crime and punishment
The NHL just handed down the suspension for Scott Nichol's cross check to the face of Patrice Brisebois the other night. 5 games. I guess that's about right, though I expected less and would have been ok with more.
What was particularly interesting to me about this, was the statement by Colin Campble, NHL disciplinarian (VP of Operations). His statement read: "The crosscheck by Mr. Nichol to the head area of his opponent was reckless and dangerous. Although no serious injury resulted, the action is unacceptable."
Interesting. I am a little confused though. I've ranted about the punishment fitting the crime not the injury in the NHL before, but this year the league has outright stated that punishments will be doled out in accordance to the severity of the injury (if any).
But this situation has me confused. I figured Nichol would get a game or two since there was very little injury (a small cut on his chin). I think the action deserved a 7 game suspension if not quite a bit more (in light of the 20+ game suspensions for some sketchy hits during the course of play earlier this year). And a 5 game suspension gets handed down. And the comments go with them... I'm not sure if Nichol got of easy because there wasn't an injury, or if these comments should lead us to believe he got a stronger penalty because of his actions, not the injury.
Either way, i know Horichuck doesn't have the (occasional) defensive smarts and penalty killing that Nichol has, but i'll be glad to see him in and Nichol out for a while. Nichol's a decent player, but he's gotta stop doing idiotic stuff like this or he's going to cost his team big time when it comes to the playoffs... oh wait...he already did last year.
What was particularly interesting to me about this, was the statement by Colin Campble, NHL disciplinarian (VP of Operations). His statement read: "The crosscheck by Mr. Nichol to the head area of his opponent was reckless and dangerous. Although no serious injury resulted, the action is unacceptable."
Interesting. I am a little confused though. I've ranted about the punishment fitting the crime not the injury in the NHL before, but this year the league has outright stated that punishments will be doled out in accordance to the severity of the injury (if any).
But this situation has me confused. I figured Nichol would get a game or two since there was very little injury (a small cut on his chin). I think the action deserved a 7 game suspension if not quite a bit more (in light of the 20+ game suspensions for some sketchy hits during the course of play earlier this year). And a 5 game suspension gets handed down. And the comments go with them... I'm not sure if Nichol got of easy because there wasn't an injury, or if these comments should lead us to believe he got a stronger penalty because of his actions, not the injury.
Either way, i know Horichuck doesn't have the (occasional) defensive smarts and penalty killing that Nichol has, but i'll be glad to see him in and Nichol out for a while. Nichol's a decent player, but he's gotta stop doing idiotic stuff like this or he's going to cost his team big time when it comes to the playoffs... oh wait...he already did last year.
Digg This!
No comments:
Post a Comment