Shannaban Inconsistencies

[pixburgher66]

Okay, I know this has been discussed, but you can't tell me that injuries/the health of the "victim" aren't taken far too much into account. Last night Carlson elbowed Cooke with 3 seconds left in the game, fairly blatantly (although it was missed by many because of the time in the game/off screen for many). Now, try your best to ignore the fact that it's Cooke and compare this to the most recent suspension on Patches.
Now, that one I thought deserved a game, just because of the blindside nature of it. But one was the absolute max.
Then we have a flying elbow to the chops. I mean, he Matt Cooke'd Matt Cooke. And that received no suspension. If anything, THAT deserves the game suspension, not Patches hit. THAT hit is more dangerous than the one where Letang had a glance, took a chance at a shot, and got knocked in the noggin by a shoulder. Confused a bit as to what is and isn't allowed I suppose. This could be a case of "it's Matt Cooke", but still, not sending the best message.

 

[IPostedWhat]

Maybe Carlson asked Lucic for some pointers on how to avoid the Shanaban by saying he's sowwy and didn't mean it?

Then again, it is Matt Cooke.

 

[puckhead]

This could be a case of "it's Matt Cooke", but still, not sending the best message.

good enough for me

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Carlson had nowhere to go, and neither did Cooke.



What do you want either to do.

 

[Comeds]

I do not think injuries or the lack thereof should have much to do with the review process either. If a player launches himself at another player's head, hits him, and the receiving player is lucky enough not to get hurt then I do not think that takes away from the severity of the offense.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

IMO, Carlson should get a game and Patches should have gotten nothing.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

Last night Carlson elbowed Cooke with 3 seconds left in the game, fairly blatantly (although it was missed by many because of the time in the game/off screen for many). Now, try your best to ignore the fact that it's Cooke and compare this to the most recent suspension on Patches.

I tried my best but still giggled a little bit.

 

[sherbert1421]

I do not think injuries or the lack thereof should have much to do with the review process either. If a player launches himself at another player's head, hits him, and the receiving player is lucky enough not to get hurt then I do not think that takes away from the severity of the offense.

agreed 100%

the dangerous nature of the hit is still the same regardless if an injury occurs or not

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I am OK with a resulting injury serving to increase the length of a suspension, but I don't think that the lack of an injury should reduce or eliminate the suspension.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Carlson's was worse. Worth a game, I'd say, since it was so late in regulation. Pacioretty's wasn't that bad, but he happened to clip the head as well as the shoulder. I don't mind either getting punished, but damn, Carlson's was blatant, and the lack of a hearing is kinda lame. Cooke's been good all year; I'd hate to think Shanahan is giving people free rein to cheapshot a cheapshotter.

 

[elocomotive]

I do not think injuries or the lack thereof should have much to do with the review process either. If a player launches himself at another player's head, hits him, and the receiving player is lucky enough not to get hurt then I do not think that takes away from the severity of the offense.

Agree! (so rare I agree with Comeds ) You can have a nasty hit where the guy comes away okay or an innocent one where the guy is out half the year. The intent and the action are what should be judged.

I think Carly should get 1-2 games for it. I thought the Pacioretty hit was worse, but you could see it either way.

That said, I like that he hit Cooke. That guy deserve any dirty hits that come his way.

 

[pixburgher66]

I'd agree with most people's opinions here. Especially in regards to injury equating to suspension. I don't think an injury should result in a suspension, because that's not always the case. The Chara hit was one of the nastiest results in a long time, but was merely a 2 minute interference penalty. The Hedman hit resulted in Crosby being out 10 months (in collaboration with another borderline at most hit), but wasn't a bad hit. In the same regard there have been countless elbows that have caused no injury. I just worry that the lack of injury is what made this no suspension, and that's what seperates it from the Patches hit which resulted in a broken nose/possible concussion.

 

[BOSSMANPC]

I do not think injuries or the lack thereof should have much to do with the review process either. If a player launches himself at another player's head, hits him, and the receiving player is lucky enough not to get hurt then I do not think that takes away from the severity of the offense.

I also agree 100%, It should be the action that gets the suspension not if a player is injured. Sounds like wheel of Campbell justice.

That's as dumb if a player is bleeding from a high stick, who cares! Was it an intentional high stick or not?

 

[sbb122]

If Cooke makes that same hit on Carlson how many games does he get?

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

....none.....

It was about as incidental and un-avoidable as you can get.

It is not as though it was not looked at.

 

[SLY]

i cant wait to watch this vid.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

...you will be highly disappointed, it is a total non-story.....

 

[Dacks]

In the real world, the result of your actions will influence the penalty.

If you get into a bar fight, and crack a guy's nose, you might be charged with aggravated assault. If that guy then falls, bangs his head on a chair and dies, you can be charged with manslaughter.

The fact is, when you intentionally commit an illegal action, you need to be aware of the potential consequenses and your responsibility. Why should it be different in hockey?

I do agree that it's the "drawing blood" rule is stupid; make it a ref judgement call, not an automatic depending on how sensitive the guy's skin is. But if you intenionally board somebody, and they break their spine, I don't mind if that gets a stiffer penalty than a similar play where the resulting player is fine.

 

[Vadered]

In the real world, the result of your actions will influence the penalty.

If you get into a bar fight, and crack a guy's nose, you might be charged with aggravated assault. If that guy then falls, bangs his head on a chair and dies, you can be charged with manslaughter.

The fact is, when you intentionally commit an illegal action, you need to be aware of the potential consequenses and your responsibility. Why should it be different in hockey?

I do agree that it's the "drawing blood" rule is stupid; make it a ref judgement call, not an automatic depending on how sensitive the guy's skin is. But if you intenionally board somebody, and they break their spine, I don't mind if that gets a stiffer penalty than a similar play where the resulting player is fine.

You are looking at it the other way, though. You say an injury should result in additional suspensions/fines/whatever, which is fine if you want to deter people from causing injuries. But a better option is to suspend/fine/whatever any idiot who does something stupid regardless of injury, because we aren't trying to stop injuries; we are trying to stop behavior that might lead to injury. If a guy knows he can board somebody and probably only get fined, he might be more willing to take the risk and nail a guy than if he'd get suspended either way. It's a harsher stance (and not workable in the real world with all the different factors and circumstances that go into each crime); but hopefully it's a better deterrent.

That's my view anyway.

 

[Eddie_Shack]

In the real world, the result of your actions will influence the penalty.

If you get into a bar fight, and crack a guy's nose, you might be charged with aggravated assault. If that guy then falls, bangs his head on a chair and dies, you can be charged with manslaughter.

The fact is, when you intentionally commit an illegal action, you need to be aware of the potential consequenses and your responsibility. Why should it be different in hockey?

I do agree that it's the "drawing blood" rule is stupid; make it a ref judgement call, not an automatic depending on how sensitive the guy's skin is. But if you intenionally board somebody, and they break their spine, I don't mind if that gets a stiffer penalty than a similar play where the resulting player is fine.

Maybe, but keeping with the same analogy if you shoot a guy and it grazes his ear, you will probably get an attempted murder charge. If you shoot a guy and it goes through his body and paralyzes him, you will also probably get an attempted murder charge. If you shoot AT a guy and miss, you will probably still get an attempted murder charge.

Launching an elbow at a guy's head is the hockey equivalent of aiming a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger. Whether the bullet hits or not, shouldn't effect the sentencing.