|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on May 9, 2004 18:00:11 GMT -5
The act was the same, why should the punishment be different ? For the same reason that criminal negligence causing bodily harm is treated differently than that causing death. For the same reason that attempted murder is treated differently than murder. The problem is that in hockey, no matter how reckless or vicious your act, you don't get the spotlight unless you inflict serious damage. That's a problem. Suspensions of 40+ games should be reserved for intentionally causing serious harm to a player. These will often be accompanied by criminal prosecution. Attempts to cause serious injury which are unsuccessful should be no less than 5 games. Reckless play that results in serious injury? 15 games or so, depending on the circumstances. Reckless play that does not result in serious injury should be somewhere between one and five games. In Perezhogin's case, I would say the act was intentional, but the result was not. That is, he intended to whack Stafford with his stick. He did not (imo) intend to crack him in the face. Nonetheless, he's got to be accountable. I would say somewhere in the range of 30 to 40 games is appropriate. Bertuzzi? Imo he intended to hurt Moore and he succeeded. It was clearly premeditated. You don't have to premeditate the results (fractured vertabrae). He should get 50 games or so. For second offenders, the punishments should go up. This is already something the NHL considers. For a third (intentional) act that caused or could have caused serious harm, you're out. Three strikes and you're out. The leagues (ECHL, AHL, CHL, IIHF, etc) should all get together over a beer and sign an undertaking to respect the suspensions and discipline handed down by the other leagues. If everything were as it should be, Perezhogin would be suspended for about half of next season. He could practice with the Dogs but that's about it.... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 9, 2004 18:25:26 GMT -5
The problem is that this means punishing the result, and not the intent. Few high-sticks lead to severe injuries, but the odd one will. I'd try to punish the act and the intent, separately from the result. Very good points, PTH. Severe premeditated injuries should be dealt with the most severly. However, taking it a bit further, whether successful or not, intent to injure should also be dealt with just as severely. Also, if high-sticking infractions were consistently called on the premise that a player should always be in control of his stick, then I'm pretty sure we'd see the sticks come down. Accidents happen, but I feel they're happening with more frequency nowadays because of the lack of creditable officiating. True, there's nothing wrong with good, clean hits within the rules. However, I was talking about stick-related infractions. That aside though, since you've mentioned body checking, I feel charging should be dealt with much harsher. In the case of charging, intent should be a given as it is often the result of an intent to injure. Like charging, proving intent to injure by cross-checking the head of another player shouldn't be an issue either; you do the crime, you do the time. The on-ice punishment should be the same, IMHO. However, I also believe that the same infraction can be made with differing results. Hence, if, as a result of that cross check, one player is paralysed, then the offending player should be made to suffer the consequences equally to that of the injury. If the same infraction was committed with lesser injuries, a five-and-a-match would suffice with me, the intent being more than warranted. Coming full circle on you, yes, I wholeheartedly agree that intent should be an issue. It's entirely possible the NHL can base an entire meeting just on the intent issue. There's nothing wrong with good, clean hitting, there is a place for in hockey. However, when dealing with stick infractions and/or charging and boarding, the NHL should really come down hard. And I believe the message would get around pretty fast. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 10, 2004 7:11:25 GMT -5
The leagues (ECHL, AHL, CHL, IIHF, etc) should all get together over a beer and sign an undertaking to respect the suspensions and discipline handed down by the other leagues. Now is the time to do it. Entrench it in the CBA. Spell it out, loud and clear, with no room for negotiation, interpretation, or leeway. The CBA is up, the deal with the Russian Federation is up, I'm gonna assume the agreements between the AHL and IIHF are negotiable. Get it down now, while hockey is out anyways... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 10, 2004 7:29:47 GMT -5
Now is the time to do it. Entrench it in the CBA. Spell it out, loud and clear, with no room for negotiation, interpretation, or leeway. The CBA is up, the deal with the Russian Federation is up, I'm gonna assume the agreements between the AHL and IIHF are negotiable. Get it down now, while hockey is out anyways... It would be easily defeated in court, particularly in US courts. Let's keep things in perspective, this is hockey we are talking about, not mass murderers. Nor are they conspiring to ban Dr. Kavorkian.  Also..... CBA's do not supercede the courts. (Sheesh.....all this legal talk is giving me a hankering for Armani suits, cafe lates and a private table at McDonalds. ) |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 10, 2004 7:37:52 GMT -5
It would be easily defeated in court, particularly in US courts. Let's keep things in perspective, this is hockey we are talking about, not mass murderers. Nor are they conspiring to ban Dr. Kavorkian. Also..... CBA's do not supercede the courts. So would just about every other aspect of sports contracts. How many other industries do not allow an employee to leave the company they are with - a company they had no choice but to join - before they are 31, even if they don't have a contract??What is your point? That somebody would challenge it in court? That possibility is always there... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 10, 2004 7:46:51 GMT -5
So would just about every other aspect of sports contracts. How many other industries do not allow an employee to leave the company they are with - a company they had no choice but to join - before they are 31, even if they don't have a contract??What is your point? That somebody would challenge it in court? That possibility is always there... Don't make me think so much, it hurts........ You are willingly joining a collective and willingly agreeing to the conditions of that collective. You still have options of NOT joining that collective and plying your trade elsewhere. However..... If ALL the other collectives ban together and limit your choices then THAT is illegal. You have the right to pursue a living free from discrimination and undue restraints. Dammit....now I need another cafe late..... |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 10, 2004 10:24:25 GMT -5
A disatisfied HabsRus reader writes: Habs prospect Perezhogin was wrong, but so was Stafford JACK TODD The Gazette Monday, May 10, 2004 OK, so we owe Alexander Perezhogin an apology - and so does the American Hockey League. The initial clip we saw of Perezhogin swinging his stick at the head of Garrett Stafford of the Cleveland Barons did not show the entire play, nor did the initial news reports make much of Stafford's actions. Once you see the full clip, you realize that Stafford's intention was every bit as malicious as Perezhogin's and Stafford was the instigator. Perezhogin, as so often happens, was just retaliating. That doesn't make Perezhogin right: It makes the two equally guilty. No quarrel here with Perezhogin's suspension for the balance of the playoffs and all of next season. If hockey officials are going to put a stop to this stuff, they have to get tough. But six games for Stafford? What is the message here? That if you swing your stick at a guy's head and miss it's OK? Tucking them in: Once again, the Leafs go out with Darcy Tucker cheap-shotting his way to the golf course, this time with hits to the heads of Vladimir Malakhov and Sami Kapanen. While the AHL gets tough with first-time offender Perezhogin, Tucker gets away with this stuff season after season. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Perezhogin is a Russian while Tucker is a) a good Canadian boy; b) a Maple Leaf; and c) a Don Cherry favourite, now could it? - excerpted from the full Toddy |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on May 10, 2004 16:52:43 GMT -5
For the same reason that criminal negligence causing bodily harm is treated differently than that causing death. For the same reason that attempted murder is treated differently than murder. This is going to sound dumb, but what is that reason? Is the person who tried to shoot someone and missed less likely to repeat then the person who didn't miss? Don't you learn more from the mistakes that have the most serious consequences? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 10, 2004 17:51:50 GMT -5
This is going to sound dumb, but what is that reason? Is the person who tried to shoot someone and missed less likely to repeat then the person who didn't miss? Don't you learn more from the mistakes that have the most serious consequences? I agree with you MC, but the world isn't fair. If we get drunk and drive home, and I'm lucky and make it home uneventfully, but you hit someone who pulls out in front of you, you lose your license and probably learn a lesson. I keep on doing the same thing until I get caught. You definitely learn from the consequences. Perezhogin's offence was much much worse than Bertuzzi's. He took a two handed swing with a stick and absolutely was trying to injure. Bertuzzi was attempting to provoke a fight with a facerub. Too bad it had to happen to a hab. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 10, 2004 18:13:51 GMT -5
This is going to sound dumb, but what is that reason? Is the person who tried to shoot someone and missed less likely to repeat then the person who didn't miss? Don't you learn more from the mistakes that have the most serious consequences? I'd guess that the idea is that if you did something and missed, we can't be sure if you really intended to do so. However, if you actually go through with it and succeed, there's no doubt left. |
|
|
|
Post by FormerLurker on May 10, 2004 18:35:35 GMT -5
For the same reason that criminal negligence causing bodily harm is treated differently than that causing death. For the same reason that attempted murder is treated differently than murder. The problem is that in hockey, no matter how reckless or vicious your act, you don't get the spotlight unless you inflict serious damage. That's a problem. . Wow. For a man that's usually spot-on, I amazed by how far off you are here on this one. Your argument begins with resignation. You seem resigned that, in society at large, one gets punished more harshly for the results of one's actions than for the actions themselves. Murder vs. attempted murder, etc. But then you say that that the problem in hockey is that you don't get noticed unless you decapitate someone. By calling this a problem, you recognise that attemted decapitation is an equal crime. Look. What's right in hockey is right in society at large, and vice-versa. If dude tries to kill me, he should be punished harshly. Just as harshly as if he had actually killed me. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 10, 2004 19:48:17 GMT -5
Wow. For a man that's usually spot-on, I amazed by how far off you are here on this one. Your argument begins with resignation. You seem resigned that, in society at large, one gets punished more harshly for the results of one's actions than for the actions themselves. Murder vs. attempted murder, etc. But then you say that that the problem in hockey is that you don't get noticed unless you decapitate someone. By calling this a problem, you recognise that attemted decapitation is an equal crime. Look. What's right in hockey is right in society at large, and vice-versa. If dude tries to kill me, he should be punished harshly. Just as harshly as if he had actually killed me. Philisophically you are right, but pragmatically we are accountable for the results of our actions. If I date a girl and she becomes pregnant, my responsibility is very different than if we simply enjoyed eachothers company for the evening. In both cases the intent and actions were the same, but the consequences are very different. We hold parties accountable for the outcome of their actions. If I shoot a rifle in the woods and hit tin cans it is very different than if a bullet riccochets and hits a bystander. In hockey I take a shot and the goaltender easily catches it. If my aim is wide and the shot deflects off a defenseman into the net, I'm awarded a goal. My reward is for incompetence, a bad shot with a good result. In life and in hockey it's the results that count more than the intent. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 10, 2004 19:53:11 GMT -5
A disatisfied HabsRus reader writes: Habs prospect Perezhogin was wrong, but so was Stafford JACK TODD The Gazette Monday, May 10, 2004 OK, so we owe Alexander Perezhogin an apology - and so does the American Hockey League. The initial clip we saw of Perezhogin swinging his stick at the head of Garrett Stafford of the Cleveland Barons did not show the entire play, nor did the initial news reports make much of Stafford's actions. Once you see the full clip, you realize that Stafford's intention was every bit as malicious as Perezhogin's and Stafford was the instigator. Perezhogin, as so often happens, was just retaliating. That doesn't make Perezhogin right: It makes the two equally guilty. No quarrel here with Perezhogin's suspension for the balance of the playoffs and all of next season. If hockey officials are going to put a stop to this stuff, they have to get tough. But six games for Stafford? What is the message here? That if you swing your stick at a guy's head and miss it's OK? Tucking them in: Once again, the Leafs go out with Darcy Tucker cheap-shotting his way to the golf course, this time with hits to the heads of Vladimir Malakhov and Sami Kapanen. While the AHL gets tough with first-time offender Perezhogin, Tucker gets away with this stuff season after season. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Perezhogin is a Russian while Tucker is a) a good Canadian boy; b) a Maple Leaf; and c) a Don Cherry favourite, now could it? - excerpted from the full ToddyI can't agree with JT on this one. It has NOTHING to do with Perezhogin's nationality or Don Cherry. Alexander did a bad thing and he caused a serious injury. Darcy irritates and does bad things and should be punished. If Tucker took a two handed swing and hit a Russian in the face causing severe injury, he too would be suspended. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 10, 2004 20:31:20 GMT -5
Has anyone floated this theory yet? What if Perez is suspended from the NHL as well and decides the stigma attached to the whole event isn't worth coming back to North America? McSorley's stigma led to a somewhat early end to his career, and we've yet to see how Bertuzzi will fare. Bertuzzi's involves premeditation and worse injuries...so it should be a year as well.
I would hope that if the hockey world could forgive Danny Heatley for negligence resulting in death (even though it was an off-ice incident, it's still negligence for which he's been forgiven and actually lauded for his comeback) they could easily have Perez start with a clean slate.
|
|
|
|
Post by montreal on May 10, 2004 21:04:18 GMT -5
Has anyone floated this theory yet? What if Perez is suspended from the NHL as well and decides the stigma attached to the whole event isn't worth coming back to North America? McSorley's stigma led to a somewhat early end to his career, and we've yet to see how Bertuzzi will fare. Bertuzzi's involves premeditation and worse injuries...so it should be a year as well. I would hope that if the hockey world could forgive Danny Heatley for negligence resulting in death (even though it was an off-ice incident, it's still negligence for which he's been forgiven and actually lauded for his comeback) they could easily have Perez start with a clean slate. If Perezhogin decided he didn't want to come back, the Habs could sue him for breach of contract. He's under contract for 2 more years unless we let him out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 10, 2004 21:16:45 GMT -5
If Perezhogin decided he didn't want to come back, the Habs could sue him for breach of contract. He's under contract for 2 more years unless we let him out of it. Thanks for the info...didn't know a team could do that. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 11, 2004 7:59:53 GMT -5
Has anyone floated this theory yet? What if Perez is suspended from the NHL as well and decides the stigma attached to the whole event isn't worth coming back to North America? McSorley's stigma led to a somewhat early end to his career, and we've yet to see how Bertuzzi will fare. Bertuzzi's involves premeditation and worse injuries...so it should be a year as well. I would hope that if the hockey world could forgive Danny Heatley for negligence resulting in death (even though it was an off-ice incident, it's still negligence for which he's been forgiven and actually lauded for his comeback) they could easily have Perez start with a clean slate. The thought crossed my mind as soon as I saw it happen. Possible career-killer I called it. Lengthy suspension, criminal investigation, what if he is actually convicted (though I don’t think they are even going to lay charges at this point)? With a new CBA in place, NHL salaries, particularly those of entry level players, is probably going to be pretty low. What if some team in Russia offers him $600,000 to play back home? Somebody reportedly offered Markov a million after all… Perezhoghin may simply decide this isn’t worth it anymore, that he isn’t having fun, and head on back home. Personally, I don’t think it will happen, but you never know. Stranger things have happened. As for his contract, I don’t think that means anything. He simply needs to file his retirement papers, and be done with it. Then, if he decides to come back, he need only wait a year, before re-applying. And of course, Montreal would still hold his rights. Montreal could decide to sue him, but if he files all the paperwork correctly, I don’t know how much legal basis they would have. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on May 11, 2004 10:01:56 GMT -5
I dont think anyone will remeber him that much when he comes back next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on May 11, 2004 13:01:03 GMT -5
Wow. For a man that's usually spot-on, I amazed by how far off you are here on this one. Your argument begins with resignation. You seem resigned that, in society at large, one gets punished more harshly for the results of one's actions than for the actions themselves. Murder vs. attempted murder, etc. But then you say that that the problem in hockey is that you don't get noticed unless you decapitate someone. By calling this a problem, you recognise that attemted decapitation is an equal crime. Look. What's right in hockey is right in society at large, and vice-versa. If dude tries to kill me, he should be punished harshly. Just as harshly as if he had actually killed me. You misunderstand me. I have no problem with attempted murder being less severely punished than murder, so long as it's still severely punished. What I bemoan in hockey is the absence of serious consequences for unsuccessful attempts to injure, or exceedingly reckless play that didn't cause serious injury only by sheer luck.... |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 12, 2004 5:40:06 GMT -5
Has anyone floated this theory yet? What if Perez is suspended from the NHL as well and decides the stigma attached to the whole event isn't worth coming back to North America? McSorley's stigma led to a somewhat early end to his career, and we've yet to see how Bertuzzi will fare. Bertuzzi's involves premeditation and worse injuries...so it should be a year as well. I'll bet dollars to donuts or pirogies, as the case may be, that the NHLPA's lawyers will be working overtime on Bertuzzi's case. Who represents the non-English speaking foreign kid Perezhogin? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 12, 2004 6:10:16 GMT -5
[goes to his knees]Forgive me Father for I will sin. I will lawyer speak again.[stand up]
Let's say Perez has a multi year contract with the Hab's. Can the Hab's provide him employment? If not, then they can not fulfill the terms of the contract and the contract is essentially un-enforceable. Are the Hab’s going to try to force Perez to sit and earn nothing as punishment? The courts are not likely to uphold a contract that deprives Perez the means to earn a living.
The Hab’s can argue that he breached his contract by his actions but then Perez can come back with a huge can of worms on and about organizations conspiring to limit one’s right to earn a living, violence, right down to the validity of the CBA. Perez’s biggest worry is potential criminal charges. If he clears that then the NHL and the Hab’s have precious little means to “control” him.
Besides, why would the Hab’s keep him from playing in the Russian league? On the other hand, they gave him a three year contract so he can come over and get used to our game and our way of life. There is a method to their madness.
BC, I also fear that if Perez is as good as I fear he is, he may take less money, IN CASH, and stay in Russia or Europe. In fact, every time I see the Hab’s draft a foreign kid, I keep wondering if it is a mistake in the long term.
What a freaken mess…….
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 12, 2004 6:13:44 GMT -5
I'll bet dollars to donuts or pirogies, as the case may be, that the NHLPA's lawyers will be working overtime on Bertuzzi's case. Who represents the non-English speaking foreign kid Perezhogin? Don't you love the "fairness" of it all? BTW, I have not been able to contact Perez...yet. And my labour lawyer is on vacation until Monday. Lawyer on vacation? Pfffft..... |
|
|
|
Post by mic on May 12, 2004 11:15:48 GMT -5
So would just about every other aspect of sports contracts. How many other industries do not allow an employee to leave the company they are with - a company they had no choice but to join - before they are 31, even if they don't have a contract??What is your point? That somebody would challenge it in court? That possibility is always there... A little off topic, but that's the reason why I can't imagine a european NHL. These kind of rules have no possibility to exist in the European Union. The Bosman Act (or Bosman rule ? "arrêt Bosman" in french) shows it, giving the right for every player (Bosman was a soccer player) to go where ever they want once there contract is finished. The same goes for trading a player. That's just not possible. Can the NHL accept such a different league ? I don't know. Sorry for being off topic, but it's also one of the thing the NHL and the IIHF will have to speake about. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 12, 2004 12:06:13 GMT -5
[goes to his knees]Forgive me Father for I will sin. I will lawyer speak again.[stand up] Let's say Perez has a multi year contract with the Hab's. Can the Hab's provide him employment? If not, then they can not fulfill the terms of the contract and the contract is essentially un-enforceable. Are the Hab’s going to try to force Perez to sit and earn nothing as punishment? The courts are not likely to uphold a contract that deprives Perez the means to earn a living. This past season was the first year of a 3 year deal. Is the suspension without pay? AHL only? NHL as well? Due to the nature of his work is a sequence of events such as Perezhogin experienced an occupational hazard? Is Perezhogin not allowed to defend himself? It was universally agreed that Perezhogin's action was in retaliation, ergo arguably self-defense. At this point, rumblings indicate that criminal prosecution will not be pursued. Yes, well, his first year in North America has certainly been quite the experience. Perhaps he will choose the devil he knows over the foreign devil. I'm not BC, but I've butted in this far, so I may as well finish. Perezhogin is a world-class hockey player and will command relative top dollar in any professional league. $0.5M (for instance) in Yankee dollars to play at home, close to loved ones and friends, without worrying about being repeatedly attacked with no call being made. Why not opt for that? It seems to be a sane choice. Besides the Russian Hockey Federation and the NHL at present have no agreement on player transfers. HA, of course it's a mess, because it's the "normal" state of human affairs. But you know that. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 18, 2004 18:38:26 GMT -5
If Perezhogin decided he didn't want to come back, the Habs could sue him for breach of contract. He's under contract for 2 more years unless we let him out of it. This isn't entirely true. Remeber Alexei Yashin. Ottawa tried to get him for breach of contract (succeeded as well I think), and Yashin ended up getting his way anyway. But if Perezhogin did not want to come back, all he has to do is retire. And I don't think he has to retire really, just say he is going back to play in Europe. He has not breached any contract by doing that, it happens practically every year. They only get him for breach if he wants to continue playing in the NHL. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 18, 2004 23:18:38 GMT -5
This isn't entirely true. Remeber Alexei Yashin. Ottawa tried to get him for breach of contract (succeeded as well I think), and Yashin ended up getting his way anyway. No, he didn't. He held out for a year to get a salary increase, and not only did he not get it, he had to play that final season on his contract to boot. Here you might have a point, but I wonder how the rules all work out. Euros who retire to go play in Europe usually are at the end of their deals here (or so I thought), or there's a mutual agreement on a buyout letting them go home freely (like we did with Miika Kiprusoff, who then played a while in Europe and came back here with NYI as a UFA) |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 19, 2004 6:05:55 GMT -5
Here you might have a point, but I wonder how the rules all work out. Euros who retire to go play in Europe usually are at the end of their deals here (or so I thought), or there's a mutual agreement on a buyout letting them go home freely (like we did with Miika Kiprusoff, who then played a while in Europe and came back here with NYI as a UFA) Markko Kiprusoff. Remember that the Russian Hockey Federation and NHL are presently without an agreement on transfer fees for players and other important issues. If Perezhogin goes home and signs a contract with a Russian Hockey Federation team there now exists a strong possibility that the Habs, while still holding his NHL rights (until age 31), might not have access to him until the expiration of his Russian contract. People are drooling over Ovechkin. But we may not see him play over here for years due to the current stalemate between the NHL and the RHF. If the new CBA goes a significant distance in leveling the salary playing field, and a few franchises fold, we will likely see fewer and fewer highly skilled European players suiting up for NHL teams. Don Cherry's wet dream may actually come true. Jaromir Jagr said that if there's a lockout/strike he'll play in "the world's second strongest league". So, if the NHL is dormant, that would make the RSL... So, Perezhogin going to Russia to play would be a wonderful option for him. For the Habs...? |
|
|
|
Post by FormerLurker on May 19, 2004 6:28:51 GMT -5
Remember that the Russian Hockey Federation and NHL are presently without an agreement on transfer fees for players and other important issues. If Perezhogin goes home and signs a contract with a Russian Hockey Federation team there now exists a strong possibility that the Habs, while still holding his NHL rights (until age 31), might not have access to him until the expiration of his Russian contract. It depends on how the contract was worded. I'm sure the Habs would get involved in the wording to ensure that they don't lose him indefinitely. Perhaps Perezhogin could be used as a bargaining chip to get Katsitsyn out of CSKA Moscow. Something like, we'll loan you Perezhogin for the year, and pay you X dollars, if you release Katsitsyn. But this may not work. Maybe Perezhogin's Russian rights are stll owned by Avangard Omsk? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 19, 2004 16:23:26 GMT -5
No, he didn't. He held out for a year to get a salary increase, and not only did he not get it, he had to play that final season on his contract to boot. Bad example then. Try Mike Comrie, held out this year, no breach, gets traded as he wished. It happens more and more every year. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinna on May 21, 2004 18:28:20 GMT -5
Bad example then. Try Mike Comrie, held out this year, no breach, gets traded as he wished. It happens more and more every year. But Comrie was a restricted free agent when he held out. His contractual obligation was fullfilled. He refused to sign what he felt was a low ball offer from Edmonton. He was perfectly within his rights to do so. He wasn't refusing to live up to a contract that was already in place. He was holding out for a new deal more in line with what he believed he was worth and his relationship with the Oil deteriorated. |
|
