2013 Shanaban thread

[HockeyDoug]

Shanny is worse because he's looking for any little thing to suspend someone

I only wish I thought that was true. In my opinion, I think too many players are still getting hit way too high too often for me to believe that.

If they really buckled down on calling interference, charging, and boarding a little closer to the written rule, or if supplemental discipline really had teeth, I think a large % of this sideshow garbage would have been cleaned up by now.

I hated the hire because he was and still is too close to the players and while he's getting better, it lead to a bunch of bad precedents that are hard to get away from.

 

[BOSSMANPC]

For me, I want to see 1/2 their career's worth to that point. Since he was at just under 900 reg and post season games, I'll want to see 400-500 before I consider him changed. Anything short of that is too short of a sample size. For Bertuzzi, after about 4 full seasons following his incident, I took him off my "detriment to the league" list.

It's not hard to change for a year or even 2 or three. We see players change for an offseason or consecutive offseasons only to go back to the same issues or strengths that they had before. We see it in weight (bad weight) and muscle for example. We see it in practice routines, goalie adjustments, etc. Until they can prove they can sustain the change for an extended period of time, I think it's the exception more than the norm.

OK I respect your opinion. Mine may vary depending on circumstances but yours is fair enough.

 

[BOSSMANPC]

I only wish I thought that was true. In my opinion, I think too many players are still getting hit way too high too often for me to believe that.

If they really buckled down on calling interference, charging, and boarding a little closer to the written rule, or if supplemental discipline really had teeth, I think a large % of this sideshow garbage would have been cleaned up by now.

I hated the hire because he was and still is too close to the players and while he's getting better, it lead to a bunch of bad precedents that are hard to get away from.

I agree with this.

 

[Cobiemonster]

I only wish I thought that was true. In my opinion, I think too many players are still getting hit way too high too often for me to believe that.

If they really buckled down on calling interference, charging, and boarding a little closer to the written rule, or if supplemental discipline really had teeth, I think a large % of this sideshow garbage would have been cleaned up by now.

I hated the hire because he was and still is too close to the players and while he's getting better, it lead to a bunch of bad precedents that are hard to get away from.

The problem is, he will suspend guys who have not had a history of doing things like this for more games or steeper penalties than guys like Cooke and Kaleta who have done the same thing over and over again - it's inconsistency that irritates a lot of fans

What happens too is that they won't call a penalty on the play but then they'll suspend the player - or they'll call a penalty on the play but they won't suspend the player - it should be both or neither imo

 

[dash]

Let's start the Matt Cooke for Lady Byng campaign right now...Who's with me?

 

[forty_three]

Shanny is worse because he's looking for any little thing to suspend someone

Yeah, early on he was looking for anyone to make an example of, and James Wisniewski was somewhat heavily punished for what was, by comparison, one of the lighter offenses. But Shanny had to swing that hammer.

would be awesome if the neutral 3rd party arbitrator went off the board and said 25 games for Kaleta ... and then .. the arbitrator takes off his disguise and ... AWW MA GAWD THATS JACK JOHNSONS MUSIC!!!

From your keyboard to God's ears.

I only wish I thought that was true. In my opinion, I think too many players are still getting hit way too high too often for me to believe that.

If they really buckled down on calling interference, charging, and boarding a little closer to the written rule, or if supplemental discipline really had teeth, I think a large % of this sideshow garbage would have been cleaned up by now.

I hated the hire because he was and still is too close to the players and while he's getting better, it lead to a bunch of bad precedents that are hard to get away from.

Plus I think he still had some of his player prejudices against certain organizations too close to his heart, and it seems like sometimes that got in the way of good decisions by him. I catch a lot of grief for that opinion, but I am not sure I can be swayed off it.

Case in point; Nash getting nothing for blindsiding Kopecky. If Nash wasn't a Ranger, something would have happened. I truly believe it.

OK, I never cared for Cooke either but let me ask you something. How long does he need to go without an incident before he is considered a player that turned it around and is the player that he said he wants to be? One year? five years? ten years? That's my point about someone that makes an honest effort to change and has a hard time convincing others that he/she has. It's ambiguous and up to the individual. I'm not saying he has totally changed because he could snap tomorrow but is there a time limit to say OK this guy has turned it around.

One full year is a start. When he gets that far, then we can talk more. And it's more than a year without a suspension. It's a year without cheapshotting and hiding like he does.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

OK, I never cared for Cooke either but let me ask you something. How long does he need to go without an incident before he is considered a player that turned it around and is the player that he said he wants to be? One year? five years? ten years? That's my point about someone that makes an honest effort to change and has a hard time convincing others that he/she has. It's ambiguous and up to the individual. I'm not saying he has totally changed because he could snap tomorrow but is there a time limit to say OK this guy has turned it around.

Sorry Boss, but this just doesn't fly. Cooke told Karlsson repeatedly that he was going to get him.

As Karlsson himself said, Cooke didn't try to cut his Achilles. He did however try to slewfoot him because he couldn't get a clean hit on a faster, quicker player.

He tried a moderately dirty play and it turned into a career changer. Your average NHL player never does that. Matt Cooke has tried to change nothing but his image. He has no place in the NHL. The sooner coaches and GMs admit that, the better the league will be.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I agree but right now it's so inconsistent that we as fans (and players) don't know what the hell to expect. Honestly, I don't think Shanny is any more consistent than Campbell was. He even contradicts himself in his cute little explanation videos.

That's why I think it will be interesting if it goes to the arbitrator.

I would assume in his arbitration case that Kaleta could show similar or worse hits that received X number (where X could also be 0) game suspensions and use that to support his argument.

 

[dash]

He tried a moderately dirty play and it turned into a career changer.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to defend Matt Cooke, only to point out that I've seen several other players use that same move when it looks like they're going to miss a check and they resort to the leg lift in order to pin the opposing player against the boards. It's a form of holding without using your arms and generally escapes detection by the referees. Personally, I don't like it, but players will continue to use it until the refs start calling it.

 

[forty_three]

That's why I think it will be interesting if it goes to the arbitrator.

I would assume in his arbitration case that Kaleta could show similar or worse hits that received X number (where X could also be 0) game suspensions and use that to support his argument.

That's what bugs me about it. With that argument, It's not about whether or not Kaleta was wrong for what he did, it's about whether or not the punishment is consistently enforced.

And the Nash-Kopecky hit kills the consistency argument.

I just wish it was completely about Kaleta's history and that hit. And I'll say it, I was surprised he got 10. JJ was not hurt, and play went on. If it was Girgensons that did it, it's 2 at most.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to defend Matt Cooke, only to point out that I've seen several other players use that same move when it looks like they're going to miss a check and they resort to the leg lift in order to pin the opposing player against the boards. It's a form of holding without using your arms and generally escapes detection by the referees. Personally, I don't like it, but players will continue to use it until the refs start calling it.

It's a fine line, isn't it? It's like some drunken dumbass getting mad and saying "I'm gonna kill you!" and the person who he said it to winds up dead. Doesn't automatically mean that the dumbass did it. He was just talking out his ass and something bad happened.

It's a common play, and in my opinion Cooke was trying to slew foot Karlsson, he just ran out of ice. He didn't mean to slice the ankle, but he was trying to hit him hard and less than cleanly. His words don't help his case.


I often wonder why refs are not brought into it. Who better to help the decision process than the four guys on the ice with no affiliation? Other refs in the league? I mean if Cooke says 82 games a year that he's "gonna get you" and eventually someone is hurt by him it's different than if he's only said that once and a guys career gets endangered. Refs hear it all. They know whats happening out there. They should be involved in the discipline process.

If not directly than through a rep on the player safety committee.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

That's what bugs me about it. With that argument, It's not about whether or not Kaleta was wrong for what he did, it's about whether or not the punishment is consistently enforced.

And the Nash-Kopecky hit kills the consistency argument.

I just wish it was completely about Kaleta's history and that hit. And I'll say it, I was surprised he got 10. JJ was not hurt, and play went on. If it was Girgensons that did it, it's 2 at most.

Is consistency not what we want most as fans though?

If I'm not mistaken, this will be the first incident that could be subject to the arbitrator process for supplemental discipline. I guess the NHLPA wanted it in this CBA following some of the punishments doled out to guys like Cooke and Raffi.

I want to see how the process plays out if it gets to the arbitrator (I'm assuming Bettman doesn't reduce it to 5 games or fewer, which is the threshold at which arbitration can be invoked). I assume the arbitrator would be allowed to consider the player's history when reaching a decision, in addition to the specific facts and circumstances of the hit in question.

 

[BOSSMANPC]

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. When does Kaleta get his answer? Is there a set time period that Bettman has to get back to him?

 

[KennyBanyeah]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to defend Matt Cooke, only to point out that I've seen several other players use that same move when it looks like they're going to miss a check and they resort to the leg lift in order to pin the opposing player against the boards. It's a form of holding without using your arms and generally escapes detection by the referees. Personally, I don't like it, but players will continue to use it until the refs start calling it.

True Dash. But watching the replay there is no real reason to be driving his (Cooke's) foot forward. He tried to sneakily kick the heel of Karlsson's skate, kind of a mini slewfoot, and his skate just landed high, IMO.

When most guys use that move they generally try to pin the opposing player's leg with their knee or thigh. To go in skate first is odd to say the least.

 

[dash]

When most guys use that move they generally try to pin the opposing player's leg with their knee or thigh. To go in skate first is odd to say the least.

Odd and bad technique and with Cooke's history, difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[HockeyDoug]

I'm very interested in what's going to happen with Lapierre and whether or not he appeals, I'm somewhat hopeful that he will appeal.

I'm still not a fan of how the PA has conducted itself for a really long time but I think appealing is a good idea. Maybe the appeal will solidify the boundaries on precedents when it comes to supplemental discipline. At the very least it will start to work out the administrative kinks with some of the new or revised procedures.

At the end of the day, I think it's good that skating garbage like Lapierre or Kaleta appeal. They're scum, their guilty, they're really tough to defend but maybe they can help establish some concrete guidelines so this whole Shanny mess is straightened out a little quicker than it would be otherwise.

 

[forty_three]

Is consistency not what we want most as fans though?

If I'm not mistaken, this will be the first incident that could be subject to the arbitrator process for supplemental discipline. I guess the NHLPA wanted it in this CBA following some of the punishments doled out to guys like Cooke and Raffi.

I want to see how the process plays out if it gets to the arbitrator (I'm assuming Bettman doesn't reduce it to 5 games or fewer, which is the threshold at which arbitration can be invoked). I assume the arbitrator would be allowed to consider the player's history when reaching a decision, in addition to the specific facts and circumstances of the hit in question.

Absolutely. But we haven't had it yet. And in the arbitration, they probably aren't going to focus on whether or not Kaleta was adequately punished, they are going to point to others who weren't in an attempt to get Kaleta off the hook. Well, Kaleta's side will anyway.

And this is the first one, so a lot is riding on it. If he can employ the Chewbacca defense and gets off, we will never have a clean argument again.

Shanny earned this mess though. And the league certainly did not help.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

Sadly this is still relevant, and spot on, today.

Down Goes Brown: The NHL's top secret flow chart for handing out suspensions

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Absolutely. But we haven't had it yet. And in the arbitration, they probably aren't going to focus on whether or not Kaleta was adequately punished, they are going to point to others who weren't in an attempt to get Kaleta off the hook. Well, Kaleta's side will anyway.

And this is the first one, so a lot is riding on it. If he can employ the Chewbacca defense and gets off, we will never have a clean argument again.

Shanny earned this mess though. And the league certainly did not help.

That's exactly how you'd expect Team Kaleta to present their case. I'm not advocating to get Kaleta back on the ice because I don't think he does anything to make the Sabres a better team.

What I hope to see is things get thrown back in Shanny and Bettman's faces about their complete lack of consistency on the way they handle this.

If Bettman were smart (haha, yeah, I know), he would think about reducing the suspension to 5 games so that Kaleta has no right to appeal to arbitration and save the trial-run of the arbitration process for something that's egregious on its own merits, without having to factor the history of the player so heavily.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Kevin Kurz ‏@KKurzCSN now #SJSharks Boyle "feels great," according to his agent

Shanny is probably reducing the suspension on hearing this

 

[dash]

Patrick Kaleta has appealed his 10-game suspension and the Sabres are waiting to hear when his appeal process will be heard. Tonight's game against Vancouver will already be his fourth one out of the lineup. Fellow Sabres agitator Steve Ott said the issue he's had with Brendan Shanahan's ruling is that Columbus defenseman Jack Johnson was not hurt on the play and went on to get 23 minutes of ice time in the Oct. 10 game against the Sabres.

"It's hard because there's no injury on the play," Ott told The News today after the Sabres' pregame skate. "I have a hard time with it for that simple fact. Is it suspendable? Absolutely, as in the guy could have really been hurt. But could have is not good enough for me.

"No one wants to see anybody injured by any means but that has to play in the equation if you're going to throw a book at somebody. He didn't even fall. Could it have been bad? Sure. For me, the injury has to play into the situation."

Just my , but it should be a two stage process:

1. First, examine the offending player's action and determine length of suspension (if any) based on that action alone.

2. Secondly, tack on additional game(s) to any suspension length from step 1 above based on severity of injury. Granted, this can be difficult when the injury is a concussion, but hey, people have to make tough decisions every single day.