I recall the guy at Bountiful complaining than someones two paragraph post was too long. Was that you?Strangelove 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.
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. Before spouting off, maybe you should understand a bit about what you are talking about. You really should familiarize yourself with section 18.15 of the CBA.Strangelove wrote: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!
I first read that article at the time it was released because I wanted to know what the deal was with the Kaleta case and appeal. It was after a few of you were breaking your backs over "previous offender" that I recalled the article and began googling.
A first offender banned 1 games looses salary for 1/total number of days in the NHL season, ie # of days from the first NHL game of the season until the last NHL game of the season, a repeat offender (someone previously sanctioned in the previous 18months) looses 1/82 of his salary.
I called Shanahan out as a media whore after his first video knowing full well they would be a circus act. What took you so long Mr. Brannum?
edit - for those complaining about injury being a factor in Shanahan's ruling, that is written in the CBA. I don't agree with the concept but it isn't going to be changing anytime soon.