First, the plainly obvious.
Andy Sutton of the Edmonton Oilers was suspended today.
To the video explanation:
This comes in the same season as another suspension (a five game suspension). The previous was on November 1, which makes this within 18 months for Sutton and thusly a repeat offender.
Was this a fair punishment rendered to Sutton? Too much? Not enough? This was the third suspension for a charging related incident this season. Jordan Tootoo was suspended 2 games and Mark Fistric 3 games, both earlier this week.
There is some history, but nothing in the last four seasons for Tootoo. There was also some question as to whether or not Tootoo attempted to reduce contact. There is some, but not a ton of similarity between this and Sutton's charge.
As you can see, Fistric has a little bit of history, but not an extensive one. The play also resulted in an injury, but the Fistric and Sutton hits themselves are extrodinarily similar.
So why not the same punishment?
I feel that Sutton got off easy, even though he got more time for a very similar charge. Three games for such an agressive move, targeting the head is likely to (and, in one case did) lead to an injury is a good start. Three games seems like a fair base, especially for a repeat offender. The two games for Tootoo also seems fair given his lack of recent suspension history and the question as to how much he attempted to reduce contact. Because of Sutton's repeat offender status and extensive history, he deserved more games.
The real rub for repeat offenders (like Sutton) is the fine. Fistric will have his fine calculated by dividing his salary by the number of days in a season (187). Then, multiplied by the number of games. Sutton has a different formula. He will have his games multiplied by his salary divided by the number of GAMES in a season (82). A much higher fine, even if it had just been three games like Fistric, because of his label as a repeat offender (meaning he's had a suspension in the last 18 months).
Here's why I think Sutton should have gotten even more time.
The first suspension this season was a repeat violation, so he was already in the higher fine range. He is obviously not learning his lesson and is a danger beyond what is exceptable on the ice. Granted, it is still a learning process in the new Shanahan system as to what is a suspendable and what is not. There have been some plays that look like they should be a suspension and nothing happens.
Moving on.
Two other players have also been suspended recently. Ville Leino of Buffalo for elbowing (1 game) and Kevin Porter of Colorado for kneeing (4 games).
I really like the videos. They have done this for every single suspension this season and preseason. They even did at least one for a questionable non-suspension. Whether or not you agree with the suspension, there is no question as to how the NHL and Brendan Shanahan arrives at their decision when someone is suspended. It is so much more transparent now, but I would love to see more videos from the League office (or at least explanations) regarding non-calls. Speaking of which...
Let's turn to the Downie situation.
As you recall, Downie was involved with an altercation following the Artem Anisimov "gun" celebration. There was great question as to whether or not Downie should be suspended for leaving the bench to start an altercation.
There were two arguments.
Those in the suspension category would argue he should be removed from the game temporarily because he was not on the ice as part of a legal line change. Officially, he wasn't recorded on the NHL play-by-play as being on the ice when the altercatoin began. The referee also admitted to Rangers' Coach Tortorella that they missed the call on the ice at the time. Video clearly shows him sitting on the wall by the bench before getting involved. I was originally in this camp as saying no legal line change, and therefore suspension.
The no-suspension crowd argues that he had made a line change because the whistle had blown and Downie had simply not made his way onto the ice all the way before the altercation started, but an obvious line change had been made. Second, Downie was not assessed a fighting penalty during the incident. He was given a roughing and misconduct, but not a fighting penalty.
I am a little shocked not to see a video about this, or at least an article about it. The result is clear. He wasn't suspended. I'm watching him feed a pass to Vinny in the slot as I type.
It's not like Downie doesn't have a history. He was suspended for one game during the most recent playoffs for charging.
Again, I'm shocked not to find any definative answer on why a suspension didn't happen. It's a gray area at best.
I'm guessing the NHL decided one of two things. Well, maybe a combination of things, but here's my thoughts.
First, if Downie wasn't legally on the ice, he didn't start officially start an altercation because he wasn't technically fighting. He wasn't punished with fighting (though he was given a misconduct for his roughing).
Second (and most likely), Downie was legally on the ice, at least for the purposes of "leaving the bench". Things get a little odd around the benches after a goal anyway. The play is obviously stopped, so there's not going to be a penalty for too many men. There isn't a need to quickly join a play, so not a rush to get on the ice. I guess the fact that he was sitting on the wall means that he was on the ice for all intensive purposes as it was clear he was intenting to be on the ice for the next faceoff. I just did not see it that way.
I guess I'm still learning, but I just thought of the top of the wall as part of the bench. I wonder now if perhaps he stepped on the ice first, perhaps after the goal (legal line change), then hopped up on the wall or if the top of the wall is not considered part of the bench in this (or any) case. I also wonder if the "play-by-play" doesn't account for whose on the ice until the actual face-off following a stoppage of play. That would make sense, since a coach could change his mind about matchups or something, calling a player back to the bench in favor of a different skater. But I'm not the only one who thought Shanahan might issue punishment for this.
I can see why the NHL didn't want to issue the automatic suspension of 10 games. That is a lot of time off the ice for what Downie did. That seems too much for throwing a few punches (especially considering the circumstances that lead up to it). But none?
If the decision is that Downie was legally on the ice, than I agree.
The fight itself was not particularly brutal and doesn't deserve additional punishment. The League would have to issue punishment based on something else and the only other thing he did that was questionable was leaving the bench. Which is an automatic suspension. So, I guess Downie had made the change legally before engaging in an altercation and therefore, no suspension.
...Do you see what I mean about gray areas that I wish the League had addressed? I'm making a lot of assumptions and don't really know the answer.
I guess there gets to be a point where fan and management expectations get to be too high and to realistically issue statements on EVERYTHING that people think should be assessed additional fines or suspensions is too much. Addressing everything that's questionable would take too long.
Don't get me wrong. I am so much happier now with the discipline people under Shanahan. I just still want a little more on non-calls.
...Perhaps I answered my own question. Or questions.
I came up with a plausable explanation for the non-suspension on Downie. And I was so pleased with the videos for each suspension, then I go ask for a little more.
I guess if you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass a milk. And if you give fans video explanations for suspensions, they will want videos for non-calls too. What would we ask for if we got that too?
Food for thought.
TTFN
