Suspensions Idea

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

So, Laraque sticks a leg out and Kronwall is out 4-8 weeks. Most agree there should be some type of suspension. The latest recommendation from a reporter on TSN was 5 games. Seems about right with the NHL's logic on suspensions.

But, how many games will Kronner miss? Here is my solution to the injury vs. suspension paradox. The NHL should have a league medical team that evaluates injuries, this could be as simple as all the team medical personnel belonging to a consulting group to the NHLPA. Son in this case, the results of Kronner's tests are evaluated by a doctor and a recovery time of 4-8 weeks is announced. The mid point of this is 6 weeks. We then half that number and 3 weeks is the amount of the suspension.

This would only apply to reviewed plays like this one, as opposed to all hits that result in injury. So when Stuart walks across the blueline and lays someone out and they get a shoulder injury that sidelines them for 2 weeks, Stuart isn't punished for a legal hit or an illegal hit that results in a penalty and is not further reviewed by the league.

I know there is never any justice with suspensions for injuries like this, I just wondered if anyone has any thoughts?

[dat's sick 1,002]

I think suspensions should be based on how dirty the play is, not how durable/lucky the player on the receiving end is.

Let's say that Kronner got away unharmed from that hit. I still think Laraque should get a long suspension. On the other hand there are plays that are more unlucky than they are dirty, but leads to a player being out for 6 months, and in those cases no suspension or a very short one may be in order.

I know it doesn't work 100% (or even close to it) in the NHL, but the solution you're offering is too simplified. There are too many shades of grey for it to work.

[Guest micah]

If it would apply retroactively to Bert, I guess I'd be all for it!

[stevkrause 1,247]

I think suspensions should be based on how dirty the play is, not how durable/lucky the player on the receiving end is.

Let's say that Kronner got away unharmed from that hit. I still think Laraque should get a long suspension. On the other hand there are plays that are more unlucky than they are dirty, but leads to a player being out for 6 months, and in those cases no suspension or a very short one may be in order.

I know it doesn't work 100% (or even close to it) in the NHL, but the solution you're offering is too simplified. There are too many shades of grey for it to work.

exactly and there needs to be consistency... the NHL disciplinary committee is a joke...

they need to pay Rodger Goodall whatever he wants to come in and and pick a replacement for Bettman and then maybe they'll have some real leadership...

[Carman 387]

Put up a poll on NHL.com and let the fans decide.

[Holmstrom96 347]

I think suspensions should be based on how dirty the play is, not how durable/lucky the player on the receiving end is.

Let's say that Kronner got away unharmed from that hit. I still think Laraque should get a long suspension. On the other hand there are plays that are more unlucky than they are dirty, but leads to a player being out for 6 months, and in those cases no suspension or a very short one may be in order.

I know it doesn't work 100% (or even close to it) in the NHL, but the solution you're offering is too simplified. There are too many shades of grey for it to work.

I agree with dats.

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

So, Laraque sticks a leg out and Kronwall is out 4-8 weeks. Most agree there should be some type of suspension. The latest recommendation from a reporter on TSN was 5 games. Seems about right with the NHL's logic on suspensions.

But, how many games will Kronner miss? Here is my solution to the injury vs. suspension paradox. The NHL should have a league medical team that evaluates injuries, this could be as simple as all the team medical personnel belonging to a consulting group to the NHLPA. Son in this case, the results of Kronner's tests are evaluated by a doctor and a recovery time of 4-8 weeks is announced. The mid point of this is 6 weeks. We then half that number and 3 weeks is the amount of the suspension.

This would only apply to reviewed plays like this one, as opposed to all hits that result in injury. So when Stuart walks across the blueline and lays someone out and they get a shoulder injury that sidelines them for 2 weeks, Stuart isn't punished for a legal hit or an illegal hit that results in a penalty and is not further reviewed by the league.

I know there is never any justice with suspensions for injuries like this, I just wondered if anyone has any thoughts?

The problem here is that it can't be that cut and dry. Your adding people to make mistakes (or be untruthful), instead of simplifying the process. If you make the rules that basic, I think you'll see thugs abuse that rule (gee... I can take out Ovie and only be out 3 week while he's out 8! perfect!). The reason there isn't a limit is so that the sky is the limit.

What should happen is players + NHL together elect an committee (make it up of retired players, perhaps?) and they have a open door decision. Closed door w/ disciplinarian doesn't work for me.