Ashton suspended 2 games

[CarltonTheBear]

http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=60&id=473609&lang=en

 

[dappleganger]

Sounds about right.

 

[louisstamos]

Sounds about right.

Yup.  Seems fair.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Calgary having a fighter sure acted as a deterrent to a dirty hit.

 

[Stickytape]

Sounds right to me, too.  Can't believe he only got 2 mins for that during the game.

 

[moon111]

Maybe it's just me, but why should the injury/lack of injury have anything to do with it.  Say the guy's neck was broken, does he get an extra game?  He should be suspended base on his action alone.

 

[Stickytape]

Maybe it's just me, but why should the injury/lack of injury have anything to do with it.  Say the guy's neck was broken, does he get an extra game?  He should be suspended base on his action alone.

You can generally assume that a lack of injury translates to a lack of severity, no?  Ashton is getting suspended for a dirty hit that was too close to causing injury, hence 2 games.  Had he drilled the guy harder, or when he was in a more compromising position relative to the boards, we could be seeing an injury and thus a more severe suspension.

I don't know what's confusing about that.  Obviously there are cases where hits that look really, really bad don't result in injuries, or injuries as severe as you might expect - and then there are the reverse cases, where innocent looking hits result in bad injuries - but there should still be a pretty obvious correlation between the ugliness of a hit and the chances of injury.

 

[moon111]

Maybe it's just me, but why should the injury/lack of injury have anything to do with it.  Say the guy's neck was broken, does he get an extra game?  He should be suspended base on his action alone.

You can generally assume that a lack of injury translates to a lack of severity, no?  Ashton is getting suspended for a dirty hit that was too close to causing injury, hence 2 games.  Had he drilled the guy harder, or when he was in a more compromising position relative to the boards, we could be seeing an injury and thus a more severe suspension.

I don't know what's confusing about that.  Obviously there are cases where hits that look really, really bad don't result in injuries, or injuries as severe as you might expect - and then there are the reverse cases, where innocent looking hits result in bad injuries - but there should still be a pretty obvious correlation between the ugliness of a hit and the chances of injury.

Compared to the next guy, my neck is a mess from the reckless life of a BMXer.  If I took the same hit, Ashton would get 5 games.  Think the replay shows the severity good enough, not the resulting injury.

 

[Rebel_1812]

Calgary having a fighter sure acted as a deterrent to a dirty hit.

There wasn't a 2nd dirty hit.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Calgary having a fighter sure acted as a deterrent to a dirty hit.

There wasn't a 2nd dirty hit.

Is that supposed to contradict what I said or something?  Because it doesn't.

 

[caver]

Calgary having a fighter sure acted as a deterrent to a dirty hit.

There wasn't a 2nd dirty hit.

LOL !

 

[Stickytape]

Maybe it's just me, but why should the injury/lack of injury have anything to do with it.  Say the guy's neck was broken, does he get an extra game?  He should be suspended base on his action alone.

You can generally assume that a lack of injury translates to a lack of severity, no?  Ashton is getting suspended for a dirty hit that was too close to causing injury, hence 2 games.  Had he drilled the guy harder, or when he was in a more compromising position relative to the boards, we could be seeing an injury and thus a more severe suspension.

I don't know what's confusing about that.  Obviously there are cases where hits that look really, really bad don't result in injuries, or injuries as severe as you might expect - and then there are the reverse cases, where innocent looking hits result in bad injuries - but there should still be a pretty obvious correlation between the ugliness of a hit and the chances of injury.

Compared to the next guy, my neck is a mess from the reckless life of a BMXer.  If I took the same hit, Ashton would get 5 games.  Think the replay shows the severity good enough, not the resulting injury.

That's a very good point, and a good reason why they don't only consider injuries when deciding suspensions: not every player will react the same way to the same hit.

However, that still doesn't contradict anything I said.  There is still some degree of correlation between lack of injury and the severity of a hit.  It's information, and all relevant information is useful in determining the appropriate discipline.

 

[Kin]

Maybe it's just me, but why should the injury/lack of injury have anything to do with it.

Because punishments often reflect the severity of the actual damage done. That's to reflect the impact a dirty hit can have.

 

[bustaheims]

Calgary having a fighter sure acted as a deterrent to a dirty hit.

There wasn't a 2nd dirty hit.

Actually, there was. Clarkson delivered a pretty bad hit from behind later in the game. It just didn't have the same impact because the player he hit was closer to the boards.

 

[sneakyray]

To me its how dangerous and reckless any given play is.  If a reckless high stick is bad give it a certain amount of games period, not dependant on whether or not it breaks someone's jaw, costs them some teeth, or just cuts their chin, its still a dangerous play with the potential to cause injury.

same with hits...organize it.  Hit from behind, at the boards, out from the boards...prescribed punishment for each.

hits to the head, knee on knee.

basically I want consistency in supplemental discipline and I think that whether someone is injured or not is too unpredictable and not concrete enough.

Then if it is deemed that there was intent or pre-meditation...well then I don't know...3 strikes and you're out?

 

[Boston Leaf]

he is no loss really. Kulemin is back so we are good

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Calgary having a fighter sure acted as a deterrent to a dirty hit.

There wasn't a 2nd dirty hit.

Actually, there was. Clarkson delivered a pretty bad hit from behind later in the game. It just didn't have the same impact because the player he hit was closer to the boards.

There wasn't a 3rd dirty hit.

 

[bustaheims]

There wasn't a 3rd dirty hit.

 

[Bullfrog]

Maybe it's just me, but why should the injury/lack of injury have anything to do with it.

Because punishments often reflect the severity of the actual damage done. That's to reflect the impact a dirty hit can have.

Yes. I can't remember the exact wording of the legal concept, but it's something along the lines of "found as they lay." Meaning, even if something was accidental, if you caused harm, you face consequences. Likewise, if you meant harm, but none was caused, then it would be a less harsh consequence, within limits.