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

User avatar
rats19
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 16268
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:21 am
Location: over here.....

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Post by rats19 »

mathonwy wrote:
Strangelove wrote:Image
I watched this clip too many times..
Hey he kneed him in the head on purpose WTF?
Silence intelligence so stupid isn’t offended….
User avatar
SKYO
MVP
MVP
Posts: 14992
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Post by SKYO »

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
Can the Canucks just win a Cup within the next 5 years.
User avatar
mathonwy
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:53 pm

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Post by mathonwy »

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.
dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Post by dbr »

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?
User avatar
BurningBeard
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1329
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:02 pm

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Post by BurningBeard »

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
rats19
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 16268
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:21 am
Location: over here.....

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Post by rats19 »

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
Silence intelligence so stupid isn’t offended….
User avatar
BurningBeard
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1329
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:02 pm

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Post by BurningBeard »

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
ClamRussel
CC Legend
Posts: 3992
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Post by ClamRussel »

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
Art Vandelay
CC Veteran
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:56 pm

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Post by Art Vandelay »

Whoosh over Clams head. Read Toppies link and as was said Davidian also had mentioned it earlier .
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 18097
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Post by Topper »

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
SKYO
MVP
MVP
Posts: 14992
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Post by SKYO »

Friday we'll get to see the NHL drop the hammer on Thornton in a in-person hearing. :o
Can the Canucks just win a Cup within the next 5 years.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Post by Per »

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:
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 42804
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Post by Strangelove »

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:
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 42804
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Post by Strangelove »

ClamRussel wrote: The way Shanny has always described it in his videos, a "repeat offender" is simply someone has been suspended before.
Exactly.
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
Posts: 3992
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: OOTS: 2013-14

Post by ClamRussel »

Strangelove 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.
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:
Please don't feed the kangaroos or the trolls Doc
"Once a King, always a King" -Mike Murphy
Post Reply