6of1_halfdozenofother Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 For sharing recent rulings and discussion thereof. Starting this thread off with our dear umlauted one: Quote Canucks forward Hoglander fined $2.8k for slew-footing Canucks' Hoglander assessed match penalty and ejection for intent to injure Sharks' Lebanc Play Video Play Mute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 2:51 Loaded: 5.78% Fullscreen Vancouver Canucks' Nils Hoglander receives a five minute match penalty and an automatic ejection for intent to injure, after a supposed slew foot on San Jose Sharks forward Kevin Lebanc. Canadian Press |November 21, 2023, 12:53 PM The NHL's Department of Player Safety says Canucks forward Nils Hoglander has been fined for slew-footing San Jose's Kevin Labanc during Vancouver's 3-1 win on Monday. Hoglander has been fined US$2,864.58, the maximum allowable under the collective bargaining agreement between the league and the NHL Players' Association. The Swedish forward was given a match penalty for the infraction and ejected from the game with Connor Garland serving the penalty for his teammate. The incident happened near the end of the second period in front of the Canucks' bench, with Hoglander initially being given a minor penalty before that was overturned. The Canucks doubled their lead shortly after the incident, with Sam Lafferty scoring a shorthanded goal. Hoglander has five goals and eight points in 17 games this season, his fourth with the Canucks. https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/canucks-forward-hoglander-fined-2-9k-for-slew-footing/ In case the Xitter embed doesn't embed in the quoted article above: (PS, I know this ruling will have likely been posted already in the PGT and possibly other threads, but this thread is for discussion of DOP(e)S.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted November 21, 2023 Author Share Posted November 21, 2023 I'm glad that he doesn't have a suspension on his record for this. I guess they figured having him sit out the rest of the game was adequate supplemental punishment? Because the only thing consistent about DOP(e)S is how inconsistent they are, and I've seen players get punished worse for less egregious behaviour. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 I still feel that a 5-minute major was all that was needed for Höglander. Was definitely a dangerous play, but I don't buy the "intent to injure" part. Could've been worse I guess. Didn't have a massive impact on the game, given that the only difference is that Höglander was gone for the rest of the game. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted November 21, 2023 Author Share Posted November 21, 2023 3 minutes ago, -AJ- said: I still feel that a 5-minute major was all that was needed. Was definitely a dangerous play, but I don't buy the "intent to injure" part. Could've been worse I guess. Didn't have a massive impact on the game, given that the only difference is that Hoglander was gone for the rest of the game. Sadly, it also means that potentially he'll be a marked man, because other teams will be looking to make him do things that'll put him in front of DOP(e)S for consideration of supplemental punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 Just now, 6of1_halfdozenofother said: Sadly, it also means that potentially he'll be a marked man, because other teams will be looking to make him do things that'll put him in front of DOP(e)S for consideration of supplemental punishment. Doesn't help that he's got a bit of honey badger in him. He'll likely become hated around the league just for playing with such high intensity. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 How long were the refs suspended for the call? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyone Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 how is it that EVERY fine, is the 'maximum allowable' ? whether it's $1,000 or $5,000... it's still the maximum allowable. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 49 minutes ago, -AJ- said: I still feel that a 5-minute major was all that was needed. Was definitely a dangerous play, but I don't buy the "intent to injure" part. Could've been worse I guess. Didn't have a massive impact on the game, given that the only difference is that Hoglander was gone for the rest of the game. It didn't even warrant a major imo was just a battle where he lost balance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 10 minutes ago, grumpyone said: how is it that EVERY fine, is the 'maximum allowable' ? whether it's $1,000 or $5,000... it's still the maximum allowable. it is by % I believe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 Just now, canuck73_3 said: It didn't even warrant a major imo was just a battle where he lost balance. Partially true, but the motion was a pretty obvious slew foot. The most charitable I can be to Hogs is that he didn't mean to be in that position, but it's pretty obvious to me that once it started happening, he went ahead with the slew foot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 2 minutes ago, -AJ- said: Partially true, but the motion was a pretty obvious slew foot. The most charitable I can be to Hogs is that he didn't mean to be in that position, but it's pretty obvious to me that once it started happening, he went ahead with the slew foot. It was dumb. Could have cost the game. Refs over did it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 2 minutes ago, -AJ- said: Partially true, but the motion was a pretty obvious slew foot. The most charitable I can be to Hogs is that he didn't mean to be in that position, but it's pretty obvious to me that once it started happening, he went ahead with the slew foot. nah he was getting knocked over it's hard to slewfoot someone intentionally while falling over. Was a shit call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 19 minutes ago, grumpyone said: how is it that EVERY fine, is the 'maximum allowable' ? whether it's $1,000 or $5,000... it's still the maximum allowable. I'm assuming it's the max allowable in this case--probably linked to salary or something like that. Seems ridiculous to me that $5k is the max. The NHL should push for fines of more in the next CBA. Even a league minimum player makes $9,451 gross income per game. They should increase it to be a percentage of the player's income (or cap hit) per game. Max fine should be like 80% of one game. That way a league minium player would get fined up to about $7,500 and a player like Matthew Tkachuk would be allowed to be fined up to $92,000. Much more significant, but still less than a one-game suspension. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 Just now, Bob Long said: It was dumb. Could have cost the game. Refs over did it. Counter point is that it could've cost Labanc his season if he had landed worse. I agree that the refs did overdo it with the game misconduct, but I still think 5 minutes would've been the right call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 Just now, -AJ- said: Counter point is that it could've cost Labanc his season if he had landed worse. I agree that the refs did overdo it with the game misconduct, but I still think 5 minutes would've been the right call. For sure, not sure what hogs thought he was doing there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 3 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said: nah he was getting knocked over it's hard to slewfoot someone intentionally while falling over. Was a shit call. They had to call something tho, otherwise that crap would be rampant. It's the intent to injure that's the over reaction imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 5 minutes ago, Bob Long said: They had to call something tho, otherwise that crap would be rampant. It's the intent to injure that's the over reaction imo. 2 minutes tripping max. 5 and a game was ridiculous. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubik Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 (edited) i think he got off easy, I'd have given him a game. I don't think he's a vicious player or tried to injure him, but it was still a reckless thing to do, no need for that garbage. If it was a flames player doing that to Huggy, CFF would be rioting right now. Edited November 21, 2023 by Rubik 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 Don't understand how that was any different than the two slewfoot's Yamamoto pulled on Pettersson on Saturday. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Comment Rubik Posted November 21, 2023 Featured Comment Share Posted November 21, 2023 (edited) @6of1_halfdozenofother you might want to paste the text from here into your OP, so everyone is on the same page https://www.nhl.com/news/topic/player-safety/player-safety-questions Quote Where can I access Player Safety's Supplemental Discipline videos and educational videos? You can access the Department's Supplemental Discipline and educational videos on NHL.com/playersafety. The educational videos show the standards we use when considering Supplemental Discipline. Where does the Department of Player Safety monitor games? The Department of Player Safety watches every NHL game from a state-of-the-art video room at the League headquarters in New York City. The video room consists of 25 high-tech monitors that stream both the home and away broadcast of every game. When a specific play requires further review, the Department uses editing software to clip the play and all relevant replays. This video is then emailed to the entire Department within minutes. When considering Supplemental Discipline, does it matter if there was a penalty called on the ice? No, Supplemental Discipline may be assessed to any Player regardless of whether or not the infraction was penalized by an on-ice official. If a penalty is called, does the Supplemental Discipline have to match the call by the on-ice official? No, an infraction that leads to a suspension or a fine can be categorized differently than the call on the ice. In addition, Supplemental Discipline for breaking multiple rules can be imposed on a specific play. Why is injury taken into account when deciding Supplemental Discipline? And what other factors are taken into account? Per Article 18.2 in the CBA between the NHL and the NHLPA: "... In deciding on Supplementary Discipline for On-Ice Conduct, the following factors will be taken into account: (a) The type of conduct involved: conduct in violation of League Playing Rules, and whether the conduct is intentional or reckless, and involves the use of excessive and unnecessary force. Players are responsible for the consequences of their actions. (b) Injury to the opposing Player(s) involved in the incident. (c) The status of the offender and, specifically, whether the Player has a history of being subject to Supplementary Discipline for On-Ice Conduct. Players who repeatedly violate League Playing Rules will be more severely punished for each new violation. (d) The situation of the game in which the incident occurred, for example: late in the game, lopsided score, prior events in the game. (e) Such other factors as may be appropriate in the circumstances." Who attends a hearing? What is the purpose of a hearing? A hearing consists of the offending Player, the offending Player's General Manager, members of the NHLPA, and the offending Player's agent, as well as senior members of the Department of Player Safety. The purpose of a hearing is to interview the Player and his representatives about the play in question. No decision on Supplemental Discipline is made until the Player is given the opportunity to explain his actions. What is the difference between a telephone hearing and an in-person hearing? If the Department of Player Safety determines that any Supplemental Discipline from an infraction will result in five games or less or a fine of more than $5,000, the hearing is conducted by phone. If the infraction might require a suspension of six games or more, the offending Player is offered the opportunity to an in-person hearing. In this case, the Player remains suspended until the hearing takes place. If the Player waives his right to an in-person hearing, the hearing will be conducted by phone. What is a "Repeat Offender"? A Player is considered a repeat offender for 18 months following his most recent incident that resulted in a suspension. His status as a repeat offender in this category is used to determine the amount of salary forfeited should he receive another suspension. It is important to note that even if a Player is not defined as a repeat offender, his past history may come into consideration when determining future Supplemental Discipline. How much money does a Player forfeit when suspended? Non-repeat offenders lose salary based on the number of days in the season. For example, if there are 190 days in a season, a three game suspension would cost a non-repeat offender 3/190ths of his average salary. Repeat offenders lose salary based on the number of games in a season (82). For example, a three game suspension would cost a repeat offender 3/82nds of his average salary. How much money does a Player forfeit when fined? Players may be fined up to 50% of one day's average salary without exceeding $10,000 for the first fine and $15,000 for any subsequent fines within a 12 month calendar period. Where does money forfeited through fines and suspensions go? The money is put into the NHL Players' Emergency Assistance Fund. What are automatic suspensions? Automatic suspensions are independent of Supplemental Discipline imposed by the Department of Player Safety. A Player can receive Supplemental Discipline for a game misconduct; however, that particular game misconduct would not count towards his total for the relevant category. Players are automatically suspended if they incur multiple game misconducts in these categories: • General Category • Abuse of Officials Category • Stick Infractions Category • Physical Fouls Separate from the categories above, these infractions carry automatic suspensions without the accumulation of game misconducts: • Three Instigator penalties in one Regular season • Two Instigator penalties in the Playoffs • A Player who receives an Instigator penalty in the final five minutes of regulation time or at any time in overtime • Physical Abuse of Officials • Leaving the Bench for the purpose of starting an altercation Can a Player who receives Supplemental Discipline appeal the Department's decision? Yes. Players may appeal all on-ice discipline to the Commissioner, provided written notice of the appeal is provided within 48 hours. The Commissioner will endeavor to hear all appeals on an expedited basis and will determine whether the decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence. A subsequent appeal right to a neutral arbitrator will be available for suspensions of six (6) or more games. The neutral arbitrator shall have full remedial authority in respect of the matter. The standard of review will be whether the League's finding of violation of the League Playing Rules and the penalty imposed were both supported by substantial evidence. In all appeals (first to the Commissioner and then to the neutral arbitrator), the Player will remain suspended pending appeal (unless the full term of the Player's suspension has run). The Commissioner and the neutral arbitrator may consider new evidence relating to the incident even if such evidence was not available at the time of the initial supplementary discipline hearing and decision or, in the case of an appeal to the neutral arbitrator, at the time of the Commissioner's hearing or decision. Edited November 21, 2023 by Rubik 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 1 hour ago, -AJ- said: I still feel that a 5-minute major was all that was needed. Was definitely a dangerous play, but I don't buy the "intent to injure" part. Could've been worse I guess. Didn't have a massive impact on the game, given that the only difference is that Hoglander was gone for the rest of the game. I believe a slew foot is an automatic match penalty. Would have to call it something else to make it a major, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 Department Of Perpetual Stupidity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted November 21, 2023 Author Share Posted November 21, 2023 19 minutes ago, Rubik said: @6of1_halfdozenofother you might want to paste the text from here into your OP, so everyone is on the same page https://www.nhl.com/news/topic/player-safety/player-safety-questions @-AJ- - is there any way @Rubik's post (quoted here) can be pinned on this thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekey Pete Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 Didn't really seem all that intentional, looked more like a battle for position and both players off balance, but it is what it is. Definitely a penalty (interference, roughing, whatever you want to call it), but intentional slew footing, I don't know... Seen much worse and little or no discipline handed out, so I can accept the game ejection and I won't lose any sleep over it. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubik Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 5 minutes ago, Dekey Pete said: Didn't really seem all that intentional you can even see him yanking on the guy with his right hand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Posted by Rubik,
1 reaction
Go to this post
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.