Carcillo Discipline Hearing Set For 1:00PM Saturday

[LordKOTL]

It must be selective.



So does Carcillo go down to the 4th line with Stalberg playing like he is currently?



...or not?



I say dont fix what aint broke.

Considering that Carbomb looked good with Meyers, sure.

 

[Variable]

wrong again. He has no history of this type of offense. Should have been a fine. But nice back pedal friend of no friend.

So Carcillo does't have a history of stupid and wreckless behavior on the ice? He hasn't been suspended for doing stupid things before? We never worried about him playing like that once we heard this pick up? Come on.

...and the fact that Campbell's collarbone was broken and he missed quite a few games.

Shouldn't make a difference at all. One of the dumbest things to factor in on disciplining the offending player is whether or not he actually hurt the other player or he just got lucky and the other player was okay.

 

[R K]

Pay fucking attention. He has no history in the aspect they suspended him for. If you "chose" to use other criteria you are doing something they have said they wouldn't, but did.



Round and round we fucking go. Should have been a fine as a FIRST FUCKING OFFENSE!!!

 

[Variable]

Well I wouldn't agree with that anyway, the first type of that offense being a fine when you already have a questionable history of behavior in the league and have already been suspended numerous times.

 

[dlrob315]

Pay fucking attention. He has no history in the aspect they suspended him for. If you "chose" to use other criteria you are doing something they have said they wouldn't, but did.



Round and round we fucking go. Should have been a fine as a FIRST FUCKING OFFENSE!!!

All visits to the principle office, counts, all visits to the police station, counts...it's a reflection of real life. It's all good.

 

[R K]

Really? So if you are convicted of a Felony it's reflected the same as a Misdemeanor the next time around?



Ok.

 

[Variable]

No it's more like you've been put on probation and continue to do stupid things and get in trouble. Yes, they will be watching you, you will be targeted, you will not get the benefit of the doubt the same as someone who hasn't done stupid things in the past. He only has himself to blame for that.

 

[R K]

"repeat offender".



Ovechkin was a "repeat offender".



Carcillo, not so much.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

"repeat offender".



Ovechkin was a "repeat offender".



Carcillo, not so much.

Yup.



Anyways... at least Carcillo is back to pound the shit out of Skille tomorrow if he decides to be a big boy.

 

[mikita's helmet]

Shouldn't make a difference at all. One of the dumbest things to factor in on disciplining the offending player is whether or not he actually hurt the other player or he just got lucky and the other player was okay.

It should make a difference. First, there should be a suspension for the attempt to injure another player. Second, additional games should be added if the attempt results in an injury and the player misses a game or games. It's not dumb at all to factor in the consequences that result from the offenders attempt to injure.



Folks get executed for murdering other folks. They don't get executed for attempting to murder other folks.

 

[Variable]

****'s sake man, these comparisons hahaha.



If a player lays out a dirty hit, he was going in high, knee to knee (which is kinda ridiculous) whatever, that should already be a suspension. I believe it should be more of a suspension than it is now, but that's digressing a bit. If the player that he hits doesn't get hurt, the offending player shouldn't be disciplined any less than he would have been if he had been hurt. How the other reacts and recovers from the hit should have nothing to do with the existence of a suspension and/or the length and severity of that suspension because it varies so much from person to person. It can be the ugliest hit of all time, but if the other gets player bounces right back up, it shouldn't be taken lightly and vice versa. Like I've heard commentators say in the past couple years about dirty(illegal and penalized) hits in their game that they've seen that the player who laid out the hit is lucky the other guy is still playing (if he was). No, he shouldn't be lucky that's what happened. It doesn't change what he did and shouldn't change the league's action taken on him.



Every player reacts differently from a hit and from being hit, like Pitkanen wasn't hurt from that hit. That shouldn't be "good news" for the offending player. To legislate punishment based on something like that is actually protecting the still dangerous and reckless plays (and in effect, protecting those reckless players) that occur in the game that don't leave a number or head count in missed time on the ice for the players that fall victim to them. To bring it full circle, the Carcillo hit. That's an example of it. Pitkanen isn't hurt, or will miss any games from being hurt, but that's a dirty hit from a player who's had a history of being reckless. To not suspend him would be protecting that type of play and that type of player, allowing it.



And before everyone starts up with he's a "first time offender!!11!!" (and in which talking about Carcillo and saying that about him is probably one of the loosest applicable uses of that term in the league) I don't agree at all with a fine for the initial offense for a player with a history of being suspended. Fines don't work for those players. And they've proven it by.....continuing to get fined and suspended those worthless 2 game Campbell-esqe suspensions. But again, that's digressing into another topic.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

It should make a difference. First, there should be a suspension for the attempt to injure another player. Second, additional games should be added if the attempt results in an injury and the player misses a game or games. It's not dumb at all to factor in the consequences that result from the offenders attempt to injure.



Folks get executed for murdering other folks. They don't get executed for attempting to murder other folks.

That's the thing, this is an area where too much grey pollutes and generates too much of a pick and choose situation. Inequality on the ruling.

 

[R K]

That's the thing, this is an area where too much grey pollutes and generates too much of a pick and choose situation. Inequality on the ruling.

Yup. It should be more clear regadless of the players last name. At least in the "new" rulings on hits.

 

[MassHavoc]

You can not prove intent to injure on either of the plays, or really in any of the suspensions unless someone tries to decapitate someone with their stick. Hockey is a hard tough game and everyone on the ice is competing. Some people lack the skill of others so they make up for it with energy and hardnosed play. The game is so fast paced that it's hard to make sure that you are lined up as perfect as necessary to deliver a mind numbing blow that is both devastating and legal. Even headshots may look horrible but I don't think than any hockey player goes into any hit trying to break someone elses collarbone, or end their career. They may want to ring their bell and make them thing twice about coming across the middle, but I think there are very few if any players/incidents that you can look at with absolute certainty that their was an intent to injure and decapitate. Some plays are more vicious than others for sure, but I don't feel like an injury after the fact should factor into the discipline unless you have a clear knowledge that that injury was the intended result going in, which is near impossible with out having a microphone inside someone's head. Especially if you are trying to keep things consistent, you need consistent objectionable data to make a clear and consistent result.

 

[chasman]

That's the thing, this is an area where too much grey pollutes and generates too much of a pick and choose situation. Inequality on the ruling.

WE HAVE A WINNER............

 

[Variable]

You can not prove intent to injure on either of the plays, or really in any of the suspensions unless someone tries to decapitate someone with their stick. Hockey is a hard tough game and everyone on the ice is competing. Some people lack the skill of others so they make up for it with energy and hardnosed play. The game is so fast paced that it's hard to make sure that you are lined up as perfect as necessary to deliver a mind numbing blow that is both devastating and legal. Even headshots may look horrible but I don't think than any hockey player goes into any hit trying to break someone elses collarbone, or end their career. They may want to ring their bell and make them thing twice about coming across the middle, but I think there are very few if any players/incidents that you can look at with absolute certainty that their was an intent to injure and decapitate. Some plays are more vicious than others for sure, but I don't feel like an injury after the fact should factor into the discipline unless you have a clear knowledge that that injury was the intended result going in, which is near impossible with out having a microphone inside someone's head. Especially if you are trying to keep things consistent, you need consistent objectionable data to make a clear and consistent result.

Right. What hurts or knocks one player out, may not do the same to another. To try and tack the amount of games suspended on/off based on that is ridiculous. Again we have a first hand example: Brian Campbell broke his collarbone and was out until the playoffs on that same kind of hit Pitkanen took and he went back on the ice and actually finished with the most time on the ice on his team and won't miss any games due to it. So what should have happened there? Both Ovechkin and Carcillo has a history of doing stupid things on the ice, Carcillo's hit doesn't take Pitkanen out so he should just get fined and I guess that's it, but Campbell was hurt so Ovechkin should sit out how many more games? Until Campbell comes back? How do you even decide that basing it off severity? That seems even more rinky dink than it was with Colin Campbell in charge of it.



And I agree, how the hell do you prove intent to injure? Every big hit that is attempted, clean ones included, you can bring up as an attempt to injure going by that wording.

 

[R K]

You can not prove intent to injure on either of the plays, or really in any of the suspensions unless someone tries to decapitate someone with their stick. Hockey is a hard tough game and everyone on the ice is competing. Some people lack the skill of others so they make up for it with energy and hardnosed play. The game is so fast paced that it's hard to make sure that you are lined up as perfect as necessary to deliver a mind numbing blow that is both devastating and legal. Even headshots may look horrible but I don't think than any hockey player goes into any hit trying to break someone elses collarbone, or end their career. They may want to ring their bell and make them thing twice about coming across the middle, but I think there are very few if any players/incidents that you can look at with absolute certainty that their was an intent to injure and decapitate. Some plays are more vicious than others for sure, but I don't feel like an injury after the fact should factor into the discipline unless you have a clear knowledge that that injury was the intended result going in, which is near impossible with out having a microphone inside someone's head. Especially if you are trying to keep things consistent, you need consistent objectionable data to make a clear and consistent result.

I don't think either were intent to injure. Nor did they rule that way in either suspension.



I think they were wreckless plays. One had a previous history of Wreckless plays, IE THREE TIMES, and one did not.



Yet the suspensions were the same. Ovechkin got the suspension because that was his 3rd infraction of this TYPE of play. Carcillo go the suspension because his name was Carcillo. Brian Campbell being injured I doubt played much role in it, in that was Ovechkins 3rd disciplinary hearing for THOSE TYPES of hits.



Kubina, got 2/3 games... Bolland missed most of the rest of the year and possibly cost the Hawks a first round victory. And that was CLEAR intention to injure. Wasn't even near the play/puck on the ice.



This is a new year. There are new standards. Everyone should have had a clean slate UNLESS they had issues previously with wreckless play. Guess that doesn't work that way.



I said in chat that should have been a penalty. Should have also been a fine, but the suspension is way over board on a first offense.

 

[Variable]

Again, that's a term applied pretty fucking loose to a guy like Carcillo. Why does Carcillo have the reputation he has? You know it the same as I do. The answer to that is why he was suspended. Is it clear in the new Shanahan era, about what all the "rules" are exactly, no I agree with you on that. But that's a different issue from this, the same one the NHL has been dealing with for years and years. A different topic. When shouldn't the NHL be more clear and consistent with this?



A fine for a player that does have a history of reckless play and bad decision making is useless, it does little to nothing. This is the same guy when we heard was signed that people were saying that he would have to be kept under control (which to his credit, he really has, excluding this) and if it was possible. We knew how he played, we knew how he was akin to bringing up the elbows on hits. Just because he hadn't been suspended for it doesn't mean he isn't a dirty player. Stupid bullshit like how many times did he take a dive when he was with Flyers? What about his "playing days" in Phoenix? He deserves the attention he gets, he has no one else to blame but himself and his actions on the ice. And he's complaining about it's because of his name? Give me a fucking break man. Take a look at your career and what you've done. There's good reason why he's scrutinized.



But I don't hate him in how he's played so far as a Hawk. Other than this, he's been surprisingly great, but what's going overboard is saying he doesn't have a history of reckless play. A 324 penalty minute season in only 54 games and 5 suspensions (more of which were probably warranted) over the course of 4 years alone argues the opposite pretty damn loudly.

 

[PatrickSharpRules]

Will be nice to have him in the lineup tonight.

 

[R K]

He has no history for wreckless play as far as suspensions, warnings or any other rulings. If you'd like to make shit up fee free. His penalty minutes did not result in supliment discipline for wreckless behavior on the ice. You can type as many long winded paragraphs as you like it still won't change the facts.





For the example of Ovechkin's verses Carcillo's, Ovechkin had discipline 2-3 times PRIOR to Campbells hit, which were the direct result of wreckless behavior on the ice. He was given 2 games for that instance and was fined the previous time. Which is what should have happened to Carcillo.





I agree PSR. He's done exactly what he should have here. Even with this incident, which most certainly wasn't intentional.