Strangelove wrote:*sigh* I got my hopes up with Shanny in the pre-season, but damnit NHL discipline is still a joke.
Fire Shanny, hire Tant!!
Well Shanahan is better than Colon, but still a bunch of inconsistency. Most of that inconsistency comes from the reliance on two things:
-the call on the play. It really shouldn't matter if the guy got a 2 minutes, no minutes or 5 and a game. The guy played the game even if for only part of it and as such should not be taken into account. But if he hurt his team that night you say? So what. He did the deed and will hurt his team some more. Perhaps his team should start thinking twice about employing him.
-the injury. If you want to get rid of things take the injury out of the equation. Judge the play based on the violence and what it COULD have done or led to. Take a hit to the head...some guys have mush heads and will be knocked out for an extended period of time while another guy on a very hard hit may not suffer any injury. IN todays NHL the former play may receive the harsher punishment. If you want to get rid of the dangerous play, quit waiting for the injuries to occur.
Now seeing as I was given the job my first order of business would be to change those things. The next order of business is to get the NHL head office out of the direct discipline game. THrough the NHL and NHLPA negotiated CBA I set up a new system of punishment where guidelines are established for types of play and the resulting suspension. For example, hit from behind with no regard for the player gets you 3-5 games. You take repeat offender status into account (as they do now) and have different levels of suspensions for those players such that for the above the guy may be suspended from 6-9 games.
Given I am a NHL employee and as such must love to make videos I go back through the archives and find plays to illustrate how the new suspension guidelines would be applied to those plays. Put together numerous examples.
Then you take the entire damn package and give it to independent arbitrators who will be responsible for administering punishment based on the cold hard facts they have before them. It's what they do...emotionless analysis and decisions. THe only involvement the NHL has on a day to day basis is to provide the incidents to the arbitrators. That is something the NHL ought to be able to do as it is the one thing that the Shanahan regime seems to have done a good job on...reviewing plays.
To me the disciplinarian right now is so entangled with the league, players, GMs, media etc it is pretty much impossible not to be biased. Even if they don't think they are. I know people will say that you need people familiar with the game who knows what the players are thinking etc to make those decisions. First, I don't agree with that beyond a rudimentary knowledge of the game. Second, why can't an independent arbitrator be a guy who knows the game? It's just that the bias won't come into play because the arbitrator's career is based on eliminating there own biases and making that decision based on the evidence.