Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

George Parros to Head NHL?s Department of Player Safety


Phil

Recommended Posts

Changes are coming in NHL Player Safety, with sources indicating George Parros will emerge as a major voice in the decision-making process.

 

Current senior vice-president Stephane Quintal is expected to stay in the department for the time being to help with the transition. But it would not be a surprise if he looks for something else, either within the NHL or an individual club.

 

?Three years was enough for him,? one source said. ?That job eats away at you.?

 

A very popular teammate during his 474-game NHL career, Parros won a Stanley Cup with Anaheim in 2007. He?s known for his fists, accumulating 1,092 career penalty minutes and more than 150 fighting majors.

 

His ascension comes at an interesting time, as fighting declines in the NHL and throughout the sport. But there is a lot of depth to Parros, who played his NCAA hockey at Princeton. His supporters (and there are many) warn not to stereotype him before he begins the job.

 

Since there has not yet been an official announcement, Parros declined to comment ? or even confirm the change is coming.

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/george-parros-head-nhls-department-player-safety/

 

?

 

Confirmed here:

 

:tweet: @ByKevinAllen: NHL announces that George Parros is the new head of player safety, replacing Stephane Quintal who is pursuing other endeavors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL announced on Wednesday that George Parros is the new Senior Vice President of Player Safety, taking the reins of the league?s on-ice supplemental discipline from Stephane Quintal.

 

 

Parros is an interesting choice for the role, because he?s always been an interesting NHL personality. He had 1,092 penalty minutes in 474 NHL regular-season games during his career, spanning from 2005-14 ? playing an on-ice role as a fighter that seemed in contrast with his Princeton educated background. There was some backlash to his promotion, as media and fans couldn?t quite square a guy most notable for throwing punches being tasked with NHL Player Safety.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/george-parros-suspending-sidney-crosby-answering-player-safety-critics-qa-204918224.html

 

 

George Parros now in charge of player " safety ". A guy who made his bones pummeling the opposing player's heads is now looking out for their " safety "? Ha. Ha. Ha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think an enforcer - like Parros - is well-suited for the role. He'll have as good of an understanding of intent to injure as anyone and he's a smart guy, went to Princeton. He was a goon because it was A) a way to build an NHL career and B) filled a role for the teams he was on. He was a cerebral enforcer, not a knuckle-dragging meathead like Sestito. Tanner Glass would do well in the job also. It's far better to have one of those guys than a pure skill guy.

 

There's a natural concern about maybe an enforcer giving too much benefit of the doubt, but I think that's probably better than over-suspending for borderline hits. The big thing will be consistency, and since he was pragmatic as a player, that can apply to the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the NHL's thinking, too, I'd imagine. The problem is, this is exactly the slippery slope that, Shanahan aside, has resulted in muddy waters of consistency that have fans questioning the decision-making process. It's not so much the idea of Parros himself I disagree with as the mentality I'm sure he, like his predecessors, is going to bring, which is, in effect, to draw an arbitrary line in the sand that we are expected to just accept. Except, just like with "The Code", that line is ill-defined, and the more you try to turn the screws on it, the worse the result. Hence the tail end of Shanahan's DOPS career through to today. The more you try to inject this kind of "intention-determining" snowflakey (as in every hit is a unique situation), the harder and harder it gets to maintain an easily understood level of consistency.

 

I actually think they would be better off giving the position to a non-player with no history. A lawyer, even. Someone who thinks enitrely on facts, not optics, who can be given the power to operate with a much simpler set of rules. If Sestito elbows Kreider in the head and injures him, it's simple. Was the contact avoidable? Was the victim seriously injured? Does the player have a history of this behavior?

 

That's the criteria. Use it to develop an escalating scale. If it's a rookie with no history, the first offense is, perhaps, a five-game suspension. Second offense is a 10-game suspension, third offense is a 20-game, fourth is 40, fifth is an entire season, with the potential for a lifetime ban from the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think they would be better off giving the position to a non-player with no history. A lawyer, even. Someone who thinks enitrely on facts, not optics, who can be given the power to operate with a much simpler set of rules. If Sestito elbows Kreider in the head and injures him, it's simple. Was the contact avoidable? Was the victim seriously injured? Does the player have a history of this behavior?

 

That's the criteria. Use it to develop an escalating scale. If it's a rookie with no history, the first offense is, perhaps, a five-game suspension. Second offense is a 10-game suspension, third offense is a 20-game, fourth is 40, fifth is an entire season, with the potential for a lifetime ban from the league.

Well the optics are the facts. You can't arbitrarily suspend a guy 5 games because he accidentally hit someone with his elbow. Determining intent should decide whether there is a suspension, and then the escalating scale works. The further up the scale you get, the less likely you are to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the optics are only a part and can bee swayed to one direction or another given context (angles, in this case).

 

I don't support blanket suspensions. I just want harsher penalties, especially for repeat offenders and egregious acts of violence. If consistency is the name of the game then, like law, we need to favor the letter more than the spirit.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's laughable that fans don't trust the guys that actually played the game their whole lives to determine these plays. Do any of you think that the players, coaches, gm's, and owners actually give a fuck with a fan thinks about whether or not a certain play was unavoidable? They don't. They know better than anyone. They should be in charge, not a lawyer. Lawyers are commisioners and agents, leave it that way. * Note, I know at least 1 head coach has a law degree, and I guess it's possible that some players do too, but I'm generalizing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that I don't trust them. It's that I hate the process they've settled on. I actually do trust them to know the difference between "good" and "bad" hits. I just don't agree with their determinations on suspension length.

 

If a player constantly plays on the edge, there's always going to be controversy when that player is involved in a play that needs to be reviewed. Those edge guys aren't going to get big suspensions. Should they? Maybe, maybe not. It's opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...