|
|
Post by Bob on May 7, 2004 10:10:01 GMT -5
According to breaking news on TSN, Perezhogin will be suspended for the entire 2004-05 season.
|
|
|
|
Post by FormerLurker on May 7, 2004 11:19:10 GMT -5
And only six games for Stafford. Incidents of this type will continue to happen if the dimwits in the league offices continue to punish based on the result of the action, instead of the intent of the action.
Morons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 7, 2004 11:27:34 GMT -5
And only six games for Stafford. Incidents of this type will continue to happen if the dimwits in the league offices continue to punish based on the result of the action, instead of the intent of the action. Morons. I think he was punished on the intent! The result was a concussion, a couple of teeth and stitches. That happens everyday in hockey. Two handed swings to the face don't happen everyday. Perezhoegin and Plekanec are two more short forwards. We have lots of those on the team and more coming up in Higgins and Locke. If he returns to Europe he can come back after a year. No huge loss for the Hab's or for him. The punishment fit the crime. Stafford should get more than six games. Come to think of it, he did via Perez the enforcer. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on May 7, 2004 11:46:55 GMT -5
I think he was punished on the intent! How do you determine/prove intent? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 7, 2004 11:49:09 GMT -5
I think he was punished on the intent! Six games is not punishment . . . it's If you would be so kind, please don't do that again. |
|
|
|
Post by FormerLurker on May 7, 2004 11:49:47 GMT -5
I think he was punished on the intent! I wasn't commenting on Perez's stiff suspension, but rather Stafford's extremely light one. They both had the same intent to injure, yet one gets six games and the other gets a year. Pure hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
Post by oldhabsfan on May 7, 2004 11:50:25 GMT -5
Was any action taken on the referee's incompetence/neglect of duty?
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 7, 2004 11:54:57 GMT -5
I just watched the replay several times.
It looks worse in slo-mo.
1. Perezhogen was struck in the head by a slash from Stafford.
2. He reacted instinctively.
3. He overreacted.
4. It was in the heat of the game.
5. It was not unprevoked.
6. It is excessive use of force and could be construed as criminal action.
7. One year suspension is about right.
The purpose of the justice system is threefold.
1. Rehabilitate offenders
2. Punish offenders
3. Protect society from danger
1. The punishment has taught Perezhogin a lesson (and has sent a message to all hockey players)
2. The punishment is sufficiently severe to avoid the criminal system from stepping in to press charges
3. The punishment protects hockey players from a certain amount of excessive violence in the future
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 7, 2004 11:59:35 GMT -5
The purpose of the justice system is threefold. 1. Rehabilitate offenders 2. Punish offenders 3. Protect society from danger 1. The punishment has taught Perezhogin a lesson (and has sent a message to all hockey players) 2. The punishment is sufficiently severe to avoid the criminal system from stepping in to press charges 3. The punishment protects hockey players from a certain amount of excessive violence in the future Unfortunately it also condones initial offenses that do not cause harm and reinforces the need to take care when retaliating (as does the Bertuzzi incident). So I'm not so sure about points 3. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 7, 2004 12:01:17 GMT -5
I wasn't commenting on Perez's stiff suspension, but rather Stafford's extremely light one. They both had the same intent to injure, yet one gets six games and the other gets a year. Pure hypocrisy. I agreed that Stafford should get more than 6 games. He did. He got stitches and a concussion. It's like the judge saying six games plus time served. Six games for hitting a player on the helmet with a stick could be considered light, but I don't think the overall judgement handed down is a hypocracy. A little too light on Stafford and a little severe for Perezhogin. Perez's slash was truly dangerous vs. a high stick swung to the helmet bu Stafford. Neither has a place in hockey. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 7, 2004 12:05:50 GMT -5
Unfortunately it also condones initial offenses that do not cause harm and reinforces the need to take care when retaliating (as does the Bertuzzi incident). So I'm not so sure about points 3. We can never protect players from violence any more than we can protect the World Trade Center from all crazies. In Los Angeles murder is a DAILY occurance and the police can't protect everyone. I think Point 3 said that it protects players from a certain amount of violence, having the perpetrators know that the penalties will be severe. Nothing can protect all players from all mishaps. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 7, 2004 13:50:52 GMT -5
I think Point 3 said that it protects players from a certain amount of violence, having the perpetrators know that the penalties will be severe. Nothing can protect all players from all mishaps. Disagree. There is no protection in threatening retribution at all. If the threats worked, no one in Texas would ever kill another (caopital punishment); if the threats worked, no one in hockey would ever swing his stick or chase someone down from behind. This wasn't a mishap or an accident; it was a deliberate swing. Deliberate attempt to injure? I hope not, just reactionary conduct in which the protection of which you speak was not evidenced. |
|
|
|
Post by ethan on May 7, 2004 14:53:58 GMT -5
1. The punishment has taught Perezhogin a lesson (and has sent a message to all hockey players) 2. The punishment is sufficiently severe to avoid the criminal system from stepping in to press charges 3. The punishment protects hockey players from a certain amount of excessive violence in the future The only point that I would agree with is that it sent a strong message to all AHL hockey players (and we can only hope the NHL was listening... clearly with Antropov and Hatcher not being suspended for their deliberate attemts to injure opposing players, the NHL does not deal out adequate punishment for violent offences.) How do you know what message perez gets from this... He could easily see this as an injustice (i sure do), that the punishment does not fit the crime and that he's being scapegoated. If, as you mentioned, Perez acted in the heat of the moment and was provoked, then I don't see how this will prevent future violent, provoked, in the heat of battle responses. Giving a player, with no past of violent offenses (not one major the entire year!!!), a year suspension, plus the entire playoffs (which really amounts to a second season), for a retaliatory action is definitely, imo, way too harsh. The punishment in this case does not fit the crime, period. Perezhogin is being used as a scapegoat for the growing negative image hockey is building as a result of these types of actions, and that is not right, that is NOT what justice is supposed to do. Was perezhogin's action worse than the slash that broke Zetterbergs leg ealrier this season??? Both where two handed swings delivered at about the same height. Perez did it after taking a shot to/near the head, the guy that hit zetterberg did it because he couldn't keep up with him... that guy got I believe four games... perez gets 80 plus playoffs?  I'm sorry, but justice in this case has not been served.... Perez has gone from "criminal" to victim in my books, and I really hope that Gainey and hte habs/bulldogs appeal this case... as gainey said, i'm in SHOCK... |
|
