OOTS: 2013-14

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Postby Topper » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:15 pm

The repeat offender line that many (read cowboys with clams) seem so upset about was clearly defined by Betman when he ruled on Patrick Kaleta's appeal. Read specifically the bottom of page 12 through page 15. All prior offences are considered whether the player is considered a repeat offender or not.
Last edited by Topper on Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 5142
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Postby mathonwy » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:17 pm

Strangelove wrote:Image

I watched this clip too many times..
User avatar
mathonwy
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:53 pm

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Postby rats19 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:19 pm

mathonwy wrote:
Strangelove wrote:Image

I watched this clip too many times..

Hey he kneed him in the head on purpose WTF?
You are who you hang with.....
User avatar
rats19
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:21 am
Location: over there.....

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Postby SKYO » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:29 pm

slew foot, ground and pound.
Image

Image

Image

And now Orpik is put on IR, out with a concussion.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/bro ... -1.2457153
User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Postby mathonwy » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:38 pm

rats19 wrote:
mathonwy wrote:
Strangelove wrote:Image

I watched this clip too many times..

Hey he kneed him in the head on purpose WTF?

If he didn't have such a big nose, none of this would have happened.
User avatar
mathonwy
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:53 pm

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Postby dbr » Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:11 pm

Topper wrote:The repeat offender line that many (read cowboys with clams) seem so upset about was clearly defined by Betman when he ruled on Patrick Kaleta's appeal. Read specifically the bottom of page 12 through page 15. All prior offences are considered whether the player is considered a repeat offender or not.


Yep it was an interesting read. I posted about it here iirc, but basically as far as the CBA goes a "repeat offender" basically determines how they will calculate how much salary to take away from a suspended player. That's it.

And frankly it makes sense - if a guy has five suspensions over say seven years and none in the last eighteen months is he somehow supposed to be on the same level as a guy who kept his nose clean over the same span?
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2597
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Postby BurningBeard » Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:39 pm

Marchand is lucky he wasn't injured. It could have been a lot worst.
Image
At least it wasn't a full triple axel.
Every time I look out my window, same three dogs looking back at me.
User avatar
BurningBeard
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:02 pm

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Postby rats19 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:42 pm

BurningBeard wrote:Marchand is lucky he wasn't injured. It could have been a lot worst.
Image
At least it wasn't a full triple axel.

Would have been way worse if he actually got hit...embellished
You are who you hang with.....
User avatar
rats19
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:21 am
Location: over there.....

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Postby BurningBeard » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:17 pm

dbr wrote:
Topper wrote:The repeat offender line that many (read cowboys with clams) seem so upset about was clearly defined by Betman when he ruled on Patrick Kaleta's appeal. Read specifically the bottom of page 12 through page 15. All prior offences are considered whether the player is considered a repeat offender or not.

Yep it was an interesting read. I posted about it here iirc, but basically as far as the CBA goes a "repeat offender" basically determines how they will calculate how much salary to take away from a suspended player. That's it.

And frankly it makes sense - if a guy has five suspensions over say seven years and none in the last eighteen months is he somehow supposed to be on the same level as a guy who kept his nose clean over the same span?

You did post it, I remember I read it at the time. When you originally posted it, I found it a little confusing.

I don't remember the phrase "history" ever being mentioned by Shanny in the past. The terminology was always "repeat offender". The way Bettman explains the situation in his ruling, it's like the NHLPA isn't aware of the rule and it's new, or (I assumed) changed in the 2013 CBA. However, if you look at the old 2005 CBA, the rule has always been there.
Players who repeatedly violate League Playing Rules will be more severely punished for each new violation.

It's even underlined in both CBAs. The rule has been on the books at least since 2005.
Every time I look out my window, same three dogs looking back at me.
User avatar
BurningBeard
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:02 pm

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Postby ClamRussel » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:46 pm

BurningBeard wrote:
dbr wrote:
Topper wrote:The repeat offender line that many (read cowboys with clams) seem so upset about was clearly defined by Betman when he ruled on Patrick Kaleta's appeal. Read specifically the bottom of page 12 through page 15. All prior offences are considered whether the player is considered a repeat offender or not.

Yep it was an interesting read. I posted about it here iirc, but basically as far as the CBA goes a "repeat offender" basically determines how they will calculate how much salary to take away from a suspended player. That's it.

And frankly it makes sense - if a guy has five suspensions over say seven years and none in the last eighteen months is he somehow supposed to be on the same level as a guy who kept his nose clean over the same span?

You did post it, I remember I read it at the time. When you originally posted it, I found it a little confusing.

I don't remember the phrase "history" ever being mentioned by Shanny in the past. The terminology was always "repeat offender". The way Bettman explains the situation in his ruling, it's like the NHLPA isn't aware of the rule and it's new, or (I assumed) changed in the 2013 CBA. However, if you look at the old 2005 CBA, the rule has always been there.
Players who repeatedly violate League Playing Rules will be more severely punished for each new violation.

It's even underlined in both CBAs. The rule has been on the books at least since 2005.


Who cares about how much salary they take away, I thought this was supposed to be about "player safety." I don't think salary crosses the mind of an "offender" before he decides whether to repeat. The way Shanny has always described it in his videos, a "repeat offender" is simply someone has been suspended before.
"Once a King, always a King"
-Mike Murphy
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Postby Art Vandelay » Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:26 pm

Whoosh over Clams head. Read Toppies link and as was said Davidian also had mentioned it earlier .
User avatar
Art Vandelay
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:56 pm

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Postby Topper » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:34 pm

ClamRussel wrote:Who cares about how much salary they take away, I thought this was supposed to be about "player safety." I don't think salary crosses the mind of an "offender" before he decides whether to repeat. The way Shanny has always described it in his videos, a "repeat offender" is simply someone has been suspended before.

Male announcer: The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.

Female announcer: The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.

Male announcer: [later] The red zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the white zone.

Female announcer: No, the white zone is for loading of passengers and there is no stopping in a RED zone.

Male announcer: The red zone has always been for loading and unloading of passengers. There's never stopping in a white zone.

Female announcer: Don't you tell me which zone is for loading, and which zone is for stopping!

Male announcer: Listen Betty, don't start up with your white zone shit again.

[Later]

Male announcer: There's just no stopping in a white zone.

Female announcer: Oh really, Vernon? Why pretend, we both know perfectly well what this is about. You want me to have an abortion.

Male announcer: It's really the only sensible thing to do, if its done safely. Therapeutically there's no danger involved.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 5142
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Postby SKYO » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:18 pm

Friday we'll get to see the NHL drop the hammer on Thornton in a in-person hearing. :o
User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Postby Per » Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:40 pm

SKYO wrote:Friday we'll get to see the NHL drop the hammer on Thornton in a in-person hearing. :o


Literally, I hope... :wink:
User avatar
Per
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Postby Strangelove » Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:15 pm

Topper wrote:The repeat offender line that many (read cowboys with clams) seem so upset about was clearly defined by Betman when he ruled on Patrick Kaleta's appeal. Read specifically the bottom of page 12 through page 15. All prior offences are considered whether the player is considered a repeat offender or not.


Sorry, I should have read that particular 18 page document before commenting. :scowl:

Point remains: the NHL justice system is a Kangaroo Court.

Do you disagree Poindexter? :devil:

In fact, your response begs the question:

Why doesn't Mr Shanahan clarify all this "history" vs "Repeat Offender" BS rather than muddle things?

I don't tend to read lengthy documents if I can avoid it.

But I do tend to watch Captain Kangaroo's videos.

Those are SUPPOSED to clarify the "logic" behind these suspension decisions. :lol:

In a perfect Hindu world the Director of PS would save us the trouble of having to read your documents.

Thanks for the info ole pal, but it’s STILL a Kangaroo Court.

And a Kangaroo Court is a Kangaroo Court is a Kangaroo Court.

Believe me, I should know! :mrgreen:
____
Big Dog
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7741
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], rockalt, Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests