Erik Gudbranson Suspended for 1 Game for Violating Rule 46.2 (Aggressor)

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Keirik said:

Nah, 40 games is crazy when you have a different opinion, but hey, go to the extreme all you want. It's not Bertuzzi/Moore. Not at all but let's agree to disagree. 

Yes, 40 games is crazy if you have a different opinion!

 

Oh no it's not Bertuzzi/Moore just because you say so...

 

At least provide a basis for these opinions otherwise it's not much of a debate. 

[Keirik]

27 minutes ago, Pete said:

Yes, 40 games is crazy if you have a different opinion!

 

Oh no it's not Bertuzzi/Moore just because you say so...

 

At least provide a basis for these opinions otherwise it's not much of a debate. 

I don't think its on me to provide a basis when you are the person saying the wild opinion. 40 games. Usually, if a person has an opinion that is so extreme, it's more on them to provide something tangible to back it up. You're bringing up broken necks when the play the cousins does is a hell of a lot more likely to lead to a major injury than getting sucker punched a period after a very bad boarding play.

 

  If the NHL wants to get rid of a potential serious injury. THOSE are the plays that have to be handled by the referees in the first place on the ice. That gets held up as a major and likely nothing else happens.

 

I'll take a sucker punch that I likely know is coming since  Gudbranson announced it to the entire arena as he left/came back from concussion protocol anyway before I take getting slammed from behind into the boards. 

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I don't think its on me to provide a basis when you are the person saying the wild opinion. 40 games. Usually, if a person has an opinion that is so extreme, it's more on them to provide something tangible to back it up. You're bringing up broken necks when the play the cousins does is a hell of a lot more likely to lead to a major injury than getting sucker punched a period after a very bad boarding play.

 

  If the NHL wants to get rid of a potential serious injury. THOSE are the plays that have to be handled by the referees in the first place on the ice. That gets held up as a major and likely nothing else happens.

 

I'll take a sucker punch that I likely know is coming since  Gudbranson announced it to the entire arena as he left/came back from concussion protocol anyway before I take getting slammed from behind into the boards. 

I provided my basis. I said it's the same as Bertuzzi/Moore. All you said is "It's not"... Well, I say it is and I said why, so yeah whatever. 

 

I haven't commented once on cousins. Sure, give him 40 games too. That literally has zero to do with a guy pummeling a player repeatedly who isn't fighting back. I don't subscribe to vigilante Justice, I shouldn't think a cop would either. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by Pete

[Keirik]

9 minutes ago, Pete said:

I provided my basis. I said it's the same as Bertuzzi/Moore. All you said is "It's not"... Well, I say it is and I said why, so yeah whatever. 

 

I haven't commented once on cousins. Sure, give him 40 games too. That literally has zero to do with a guy pummeling a player repeatedly who isn't fighting back. I don't subscribe to vigilante Justice, I shouldn't think a cop would either. 

I'll ask you to leave my profession out of this. It has  nothing to do with anything. Literally nothing. And in my opinion, no player should be suspended for 40 games after he turtles when challenged from a dirty hit. 

 

   Last year, Khaira challenged Trouba two years after the hit Trouba give him in Edmonton. Pre-meditation. Years later. Outcome doesn't matter right?  Thr only difference is, Trouba doesn't turtle. Cousins is no victim here. Gudvranson wanted his chunk of flesh like many players have wanted. He deserved a suspension. 40 games just isn't based on reality in my opinion. Just throwing out Bertuzzis game doesn't make your opinion anything more than just an opinion. 

[Pete]

14 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I'll ask you to leave my profession out of this. It has  nothing to do with anything. Literally nothing. And in my opinion, no player should be suspended for 40 games after he turtles when challenged from a dirty hit. 

 

   Last year, Khaira challenged Trouba two years after the hit Trouba give him in Edmonton. Pre-meditation. Years later. Outcome doesn't matter right?  Thr only difference is, Trouba doesn't turtle. Cousins is no victim here. Gudvranson wanted his chunk of flesh like many players have wanted. He deserved a suspension. 40 games just isn't based on reality in my opinion. Just throwing out Bertuzzis game doesn't make your opinion anything more than just an opinion. 

Stop with the faux outrage about bringing up your profession. It wasn't done in the disrespectful way, what possible issue could you have with it other than to cry foul? It's the NHL job to police the game. It's not the player's job. You of all people should be able to understand that. If you don't want to admit to that because it hurts your argument, that's something separate. 

 

There's a difference between challenging somebody, and pummeling someone who is not engaged. You might not like it, but those are the facts. 

 

I'm not just throwing bertuzzi's name out there, I'm making a connection to previous events. Which I've done pretty successfully. You've tried to disconnect it, pretty unsuccessfully. 

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by Pete

[Keirik]

9 minutes ago, Pete said:

Stop with the faux outrage about bringing up your profession. It wasn't done in the disrespectful way, what possible issue could you have with it other than to cry foul? It's the NHL job to police the game. It's not the player's job. You of all people should be able to understand that. If you don't want to admit to that because it hurts your argument, that's something separate. 

 

There's a difference between challenging somebody, and pummeling someone who is not engaged. You might not like it, but those are the facts. 

 

I'm not just throwing bertuzzi's name out there, I'm making a connection to previous events. Which I've done pretty successfully. You've tried to disconnect it, pretty unsuccessfully. 

 

I'm not claiming any faux outrage. I didnt even say i was outraged. I simply said to not bring my profession into this. It has nothing to do with this and quite frankly, isn't appropriate for a message board unless I brought it up.  'm not going to have the conversation trying to deem something that occurs in hockey has anything to do with breaking criminal laws. This has to do with hockey, not the Police Department. There is no connection there.  Routinely in the NHL players are asked to answer for their actions whenever a play is deemed questionable. If you want that gone, that's one thing. However, it's not gone, and this isn't a case of a Bertuzzi incident. i'm not even sure why we can't just have a discussion of opinions without it degrading into nonsense, inuendos and drawing conclusions that just aren't there. You have one opinion that this should be the second longest suspension in NHL history. I think it would be at least.  Or third if you count the twice it was 41 games for Torres and more recently Pinto. I personally think there is no track record at all for that. The only fact here is that we disagree. 

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I'm not claiming any faux outrage. I didnt even say i was outraged. I simply said to not bring my profession into this. It has nothing to do with this and quite frankly, isn't appropriate for a message board unless I brought it up.  'm not going to have the conversation trying to deem something that occurs in hockey has anything to do with breaking criminal laws. This has to do with hockey, not the Police Department. There is no connection there.  Routinely in the NHL players are asked to answer for their actions whenever a play is deemed questionable. If you want that gone, that's one thing. However, it's not gone, and this isn't a case of a Bertuzzi incident. i'm not even sure why we can't just have a discussion of opinions without it degrading into nonsense, inuendos and drawing conclusions that just aren't there. You have one opinion that this should be the second longest suspension in NHL history. I think it would be at least.  Or third if you count the twice it was 41 games for Torres and more recently Pinto. I personally think there is no track record at all for that. The only fact here is that we disagree. 

Seems like you're arguing just to argue. Doesn't really seem like you have a counterpoint with any legs. I'll just leave it alone. 

[Phil]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

The length of time you premeditate really should have nothing to do with it.

 

This is the sport that doubles your penalty if you draw blood. All that matters is the outcome. 

 

Then you should be more accepting of the fact this wasn't anywhere near 40 games because Cousins is fine, not forced into early retirement like Moore was.

 

This isn't like Bertuzzi-Moore because there was no injury, let alone one that ended a players' career.

[Pete]

9 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Then you should be more accepting of the fact this wasn't anywhere near 40 games because Cousins is fine, not forced into early retirement like Moore was.

 

This isn't like Bertuzzi-Moore because there was no injury, let alone one that ended a players' career.

That's a fair point, but the counter is that if you want to stop people from doing it, this isn't the way to go about it.

 

I can't imagine the league wants a situation where players decide what's a penalty and what isn't, and if they don't think the refs get it right, they exact justice themselves.

 

Like any police department, you don't want citizens taking the law into their own hands. 

[jsm7302]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

That's a fair point, but the counter is that if you want to stop people from doing it, this isn't the way to go about it.

 

I can't imagine the league wants a situation where players decide what's a penalty and what isn't, and if they don't think the refs get it right, they exact justice themselves.

 

Like any police department, you don't want citizens taking the law into their own hands. 

This is a valid argument on the heels of the Pinto suspension. An attempt to deter future acts as opposed to minor deterrent until it has a HUGE effect. Different scenarios but from an objective point of view, one action can alter a players life forever and the other touches on the integrity of the game, both detrimental at their worst. I think 5-10 games for each, Cousins and Gudbranson, due to the potential for life altering damage on both plays, sends a clear message. Don't take advantage of vulnerable players.

Edited December 14, 2023 by jsm7302

[Pete]

11 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

This is a valid argument on the heels of the Pinto suspension. An attempt to deter future acts as opposed to minor deterrent until it has a HUGE effect. Different scenarios but from an objective point of view, one action can alter a players life forever and the other touches on the integrity of the game, both detrimental at their worst. I think 5-10 games for each, Cousins and Gudbranson, due to the potential for life altering damage on both plays, sends a clear message. Don't take advantage of vulnerable players.

I hadn't really even thought about it through the lens of Pinto, but that's a really great point.

 

The reason I would want them to have a heavy suspension here is exactly as you said, a deterrent. The league never gets this right. They have to wait for Cooke to decapitate Savard. They have to wait for Torres to maim Hossa. 

 

You're talking about a guy who came out of concussion protocol to threaten another player in front of 18,000 people, and then go out and mug the guy right on the ice. 

 

The Cousins hit I frankly don't think was that bad and it happened during gameplay. What makes it worse is that it's Cousins who's a known asshole, definitely should have been a major.  What Gudbranson did is unacceptable in pro sports. 

[Phil]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

That's a fair point, but the counter is that if you want to stop people from doing it, this isn't the way to go about it.

 

I can't imagine the league wants a situation where players decide what's a penalty and what isn't, and if they don't think the refs get it right, they exact justice themselves.

 

Like any police department, you don't want citizens taking the law into their own hands. 

 

Right, I said one game was pathetically low. I'd have been in the 6-8 games range here, personally, and that's without injury. With one, I'd have no issue broaching 20-40.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Right, I said one game was pathetically low. I'd have been in the 6-8 games range here, personally, and that's without injury. With one, I'd have no issue broaching 20-40.

Gotcha. I also have no issue giving Cousins some games. 

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

It's the inconsistency that gets me. Like Perron hitting Zub, yeah maybe the fact that he went after the wrong guy is part of it, but he gets 6 games for a violent attack, while gudbranson gets 1?

 

Here's the thing, I understand each player's reaction. Gudbranson feels like the refs didn't do their job there. He takes a number and goes after him. He should totally just go for a big hit instead of throwing punches like that, but I get it. Perron, I get it too, he sees his captain unconscious on the ice and goes after who I assume he thought did it to him. But if the message is no more vigilante justice, you gotta keep it consistent.

 

is it a stick vs fists thing for the league? Its not like Perron has a history of this kind of stuff either. 6-8 games for both would have been fine in my book. 

[Phil]

25 minutes ago, Pete said:

Gotcha. I also have no issue giving Cousins some games. 

 

For the original hit? Maybe, yeah, like a game.

 

Honestly, I want to start seeing coaches get fined for this type of thing happening. If this was a standup moment, fine. Boys will be boys, but if your guy is seeing red and you put him back on the ice when the guy you know he wants to kill is on, you're part of the problem.

[Phil]

23 minutes ago, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said:

It's the inconsistency that gets me. Like Perron hitting Zub, yeah maybe the fact that he went after the wrong guy is part of it, but he gets 6 games for a violent attack, while gudbranson gets 1?

 

Here's the thing, I understand each player's reaction. Gudbranson feels like the refs didn't do their job there. He takes a number and goes after him. He should totally just go for a big hit instead of throwing punches like that, but I get it. Perron, I get it too, he sees his captain unconscious on the ice and goes after who I assume he thought did it to him. But if the message is no more vigilante justice, you gotta keep it consistent.

 

is it a stick vs fists thing for the league? Its not like Perron has a history of this kind of stuff either. 6-8 games for both would have been fine in my book. 

 

The NHL designs it this way by refusing to enact minimum sentencing. Everything is a unique snowflake that requires isolated study, which is just dumb. If you're gonna be suspended for a head-check, for example, there should be a universal minimum you start from (NOT ZERO) that you can then apply degree to in order to determine how much higher the penalty gets. Especially if you actually believe, or take seriously, the idea of head injuries being more concerning than others.

[Pete]

27 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

The NHL designs it this way by refusing to enact minimum sentencing. Everything is a unique snowflake that requires isolated study, which is just dumb. If you're gonna be suspended for a head-check, for example, there should be a universal minimum you start from (NOT ZERO) that you can then apply degree to in order to determine how much higher the penalty gets. Especially if you actually believe, or take seriously, the idea of head injuries being more concerning than others.

But then suspend Pinto 40 games for giving someone his DraftKings login.... 

[Valriera]

Quote

It's the inconsistency that gets me. Like Perron hitting Zub, yeah maybe the fact that he went after the wrong guy is part of it, but he gets 6 games for a violent attack, while gudbranson gets 1?

Yeah that's the root cause of the frustration here. Everyone has their own opinions on what's appropriate and they're all right or wrong to some degree, but the infuriating thing to me and probably everyone else is that the league doesn't seem to have a consistent opinion on this topic, so the discipline is all over the place. It's like one kid gets grounded for a week and another gets a timeout for roughly the same thing. Doesn't work for me.

[Phil]

41 minutes ago, Pete said:

But then suspend Pinto 40 games for giving someone his DraftKings login.... 

 

Yup. It's the Wheel of Justice. Take a spin. Where it lands, no one knows.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

Gudbranson 1 game for the retaliation.

 

Cousins 1 game for the dirty hit and an extra game for being a pussy.

[jsm7302]

3 hours ago, Phil said:

 

The NHL designs it this way by refusing to enact minimum sentencing. Everything is a unique snowflake that requires isolated study, which is just dumb. If you're gonna be suspended for a head-check, for example, there should be a universal minimum you start from (NOT ZERO) that you can then apply degree to in order to determine how much higher the penalty gets. Especially if you actually believe, or take seriously, the idea of head injuries being more concerning than others.

Akin to the criminal justice system where degree of crime ranks the degree of penalty.

 

It should be a matrix. # of offenses on one axis, actual offenses on the other axis. Aggravating circumstance exemplifier for serious sustained injury (victim misses any # of games) or premeditation (retaliation not directly after play) set at a steady mandatory 5 games on top of the matrix penalty.

 

This is literally following your finger to the answer. Forget mitigating circumstances; reckless play gets reckless penalties.

[BrooksBurner]

22 hours ago, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said:

It's the inconsistency that gets me. Like Perron hitting Zub, yeah maybe the fact that he went after the wrong guy is part of it, but he gets 6 games for a violent attack, while gudbranson gets 1?

 

Here's the thing, I understand each player's reaction. Gudbranson feels like the refs didn't do their job there. He takes a number and goes after him. He should totally just go for a big hit instead of throwing punches like that, but I get it. Perron, I get it too, he sees his captain unconscious on the ice and goes after who I assume he thought did it to him. But if the message is no more vigilante justice, you gotta keep it consistent.

 

is it a stick vs fists thing for the league? Its not like Perron has a history of this kind of stuff either. 6-8 games for both would have been fine in my book. 

Perron didn’t just hit Zub. He used his stick as a weapon, which immediately makes it a different conversation.