Originally Posted by ericdaoust
Definitely agree with you about the consistency but again there is no reason for a slash so what else could be the intent? He wasn't trying to kill a mosquito on his shin pad and he wasn't making a hockey play. Sure he didn't want to hit him in the face but he still made the decision to swing the stick.
And I agree with you that there needs to be a consequence, but I think the 2 minute penalty was all that was necessary.
I guess I see 3 levels of offence each deserving their own punishment:
1. Intent to injure- player tries to hurt other player- the worst offence and is punished the worst because it can cause serious injure and in order to punish the action.
2. Reckless play- player didn't intend to injure but made a dangerous play that has a high likelihood of injury- 2nd worst- punished in an attempt to condemn and eliminate such plays in the future.
3. Infraction- play that draws a penalty- only penalized as the player broke the rules of the game. Most 2 minute penalties fall into this category.
The way I view this play he slashed at the puck/American low, its a play that happens 30+ times a game and is only sometimes called a penalty. There's no intent and it's not even reckless because until the freak stick-to-stick collision the slash is down. So under my (personal) analysis it's an infraction (2 minute penalty) and nothing more.
12 team H-2-H 1 year league, daily roster 3 goalie start minimum
2xC, 2xRW, 2xLW, 4xD, 3xUtil, 2xG, 5 Bench
G, A, P, +/-, PIM, PPP, SHP, GWG, Hits, W, SV%, GAA
C: Stamkos,Thornton, Riberio, Stepan, Desharnais, Clune
LW: Moulson, Dupuis, Prust,
RW: Kessel, P. Kane, Wheeler, Stempniak
D: Hamonic, Zidlicky, Franson, Muzzin
G: Bryzgalov, Hiller, Fasth