> From: Eric Burton <[log in to unmask]>
>
> If I am not mistaken I believe the incident involving Kaira where he was
> chross checked by Suter of Chicago a few years back and Incidently cause
> Paul to miss the Olympics and the rest of the NHL season was unfortunate and
> a face shield probably would not have stopped that either. This is where I
> believe that if there was rule where the player that does a dirty act and
> injures someone should have to sit out as long as the player that was hurt,
> if the injured player is out for four games, that player should have to sit
> out for four games. and so on, not  a hard concept:
 
Why penalize the injury?  Was Hunter's hit any less cheap if Turgeon was
only out for a game or 2?  Was Suter's hit any more cheap if Kariya
would have missed even more games?
 
The problem with assessing suspensions based on injuries is that the
same action can cause vastly different injuries.  A slash to the hand
can cause anywhere from no injuries to a broken hand based on where
exactly the stick hits.  Why vary the suspension based on the injury,
rather than the action that was taken?   I think that sends a message to
players that certain actions are fine, as long as you don't really hurt
the player....rahter than saying that certain actions are wrong,
regardless of the outcome.
 
Erik Johnson
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.