, only a binary value of intent (yes or no)). This takes some of the power out of their hands, but still allows oversight of the process.

2. The length of absence is equal to the injured player's recovery time, as judged by a third-party league medical expert (not a team doctor). This would prevent a team from holding the player out, even after healing, in order to force a better player to remain suspended.

Click to read more...

 

[Weztex]

In a 2006 preseason game, a rookie Guillaume Latendresse, trying to prove himself and make the team, hit Rob DiMaio with a late hit to the head. DiMaio suffered a severe concussion and was forced to retire. Latendresse hadn’t played a single NHL game yet.

In 2006 David Steckel hit Sidney Crosby with a blindside hit. Crosby stayed in the game. Four days later he was checked from behind by Victor Hedman, hitting his already concussed head against the board. He went to missed 10 months of hockey.

In 2017, Radko Gudas, a repeated offender, gave a violent and extremely dangerous slash in the back of Mathieu Perreault's head. Fortunately, Perreault didn't missed a single game.

Do you foresee any problems here?

 

[bobc222]

In a 2006 preseason game, a rookie Guillaume Latendresse, trying to prove himself and make the team, hit Rob DiMaio with a late hit to the head. DiMaio suffered a severe concussion and was forced to retire. Latendresse hadn’t played a single NHL game yet.

In 2006 David Steckel hit Sidney Crosby with a blindside hit. Crosby stayed in the game. Four days later he was checked from behind by Victor Hedman, hitting his already concussed head against the board. He went to missed 10 months of hockey.

In 2017, Radko Gudas, a repeated offender, gave a violent and extremely dangerous slash in the back of Mathieu Perreault's head. Fortunately, Perreault didn't missed a single game.

Do you foresee any problems here?

1. I think preseason games can still lead to suspensions, unless I am missing the point of that example.

2 and 3. The proposed system does not say, "this will be the exact number of games for sure". What it does is proposes a way to create a floor, on plays that lead to injury.

Nowhere does the system indicate that a lack of injury means a lack of suspension. The system is only used if a player was injured on the play (see the first sentence of the second paragraph in the OP). If no player was injured, the normal system can be used.

So no I don't forsee any problems since the latter two scenarios don't qualify for the system proposed in the OP.

 

[Unspecified]

How they determine supplemental discipline

 

[oldunclehue]

To many variables in this situation to let that happen....

1. Injury prone players: Crosby for instance, concussions have genetics involved, he is more at risk of concussions, so would be a factor.

2. Current status of the players: Several players are known to play through nagging injuries or full blown ones and wait until season is done to get things repaired.

3. Signing bonus structure to bubble players: As an agent for say a Zac Rinaldo or Matt Cooke, I would demand all my players salary be in form of a signing bonus, then if they want to run around and hurt someone they would still have the money in the bank and have a very minimal monetary loss. Potentially creating the signing of players paid to go hurt a player.

4. Hitting will cease to exist......NHLPA and agents will simply tell their players, if you want to ensure your salary play soft and avoid any hits/confrontation.

I think there are some positives to the idea, but it can't be a black and white system like the OP says.

 

[Furio]

What if a star player throws a suspendable hit on a 4 liner in game one of a playoff series? Wouldn’t the 4th liner just be kept out with an UBI for the remainder of the series, even if he was able to return for game 2?

 

[bobc222]

What if a star player throws a suspendable hit on a 4 liner in game one of a playoff series? Wouldn’t the 4th liner just be kept out with an UBI for the remainder of the series, even if he was able to return for game 2?

Read bullet point #2 of the OP.

2. The length of absence is equal to the injured player's recovery time, as judged by a third-party league medical expert (not a team doctor). This would prevent a team from holding the player out, even after healing, in order to force a better player to remain suspended.

 

[bobc222]

To many variables in this situation to let that happen....

1. Injury prone players: Crosby for instance, concussions have genetics involved, he is more at risk of concussions, so would be a factor.

2. Current status of the players: Several players are known to play through nagging injuries or full blown ones and wait until season is done to get things repaired.

3. Signing bonus structure to bubble players: As an agent for say a Zac Rinaldo or Matt Cooke, I would demand all my players salary be in form of a signing bonus, then if they want to run around and hurt someone they would still have the money in the bank and have a very minimal monetary loss. Potentially creating the signing of players paid to go hurt a player.

4. Hitting will cease to exist......NHLPA and agents will simply tell their players, if you want to ensure your salary play soft and avoid any hits/confrontation.

I think there are some positives to the idea, but it can't be a black and white system like the OP says.

I think these are all reasonable negatives for the system. I didn't mean for it to be completely black and white though, just trying to apply some sort of floor to the suspension length. I honestly don't know the answer to all of those questions.

With respect to number 3, I don't think that is any different in the current system, you can still sign players to go hurt other players even if they will be suspended.

 

[Eisen]

Given all the constant discussion we seem to be having around the length of suspensions for various plays, I think that there should be a simple, almost formulaic way of determining the floor length of the suspension.

I think what makes the most sense, is for plays that cause an injury, suspend the offending player for at least a length of time equal to the injured player's recovery time. This would be the floor of the suspension length, while history etc... would lengthen the suspension.

In order for this system to work, you need 2 extremely simple areas of oversight in place:

1. In order for players to qualify for this suspension length floor, the act must have been intentional as judged by DOPS. (DOPS is not determining the length of the suspension, only a binary value of intent (yes or no)). This takes some of the power out of their hands, but still allows oversight of the process.

2. The length of absence is equal to the injured player's recovery time, as judged by a third-party league medical expert (not a team doctor). This would prevent a team from holding the player out, even after healing, in order to force a better player to remain suspended.

I don't like it. The same fouls lead to different length of recovery. Seems hardly fair. Not that I don't agree that the current system needs a major overhaul, but this is not it.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Wrong forum, buddy: The Garage

 

[DomBarr]

Given all the constant discussion we seem to be having around the length of suspensions for various plays, I think that there should be a simple, almost formulaic way of determining the floor length of the suspension.

I think what makes the most sense, is for plays that cause an injury, suspend the offending player for at least a length of time equal to the injured player's recovery time. This would be the floor of the suspension length, while history etc... would lengthen the suspension.

In order for this system to work, you need 2 extremely simple areas of oversight in place:

1. In order for players to qualify for this suspension length floor, the act must have been intentional as judged by DOPS. (DOPS is not determining the length of the suspension, only a binary value of intent (yes or no)). This takes some of the power out of their hands, but still allows oversight of the process.

2. The length of absence is equal to the injured player's recovery time, as judged by a third-party league medical expert (not a team doctor). This would prevent a team from holding the player out, even after healing, in order to force a better player to remain suspended.

There are a lot of minor leagues that use mandatory suspension guideline which include suspension escalation due to repeat offender etc.

Using injury timeframe for a suspension guideline while sounds fair really is not a good idea. We have all seen extremely dirty suspension worthy plays not cause an injury and we have seen clean plays cause long term injury.

It is better to just have a set suspension guideline.
For example
1st - Boarding Major - 1 game
2nd - 3 Games
3rd - 9 Games
4 th - 27 Games
etc..

This isn't the rocket science the league tries to portray. They should not be judging intent just the play itself.

 

[Dache]

Given all the constant discussion we seem to be having around the length of suspensions for various plays, I think that there should be a simple, almost formulaic way of determining the floor length of the suspension.

I think what makes the most sense, is for plays that cause an injury, suspend the offending player for at least a length of time equal to the injured player's recovery time. This would be the floor of the suspension length, while history etc... would lengthen the suspension.

In order for this system to work, you need 2 extremely simple areas of oversight in place:

1. In order for players to qualify for this suspension length floor, the act must have been intentional as judged by DOPS. (DOPS is not determining the length of the suspension, only a binary value of intent (yes or no)). This takes some of the power out of their hands, but still allows oversight of the process.

2. The length of absence is equal to the injured player's recovery time, as judged by a third-party league medical expert (not a team doctor). This would prevent a team from holding the player out, even after healing, in order to force a better player to remain suspended.

So an accidental high stick that somehow gives a concussion would be possible career ending suspension?

 

[jfhabs]

1. I think preseason games can still lead to suspensions, unless I am missing the point of that example.

2 and 3. The proposed system does not say, "this will be the exact number of games for sure". What it does is proposes a way to create a floor, on plays that lead to injury.

Nowhere does the system indicate that a lack of injury means a lack of suspension. The system is only used if a player was injured on the play (see the first sentence of the second paragraph in the OP). If no player was injured, the normal system can be used.

So no I don't forsee any problems since the latter two scenarios don't qualify for the system proposed in the OP.

As far as point 1, Dimaio retired after the hit. How long should the suspension be in that scenario? I think that was the point.
I assume the answer would be when the doctor decides he's fully recovered.
But, like point 2. A player might take much longer to recover due to bad luck, past incident, etc.

 

[bobc222]

There are a lot of minor leagues that use mandatory suspension guideline which include suspension escalation due to repeat offender etc.

Using injury timeframe for a suspension guideline while sounds fair really is not a good idea. We have all seen extremely dirty suspension worthy plays not cause an injury and we have seen clean plays cause long term injury.

It is better to just have a set suspension guideline.
For example
1st - Boarding Major - 1 game
2nd - 3 Games
3rd - 9 Games
4 th - 27 Games
etc..

This isn't the rocket science the league tries to portray. They should not be judging intent just the play itself.

So an accidental high stick that somehow gives a concussion would be possible career ending suspension?

Dom, read first sentence of parapgrah 2 of the OP, the system only applies if there is an injury. If there is no injury, you can still do a normal suspension using the current system. My system does not prevent normal suspensions, only proposes a floor IF there IS an injury.

Dache, Read point 1 of OP, an accidental high stick would do NOTHING. The play must be intentional.

1. In order for players to qualify for this suspension length floor, the act must have been intentional as judged by DOPS. (DOPS is not determining the length of the suspension, only a binary value of intent (yes or no)). This takes some of the power out of their hands, but still allows oversight of the process.

 

[Number8]

1. I think preseason games can still lead to suspensions, unless I am missing the point of that example.

2 and 3. The proposed system does not say, "this will be the exact number of games for sure". What it does is proposes a way to create a floor, on plays that lead to injury.

Nowhere does the system indicate that a lack of injury means a lack of suspension. The system is only used if a player was injured on the play (see the first sentence of the second paragraph in the OP). If no player was injured, the normal system can be used.

So no I don't forsee any problems since the latter two scenarios don't qualify for the system proposed in the OP.

He's suggesting that you have two players: 1) Latendresse who had not even begun his NHL career - not yet played a RS game and 2) DiMaio, a veteran, was forced to retire due to a concussion he received from Latendresse.

What that poster is asking you is whether, using your system, Latendresse's career is over before it began????

 

[McGarnagle]

Marc Savard only missed 18 regular season games and 6 playoff games from Matt Cooke's hit before returning for the second round. Then his career got ended after a really innocuous check by Matt Hunwick.

By the logic of this proposal, Hunwick would be punished forever, while Cooke would've been punished much less, despite the fact that everyone knows who caused more damage. And of course, it's all moot since this joke of a league didn't punish Cooke at all in the first place...

 

[Dache]

Dom, read first sentence of parapgrah 2 of the OP, the system only applies if there is an injury. If there is no injury, you can still do a normal suspension using the current system. My system does not prevent normal suspensions, only proposes a floor IF there IS an injury.

Dache, Read point 1 of OP, an accidental high stick would do NOTHING. The play must be intentional.

1. In order for players to qualify for this suspension length floor, the act must have been intentional as judged by DOPS. (DOPS is not determining the length of the suspension, only a binary value of intent (yes or no)). This takes some of the power out of their hands, but still allows oversight of the process.

So if an “intentional” play is still judged by DOPS you’re not really solving anything. It’s still a judgment call. An accidental high stick can be deemed intentional at DOPS discretion. I get what you’re trying to accomplish and in theory a good idea, there’s just way too many wildly different variables for something like that to work

 

[Weztex]

1. I think preseason games can still lead to suspensions, unless I am missing the point of that example.

2 and 3. The proposed system does not say, "this will be the exact number of games for sure". What it does is proposes a way to create a floor, on plays that lead to injury.

Nowhere does the system indicate that a lack of injury means a lack of suspension. The system is only used if a player was injured on the play (see the first sentence of the second paragraph in the OP). If no player was injured, the normal system can be used.

So no I don't forsee any problems since the latter two scenarios don't qualify for the system proposed in the OP.

I don't follow you. You said ''suspend the offending player for at least a length of time equal to the injured player's recovery time''

1. The point was, does Guillaume Latendresse get to play a single NHL game since his suspendable hit (by today's standards) ended DiMaio's career? Marc Savard played after Matt Hunwick's hit but had to retire soon after. Does Hunwick get punished retroactively? Savard is still suffering from that, BTW.

2. Crosby got his concussed by the Steckel hit but didn't missed a game. Hedman's hit only worsen Crosby's condition. Does Hedman get suspended 10 months and Matt Hunwick gets off with a 1-2 game suspension while he was the one that caused the injury? And how do you deal with people having a history of injuries? Chances are a players will be out much longer with his 5th concussion than his 1st.

3. The exact same slash Gudas gave could have broken somebody's neck. I feel that having different suspensions for a similar offence would unwillingly tend to minimize the severity of non consequential dirty plays. As if being responsible for a lengthy injury could be seen as being ''unlucky'' instead of seen as playing dangerously.

 

[Score8]

What if a star player throws a suspendable hit on a 4 liner in game one of a playoff series? Wouldn’t the 4th liner just be kept out with an UBI for the remainder of the series, even if he was able to return for game 2?

Good point, but if the impetus is to remove suspendable hits then it shouldn’t matter who throws it against who?