SUSPENSIONS

[Kin]

How would an appeals process work? Won't it just turn into the NHL vs the NHLPA? You get players appealing penalties on the ice all the time, it doesn't change the outcome of the call.

You could have the appeal go to a three person panel. One rep from the NHLPA, one from the BoG and a third independent party who would break the inevitable tie. It would essentially make that independent party a version of Shanahan but one who isn't on staff at the NHL.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

You could have the appeal go to a three person panel. One rep from the NHLPA, one from the BoG and a third independent party who would break the inevitable tie. It would essentially make that independent party a version of Shanahan but one who isn't on staff at the NHL.

I guess, but the part that would be missing is the stiff hand. The NHL tried to leave it to the players to have respect for one another, with lenient suspensions, or no suspensions in addition to the called penalty, but the players have not curbed their dangerous play. Personally, I like the stiff hand approach and hopefully the players will realize in the end that they all benefit from a cleaner game in the end.

Inevitably, people are going to be upset, but like everything else that the NHL has tried to do, it will level out after a while I think, I don't think it will go the other way and get even stiffer than it is now. We've seen things like rule changes, but it always seems to revert back to the old way, more than it does the opposite way.

I like the authoritative approach personally.

 

[Kin]

I guess, but the part that would be missing is the stiff hand. The NHL tried to leave it to the players to have respect for one another, with lenient suspensions, or no suspensions in addition to the called penalty, but the players have not curbed their dangerous play. Personally, I like the stiff hand approach and hopefully the players will realize in the end that they all benefit from a cleaner game in the end.

I don't see how you conclude that this would lead to less of a "stiff hand". All this would do is add oversight to the process that wasn't Gary Bettman.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I don't see how you conclude that this would lead to less of a "stiff hand". All this would do is add oversight to the process that wasn't Gary Bettman.

Well, what's the point of oversight, if they wouldn't be trying to get lesser suspensions? They certainly aren't going to get stiffer consequences with more oversight, so why not just keep what they're doing right now? The whole point to there being any dissatisfaction is that the players and some of their managers seem to think that the suspensions are too much or not warranted in the first place.

Put simply, and I'm sure you understand this is that it would essentially run like arbitration right? One side picks a number and "the other side" picks what they think is fair and the 3rd party usually settles in the middle. That would appear to be less than what Shannahan is doling out right now.

 

[Kin]

Well, what's the point of oversight, if they wouldn't be trying to get lesser suspensions? They certainly aren't going to get stiffer consequences with more oversight, so why not just keep what they're doing right now? The whole point to there being any dissatisfaction is that the players and some of their managers seem to think that the suspensions are too much or not warranted in the first place.

Try to think of it like an appeals court. In an appeals court you're not arguing that a sentence was too harsh but that a mistake of law was made. Any sort of oversight panel wouldn't be tasked with deciding what appropriate levels of suspensions but whether or not Shanahan penalized Player B for 20 games when Player A threw the exact same hit and only got 10. It would be ensuring consistency and fairness, not acting as a second trial.

Put simply, and I'm sure you understand this is that it would essentially run like arbitration right? One side picks a number and "the other side" picks what they think is fair and the 3rd party usually settles in the middle.

No, you're reading that into what I'm saying entirely. It wouldn't be "Player A wants this suspension, the NHL wants this, lets find a middle ground" but rather "Did Shanahan correctly and fairly apply discipline to this player as per the guidelines he's been given."

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

No, you're reading that into what I'm saying entirely. It wouldn't be "Player A wants this suspension, the NHL wants this, lets find a middle ground" but rather "Did Shanahan correctly and fairly apply discipline to this player as per the guidelines he's been given."

Sure, if this was a court of law, that would be just fine. If it was me making decisions, I wouldn't want my authority tampered with, when these on ice incidents are up for interpretation in the first place and there is going to be mistakes with this kind of thing anyway. I think that would just clog up the process, I believe the NHL should run their league and curb the nasty play how they see fit. I wouldn't want that job, not sure anybody else would either, good on Shanny for taking the hard line.

 

[Kin]

Sure, if this was a court of law, that would be just fine. If it was me making decisions, I wouldn't want my authority tampered with, when these on ice incidents are up for interpretation in the first place and there is going to be mistakes with this kind of thing anyway. I think that would just clog up the process, I believe the NHL should run their league and curb the nasty play how they see fit. I wouldn't want that job, not sure anybody else would either, good on Shanny for taking the hard line.

But the NHL already has an appeals process. The issue is whether Bettman is the guy to handle the job. So Shanahan's authority would be exactly the same, namely, he's not the final say-so for suspensions.

And what's at issue for me is that, like you, I don't have a problem with lengthy suspensions. What I worry about is that a guy like Shanahan who works for the BoG, may be influenced by the loud complaints of the people who are, essentially, his bosses. Now that we're hearing that GM's aren't happy with these suspensions I want there to be a system in place that ensures we see consistency and fairness and that the guy deciding that isn't Gary Bettman.

 

[Guilt Trip]

I don't have a problem with any of the decisions Shanahan has made but I am starting to think that an independent discipline process, or at least appeals process, is probably necessary.

Absolutely not. You need an ex hockey player that is respected by both management and players to make the calls...exactly like they're doing. The NFL uses independents as far as I know and it's a joke from what I've heard on the Fan.
I think Shanny's doing a great job.

 

[Kin]

Absolutely not. You need an ex hockey player that is respected by both management and players to make the calls...exactly like they're doing.

There's no reason that an independent process couldn't include one or multiple respected former players/executives. The only difference is they wouldn't be hired and fired by the commissioner.

And, again, an independent appeals process wouldn't impact Shanahan's role at all. Bettman is who'd be taken out of the process,

The NFL uses independents as far as I know and it's a joke from what I've heard on the Fan.

You may not want to rely on the Fan then as neither suspensions or appeals in the NFL are handled independently.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

And what's at issue for me is that, like you, I don't have a problem with lengthy suspensions. What I worry about is that a guy like Shanahan who works for the BoG, may be influenced by the loud complaints of the people who are, essentially, his bosses. Now that we're hearing that GM's aren't happy with these suspensions I want there to be a system in place that ensures we see consistency and fairness and that the guy deciding that isn't Gary Bettman.

The comments that I hear being made is that 1) it will eliminate hitting in the game and 2) Some GM's don't like the length of the suspensions. Are you reading something different?

I don't think in the least bit that this will eliminate hitting, as we saw by Phaneuf the other night, it will curb the nasty stuff, which I thought was the point to the new rules and Shannahan's stance on the suspension length.

As far as the criteria, I think there is so much there, that no panel is going to be better than one guy making the decision. What's the margin or error? I see your point about the appeals process and Bettman being on the final end of it, but as far as calls go, does the appeals process really change the suspension at all anyway? Or does it just make them feel better that somebody listened to it that wasn't Bettman? What does it accomplish vs how much is it going to just clog up the process? I mean it is a disciplinary body, you did something and should face the consequences put in place by the league, why does it have to go any further? Don't do it again, which is the end game, no?

 

[Kin]

The comments that I hear being made is that 1) it will eliminate hitting in the game and 2) Some GM's don't like the length of the suspensions. Are you reading something different?

I don't think in the least bit that this will eliminate hitting, as we saw by Phaneuf the other night, it will curb the nasty stuff, which I thought was the point to the new rules and Shannahan's stance on the suspension length.

What I'd heard, I'd think on the radio, was just some speculation that Shanahan ultimately wants to end up as a GM somewhere and that he may take the criticisms of his suspensions to heart as he won't want to anger a lot of teams if the suspensions aren't popular.

I mean, it was nonsense, but even here when Malone wasn't suspended you had people saying "Of course Shanahan won't suspend Malone because he's friends with Yzerman" which I think is BS but shows why you need a level of oversight. Again, for me, the issue is should that be Bettman or someone else.

I see your point about the appeals process and Bettman being on the final end of it, but as far as calls go, does the appeals process really change the suspension at all anyway? Or does it just make them feel better that somebody listened to it that wasn't Bettman? What does it accomplish vs how much is it going to just clog up the process? I mean it is a disciplinary body, you did something and should face the consequences put in place by the league, why does it have to go any further? Don't do it again, which is the end game, no?

Well, again, there's already an appeals process. This doesn't change that or add a new layer. There's no reason for the actual process to change whatsoever. As long as Shanahan is doing the job correctly and fairly then a correctly run appeal would be over quickly.

The current system doesn't really allow for actual consideration here outside of Bettman who hired Shanahan in the first place. I think Bettman would be naturally disinclined to second guess his own guy so I think there's a good whiff of bias in his decisions. This would just remove that.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

No, you're reading that into what I'm saying entirely. It wouldn't be "Player A wants this suspension, the NHL wants this, lets find a middle ground" but rather "Did Shanahan correctly and fairly apply discipline to this player as per the guidelines he's been given."

BMac had this today, he seems to think that the NHLPA actually wants an arbitrator.

NHLPA wants independent arbitrator to hear disciplinary appeals (like in baseball), not the commissioner. NHL has zero appetite for that.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

#NHL news. Gary Bettman just ruled on #Wild Bouchard appeal ...2 game suspension upheld.

 

[4th Liner]

Ok, a little light on suspensions of late, and I wasn't sure where to put this - so anyway....

Shanny, always ready with the Shanahammer, takes it out on a lady:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCRF5EpPNwU