|
Written by Kevin Sellathamby
|
|
Friday, 08 April 2011 18:00 |
|
If there's one thing I don't like in the NHL, it's the disciplinary system. It's wildly inconsistent, so much to the extent that hockey fans actually feel that suspensions are decided by spinning a wheel. Some punishments make sense- Matt Cooke recieving 14+ games for an elbow to the head made sense- especially after he was suspended earlier that month for a John Cena-esque shoulder block. Others, not so much- Zdeno Chara getting away with a reckless hit on Max Pacioretty, Todd Bertuzzi getting nothing except 5 and a game misconduct for a despicable hit on Ryan Johnson, and how James Wisnewski got two games for an obscene gesture. While i'd like to go on a rant about those decisions, I also want to look at another thing that's bugging me- what the NHL considers a "repeat offender".
From the NHL CBA, Exhibit 8 section 5d) [S]tatus as a "first" or "repeat" offender shall be re-determined every eighteen (18) months. For example, where a Player is suspended for the first time, he is a repeat offender if he is suspended again within eighteen (18) months of the first incident. If he is not suspended a second time within this eighteen (18) month period, he will no longer be treated as a repeat offender for disciplinary purposes What really bugs me is the whole "18 months" and your clean part. Look at Todd Bertuzzi- He was suspended for his attack on Steve Moore, but he's managed to avoid getting suspended since then. Bertuzzi's hit on Johnson was pretty blatant- Bertuzzi's forearm even hit Johnson in the head. Yet the NHL was okay with letting him walk away scot free. Think of Bertuzzi being considered "clean" (as in not a repeat offender) by the league- if Matt Cooke was able to go 18 months without getting a suspension (note: this is a hypothetical, no way Cooke goes that long without getting suspended), the repeat offender tag would be gone. All those past offenses go down the drain, as if they were meaningless. What bothers me is that if a player is able to go 18 months without it, they're considered "clean", and the next suspension will be treated as if it was their first. One thing that comes to mind here is this saying "a Leopard can't change it's spots" Once a goon, always a goon. Even if Bertuzzi did actually go 18 months without a suspension, i'd at least hope that they'd consider someone's past actions for dirty plays. I'm not saying the NHL should go all out and have records of every suspension a player had, but they should at least consider past offenses, even if they were a long time ago. Joe Thornton had three prior suspensions- two in 2000, and one in 2002 (look under "Transactions"). While neither of those affected his recent suspension for his headshot on David Perron, he has been suspended before and look- he got suspended again. It's not a matter of how long someone is able to keep clean, but it's who's responsible for them. Keeping clean is half the battle- the other half is not going back to what made you an offender.
|