I don't like it. It's like saying "I didn't intend to crash my car, I just wasn't paying attention and drove it into the ditch".
With the recent Lucic ruling, I would like to ask what people think about Shannahan taking "intent" into consideration when deciding on suspensions. My thoughts are, this isn't a court of law and it is very difficult to prove or disprove "intent". Unless it is a McSorley on Brashear or Bertuzzi on Moore type of incident, how can Shannahan think that he might be able to figure out the offender's intent?
Aren't there more reliable things to take into consideration? How blatant was the infraction? Is there a past history of suspensions? Was there an injury sustained on the play?
So far I have been exceptionally impressed with Shannahan's hard-nosed approach, but the Lucic ruling took him down a notch for me. I think that he needs to leave "intent" out of it unless it is blatantly obvious. Oh, and as far as asking the offender what the intent was? That is ridiculous...
Rylant
I don't like it. It's like saying "I didn't intend to crash my car, I just wasn't paying attention and drove it into the ditch".
" You said you don't give a f*ck about hockey. I've never heard anyone say that before."
Scott Stevens say's what
"My Name Is My Name" ~Marlo
"I'm just a Gangster I suppose and I want my fu***** corners"~ Barksdale
grammar Nazi
Noun
(slang, idiomatic) 1. A person who habitually corrects or criticizes the language usage of others, especially in situations where it is unnecessary, e.g. an informal conversation.
Notes: This behavior is almost always found in people with very low I.Q's, whom have a very low sense of self worth. Impotence is also commonly linked to Grammar Nazi's.
'd like to answer that question with another, if I may. In all of Shanahan's video explanations re player suspensions, are there any in which he states his justification of additional punishment is in-part based on him not liking a players explanation?
@SmittysRant
The biggest problem I have with including "intent" in the decision making process is that in the absence of a confession, it's pretty much unprovable by the video evidence by anything short of the player turning towards the camera and winking before he commits the infraction.
It ALWAYS involves some form of projection.
I think it would make more sense to assume that the intention WAS there, and use the player statements and video to attempt to disprove it.
I know, it's a "guilty until proven innocent" statement, ...but realistically these are the best players in the world, If I have to make a projection or assumption, I think it's more reasonable to assume that they were in control of their actions than it is to assume that they weren't.
In a beer league, it's a different story, ...but at the NHL level, I have a much harder time believing that a player didn't know where he was on the ice, or that he was unable to react in time.
But either way, it's still comes down to an assumption or a projection of intent.
IMHO maybe a better a solution is to make the intent semi-irrelevent, and focus instead on the results and the outcome.
Still not perfect, but it seems counter-productive to purposely disconnect from the reality of whether or not an injury occurred when determining the appropriate length of a suspension.
Not saying that an injury should be the cause of the suspension, just that it should be a major factor in determining length once one is warranted.
Likewise, the absence of an injury occurring shouldn't be used to minimize a suspensions length, (I'm saying Kronwell's returning for the second period doesn't make Stewart's play any less dangerous, ...but Kronwell's having suffered an injury on the play would warrant a more severe suspension, and the more serious the injury, the lengthier the suspension)
But getting back to your orignal question the determination of intent is just too subjective/elusive to be given considerable weight one way or the other.
It just serves to further muddy what are already some pretty murky waters.
CBS 8 team keeper(5-8) - Points only
C: Tavares, Duchesne, Eberle, Nugent-Hopkins
LW: Parise, Benn, Neal
RW: Kessel, Giroux, Stewart
D: Green,Karlson, Carlson, Whitney, Edler, White
G: Rinne, Lundqvist
2LW,2C,2RW,4D,1G pts.= G=2, PPG=3, SH=5, A=1, W=3, S=.2, GA=-1, SO=4,
(Tired of watching today's trophys pass you buy? Waiting for a tomorrow that may never come? Why not win NOW? ...Ask about our "Pre-owned vets for prospects" program, and start winning TODAY!)
Can't wait to hear what Cherry has to say about this. If I remember correctly he has already thrown a montage together of "unintended" hits to the head that were clearly intentional (Steckel on Crosby, Neil on whoever, etc.)... intent was clearly on Lucic's mind with this one.
The League in London (20 Team Multi-Cat H2H $100 Dynasty League) - Season 11
... In memory of "The Net Detective"
C Pinto kDach Hayton Roy / Lowry Bjugstad Blueger Carrick
LW Lehkonen Knies kJohnson Greenway / Laferriere Reichel Luostarinen Kartye Grebyonkin Buchelnikov
RW Quinn Joseph Roslovic Chinakhov / Kakko Glass Brink O'Connor Holmberg Berggren Tuomaala
D Werenski Hronek Power Guhle McCabe Roy / Gudas Raddysh Pachal Evans Cormier
G Swayman / Hill Mrazek Ivanov Kokko
Shanny better get used to the abuse .
CBS 8 team keeper(5-8) - Points only
C: Tavares, Duchesne, Eberle, Nugent-Hopkins
LW: Parise, Benn, Neal
RW: Kessel, Giroux, Stewart
D: Green,Karlson, Carlson, Whitney, Edler, White
G: Rinne, Lundqvist
2LW,2C,2RW,4D,1G pts.= G=2, PPG=3, SH=5, A=1, W=3, S=.2, GA=-1, SO=4,
(Tired of watching today's trophys pass you buy? Waiting for a tomorrow that may never come? Why not win NOW? ...Ask about our "Pre-owned vets for prospects" program, and start winning TODAY!)
I find it odd that people pick their spots when saying they can or cannot judge someone's intent.
Example: Lucic - runs over Miller, some people have said you can't prove intent.
But in other incidents (Sutton, Rome, etc) they can prove intent?
Contact me for Frozen Tools bug reports and inquiries
Follow Frozen Tools on Twitter @FrozenTools
Follow me on Twitter @DH_EricDaoust
Intent is easy to prove...
If you're camping and it starts to rain do you:
... stay dry? In tent
or
... get wet? No in tent
I swear this is not rocket science kids...
(Edit: Say the 'no in tent' with using the voice of Consuela the maid from Family Guy... )
Last edited by Loch; November 17, 2011 at 12:52 PM.
/S
~ I'm not a sociopath, it's just that my magnetic personality keeps throwing off my moral compass.~
Victoria DH
C(3): Athanasiou, Sissons, Zibanejad
LW(3): Lehkonen, Burakovsky, Hymen
RW(3): Bjorkstrand, Smith, Palmieri
F(3): Stepan (C), Bjork (LW), Poehling (C)
D(6): Carlson, Heiskanen, Bogosian, Edler, Hakanpaa, Fleury
G(1): Talbot, Sorokin, Varlamov
Bench: Parise (LW), Motte (C), Richardson (C), Hagg (D)
IR: Wood, Henrique, Johnson, Dvorak
Prospects: (F) Barre-Boulet, Khovanov, Beckman, Greig, N. Robertson, Fagemo, Tuomalaa, (D) Ceulemans, Hughes, Schneider, Zboril
Contact me for Frozen Tools bug reports and inquiries
Follow Frozen Tools on Twitter @FrozenTools
Follow me on Twitter @DH_EricDaoust