Wanna blog? Start your own hockey blog with My HockeyBuzz. Register for free today!
 
Forums :: Blog World :: Paul Stewart: Scheifele Suspension Was Based on Outcome and Appeasement
Author Message
Paul Stewart
Joined: 10.14.2013

Jun 4 @ 1:15 PM ET
Paul Stewart: Scheifele Suspension Was Based on Outcome and Appeasement
braidan
Referee
Montreal Canadiens
Location: State of Corruption.
Joined: 09.27.2006

Jun 4 @ 1:20 PM ET
And here I was thinking you'd make a good DoPS lol.

What do you think of taking out the whole judgement of it all and going with a points system like they do in the AFL?

https://resources.afl.com...L-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

It seems to make it more subjective than objective


DoubleDown
Montreal Canadiens
Location: Not to point any fingers but Tyson Barrie has looked awful in the blue and white for the Leafs., QC
Joined: 07.28.2006

Jun 4 @ 1:35 PM ET
the whole "glide" argument is disingenuous. it's like telling the cop you couldn't have been speeding because you were decelerating when he clocked you at 90 mph.
Hokeeguy9
Philadelphia Flyers
Location: Bethlehem, PA
Joined: 06.25.2012

Jun 4 @ 3:18 PM ET
Once again, Stewie, you nailed it. I’m not a fan of either team, and have no dog in this fight.
However unfortunate the outcome, any player with his head down coming from behind the net for a stuffed, is going to get hit. Skating as hard as you can to prevent that goal necessitated it. At that point, a tenth of a second, after he puts the puck in, he gets blasted. There is no way to prevent it without conceding the goal, and that wasn’t going to happen.

It’s a tough play, and hope he recovers quickly, but I agree, no supplemental discipline was warranted.

Good call Stewie, even if we’re in the minority. 👍
jordan456789
Joined: 10.27.2007

Jun 4 @ 3:29 PM ET
To me this is clear that he intended to injure him. If it was about preventing the goal he would have been skating hard the entire time and went for the puck. Instead he let up glided and lined up a hit on someone in a vulnerable situation. It is clear cut charging. The question of what is be supposed to do us ridiculous. You can't make an illegal play because it was the only option. Should you be allowed to hook someone on a breakaway because you have no other choice?
Mashadar
Location: I will not go into detail why we think we are a better team, but we feel we are a better team. - MB
Joined: 08.31.2014

Jun 4 @ 3:45 PM ET
the whole "glide" argument is disingenuous. it's like telling the cop you couldn't have been speeding because you were decelerating when he clocked you at 90 mph.
- DoubleDown


Not to mention, "gliding" allowed him to time the hit, while making sure he was lined up to hit Evans.

Had nothing to do with reducing impact.
stinger67
Montreal Canadiens
Location: QC
Joined: 07.03.2008

Jun 4 @ 3:52 PM ET
Once again, Stewie, you nailed it. I’m not a fan of either team, and have no dog in this fight.
However unfortunate the outcome, any player with his head down coming from behind the net for a stuffed, is going to get hit. Skating as hard as you can to prevent that goal necessitated it. At that point, a tenth of a second, after he puts the puck in, he gets blasted. There is no way to prevent it without conceding the goal, and that wasn’t going to happen.

It’s a tough play, and hope he recovers quickly, but I agree, no supplemental discipline was warranted.

Good call Stewie, even if we’re in the minority. 👍

- Hokeeguy9


It was never about preventing a goal. His mind was clearly made, he wanted to hit him as hard as he could. Predatory hit on a prone player.

The NHL needs to start taking brain injuries more seriously, but I don't see any changes as long as guys in charge of "player safety" are the ones who made inflicting concussions their bread and butter when they were active in the league.
Nasty_Duck
Boston Bruins
Location: ON
Joined: 06.20.2012

Jun 4 @ 4:28 PM ET
Hoooboyyyy
Njuice
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: ON
Joined: 06.21.2013

Jun 4 @ 4:31 PM ET
100 percent agree with all of this. Also trying to avoid what happenned when wilson didnt get suspended
Izzo
Tampa Bay Lightning
Location: Tampa, FL
Joined: 12.20.2018

Jun 4 @ 5:24 PM ET
I guess it'll take more career ending injuries in order for the old guard to accept that there's a difference between finishing your check and ignoring the puck because you want to maim somebody.
DonCherries
Montreal Canadiens
Joined: 06.12.2019

Jun 4 @ 5:35 PM ET
Agreed. I thought Stewie would have been a good head of DOPS, I was wrong
angryagain
Joined: 02.23.2014

Jun 4 @ 6:36 PM ET
I agree 100%.... league has no clue what message they are sending and because of the inconsistencies the league looks horrible with little integrity or actual written rules.
CaptainInsano77
Boston Bruins
Location: Pittsfield , MA
Joined: 10.09.2015

Jun 4 @ 7:57 PM ET
I don't get how he lazily glides on the back check, while simultaneously charging in recklessly?

If this is charging, then it's charging every time a team dumps the puck in and a forward hits the defenseman.
royalpain
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: NB
Joined: 06.04.2021

Jun 4 @ 9:44 PM ET
I agree with Paul Stewart 100% and disagree with George Parros. Paul Stewart for DOPS.
JetsAvs
Season Ticket Holder
Winnipeg Jets
Location: Kelowna, BC
Joined: 01.20.2009

Jun 4 @ 10:53 PM ET
Excellent article. I completely agree.
Tee56
Joined: 10.02.2017

Jun 5 @ 9:51 AM ET
Maybe if Scheifele wrote an 8 page report / thesis on how he hit Evans the league would have taken pity? The NHL needs to fix a couple things in the main office.
Paul Stewart
Joined: 10.14.2013

Jun 5 @ 11:13 AM ET
1) There is no cookie cutter, recipe for sameness in Hockey. All games and plays are different so you must judge intent from experience and not the results. Hitting your head on the ice. Fact is, Bill Masterson got legally hit but, tragically, died Ace Bailey and Eddie Shore...intent with terrible results...Pat Quinn on Orr....Orr had his head down and got a sucker pass....LaFontaine ran into his own teammate and that ended that. I was there: head down and neither player was looking.

2) The game is based on speed. Do you have a speed limit on skating in a game? NO. Why would we have a speed limit on hitting? How would you slow down a player just before he hits another legally?

Teams now have many smaller players who put themselves in vulnerable positions. There is an inherent risk in playing the game. If you don't want to incur any risk of being hurt on a legal hit, don't sign the contract.
GalacticStone
Tampa Bay Lightning
Location: Kucherov's Bionic Hip, FL
Joined: 01.29.2013

Jun 5 @ 11:22 AM ET
Wilson and Reaves have done worse and gotten lesser punishment.

It's the lack of consistency.

Personally, I think the hit was just a tad late, but not nearly as "dirty" as some people are claiming. It's unfortunate that he got steamrolled like that, but I've seen a lot worse get a pass.
CooCooKaChoo
Location: Ottawa, ON
Joined: 01.15.2008

Jun 5 @ 3:40 PM ET
This is the most clear explanation I’ve seen on why he shouldn’t be suspended. I agree with everything you said and think there should be more responsibility for skating with your head down.
Izzo
Tampa Bay Lightning
Location: Tampa, FL
Joined: 12.20.2018

Jun 5 @ 4:14 PM ET
1) There is no cookie cutter, recipe for sameness in Hockey. All games and plays are different so you must judge intent from experience and not the results. Hitting your head on the ice. Fact is, Bill Masterson got legally hit but, tragically, died Ace Bailey and Eddie Shore...intent with terrible results...Pat Quinn on Orr....Orr had his head down and got a sucker pass....LaFontaine ran into his own teammate and that ended that. I was there: head down and neither player was looking.

2) The game is based on speed. Do you have a speed limit on skating in a game? NO. Why would we have a speed limit on hitting? How would you slow down a player just before he hits another legally?

Teams now have many smaller players who put themselves in vulnerable positions. There is an inherent risk in playing the game. If you don't want to incur any risk of being hurt on a legal hit, don't sign the contract.

- Paul Stewart


Of course there's an inherent risk every time you step out on the ice. But that doesn't mean that anything can and should happen. We clearly have rules, that in many cases, are there to protect the players. One of these is the charging penalty. We can argue over semantics and word play all day long but Schiefele's play should be the text book example of why there is even a charging penalty to begin with. For the life of me, I can't fathom a reason why that play should even remotely be considered legal. Is there some magical reason why it should? Is there something lost if he had just tried to play the puck? Not only would that have increased his chance of actually preventing the goal but no injury would have occurred on the play along with no suspension. Instead Schiefele made the determination that the game was already lost and that he would get back by hitting a vulnerable player with everything he had with no other value to the game. Is there some bizzaro world dimension where that play SHOULD be allowed? Can anyone give a reason that's a little more elaborate and thoughtful than "That's just the way it is".

Players can get hit by the puck in the face accidentally through the game's natural mechanisms of trying to score. Players can get checked along the boards and dislocate their shoulder accidentally as part of trying to remove the player from the puck.

But is there any rational reason why a player should get seriously injured not to score, not to stop a goal, not to take back posession of the puck, but because another player is frustrated and wants to make that player pay? I would love to hear it, because if there is, then you should be petitioning the league to remove charging from the rule book as there is no valid application for it.

Wetbandit1
Buffalo Sabres
Location: Unpopular opinion (i think): The best Die Hard movie is the 4th one- Live free or Die Hard -jdfitz7, NY
Joined: 10.07.2010

Jun 5 @ 5:05 PM ET
DoPS uses an RNG for suspensions.

Tom Wilson doesn't get suspended for an on-ice rampage, then has a more egregious charging penalty than Scheifele's sending Lazar into the bench and not even penalized, and yet, a guy without a history gets 4 playoff games which everyone says is really worth 2 regular season games? GTFO

I'm not saying Scheifele didn't deserve a suspension. I'd probably have given him a game, but Parros is out to lunch.

The NHL desperately needs consistency in discipline.
PghPens668771
Pittsburgh Penguins
Joined: 11.26.2013

Jun 5 @ 7:32 PM ET
Paul, I usually agree with you and while I agree with parts of your article I have to respectfully disagree with the main premise.

I know hockey is a very fast game (which is why it is so tough to officiate) and players always are making split second decisions. However, the "intent" argument fails apart in many cases. I am pretty sure that no player intends to hit the puck over the glass in their end and get a delay of game penalty and likewise no player intends to high stick a guy in the face and draw blood and get 4 minutes. Nevertheless, these things happen and the penalties have to be called. The player may be in the penalty box doing a face palm but they are still ultimately responsible. Part of being a good hockey player is being able to make good split second decisions.

In this case there are not many players in the league fast enough to have prevented that goal by taking the body. Obviously Schleifele was not one of them (and he did accelerate earlier in the play - he was going top speed and couldn't accelerate any more closer to when the play happened). His best chance would have been a diving, desperation poke check. Moreover, even for the players fast enough to have prevented this goal by taking the body there is no way the resultant hit would not be brutal and I can't see how this could possibly not be charging.

I do agree with you that penalties should not be based on outcome. Ultimately I think the best way to judge the severity of penalties that can result in injury is potential, rather than intent or outcome. Judging based on outcome is unjust and judging based on intent is too difficult.

Factoring out the more remote possibilities and considering the likely and less likely possibilities, what are the things that could have happened due to the illegal play? If a player does a flying crosscheck toward a guy's face and misses, swings his stick at a guy's head and misses, or skates the width of the ice to board/charge someone but the guy dodges the hit at the last second that player should still be dealt with very severely. The fact that no one got injured is irrelevant. The potential for a severe injury was high in these cases and the action was illegal. The only way to judge these plays based on intent is to get in the guy's head which you obviously cannot do and judging them based on outcome results in them getting off completely despite committing very dangerous plays.
acadian17
Season Ticket Holder
Joined: 01.17.2014

Jun 5 @ 10:54 PM ET
👍🏻
MBFlyerfan
Season Ticket Holder
Philadelphia Flyers
Location: All Lives Matter, NJ
Joined: 03.17.2006

Jun 6 @ 9:05 AM ET
Agree 100%
MBFlyerfan
Season Ticket Holder
Philadelphia Flyers
Location: All Lives Matter, NJ
Joined: 03.17.2006

Jun 6 @ 9:06 AM ET
Paul, I usually agree with you and while I agree with parts of your article I have to respectfully disagree with the main premise.

I know hockey is a very fast game (which is why it is so tough to officiate) and players always are making split second decisions. However, the "intent" argument fails apart in many cases. I am pretty sure that no player intends to hit the puck over the glass in their end and get a delay of game penalty and likewise no player intends to high stick a guy in the face and draw blood and get 4 minutes. Nevertheless, these things happen and the penalties have to be called. The player may be in the penalty box doing a face palm but they are still ultimately responsible. Part of being a good hockey player is being able to make good split second decisions.

In this case there are not many players in the league fast enough to have prevented that goal by taking the body. Obviously Schleifele was not one of them (and he did accelerate earlier in the play - he was going top speed and couldn't accelerate any more closer to when the play happened). His best chance would have been a diving, desperation poke check. Moreover, even for the players fast enough to have prevented this goal by taking the body there is no way the resultant hit would not be brutal and I can't see how this could possibly not be charging.

I do agree with you that penalties should not be based on outcome. Ultimately I think the best way to judge the severity of penalties that can result in injury is potential, rather than intent or outcome. Judging based on outcome is unjust and judging based on intent is too difficult.

Factoring out the more remote possibilities and considering the likely and less likely possibilities, what are the things that could have happened due to the illegal play? If a player does a flying crosscheck toward a guy's face and misses, swings his stick at a guy's head and misses, or skates the width of the ice to board/charge someone but the guy dodges the hit at the last second that player should still be dealt with very severely. The fact that no one got injured is irrelevant. The potential for a severe injury was high in these cases and the action was illegal. The only way to judge these plays based on intent is to get in the guy's head which you obviously cannot do and judging them based on outcome results in them getting off completely despite committing very dangerous plays.

- PghPens668771


So then what? He slams head first in to the goal post or the end wall?
Page: 1, 2  Next