Suspension/Fine Matt Rempe Suspended 4 Games for Elbow to Head on Jonas Siegenthaler

[Sharpshooter]

So, he's eligible to come back for the Islanders game, right? Coming back just in time for another rivalry game to get into more fights or get suspended again. 

[Keirik]

3 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

So, he's eligible to come back for the Islanders game, right? Coming back just in time for another rivalry game to get into more fights or get suspended again. 

He misses thr Islanders game 

[Sharpshooter]

Oh, that's the fourth game of the suspension. Damn. Too bad too because they'll probably be absolutely gassed for that game and could use any boost they can get.

[Pete]

14 minutes ago, Keirik said:

But this isn't about being objective or subjective. The "if he were not a ranger" talk really donesnt have a thing to do with it. No one is saying he shouldn't he suspended. I thought 3 so I just said 4 seems 1 game too much and I'd appeal to see if a game gets shaved off. That's all. All of this "do the deed take your feed and medicine" talk really is just muddying the water to skew the conversation. It l was discussed all day ad nauseum yesterday with a wide range of suspension guesses. There's nothing wrong with suggesting 4 games is a bit much for him. Great, you think 4 is bang on. I don't.  Myself and many thought 2-3 seemed about right. 

I don't think 4 is bang on. I never said that. I said a guy with 10 games in the league and already has a head hunting rep should not appeal the decision.

 

There's nothing muddy about it, and nothing is skewed.

[Keirik]

Just now, Pete said:

I don't think 4 is bang on. I never said that. I said a guy with 10 games in the league and already has a head hunting rep should not appeal the decision.

 

There's nothing muddy about it, and nothing is skewed.

I think there is when you're bringing up games in the league, common sense,  whether if we were Rangers fans discussing it, etc. I 100% do get that he should be suspended. I don't get why it's exactly 4 games, but we've seen this from the league with seemingly random and inconsistent suspensions. I don't get the point of not appealing it at all. He's either here to stay or he's not. I don't think a routine appeal is going to piss off the league office and have a lasting negative impact on anything forward for him. 

[Keirik]

13 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Oh, that's the fourth game of the suspension. Damn. Too bad too because they'll probably be absolutely gassed for that game and could use any boost they can get.

Hence why I'd be looking to get a one game reduction. Can't hurt in trying. 

[Sharpshooter]

I kind of agree with Pete, though. I don't think appealing is a great look. It's a suspension no matter how you slice it, so I think they should just deal. If they were going to appeal, they probably would have done so already.

[Pete]

10 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I think there is when you're bringing up games in the league, common sense,  whether if we were Rangers fans discussing it, etc. I 100% do get that he should be suspended. I don't get why it's exactly 4 games, but we've seen this from the league with seemingly random and inconsistent suspensions. I don't get the point of not appealing it at all. He's either here to stay or he's not. I don't think a routine appeal is going to piss off the league office and have a lasting negative impact on anything forward for him. 

If anything this is muddying the waters and skewing the conversation.

 

Yes he should have been suspended.

Yes the league is inconsistent (all the more reason to not do dumb shit).

 

And yes, the NHL/commissioner do not like appeals. They don't like their judgment being questioned. Marek and Elliott talk about this often. When has Bettman rescinded a suspension? Only independent arbitators have, as far as I know, and you're going to go through that for 1 game? And make your reputation worse for it?

 

If he's going to stay in the NHL, he's going to have to work to get back into the officials/DoPS good graces and you don't do that by appealing a suspension when you've been in the league 5 minutes. If anything, he could have gotten 1-2 for Bastian and they just tacked it on here.

 

I figured 3 games, but IMO nobody should be making a big deal over 4. With DoPS being so random, Rempe is lucky is was only 4. Take your licks and come back with your elbows tucked.

 

And let's add in there's no way they shave a game off because it's the Islanders. 

Edited March 13 by Pete

[Keirik]

14 minutes ago, Pete said:

If anything this is muddying the waters and skewing the conversation.

 

Yes he should have been suspended.

Yes the league is inconsistent (all the more reason to not do dumb shit).

 

And yes, the NHL/commissioner do not like appeals. They don't like their judgment being questioned. Marek and Elliott talk about this often. When has Bettman rescinded a suspension? Only independent arbitators have, as far as I know, and you're going to go through that for 1 game? And make your reputation worse for it?

 

If he's going to stay in the NHL, he's going to have to work to get back into the officials/DoPS good graces and you don't do that by appealing a suspension when you've been in the league 5 minutes. If anything, he could have gotten 1-2 for Bastian and they just tacked it on here.

 

I figured 3 games, but IMO nobody should be making a big deal over 4. With DoPS being so random, Rempe is lucky is was only 4. Take your licks and come back with your elbows tucked.

 

And let's add in there's no way they shave a game off because it's the Islanders. 

Show me where the arbitration process shows who the future opponents are when they decide a suspension?  I'm sure they take history into account but they already deemed his play against Bastian as not even fine worthy, so they aren't tacking on a suspension based on that play in the past. 
 

  As for Bettman, he has reduced suspensions before.  I'm sure it's not often, but it has happened. Again, there is no harm in this but we can agree to disagree.
 

 

[Pete]

13 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Show me where the arbitration process shows who the future opponents are when they decide a suspension?  I'm sure they take history into account but they already deemed his play against Bastian as not even fine worthy, so they aren't tacking on a suspension based on that play in the past. 
 

  As for Bettman, he has reduced suspensions before.  I'm sure it's not often, but it has happened. Again, there is no harm in this. 
 

 

Spezza played 1200 games and had 600 PIMs. At Rempe's pace if he played as many games as Spezza he'd have 6,000 PIMs. Spezza had 6 seasons with Lady Byng votes.There's no comparison.

 

If you think they're going to shave a game for the Islanders, or that every part of the thought process is written down in some document, I don't know what to tell you.

 

There is harm in it for his own reputation. Again, common sense says when you're 10 games in and you got kicked out twice already, you should maybe be contrite.

 

Clearly he and the Rangers agree, or they'd have appealed.

Edited March 13 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

I thought he only deserved 1 game. I think DOPS has bent the rules to send a message to a young rookie. I actually think he probably could win an appeal to reduce that number, but in all honesty I think that puts a target on his back to punish him for every little thing moving forward.

 

Let’s say something questionable happens in the playoffs. He might get some mutual respect and the benefit of the doubt since he didn’t raise up a storm on this one. Maybe I’m way off, but that’s why I think he needs to just sit down and shut up this go around. Don’t give the DOPS anymore reason to be looking to suspend you again.

Edited March 13 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I thought he only deserved 1 game. I think DOPS has bent the rules to send a message to a young rookie. I actually think he probably could win an appeal to reduce that number, but in all honesty I think that puts a target on his back to punish him for every little thing moving forward.

 

 

How are you figuring 1 game when Gallagher got 5 for something similar? Just want to understand the thought process.

 

Quote

Let’s say something questionable happens in the playoffs. He might get some mutual respect and the benefit of the doubt since he didn’t raise up a storm on this one. Maybe I’m way off, but that’s why I think he needs to just sit down and shut up this go around. Don’t give the DOPS anymore reason to be looking to suspend you again.

Bingo.

[Sharpshooter]

11 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I thought he only deserved 1 game. I think DOPS has bent the rules to send a message to a young rookie. I actually think he probably could win an appeal to reduce that number, but in all honesty I think that puts a target on his back to punish him for every little thing moving forward.

 

Let’s say something questionable happens in the playoffs. He might get some mutual respect and the benefit of the doubt since he didn’t raise up a storm on this one. Maybe I’m way off, but that’s why I think he needs to just sit down and shut up this go around. Don’t give the DOPS anymore reason to be looking to suspend you again.

Dolan can write another letter. 

[LindG1000]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

How are you figuring 1 game when Gallagher got 5 for something similar? Just want to understand the thought process.

 

Bingo.

 

This is the thing that drives me nuts about the four games.

 

Trouba got 2 for the same thing. Gallagher got 5. I'm sure somewhere, someone was just fined, and somewhere else, another got 3, someone got 1, hell, I'm sure someone got 6.

 

I get a repeat offender penalty. I have no issue with this being a suspendable hit. I even understand tacking on a game for good measure, but like...can we get some consistency somewhere? 

[Keirik]

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

Spezza played 1200 games and had 600 PIMs. At Rempe's pace if he played as many games as Spezza he'd have 6,000 PIMs. There's no comparison.

 

If you think they're going to shave a game for the Islanders, or that every part of the thought process is written down in some document, I don't know what to tell you.

 

There is harm in it for his own reputation. Again, common sense says when you're 10 games in and you got kicked out twice already, you should maybe be contrite.

 

Clearly he and the Rangers agree, or they'd have appealed.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

Spezza played 1200 games and had 600 PIMs. At Rempe's pace if he played as many games as Spezza he'd have 6,000 PIMs. There's no comparison.

 

If you think they're going to shave a game for the Islanders, or that every part of the thought process is written down in some document, I don't know what to tell you.

 

There is harm in it for his own reputation. Again, common sense says when you're 10 games in and you got kicked out twice already, you should maybe be contrite.

 

Clearly he and the Rangers agree, or they'd have appealed.

I'm not comparing Spezza to Rempe. I'm answering your quesrion about if Bettman ever reduced suspensions. The answer is yes. Infrequently but yes.

 

 

If you think Parros and the DOPS looks at future schedule when deciding a suspension then that's your opinion bit there is nothing at all factual about it. It's just speculation

 

  Common sense to me means his actions on the ice determine his reputation a hell of a lot more than appealing a suspension that many thing is a tad too long. Players appeal. It's part of the process. Its not some "how dare you quesrion my authority!!!!" moment in my opinion. These are professionals. 

 

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Again, show me where in this proces

 

I'm not comparing Spezza to Rempe. I'm answering your quesrion about if Bettman ever reduced suspensions. The answer is yes. Infrequently but yes.

 

 

If you think Parros and the DOPS looks at future schedule when deciding a suspension then that's your opinion bit there is nothing at all factual about it. It's just speculation

 

  Common sense to me means his actions on the ice determine his reputation a hell of a lot more than appealing a suspension that many thing is a tad too long. Players appeal. It's part of the process. Its not some "how dare you quesrion my authority!!!!" moment in my opinion. These are professionals. 

 

K.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

This is the thing that drives me nuts about the four games.

 

Trouba got 2 for the same thing. Gallagher got 5. I'm sure somewhere, someone was just fined, and somewhere else, another got 3, someone got 1, hell, I'm sure someone got 6.

 

I get a repeat offender penalty. I have no issue with this being a suspendable hit. I even understand tacking on a game for good measure, but like...can we get some consistency somewhere? 

That's a separate issue and conversation entirely.

 

I don't think Rempe should appeal even if it was 10 games. Know your place, rook.

[Br4d]

The NHL has a unique problem with Rempe.  He's huge, he likely has the chops to be something other than an enforcer and he plays with an "exuberant" style.

 

The limits need to be set early in his career or we're back in Blood Bowl in the Metro Division for awhile.  There's no way the NHL wants that spectacle tacked back onto the game.

[LindG1000]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

That's a separate issue and conversation entirely.

 

I don't think Rempe should appeal even if it was 10 games. Know your place, rook.

 

Oh, god no, he should not appeal. I don't think he'd be wrong to on the letter of the law so to speak, but fucks sake, we're trying to win a Cup. Shut up, adjust, and don't paint a bigger target on your back.

[lefty9]

He is 21 years old ,put this behind you and learn from it

[Keirik]

15 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Oh, god no, he should not appeal. I don't think he'd be wrong to on the letter of the law so to speak, but fucks sake, we're trying to win a Cup. Shut up, adjust, and don't paint a bigger target on your back.

Tom Wilson was suspended 20 games years ago and appealed it to get it reduced by an independent arbitrator after not even accepting Bettman's initial decline for reduction. Then in March 2021 he gets 7 games for an incident with Brendan Carlo I believe. Later in May of the same year he has thr Panarin incident and gets only a 5k fine for crosschecking Buch and not even mentioning what he did to Panarin.

 

  If we are that worried thr NHL is going to hammer down on a guy with 10 games in the league JUST for appealing a hockey play, I think there is a giant issue considering Tom Wilson has been suspended and fined more than I post typos. 

[Pete]

14 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Tom Wilson was suspended 20 games years ago and appealed it to get it reduced by an independent arbitrator after not even accepting Bettman's initial decline for reduction. Then in March 2021 he gets 7 games for an incident with Brendan Carlo I believe. Later in May of the same year he has thr Panarin incident and gets only a 5k fine for crosschecking Buch and not even mentioning what he did to Panarin.

Rempe isn't Wilson. Wilson was in the League 5 years and never been suspended before that. He'd been fined, and he'd gotten gave misconducts, but that was his first suspension. 

Quote

If we are that worried thr NHL is going to hammer down on a guy with 10 games in the league JUST for appealing a hockey play, I think there is a giant issue considering Tom Wilson has been suspended and fined more than I post typos. 

So it seems pretty apparent they already threw the book at him by giving him four games, which in your opinion is too much, and you think that appealing that suspension is going to have the league viewing him in a better light? All so that they can shave one game off? 

[BrooksBurner]

58 minutes ago, Pete said:

How are you figuring 1 game when Gallagher got 5 for something similar? Just want to understand the thought process.

 

Gallagher jumped into it with a purposeful elbow. I found that to be more egregious. It also happened in the middle of the ice on a player who did not stop or change his body position.

Siegenthaler stopped on a dime right before contact. I don't think Rempe went in with the same intent that Gallagher did on his hit, and it was reactionary to both 1) get a piece of Siegenthaler, but not necessarily the head, since the planned legal hit was going to miss from Siegenthaler stopping and 2) anticipating impact with the boards. Again, not debating that he deserved a major and a suspension (just smaller), but you asked why I thought it was less egregious than Gallagher's.

Edited March 13 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Gallagher jumped into it with a purposeful elbow. I found that to be more egregious. It also happened in the middle of the ice on a player who did not stop or change his body position.

Siegenthaler stopped on a dime right before contact. I don't think Rempe went in with the same intent that Gallagher did on his hit, and it was reactionary to both 1) get a piece of Siegenthaler, but not necessarily the head, since the planned legal hit was going to miss from Siegenthaler stopping and 2) anticipating impact with the boards. Again, not debating that he deserved a major and a suspension (just smaller), but you asked why I thought it was less egregious than Gallagher's.

Gotcha. Makes sense. 

 

I think one game would have been way too low for the head being the initial point of contact on the elbow flaring out. 

 

But I see where you're coming from. 

[Keirik]

14 minutes ago, Pete said:

Rempe isn't Wilson. Wilson was in the League 5 years and never been suspended before that. He'd been fined, and he'd gotten gave misconducts, but that was his first suspension. 

So it seems pretty apparent they already threw the book at him by giving him four games, which in your opinion is too much, and you think that appealing that suspension is going to have the league viewing him in a better light? All so that they can shave one game off? 

Correct. Rempe isn't Wilson. Wilson has and has had a far worse reputation for years yet his interactions with DOPS still get reduced, a blind eye with no suspensions at all despite them looking at incidents, arbitrarily odd, and no rhyme or reason to them.  I don't believe Rempe gets a giant target on his back and hammered at every hearing going forward considering a long time goon doesn't even after years of the same behavior. Literally he got a fine for the Panarin incident despite YEARS of behavior in question. 

 

I get your opinion. I disagree. I'm not sure why we have to keep going back and forth on it.