Irishjim Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=605449. i think its funny he uses this to explain his thinking on suspensions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinorama Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 thanks for the link. I never really looked into the rules that detailed before and haven't watched any of Shanny's explanations before. Why should injury be taken into account? So if Read had his block knocked completely off Leino would've gotten more but since he's okay Leino get's less? That's about as stupid as the blood/no blood on a high stick. A high stick can cause serious injury. You wnat players to keep control of their stick. Why the F should blood factor into whether it's 2 or 4. If you think it's a problem, make them all 4. If it'snot that big of a deal, make it just 2. The result of the penalty should not dictate the punishment, the penalty itself should. As should the case with these suspensions. either the player committed the crime or he didn't. If you want to factor in the fact that this is his first offense, then I'm fine with that, but the resulting injury or lack there of should have no bearing on the punishment of the crime. Determine the punishment regardless of the result and go from there. Read can only consider himself lucky he didn't get a concussion from that and now Leino only gets a slap on the wrist. Not quite the way to send and effective message if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilsFanDrew Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 thanks for the link. I never really looked into the rules that detailed before and haven't watched any of Shanny's explanations before. Why should injury be taken into account? So if Read had his block knocked completely off Leino would've gotten more but since he's okay Leino get's less? That's about as stupid as the blood/no blood on a high stick. A high stick can cause serious injury. You wnat players to keep control of their stick. Why the F should blood factor into whether it's 2 or 4. If you think it's a problem, make them all 4. If it'snot that big of a deal, make it just 2. The result of the penalty should not dictate the punishment, the penalty itself should. As should the case with these suspensions. either the player committed the crime or he didn't. If you want to factor in the fact that this is his first offense, then I'm fine with that, but the resulting injury or lack there of should have no bearing on the punishment of the crime. Determine the punishment regardless of the result and go from there. Read can only consider himself lucky he didn't get a concussion from that and now Leino only gets a slap on the wrist. Not quite the way to send and effective message if you ask me.I think the whole blood vs no blood on the high stick is the dumbest rule. I also would favor a rule that guys that get cut on the eye with a high stick that don't wear a face shield don't get the extra 2 mins for their team. Intent, not result is what needs to be punished otherwise you just create further confusion of the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH1FlyersFan Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Shanahan has let this position go to his head. A lot of inconsistency now in the way he metes out justice and passes judgement. His explanations, while mildly informative and somewhat entertaining at first, are now way over the top and, in my opinion, arbitrary. His whole production, which is what it's become (almost of circus-like proportions), has become farcical. It's a serious position and responsibility he has, but he's gone too far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyFan Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 In the Campbell era, I remember much debate about whether or not injury/outcome played a role. I guess at least Shanny admits it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 In the Campbell era, I remember much debate about whether or not injury/outcome played a role. I guess at least Shanny admits it...I am okay with that in the sense that its that way criminally as well. Assault with a deadly weapon is called murder based on the damage done during the criminal act.At least Shanny is trying to be transparent. He is in his first year still, let's see how things evolve. Intent is hard to prove because it is based on a guess or circumstantial evidence.At least Shanny isn't coaching a team in the alumni classic...conflict of interest anyone??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.