Breakdown of Galiardi's Hit on McDonald

[cprice12]

[drwoland]

Seriously though, Shanahan is terrible at his current job.

[fargoblues]

:lol:

Seriously though, Shanahan is terrible at his current job.

[thedoc]

At least Goodell sets a precident when he fines/suspends someone. Thats what I think bothers me the most about this. There is nothing set up were when you see a hit we have a good idea what the punishment is going to be. Let's also be honest between our game 2, the Weber hit and even Crosby getting chippy there is a lot that have gone with out so much as a peep.

[Kreegz2]

I'm going to be the one who goes against the grain here and says it: I didn't have any problem with that check, and don't think Galiardi should be suspended or even fined.

The head was not targeted by Galiardi, although I will agree it was the principal point of contact. McDonald is a short player who seemed to duck right before the impact, past the point of no return for Galiardi. Galiardi hit him head on, not from behind, not even at an angle, but 100% head on. He didn't leave his feet until well after the the initial contact, which is an established precedent for determining whether or not it was malicious. It still sucks to see a guy like McDonald hit like that, but hey, this is hockey.

Jump down my throat all you want, but that hit looked clean to me when it happened and it still looks clean to me now. It is not the type of hit I personally think should be eliminated from the game.

[fargoblues]

I'm going to be the one who goes against the grain here and says it: I didn't have any problem with that check, and don't think Galiardi should be suspended or even fined.

The head was not targeted by Galiardi, although I will agree it was the principal point of contact. McDonald is a short player who seemed to duck right before the impact, past the point of no return for Galiardi. Galiardi hit him head on, not from behind, not even at an angle, but 100% head on. He didn't leave his feet until well after the the initial contact, which is an established precedent for determining whether or not it was malicious. It still sucks to see a guy like McDonald hit like that, but hey, this is hockey.

Jump down my throat all you want, but that hit looked clean to me when it happened and it still looks clean to me now. It is not the type of hit I personally think should be eliminated from the game.

Not gonna jump down your throat but I will disagree in that he left his feet when there's absolutely no need to do so (he's much bigger than AMac) and got his elbow up to the head.

My issue continues to be the inconsistency. You cannot convince me that if AMac was Datsyuk and Galiardi was, say, Polak, that Polak wouldn't get a suspension. I think if it's anyone but Shea Weber on Zetterberg they get suspended as well. It's crap. Either it's suspendable or its not. Shouldn't matter what team is involved. Shouldn't matter if the person goes down like a toothless crack whore (Zetterberg) or gets up and continues play (AMac). Shouldn't matter if the person is injured or not. Have to be consistent. Shanahan has been anything but.

[thedoc]

I won't jump down your throat because I agree with you to a point. You are seeing smaller players and in the NFL receivers tuck their heads to try and draw penalties. This needs to be stopped for safety and for the good of the game. You can't play defense with this type of loophole.

That being said the elbow to Nicholes head and the face plant by Weber those were intentional and pretty obvious.

[not_a_wings_fan]

Listen to the podcast that was posted in the other thread where shanny talks about his "reasoning." He basically gets backed into a corner saying that injury is the big decider for him.

My overall take on the league right now is diving is being rewarded. If you want a major penalty you have to stay down. To "draw" a suspension you have to leave the game or be helped off the ice or whatever. High stick is a high stick, you call it. BUT if the other guy falls down like it was a two handed smash with a baseball bat he gets two minutes too. That's the rules, enforce them.

I am fine if they want injury to factor in, but hit to the head is three games - six if you break someone, and it doubles every time you repeat it in the same calendar year. Even if no penalty is assessed and the guy is perfectly fine, you get THREE GAMES for elbows to the head. No discussion. It has to be that way or it won't stop. Shanny could do this starting today and get it settled in short order. Guys that couldn't adjust wouldn't be in the league anymore because they would miss too many games from suspensions.

[cardsfan04]

Listen to the podcast that was posted in the other thread where shanny talks about his "reasoning." He basically gets backed into a corner saying that injury is the big decider for him.

My overall take on the league right now is diving is being rewarded. If you want a major penalty you have to stay down. To "draw" a suspension you have to leave the game or be helped off the ice or whatever. High stick is a high stick, you call it. BUT if the other guy falls down like it was a two handed smash with a baseball bat he gets two minutes too. That's the rules, enforce them.

I am fine if they want injury to factor in, but hit to the head is three games - six if you break someone, and it doubles every time you repeat it in the same calendar year. Even if no penalty is assessed and the guy is perfectly fine, you get THREE GAMES for elbows to the head. No discussion. It has to be that way or it won't stop. Shanny could do this starting today and get it settled in short order. Guys that couldn't adjust wouldn't be in the league anymore because they would miss too many games from suspensions.

Agree for the most part. Punish the action, not the result. Otherwise your rewarding somebody for staying down like you said.

I'm torn on making suspensions as structured as you have it though. In general, I think that takes necessary discretion out of Shanahan's position. That being said, he has routinely proven he can't use good discretion, so it would be an improvement for sure. But, if they found somebody competent to do that job, I think they should have some discretion.

[not_a_wings_fan]

I am not saying write it into the rulebook, I am saying change his philosophy. Any hit that he deems to intentionally target the head should get a suspension. He still has the discretion to review, but start handing them out for every elbow that hits the head as a principal point of contact. Stop trying to discern injury and intent to injure and reputation - just start banning people for "missing" high.

[cardsfan04]

I am not saying write it into the rulebook, I am saying change his philosophy. Any hit that he deems to intentionally target the head should get a suspension. He still has the discretion to review, but start handing them out for every elbow that hits the head as a principal point of contact. Stop trying to discern injury and intent to injure and reputation - just start banning people for "missing" high.

ahh, gotcha. Completely agree then.

[theohall]

I am not saying write it into the rulebook, I am saying change his philosophy. Any hit that he deems to intentionally target the head should get a suspension. He still has the discretion to review, but start handing them out for every elbow that hits the head as a principal point of contact. Stop trying to discern injury and intent to injure and reputation - just start banning people for "missing" high.

ahh, gotcha. Completely agree then.

Heard a comment on The Point on NHL Radio yesterday. Apparently, league executives were pissed at Shanahan for handing out so many early season suspensions and told him to tone it down. Result - players are not being protected from head shots because the league executives don't want their players serving suspensions instead of playing. Yes, it's completely idiotic, because the guys that tend to wind up hurt from head shots are skill guys (Alfredsson) and the guys delivering them (Hagelin) are usually marginal players at best.

[cardsfan04]

I am not saying write it into the rulebook, I am saying change his philosophy. Any hit that he deems to intentionally target the head should get a suspension. He still has the discretion to review, but start handing them out for every elbow that hits the head as a principal point of contact. Stop trying to discern injury and intent to injure and reputation - just start banning people for "missing" high.

ahh, gotcha. Completely agree then.

Heard a comment on The Point on NHL Radio yesterday. Apparently, league executives were pissed at Shanahan for handing out so many early season suspensions and told him to tone it down. Result - players are not being protected from head shots because the league executives don't want their players serving suspensions instead of playing. Yes, it's completely idiotic, because the guys that tend to wind up hurt from head shots are skill guys (Alfredsson) and the guys delivering them (Hagelin) are usually marginal players at best.

Assuming that's the case, he probably isn't as culpable for doing a terrible job as it first seems. I mean, he's still done a terrible job, but if he was told to ease up, I can see why he suspends injury, not action.

[DaDitka]

I am not saying write it into the rulebook, I am saying change his philosophy. Any hit that he deems to intentionally target the head should get a suspension. He still has the discretion to review, but start handing them out for every elbow that hits the head as a principal point of contact. Stop trying to discern injury and intent to injure and reputation - just start banning people for "missing" high.

ahh, gotcha. Completely agree then.

Heard a comment on The Point on NHL Radio yesterday. Apparently, league executives were pissed at Shanahan for handing out so many early season suspensions and told him to tone it down. Result - players are not being protected from head shots because the league executives don't want their players serving suspensions instead of playing. Yes, it's completely idiotic, because the guys that tend to wind up hurt from head shots are skill guys (Alfredsson) and the guys delivering them (Hagelin) are usually marginal players at best.

Assuming that's the case, he probably isn't as culpable for doing a terrible job as it first seems. I mean, he's still done a terrible job, but if he was told to ease up, I can see why he suspends injury, not action.

I think it's been a learning process for both sides and I actually commend him for making himself so open to the media and criticism. I think the thing to watch here is if it all runs much cleaner next year. If not.......then it may be time to re-think things.

But as for this year, he's stated before that they never really gave them any real direction and all input from above has really been exclusively reactionary. I honestly don;t think he's tried to show favoritism nor agenda one way or the other. I just think it's been a very messy situation because the suits up top have made it such.

[goon attack]

Screw all this time Shanny is taking to explain the suspensions on video. Also, it seems awfully complicated. I'd simplify it. Does it look like someone was attempting to injure? Okay:

first offense: 1 game
second offense: 3 games
third offense: 10 games
fourth offense: 20 games

etc.

(Frank) all the debate about all the intricacies of each issue etc... just hand out the freaking suspendings(durbano video ) as dictated by the formula.

Is this a players' union deal issue, or can Shanny do whatever the hell he wants?

[DaDitka]

Is this a players' union deal issue, or can Shanny do whatever the hell he wants?

He noted in the interview that Curt posted that there is a limit of how much he can fine a player (with the 2,500 being the top end), but I've never heard anything in regards the limits on suspensions.

[cprice12]

Screw all this time Shanny is taking to explain the suspensions on video. Also, it seems awfully complicated. I'd simplify it. Does it look like someone was attempting to injure? Okay:

first offense: 1 game
second offense: 3 games
third offense: 10 games
fourth offense: 20 games

etc.

(Frank) all the debate about all the intricacies of each issue etc... just hand out the freaking suspendings(durbano video ) as dictated by the formula.

Is this a players' union deal issue, or can Shanny do whatever the hell he wants?

The reason it seems complicated, is because it IS complicated.
Every hit has different scenarios & factors that play into it, and every hit is different...so making it a black and white issue isn't really feasible if you want to be fair about the suspensions.

I like the idea of detailed video explanations. Before Shanny, suspensions were handed down or not handed down without any explanation at all, which was frustrating for fans and players....we had no idea how the league came to their conclusion. That sucked.

I see the problem at this point being a few things:
1) Preferential treatment.
Even with the detailed explanations, it's still obvious to everyone that star players are treated differently and are given far more slack. Franzen jumps out to me as one of those players. He has taken numerous, dirty, cheap shots after the whistle without even so much as a review. You have to start suspending star players who commit suspendable hits at the same rate as everyone else. Until that happens, this system will continue to be a joke.

2) The playoff factor.
Suspensions in the playoffs will be less severe than a regular season suspsension because of the shear importance of each playoff game...which I agree with. HOWEVER,, the problem is if a player is injured because of a dirty play, why is it that those games he misses don't seem to factor in? Those are important games missed because of a cheap shot. Why should someone have to miss an entire series due to injury because of a cheap shot when the offending player only misses one or two games because it is the playoffs? That is frustrating for everyone.

3) Over-analyzing.
When you slow the video down and have so many rules & different scenarios that can factor into if a player gets suspended or not, quite often you can make the video say anything you want. By breaking it down in such a detailed way, taking into account every single head angle & body position, you can explain your way out of suspending anyone, or explain your way into suspending someone. And that leads back to point #1 with consistency issues.

4) What gets reviewed?
I think this annoyance frustrates fans more than anything. Some seriously questionable plays for some reason are being ignored.
There isn't a single reason, not one, that the Burns elbow on Nichol shouldn't have been reviewed.
There isn't a single reason, not one, that the Galiardi hit on McDonald shouldn't have been reviewed.
Neither were reviewed.
Maybe, just maybe you could explain why Galiardi doesn't deserve a suspension...but the Burns eblow on Nichol was intentional, obvious, clearly seen on video and pretty viscous. Burns should have received at least a 1 game suspension based on the rules in place for suspensions and factoring in that it is the playoffs, but it wasn't even reviewed.

Breaking the plays down in detail is fine, I think everyone wants that to work. But you have to retain the common sense factor, which seems to be lost in this whole thing.

Here's my solution...
- Keep all of the detailed scenarios and rules for what warrants a suspension/fine.
- Review every questionable play, not just ones that received a penalty. Review every play that a team requests you to review.
- Be consistent and do not base the suspension or fine on who the player is.
- Don't forget to use common sense.

[goon attack]

curt- making it a black and white issue would resolve all of the things you mentioned?

the point being that a 1 or 3 game suspension isn't that big of a deal. If you lose AMac for one game, it's not the end of the world... but is AMac going to get suspended three times for "accidental" elbows? No. But a douche like Galiardi will be, because he pulls shit like that. A player may get screwed from time to time because something looks intentional that wasn't, but I'd think that would be the exception, not the rule.

Thereshould be a high burden of proof here. I think it must be OBVIOUS to maybe a panel of 3-5 people that the intent was there. If you can get a consensus, then dole out the punishment under black and white guidelines. Problem solved.

The basic point: did the person TRY to injure? Yes, or no? Simple.

Perhaps there should be an anonymous panel that rotates. That way it won't be the same people all the time. Try to make it fair that way.

[theohall]

...to maybe a panel of 3-5 people that the intent was there. If you can get a consensus, then dole out the punishment under black and white guidelines. Problem solved.
...

Perhaps there should be an anonymous panel that rotates. That way it won't be the same people all the time. Try to make it fair that way.

A 3 person minimum panel has been one of my arguments all along. The decisions should not be in the hands of one person. Any time there is a single person, the appearance of bias will be a factor. The fact not one single incident involving a hit to the head of a Blues player has been reviewed makes one wonder wtf Shanahan has against St Louis. It may not be true, but it has the appearance of bias. The same problem existed for Campbell with his son playing for the Bruins. If they make it at least a 3-person panel, the issue of bias goes away pretty damn quick.

[goon attack]

...to maybe a panel of 3-5 people that the intent was there. If you can get a consensus, then dole out the punishment under black and white guidelines. Problem solved.
...

Perhaps there should be an anonymous panel that rotates. That way it won't be the same people all the time. Try to make it fair that way.

A 3 person minimum panel has been one of my arguments all along. The decisions should not be in the hands of one person. Any time there is a single person, the appearance of bias will be a factor. The fact not one single incident involving a hit to the head of a Blues player has been reviewed makes one wonder wtf Shanahan has against St Louis. It may not be true, but it has the appearance of bias. The same problem existed for Campbell with his son playing for the Bruins. If they make it at least a 3-person panel, the issue of bias goes away pretty damn quick.

Sounds good to me.