Quote:
Originally Posted by sylar
wat? how? because a repeat offender would be faced with a cap on the number of games suspended, where a first-time offender could potentially face an indefinite suspension? gtfo, i am not in favor of arbitrary rulings, i thought that much was clear.
Exactly, you're basically arguing that because there is already an automatic suspension for Ovechkin due to his amount of misconducts that the one game is all he should get. Not only is it not true but it would still be bull****.
Quote:
the system is already backwards, 'violent' hits are already assessed on whether the victim fakes a nose bleed or gets back up. game misconducts occur on freak hits and injuries. i may hate the rules, but i abide by them.
But the possibility of supplementary discipline is in the rulebook. Why do you have a problem with that?
Quote:
now you are throwing the speed and how many pounds ov has on campbell ******ation in the mix. do you think lapierre hit was worse than ov or adams? it happened at much slower speed, nichol's season wasn't over, and under the rules lapierre wasn't a repeat offender. hell, he didn't even get a minor on the play (same as that crimson asshat adams), so game misconducts don't apply.
The Lapierre hit was dirtier, mostly because it was extremely late. Ovechkin's hit was more dangerous, so they're more or less a wash. If you're trying to make a point by comparing the nuances of both hits as to why each got suspended for x amount of games you really are clueless. They didn't suspend Lapierre for twice as long because the hit was twice as bad, lolol.
Quote:
this rule has been QUOTED in this thread enough times. i know it from reading it here, and further reading about suspensions. 41 games applies to an automatic suspension. by virtue of one game ovechkin circumvents the rule, so it's not automatic, but the league gives him 1 game anyway. fine. gives him another game for being a repeat offender and sympathy for brian campbell. ok. believe it or not there is some leeway for the league's decision without the black hole that is boarding penalties starts to collapse onto itself. this type of illegal hit has been known for years. if the suspensions given are always much longer than is prescribed by the book, then what the f is the point of having rules?
I agree that the automatic suspension rule is stupid, especially if it doesn't apply after 41 games. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, though, because that rule is irrelevant when there is a clause for supplementary discipline after any of these hits. Does it really bother you that much that there is a meaningless rule that doesn't affect anything in the rulebook? All it shows is that the NHL is stupid, but we knew that already.
Quote:
btw, i am not in favor of having 2 rulebooks for stars/non-stars, but i understand triumph's argument why that is so. this is not my argument here. it's not that lapierre and adams are scrubs and ov is a star. boarding is pretty well defined but not always enforced within a game. the suspension rulings are a joke too, but for once both the refs and the league gets it right almost to the letter. yet you are calling for a suspension twice as long for some bull**** reason like he is too fast and too strong (you hate OV -- there i said it).
I don't hate Ovechkin. I think he's the best player in the game, the most exciting to watch by far, and he has a great personality. I don't go out of my way for reasons to bash him. But because I happen to think he got off lightly considering his history of dirty hits, the extent of the injury his opponent suffered, and the length of suspension for a similar hit to another player recently that makes me an Ovechkin hater? You are comical, and considering several other people ITT have said the same thing as me about him getting off easy it appears you really only wanted to pick a fight with me. And I wonder why? Because you can easily spin it off as me just being some senseless Ovechkin hater because I'm a Penguins fan. Well done, but everybody knows who the biased one is here. It's the guy who only comes ITT to defend Caps players or Russians. Yep, not biased at all though right?
Quote:
so you ARE penalizing players for being too strong, and too durable when they manage to NOT get hurt on a hit?
Right, because that's exactly what I said.
Quote:
speed is not a governing factor while force clearly is, and no that's not what i am arguing. intent is already a governing factor, and a much more subjective at that. explain to me how adding more subjective governing factors improves anything about the game.
Intent really has little to do with this play - we can almost all agree that Ovechkin did not intent do hurt Campbell. It's still yet another reckless hit that everybody who has ever played hockey is taught to let up there. Suspensions are already governed with subjective analysis, I really don't see the big deal. I guess as long as the subjective analysis used to determine suspension length benefits Ovechkin you're fine with it. I can't say that I blame you, but it's a ridiculous angle to try to use in an argument.
Quote:
fine, hide behind 'the refs will always miss something'. it's awesome when that works out for the penguins, isn't it?
What part of that text you quoted has anything to do with the referees? But as long as you get a thinly veiled shot at the Penguins that's all that matters right?
Quote:
what a crock. now retribution is a governing factor?
No, but the damage done is and always will be when you do something illegal. People here want the actions to be punished without results as a factor but that will never happen in any sport or any facet of life. Get over it.