Prust with 2 game suspension

[hf101]

Stephan suffers a broken jaw on the play.

 

Here is the NHL video on the Suspension.

 

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=60&id=620385&lang=en

[Samifan]

Two games not enough! Should have been forced to miss the rest of this series at a minimum.

[nossagog]

Listening to Shanaban, I just don't understand how this is not more than 2 games. Violent contact, Contact to head, Injury on play, Prior history, doesn't commit to hit until AFTER Stepan released puck.   If this doesn't cry for intent to injure and give the league a chance to make a stance, nothing does. 

 

I'm very sad, very sad indeed.  I love this sport, and things like this just are aggravating as I want to see the best players play the game, not taken out by fourth line scrubs. Same could be said for Kreider on Price.

 

The NHL has deteriorated into a league that has no problem seeing its stars abused and injured on a regular basis.  I'm tired of the rules changing and the do not care attitude of player safety at the highest point of the season. This post season has had a higher degree of slashes, elbow/crosschecks to the head, slewfoots  and other dangerous plays tha I have seen in a long time.    I'm writing a letter to the NHL and I hope that any who value the beauty of the game will do the same.

[yave1964]

Listening to Shanaban, I just don't understand how this is not more than 2 games. Violent contact, Contact to head, Injury on play, Prior history, doesn't commit to hit until AFTER Stepan released puck.   If this doesn't cry for intent to injure and give the league a chance to make a stance, nothing does. 

 

I'm very sad, very sad indeed.  I love this sport, and things like this just are aggravating as I want to see the best players play the game, not taken out by fourth line scrubs. Same could be said for Kreider on Price.

 

The NHL has deteriorated into a league that has no problem seeing its stars abused and injured on a regular basis.  I'm tired of the rules changing and the do not care attitude of player safety at the highest point of the season. This post season has had a higher degree of slashes, elbow/crosschecks to the head, slewfoots  and other dangerous plays tha I have seen in a long time.    I'm writing a letter to the NHL and I hope that any who value the beauty of the game will do the same.

What you said. Kind of where I was going.

 

  What an ugly, ugly series. Price, Brassard, Stepan, Prust, Carcillo. Just some of the the ugliest hockey I have seen in a long time. And I am loving every minute of it, mostly because my team is not in the series, lol. If they were I would be on a pass the Malox diet and keeping my nitro close at hand........

[Vanflyer]

Two games not enough! Should have been forced to miss the rest of this series at a minimum.

 

Carcillo gets 10 games and prust gets 2. 

[Vanflyer]

Injury on play,

 

I abhor this as an index on how long a suspension should be. If there is no injury, but the intent is the same, it should be punishable the same. That said, regardless of result, 2 games is a complete joke. 

[nossagog]

I abhor this as an index on how long a suspension should be. If there is no injury, but the intent is the same, it should be punishable the same. That said, regardless of result, 2 games is a complete joke. 

 

Its not the only factor, but one that must be considered.  I agree, in this case it is a clear cut intent to injure, and can't be overlooked, and in itself should have merited a longer suspension.

[Vanflyer]

Its not the only factor, but one that must be considered. 

 

Fine, if that is the letter of the law, then for me its and eye for an eye. Every game that the player misses, the instigating player should miss as well, not including games for the infraction itself. So, in this example Prust should miss every game that Stephan misses plus the two games that the NHL thought the infraction warranted. 

[flyercanuck]

I abhor this as an index on how long a suspension should be. If there is no injury, but the intent is the same, it should be punishable the same. That said, regardless of result, 2 games is a complete joke. 

 

Two guys could take basically the same hit. One could be done for the year, the other gets up and skates away. Pure luck. Why does that have any bearing on suspensions?

 

 And man, was that late!

[nossagog]

Fine, if that is the letter of the law, then for me its and eye for an eye. Every game that the player misses, the instigating player should miss as well, not including games for the infraction itself. So, in this example Prust should miss every game that Stephan misses plus the two games that the NHL thought the infraction warranted. 

 

Two guys could take basically the same hit. One could be done for the year, the other gets up and skates away. Pure luck. Why does that have any bearing on suspensions?

 

You could never have a straight conversion table for anything like this, sadly there would have to be some discretion in the matter.  As I said, it can be a factor in the decision, but not the rule.

[Vanflyer]

Two guys could take basically the same hit. One could be done for the year, the other gets up and skates away. Pure luck. Why does that have any bearing on suspensions?
 
 And man, was that late!

 

Exactly my point. For me, its the intent. Nothing less, nothing more. That play had intent written all over it. That hit makes Kornwall look like a saint. 

[Vanflyer]

You could never have a straight conversion table for anything like this, sadly there would have to be some discretion in the matter.  As I said, it can be a factor in the decision, but not the rule.

 

I say eff it. Let it just be a hard line all the way through. I know the NHLPA will kick and scream as well as the honors / gm's. 

 

Truthfully and this has been rehashed to  death, just do away with the instigator rule and be done with it. I am not talking about let your fourth line goon match up to the others teams fourth line goon on a face off and say "should we make our pay check tonight", I am talking about the heat of the battle stuff that when crap like last night happens retribution is immediate. 

[ruxpin]

Two guys could take basically the same hit. One could be done for the year, the other gets up and skates away. Pure luck. Why does that have any bearing on suspensions?

And man, was that late!

This is my feeling on suspending on injury. And there is no doubt what was done here. The league said it was a one-game suspension until the announcement (I'm sure there was no coincidence this was announced while the decision was being considered and not with the typical "upper body injury" syntax we're used to seeing). If the ACT was one game not considering one game, it should be one game. I'm sorry, punish the act not the outcome. Maybe Prust has a glass jaw (maybe he doesn't). Maybe someone else gets the same exact hit and does not break his jaw. So then the punishment is less? Why? IT'S THE SAME ACT, INTENT, ETC!

I think taking the injury into account is just really bad business.

On the other hand...you steal a certain small amount and it's a summary offense. A larger amount, it's a misdemeanor and a raise in penalty. A larger amount still and it's a felony with even a greater penalty. If you shoot someone (assuming deliberately) and they survive, it's assault with a deadly weapon. Maybe it's attempted murder. Here you get a certain penalty. You kill them, and it's murder/homicide/manslaughter with a greater penalty still. So, our justice system (in the US, anyway. and unless your name is Kennedy or Simpson) graduates the penalty based on result, so I guess I shouldn't be complaining about the NHL.

That said, that was a brutal hit. The puck wasn't there for days and Prust didn't seem to even commit to the hit until after the puck was gone. It's not like it was "bang bang." Shanny said "1 second" in the video, but it seems longer. Anyway, I think 4 would have been more appropriate to make sure he doesn't play again in this series. Game 6 with him on the ice could prove interesting if the score gets lopsided.

[Vanflyer]

I'm sorry, punish the act not the outcome.

 

:wub:

[Vanflyer]

Shanny said "1 second" in the video, but it seems longer.  

 

You should have heard the CBC announcers just railing about how late that hit was (accurately so). The suspension now tells every player in the league that 3-4 strides after the puck is played to hit a player is okay (and I don't mean glide). Like I said in another post, that hit makes Kornhole look like a saint. 

 

The fact that you and I (and others here) as Flyers fans whom despise the Rangers are adamant about the hit / suspension speaks volumes. 

[ruxpin]

@Vanflyer

Yeah, I really don't have a dog in this fight. I don't really like either team (although with the Habs it's more about dislike of their moron fans) so it's really an academic discussion about the hit itself. The jersey and the names on the front or the back are really incidental.

I don't like the increase of punishment based on injury (an extra two minutes on a high sick if you draw blood has to be on the top ten list of dumbest rules in sports). But even with the raise in the punishment, it's at least half too little.

By the way, I also don't like the "the aggressor should be out as long as the 'victim' is out." First, it falls under my "don't punish based on the result" thing. But secondly, I could really see that being gamed. Say you have a guy like Brad Richards get way too aggressive (I know...just play along) and hit someone worthless, like VLC sucks in the first game of the series. If I am the Flyers VLC sucks has concussion symptoms for the rest of the series.

I don't attach the punishment to the injury in any way, shape, or form.

[canoli]

2 games is plenty - enough with these righteous overreactions it's a hockey hit for christ's sake. And "intent to injure," I'm sorry but that cracks me up. Sh-- man they're all intended to injure in a way....make somebody hurt in the moment, give up the puck, think twice about coming across the middle, etc.. There's nothing wrong with hits that appear as if they're intended to hurt because they are.

 

My only problem with the hit was it was late. See it in real time (don't watch that lame-ass NHL discipline video - they don't even show the whole play in real time) - Stephen passes the puck and you barely get to "two" before Prust slams him. It was late no doubt but let's not pretend it was more than what it was.

 

1 game suspension for elbowing 2 years ago - a stupid, random elbow on Volchenkov. Who hasn't felt like elbowing that SOB? Prust hit him in the back of the helmet - it really wasn't much. So 2 is plenty for this hit. It sucks that Stephan got hurt but it's a violent game, sh-- happens.

[ruxpin]

The puck had been gone since the day before. Let's not pretend it was barely gone. It's not even in the wide shot when Prust commits to the hit. It was grossly late and a shot to the head.

I'd like to see the rags light him up when he returns

[canoli]

Okay whatever. Except it's not even 2 secs. That looks like an eternity on replay, and 2 seconds is a long time in hockey. But we've all seen way worse...way too many times.

[ruxpin]

Good Morning @canoli

 

Yeah, we've seen worse, but since when is that a defense?

 

But you make a decent point because I think the department of player safety has painted themselves into a really bad corner with their incredibly inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary meting out of justice.

 

Say they gave Prust the 4-5 games that everyone here, myself included, is calling for.    But then, as you said, we've seen worse.  And that worse only got 5 games.   I don't know about you, but I cannot sit here with a straight face and tell you the Prust hit was equally as bad as the James Neal knee on Marchand, for example.   So why should it be equally punished?  It shouldn't. 

 

The problem, for me, is that incidents like Neal's weren't punished enough, making it hard (if not impossible) to adequately punish a hit like Prust's.  So, in the context of Neal's and some other worse hits that only got the 3-5 game variety, I suppose you do make a valid point that 2 measures fairly against these.

[mojo1917]

boy that hit was late, i mean wow, that was headhunting, no matter what Prust says.

 

like what @yave1964 has said the injury to Price elevated the level of animosity in this series to "extreme" from "none".  I think if the Krieder/Price play never happens then this hit never happens.  

 

And this is why players can't be trusted to "police themselves" that stuff works to a point, but this series shows why that line of thought, which I adhere to to a point , is folly.

 

I think Prust got off light and **** Dan Carcillio he deserves 10 games for that mustache and a second

[ruxpin]

Dan Carcillio he deserves 10 games for that mustache and a second

 

I agree.

 

I think it's possible he got 3 for the incident and 7 because his name is Carcillo.  I'm actually good with that.

[canoli]

you're right of course Rux, "we've seen worse" is no defense. But it *is* reality, we've seen worse go unpunished, or punished much more aggressively.

 

So how do we establish a fair policy? We can't. There is no policy that can account for personalities doing what they do, for people being people. So what I say is this: err on the side of no "supplementary" discipline; only use it in the most egregious cases, like a 'roid-rage Bertuzzi going apeshit on the ice.

 

For everything else, which falls or could fall under "hockey hit" - enough is enough with these suspensions. They don't do any good. Sure once in a blue moon a guy like Cooke turns over a new leaf - for awhile...and then he deliberately knees a guy in the POs (Barrie) and takes him out of action. These guys are playing a violent game - on ice. WTF do we expect will happen? I'm not saying "give up completely" on player safety, I'm saying give up on suspensions. They don't work, they don't have the effect we want and their application is subjective and inconsistent.

 

I don't have the answers - how to fix it all, to make a violent, crazy game injury-free. Nobody does. It's a process but the process is getting sidetracked by the Dept of Player Saftey imo.

 

Bring back the ban on 2-line passes

Get rid of the draconian fines and penalties for bench-clearing brawls - quietly welcome them back into the game

get rid of the 3rd-man-in/instigator penalties

get rid of hybrid icing - make it automatic.

stop the nonsense calls for minor stick infractions and trips/holds

 

God knows nobody in charge wants to slow the game down but I think it has to be. At the same time the NHL has to allow players themselves to hand out the "supplemental" discipline more often - on the ice, at the time. I don't want to see "clutch n grab" '80s style hockey either but the game is way too fast now, while those in charge seem practically oblivious to the fact that hitting produces rage and a natural inclination toward revenge. There's nothing wrong with that - the sport should embrace it not run away from it by pretending they can suspend their way to an injury-free league.

[ruxpin]

you're right of course Rux, "we've seen worse" is no defense. But it *is* reality, we've seen worse go unpunished, or punished much more aggressively.

 

So how do we establish a fair policy? We can't. There is no policy that can account for personalities doing what they do, for people being people. So what I say is this: err on the side of no "supplementary" discipline; only use it in the most egregious cases, like a 'roid-rage Bertuzzi going apeshit on the ice.

 

For everything else, which falls or could fall under "hockey hit" - enough is enough with these suspensions. They don't do any good. Sure once in a blue moon a guy like Cooke turns over a new leaf - for awhile...and then he deliberately knees a guy in the POs (Barrie) and takes him out of action. These guys are playing a violent game - on ice. WTF do we expect will happen? I'm not saying "give up completely" on player safety, I'm saying give up on suspensions. They don't work, they don't have the effect we want and their application is subjective and inconsistent.

 

I don't have the answers - how to fix it all, to make a violent, crazy game injury-free. Nobody does. It's a process but the process is getting sidetracked by the Dept of Player Saftey imo.

 

Bring back the ban on 2-line passes

Get rid of the draconian fines and penalties for bench-clearing brawls - quietly welcome them back into the game

get rid of the 3rd-man-in/instigator penalties

get rid of hybrid icing - make it automatic.

stop the nonsense calls for minor stick infractions and trips/holds

 

God knows nobody in charge wants to slow the game down but I think it has to be. At the same time the NHL has to allow players themselves to hand out the "supplemental" discipline more often - on the ice, at the time. I don't want to see "clutch n grab" '80s style hockey either but the game is way too fast now, while those in charge seem practically oblivious to the fact that hitting produces rage and a natural inclination toward revenge. There's nothing wrong with that - the sport should embrace it not run away from it by pretending they can suspend their way to an injury-free league.

 

On first read-through, I was going to respond with "yeah, this" (except for the clutch and grab 80s.  I know you meant 90s, but figured I'd comment before someone else does.  )

 

I still agree on varying levels depending upon individual points, but you know why this won't happen, right?

 

First, we had the non-instigator and bench clearing stuff in the 70s and--while I found it to be extremely entertaining--it rendered hockey a niche third-class sport.  So, for the sake of television, etc., they really cannot go back to that (as much as I personally would love it). 

 

Second, when it comes down to it the league is an employer.  They have to give at least the appearance that they give a rodent's derriere about their employees' safety.  So, they have "safety" rules in place and penalties and supplemental discipline to enforce this "safety." 

 

I do agree with you that the suspensions don't seem to be eliminating or even reducing the problem.  Would you agree with me that they actually seem to be increasing the problem?  I don't know that it's the concept of supplementary discipline that isn't working or the way it's being practiced.   That's not a rhetorical technique; I really don't know.

 

Here's what I wonder:

1) I think you're right about the lack of accountability on the ice.   I'm okay with keeping the third man in call.   I'm okay with the instigator, but take away the minor penalty that is associated with it.  I think the possibility of putting your team down a man might be more of a deterrent than the being thrown out of the game.  So no minor with either the 3rd man in or the instigator; just the game.  No supplementary action (fine, games, or otherwise) with these calls, either.   I think if players can be more honest about response rather than waiting for the cheap shot when no one is looking, this may actually help.  If the game misconduct then proves to be the actual deterrent, then revisit it.

 

2) Slowing the game down.  I agree; I don't want to go back to clutch and grab although it actually didn't bother me in the slightest when we had it.  I think seeing hockey without makes me realize I like it better the way it is currently played, but without that contrast I didn't really realize a problem before.   I don't know how you otherwise slow the game down.  Would putting the red line back in help?  I'm with you on the icing thing.  I think I would prefer the old way with the "regular" (for lack of a better word.  Traditional?) icing, but would prefer the full-stop automatic icing to the hybrid.  The hybrid causes too many iffy moments for me and I don't like it.  Not sure if this helps with the speed, but it's worth doing either way.

 

3) Supplementary discipline.  Like you said, and I said above, whatever they are doing now  clearly isn't working.  But be patient with me for a moment.  I'm not sure it's the suspensions but the seemingly arbitrary way they are being done.  For example, some player (we'll call him Ruutu) sees a player lined up.  If he hits him in a dirty or illegal manner, it is unlikely players are going to do anything other than maybe push/shove and that's about it.  So no deterrent there.   As far as suspensions, there have been clearly horrible hits that got nothing, some that got one, some three, some five.  So, I have the chance for a really solid, deadly hit.  I think I'll take my chances on the roulette wheel that is the Department of Player safety.  So, really, no deterrent there.  What if the starting point were 5 games?

 

I know no player is thinking about all this while the play is happening or their "victim" would be on the bench before Ruutu would have made the decision.  But it does go to mentality ahead of time because I do think there are players who weigh the situation with the league right now and say "screw it."

 

I don't know.  I think we're at the "is capital punishment really a deterrent" argument and I can definitely find myself agreeing with your side of it.  And I agree with you that there doesn't seem to be a good (practical?  effective?) way of establishing some automatic gradation of penalty.   Like you said, each situation is different enough and adds a different wrinkle that it's hard to say, "okay, this hit falls into X-category; 3 games!"   So if there really is the absence of this, maybe it doesn't matter whether the baseline is 1 or 5 games. I just wonder if a minimum of 5 games for an illegal hit wouldn't at least temporarily send enough of a message to calm the situation. 

 

I think we clearly see the same problem, canoli.  I'm just not honestly sure which direction I'd go to attempt to fix it.

[nossagog]

The puck had been gone since the day before. Let's not pretend it was barely gone. It's not even in the wide shot when Prust commits to the hit. It was grossly late and a shot to the head.

I'd like to see the rags light him up when he returns

 

I've never been an eye for an eye guy.  But if I was, I'd leave Prust alone.  Take it out on Pacioretty and skate past Therien and make a loud comment about it just being a hockey play, just like Prust's.  The Habs could care less about missing him, just ask their fans.