John Scott Suspension: 7 Games, Will Not Appeal

[darksabre]

Yes. Legality and enforcement are different concepts, and I think you know this.

But. Varied enforcement can have an effect on legality, and I think you know this.

 

Yup.

[That Aud Smell]

That hi[t] is not late.

 

Disagree.

[darksabre]

Disagree.

 

It's not late. You can barely make a one count in the time that elapses from puck leaving stick to the hit. If that hit is late, then so are dozens of hits every night in this league.

[26CornerBlitz]

It's not late. You can barely make a one count in the time that elapses from puck leaving stick to the hit. If that hit is late, then so are dozens of hits every night in this league.

 

It was not only late, but a blindside hit to the head with him skating all the way over from the other wing. He deserves to be suspended.

[darksabre]

It was not only late, but a blindside hit to the head with him skating all the way over from the other wing. He deserves to be suspended.

 

It was not late.

[LastPommerFan]

The NHL agrees it was not late. It's not listed among the offenses in their release.

[TrueBlueGED]

But. Varied enforcement can have an effect on legality, and I think you know this.

 

Not really. Illegal acts are illegal whether the laws get enforced or not. Illegal acts which go unenforced might have the effect of being legal...but they're still very much technically illegal.

[LastPommerFan]

Not really. Illegal acts are illegal whether the laws get enforced or not. Illegal acts which go unenforced might have the effect of being legal...but they're still very much technically illegal.

 

Kimbrough v. U.S.

 

among others.

 

Also standing US labor laws.

 

maybe I was wrong about you knowing this.

[darksabre]

How many of these hits resulted in suspensions? How many should have?

 

http://youtu.be/ZnGRkdjkAHY

[TrueBlueGED]

Kimbrough v. U.S.

 

among others.

 

Also standing US labor laws.

 

maybe I was wrong about you knowing this.

 

Again, that's talking about differences in punitive punishments, not legality.

[darksabre]

Again, that's talking about differences in punitive punishments, not legality.

 

We're not talking about codified legality though. We're talking about actual legality. If a rule isn't enforced, then it doesn't result in the appropriate punishment, which therefore makes the rule not a rule at all.

[LastPommerFan]

Lets put it this way. If I have a standing policy in my factory that there is no smoking in the parking lot, but do not enforce that law for all employees, or go years without enforcing it at all and employees openly smoke in the parking lot in front of representatives of management, smoking in the parking lot is no longer against policy. If I were to suspend a union employee for breaking this policy, it would be tossed in 5 minutes at an NLRB arbitrator. Precedent, or lack there of, matters.

[TrueBlueGED]

We're not talking about codified legality though. We're talking about actual legality. If a rule isn't enforced, then it doesn't result in the appropriate punishment, which therefore makes the rule not a rule at all.

 

I was talking about codified, which is why I think we were talking past each other. And even in terms of actual legality...the hit is still illegal. I think Weave's analysis was spot-on in that regard.

 

Lets put it this way. If I have a standing policy in my factory that there is no smoking in the parking lot, but do not enforce that law for all employees, or go years without enforcing it at all and employees openly smoke in the parking lot in front of representatives of management, smoking in the parking lot is no longer against policy. If I were to suspend a union employee for breaking this policy, it would be tossed in 5 minutes at an NLRB arbitrator. Precedent, or lack there of, matters.

 

Not in the NHL :nana:

 

In this case, however, there is precedent that this type of hit is illegal...it may not be perfectly enforced and equally enforced in all cases, but it certainly hasn't gone without enforcement in two years like your labor example.

[FolignosJock]

Someone explain to me how that is Loui's "Blindside"???? Scott is in front of him, that isnt his blindside, it isnt even his peripheral. The only reason it could be considered blind side is because his HEAD IS DOWN.

[MILFHUNTER#518]

I have no idea how anyone can say this was a legal hit. Maybe you *want* it to be legal (at least Swamp is honest on this), but the fact of the matter is it was an illegal hit for all the reasons discussed. Seriously, take off the Sabres blinders.

It was not late, he was clearly attempting to thump him open ice in the chest. What do you suggest, penalize tall players for open ice hits on shorter players?

[TrueBlueGED]

It was not late, he was clearly attempting to thump him open ice in the chest. What do you suggest, penalize tall players for open ice hits on shorter players?

 

I would suggest hitting in the shoulder and not the head.

[LastPommerFan]

It was not late, he was clearly attempting to thump him open ice in the chest. What do you suggest, penalize tall players for open ice hits on shorter players?

 

Yes. If you are 6'10" and you want to hit Gerbe, you have to get down below his head. Tough nuts, it's the way of the world.

[MILFHUNTER#518]

The only reason they broadcast the sabres on NBC is we are one of the biggest hockey markets. The best way to get back at those @$$holes is to simply not watch hockey on NBC any longer, until they dump that hypocritical d'bag Millbury and that loser Doc Emirick. I say we all boycott NBC hockey after that over the top bias we all witnessed last night.

[FolignosJock]

If someone blindside checks Vanek or Hodgson to the head in the same fashion, will you feel the same?

 

 

The neil hit on drury was a blindside hit, this is not blindside AT ALL

 

I would suggest hitting in the shoulder and not the head.

 

He hit him in the chest as well, he went straight through the guy. The Head was not the primary target. Scott cut the dude in half.

[MILFHUNTER#518]

I would suggest hitting in the shoulder and not the head.

If he bent down, Erickson would have destroyed him just because of the size differential and the extra leverage. I see what you are saying, and am completely against intentional hits to the head, but if you watch the replay you can see he was clearly trying to avoid the head. In fact, I am questioning whether he even made contact with the head, perhaps he hit him so close to the head (like the collarbone) that he got enough shock to create a whiplash effect?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Loui Erikson is nearly a PPG guy, and he plays on a Most Favored Team. However, he is not North American.

 

John Scott has no prior history, and is not a dirty player, but decidedly is not out there to play hockey.

 

7 games.

 

I love these. There is probably 80% truth to it as well.

[That Aud Smell]

Hoppe tweeting that Scott was emotional in saying he takes it hard when people say he's a goon, etc. Scott said he was sick to his stomach all night, knowing that Eriksson (Erikkson?) was hurt.

 

I will add this: I really, really like John Scott the dude. Just not as a hockey player on my favorite NHL team.

[26CornerBlitz]

John Scott: 'I don't think I'm a dirty player'

[IKnowPhysics]

I will add this: I really, really like John Scott the dude. Just not as a hockey player on my favorite NHL team.

 

I'm not man-crushing here. He's an intelligent and educated guy, with a pretty funny sense of humor, and seemingly is a nice guy, a gentle giant, off the ice. It'd be great to down a couple beers with him, talk about hockey and engineering.

 

In professional hockey, his talent level is poor AT BEST, but he brings advantageous, high-profile, unteachable characteristics with his game: monstrous size, enormous strength, a strong work ethic, and as a by-product, and a nuclear deterrent-level of pugilistic willingness and ability. I imagine that the coaches are working with him to maximize his contributions to the team (thereby extending his career in hockey by a few years), in the same manner that Kaleta is. Play a physical, intimidating game, and continue to develop as a defensive forward, with possibilities of playing on the PK.

 

For a team that was looking to become harder to play against, that the media reported had no one to answer the bell when Lucic ran Miller, John Scott was that answer. But when he introduced himself at large to the Eastern Conference by destroying Shawn Thornton, the message was already clear that the Buffalo Sabres would be much easier to play against if this guy wasn't around.

 

I'd love to read one days worth of headlines and blogs if someone like Barnaby played today.

[Who Else?]

I don't care how many games he gets, as long as that was his last one in a Sabres uniform. Regardless of the hit last night, I just don't understand the point of having a one dimensional player like that gets you. This team is clearly rebuilding and has decided on a youth movement. What is the point of having a fighter that no one will fight on the ice, especially with the instigator rule? I would rather see any number of never-will-be's on the fourth line to provide energy.

 

As for the hit, it was clearly dirty. The hit did not seem all that late, but was clearly predatory. I love hockey, but I hate this BS where some thug, takes out a top player. Watching the low-light of Scott grabbing Kessel last night further strengthened my position. This guy does not belong in the league.