Hey he kneed him in the head on purpose WTF?mathonwy wrote:I watched this clip too many times..Strangelove wrote:
OOTS: 2013-14
Moderator: Referees
Re: OOTS: 2013-14
Silence intelligence so stupid isn’t offended….
Re: OOTS: 2013-14
slew foot, ground and pound.
And now Orpik is put on IR, out with a concussion.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/bro ... -1.2457153
And now Orpik is put on IR, out with a concussion.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/bro ... -1.2457153
Can the Canucks just win a Cup within the next 5 years.
Re: OOTS: 2013-14
If he didn't have such a big nose, none of this would have happened.rats19 wrote:Hey he kneed him in the head on purpose WTF?mathonwy wrote:I watched this clip too many times..Strangelove wrote:
Re: OOTS: 2013-14
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.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.
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?
- BurningBeard
- CC Hall of Fan Member
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:02 pm
Re: OOTS: 2013-14
Marchand is lucky he wasn't injured. It could have been a lot worst.
At least it wasn't a full triple axel.
At least it wasn't a full triple axel.
Every time I look out my window, same three dogs looking back at me.
Re: OOTS: 2013-14
Would have been way worse if he actually got hit...embellishedBurningBeard wrote:Marchand is lucky he wasn't injured. It could have been a lot worst.
At least it wasn't a full triple axel.
Silence intelligence so stupid isn’t offended….
- BurningBeard
- CC Hall of Fan Member
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:02 pm
Re: OOTS: 2013-14
You did post it, I remember I read it at the time. When you originally posted it, I found it a little confusing.dbr wrote: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.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.
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?
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.
It's even underlined in both CBAs. The rule has been on the books at least since 2005.Players who repeatedly violate League Playing Rules will be more severely punished for each new violation.
Every time I look out my window, same three dogs looking back at me.
- ClamRussel
- CC Legend
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
- Location: New South Wales, Australia
Re: OOTS: 2013-14
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.BurningBeard wrote:You did post it, I remember I read it at the time. When you originally posted it, I found it a little confusing.dbr wrote: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.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.
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?
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.It's even underlined in both CBAs. The rule has been on the books at least since 2005.Players who repeatedly violate League Playing Rules will be more severely punished for each new violation.
"Once a King, always a King" -Mike Murphy
- Art Vandelay
- CC Veteran
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:56 pm
Re: OOTS: 2013-14
Whoosh over Clams head. Read Toppies link and as was said Davidian also had mentioned it earlier .
Re: OOTS: 2013-14
Male announcer: The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.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.
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.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
Re: OOTS: 2013-14
Friday we'll get to see the NHL drop the hammer on Thornton in a in-person hearing.
Can the Canucks just win a Cup within the next 5 years.
Re: OOTS: 2013-14
Literally, I hope...SKYO wrote:Friday we'll get to see the NHL drop the hammer on Thornton in a in-person hearing.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
Except when donating blood.
- Strangelove
- Moderator & MVP
- Posts: 42934
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
- Location: Lake Vostok
Re: OOTS: 2013-14
Sorry, I should have read that particular 18 page document before commenting.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.
Point remains: the NHL justice system is a Kangaroo Court.
Do you disagree Poindexter?
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.
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!
____
Try to focus on someday.
Try to focus on someday.
- Strangelove
- Moderator & MVP
- Posts: 42934
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
- Location: Lake Vostok
Re: OOTS: 2013-14
Exactly.ClamRussel wrote: The way Shanny has always described it in his videos, a "repeat offender" is simply someone has been suspended before.
____
Try to focus on someday.
Try to focus on someday.
- ClamRussel
- CC Legend
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
- Location: New South Wales, Australia
Re: OOTS: 2013-14
Please don't feed the kangaroos or the trolls DocStrangelove wrote:Sorry, I should have read that particular 18 page document before commenting.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.
Point remains: the NHL justice system is a Kangaroo Court.
Do you disagree Poindexter?
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.
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!
"Once a King, always a King" -Mike Murphy