Follow me on Twitter @ToddCordell
Welcome to another edition of the Hockeybuzz hotstove.
In this one the hotstove will share their opinions on John Moore's hit on Erik Haula, and if Moore's suspension was too long, too short or just right.
Todd Cordell: Too short
I think Moore probably should have been suspended at least another couple games.
Moore's hit wasn't too late, but the puck was definitely gone when he delivered the hit on Haula, and the initial point of contact was his head.
Whether it was intentional or not is irrelevant. The NHL will look at three things a) was it a head shot? b) was there an injury? c) is he a repeat offended?
The answer on all three counts here is yes, so I think the punishment should be a little more stern. There's no place in the game for hits like that.
Tim Chiasson: Too short
This hit is what the league has been trying to eliminate - principle point of contact is the head. Moore, or any hockey player for that matter, knows that when you come in on that angle there's a good chance you're going to make initial contact with the opposing players' head.
The NHL Department of Player Safety is consistently too lax on suspensions. I think he should have received 6-10 games; he's a repeat offender and the main point of contact was the one area that the NHL is trying to remove from hits. Reckless play by a marginal NHLer.
Ryan Wilson: Too short
I'm going to be upfront about this, I don't think the NHL is in the proper stratosphere as it pertains to their disciplinary process. Their punishments are very light and they do not deter future behaviors. John Moore being the latest example (2 incidences in last 12 games). The NHL is subjective in how they hand out discipline and they use injury as one of the parameters. This should not be the case. You should never use injury as part of the disciplinary process. Punish the act, not the result. Using injury breeds inconsistency, the NHL is inconsistent with its discipline.
I write for another website and while it may not be perfect, we do have a rubric for suspensions. It is consistent and harsh while punishing repeat offenders heavily.
We gave John Moore 21 games. If you don't want these kinds of hits in hockey the suspensions need to pack a punch to deter future behaviors. Right now players are taking the chance that the opponent won't get hurt and they are still actively throwing bad hits. If the player knows they will be punished the same whether or not the opponent is hurt they will start to think twice about their actions. If the players know that they will miss a large portion of games and lose more money, it will deter their future behaviors.
As a fan though, don't stress out over it, if the NHL doesn't care, why should you? It's not your brain and it's not your money.
James Tanner: Too short
The worst thing about this hit is that it comes after the Haula shot the puck. He's in no way expecting to take a hit right there and there's no reason to hit him. The NHL could eliminate hits like this by dishing out 20 or 30 game suspensions, but they don't.
Five games is about what you'd expect and in line with what the NHL has done in the past, but I think there should be harsher sentences for head shots.
**
What did you think of John Moore's hit on Erik Haula? Is five games enough, too much or too little? We'd love to hear your thoughts.
Recent posts
NHL power rankings: west coast teams on top
Best fit for Jeff Petry?
What should Boston do with their defense?
Should the Penguins commit to Fleury long-term?
On T.J. Brodie's five-year extension
Where is the best fit for Tyler Myers?
Stanley Cup predictions
Join the Discussion:
»