Monday night this week, Tyler Myers of the Buffalo Sabres laid a hit on Montreal's Scott Gomez. He would later receive a suspension from the NHL of 3 games. In Brendan Shanahan's explanation, they took into account that Gomez was injured on the play and that Myers was not a repeat offender and that his 3 seasons in the NHL had passed with out previous incident. This got me thinking again.
Does it really matter if someone is a 'repeat offender'?
Myers Suspension Explanation Video:
Would the NHL seriously consider the fact that someone has never been suspended before if the hit were more serious? or is that just an excuse put forward to reduce the suspension of it's players? Now, i know the NHL wants to protect their players all while giving the fans the experience that brings in the big money, but does that really outweigh player injuries and suspensions? No, I dont believe so.
Having gone to school with Tyler Myers, and seeing him play many home games at the Duncan McNiell arena in Wilcox, SK., I know that Tyler has a difficult time hitting players at a level where the hit is "shoulder-to-shoulder' so to speak, when hes a whopping 6'8". In fact, he received many penalties for head-checking when he simply put his body into another player. However, this is no excuse for the blatant nature of the hit in question.This brings me back to my main argument. The fact that Myers is not a repeat offender was taken into consideration by the NHL when determining appropriate action for the hit. This is something I dont particularly agree with. The NHL should take each hit as it comes. Determine the Principle Point of Contact (PPOC) and the intent of the hit, and make a ruling form that point. The fact that someone has never done something like this before should not be so heavily taken into consideration. If I were to murder someone, the jury and judge wouldn't stop for a second and say "Well, you know......he's never done anything like this before". Thats just foolish. Although the NHL doesnt have circumstances to deal with as heavy murder, what they do have to police should be taken just as seriously. If a player gets hurt under their organization, they have a responsibility to protect and work to bring justice to the situation. Same goes for if the player isn't hurt, but has still been violated under the rules of the league.
The NHL needs to stop using the 'repeat' offender connotation to reduce the impact and severity of its decisions. This goes both ways however. Even for players who ARE repeat offenders, meaning they have been involved or are continuously involved in this sort of behaviour, they need to have a dedicated ruling imposed on their incidents. If you can label a player 'not a repeat offender' then labeling a player ' a repeat offender' is not fair. How would you ever get rid of that title once you have 'offended'? You cant.
I know the NHL has a job to do, and im not saying im the person whose ideas will change the game, but im rather suggesting that the NHL step back and take a look at itself. When your responsible for 30 teams, with 25+ players, you need to be able to say that they are all protected equally under your rule system. If you can label players as dangerous and not dangerous, then you are doing something wrong.
What are your thoughts and feelings on this topic? Let me know!
