When the policemen fail to do the policing

Maybe Shanahan thinks that Wolski didn’t deserve a suspension, but given that he has been much less active now that the season has begun, I suspect that he has been leaned on by owners and GMs not to make so many of them. With a guy like Wolski who doesn’t have the reputation of say, Andy Sutton, Shanahan may have felt he didn’t have permission (as it were) to suspend him.

I can’t claim certainty as to why Shanahan has stopped laying down the law, but it may be that he has faced strenuous opposition from NHL insiders who prefer ‘old-time hockey’, or who don’t want their players suspended (or are angry about their players having been suspended), despite the risks to which they are exposing their players.

And like you say, if players don’t feel like the officials are doing their job, they’re going to start policing themselves, something which often makes matters worse.

I hope Konopka doesn’t get in trouble for these comments. They’ll be watching the next sens-rangers game closely.

I watched the above video and sorta see what Shanahan describes – Wolski heading to the point – whereas I did not perceive that before his drawing attention to it. Nonethless, it does seem like the same hit that put Crosby down – a glancing blow by a player taking a striaght line though an unsuspecting player. I’m not sure I’m ready to release Wolski from responsibility for what he did any more than I am in the Crosby case.

Shanny has been talking in other cases about players in vulnerable positions. In these two instances, that’s what the player was in, relative to the player hitting them. Unsuspecting, unaware and vulnerable. I don’t believe a straight line through an unsuspecting player should be enough to exempt you from responsibility. He wasn’t going full speed, had an option and real damage was done – and was immediately apparent.

Watch Shanny explain the other hit, at full speed, and how he notes the snow being thrown, indicating a shift in posiiton, nuanced responsibility, etc… How can he read that much into the detail of that hit and argue the hitter had that much time and control over his actions, and not hold Wolski to the same standard?

I agree with you, but by putting those words out there, now, if you hit Wolski is any fashion that might be a little bit questionable, you’re getting sent off and given giant penalties. You may not even be trying to send a message, but the refs won’t care. They are already biased towards big market teams, you know they’re gonna come down hard on you.

Amen.

I think Shanahan’s rationale that Wolski’s reputation should be factored into the decision is total baloney. It is absolutely irrelevant. All that matters are his actions in this one particular incident.

Shanahan’s rationalization implies that a player will not be punished until he has a reputation for being dirty. It sounds a lot like he has introduced a new rule: One free headshot before you get suspended. Good on Wolski for making his freebee count by knocking out a significant contributor on conference rival. :P

Konopka is Batman?

If the Senators are smart they will not dress Konopka in the next game against the Rangers.

Konopka is a loose cannon just like me. We’ll be great friends!

I would have less of an issue if he wasn’t stuttering so much. It looks like he’s lying through his teeth.

“We look at contact to the head, intent and whether the player was injured.”

Well you had at least two of those three on the hit, so what gives?

Haha, notice how doesn’t stutter when it comes to Fisher but he’s Porky Pig when it comes to Alfredsson… What a joke.

This actually reminds me of the Steckel-on-Crosby hit; in both cases, the players knew what they were doing, but using a nonchalant approach to make it look like it wasn’t intentional. An oops-excuse-me kind of hit. That final shove-off is the clincher, which sets it apart from Steckel’s. The league got this one wrong, but I’m also not about to throw out the baby with the bathwater here…I think for large part they’re getting these right.

As for Konopka rendering “retribution” or whatever, it doesn’t bring Alfredsson back, and I don’t think Konopka would’ve served as anymore of a deterrent than Chris Neil would’ve. In that same vein, players targeted Gretzky regardless of whether Dave Semenko was on the ice, and some even answered the bell. It wasn’t until Gretzky moved to L.A. and had reached legendary status that people started to back off him a bit. But I still recall him getting rocked a few times when he was on the Rangers. The fact of the matter is that kids are fighting at all levels, and locker-boxing, and lighting each other up; a scrap isn’t as intimidating as it used to be. Ironically, the only people it might be intimidating to wouldn’t be causing a whole lot of damage to another player anyway.

Henrik Sedin mentioned this last season, and I totally agree with it. What’s with the whole “guy X didn’t have a reputation as a dirty player, therefore guy X gets no suspension”? It should not matter about his past at all, he could be the nicest guy on the block but if he hits a guy with CLEAR intent as see in the Wolski hit, he should be suspended as many games as a guy like Andy Sutton would be. I don’t care if it’s Matt Duchene or if it’s Matt Cooke throwing a blindside hit, both should be suspended equally and fairly.

When I think about it now, there should be a system instituted in the NHL like in European Soccer Leagues. Across the pond, you get a red card and you’re gone for the next game. Here, instead it should be your team gets 3 suspensions in a season, and you get docked points in the standings. Clean, fair, simple, and it works. Teams will be less incentived to sign goons to their rosters, and will let their power forwards “do the policing” instead, if there is any.