<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pmxcodano" data-cid="228483" data-time="1399144769">
<div>
Since when does how hurt someone is or how long they lay on the ice determine how long a suspension should be</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</p>
</p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pmxcodano" data-cid="228484" data-time="1399144959">
<div>
Its fantastic to be able to split something frame by frame and crybhead shot because a shoulder glances him. Then go on to claim intent based on fractions of a second
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Alright, you've been gone a while, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.</p>
</p>
I never said any of that. I said the opposite as far as the intent of what Seabrook was trying to. I don't think he was trying to knock Backes out. But you still can't make that hit on a player in a defenseless position like that. So his suspension was deserved. Just because they won the game makes no difference as to whether or not he should get suspended, that's fucking crazy. There's no other argument needed for that, it's just fucking crazy to think like that.</p>
</p>
The problem the NHL has isn't that they are suspending more players, it's the consistency in their suspensions. I mean, it has to be done, whether you believe it or not. With as much is being learned and has been learned about head trauma and concussions alone, a standard has to be set by the league. They just aren't consistent with it. If 3 games is the base line, the first punishment for a guy like Seabrook, who had no past history of doing things like that, that's fine. But that's not how they go about doing it when they still give repeat offenders the same amount or nothing whatsoever. That's the real problem. Not that they're suspending players, but the consistency in them.</p>
