Toggle sidebar

General Fines and Suspensions thread (2020-21)

uncleben

uncleben

Global Moderator
Dec 4, 2008
14,902
9,993
Acton, Ontario
Me:
upload_2021-5-3_23-9-14-gif.429413

585dyw.gif

G3yCUC5.gif

Rule 46.1 Fighting involves "at least one player punches or attempts to punch an opponent repeatedly or when two players wrestle in such a manner as to make it difficult for the Linesmen to intervene and separate the combatants"
Rule 46.2 Aggressing involves a "player who continues to throw punches in an attempt to inflict punishment on his opponent who is in a defenseless position or who is an unwilling combatant ... A player who is deemed to be the aggressor of an altercation will have this recorded as an aggressor of an altercation for statistical and suspension purposes"
Rule 51.1 Roughing involves "a punching or slamming motion with or without the glove on the hand, normally directed at the head or face of an opponent"




March 19, 2015 Diving/Embellishment$2,000.00
April 28, 2016 Kneeing Conor Sheary$2,403.67
2 fines$4,403.67
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
September 22, 2017 Interference against Robert Thomas2 games
October 1, 2017 Boarding Samuel Blais - Repeat Offender4 games
May 1, 2018 Illegal check to the head of Zach Aston-Reese - Repeat Offender3 games
September 30, 2018 Illegal check to the head of Oskar Sundqvist - Repeat Offender20 games
March 5, 2021 Boarding Brandon Carlo7 games
5 suspensions36 games
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
NHL CBA 18.15 (d) "a Player[...] becomes a repeat offender if he is suspended again within eighteen (18) months of the first incident"

NHL CBA 18.7 (b) "A fine may be in an amount up to fifty percent (50%) of the Player's Paragraph 1 NHL Salary and Bonuses, but not including Performance Bonuses, divided by the number of days in the Regular Season, but in no event shall it exceed $10,000"

Tom Wilson 2020–21 salary: $5,166,666.67 → 50% of 1 day's pay: $22,270.11 → maximum allowable fine: $10,000


NHL DoPS:

Wilson fined maximum for actions in Capitals game against Rangers

------------------

Ask me how I really feel about this decision :laugh:

(I will give you a hint, it rhymes with "Shmilson has a lengthy history of supplemental discipline, is a categorical repeat offender, and has a salary that allows for a maximum allowable fine of twice that".)
 
wej20

wej20

Registered User
Aug 14, 2008
28,103
2,112
UK
NHL CBA 18.15 (d) "a Player[...] becomes a repeat offender if he is suspended again within eighteen (18) months of the first incident"

18 months is ridiculously short, was this the same in previous CBAs?
 
uncleben

uncleben

Global Moderator
Dec 4, 2008
14,902
9,993
Acton, Ontario
wej20 said:
NHL CBA 18.15 (d) "a Player[...] becomes a repeat offender if he is suspended again within eighteen (18) months of the first incident"

18 months is ridiculously short, was this the same in previous CBAs?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it has been dating back to at least the 2005 CBA

The actual "Repeat Offender" label, to be fair, determines the amount of salary lost (one game's pay versus one day's pay). A player's history, over their whole career, can be taken into account, even if an incident is beyond that 18 month. However, in practice, with a repeat offender label, they tend to go a little heavier on the length. Not this time, though, obviously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wej20
wej20

wej20

Registered User
Aug 14, 2008
28,103
2,112
UK
uncleben said:
Yeah, it has been dating back to at least the 2005 CBA

The actual "Repeat Offender" label, to be fair, determines the amount of salary lost (one game's pay versus one day's pay). A player's history, over their whole career, can be taken into account, even if an incident is beyond that 18 month. However, in practice, with a repeat offender label, they tend to go a little heavier on the length. Not this time, though, obviously.
Click to expand...

Thanks, can the DoPS be overhauled without changes to the CBA? A few years they seemed to get tough on offences but they've slowly slacked off again.
 
uncleben

uncleben

Global Moderator
Dec 4, 2008
14,902
9,993
Acton, Ontario
wej20 said:
Thanks, can the DoPS be overhauled without changes to the CBA? A few years they seemed to get tough on offences but they've slowly slacked off again.
Click to expand...
Changing the fines and salary lost would require a CBA change

Those are written in explicitly:

Fines:​
  • Fines are calculated as up to 50% of a player's daily salary (using their cap hit, not actual salary), up to a maximum of $10,000 for "non-repeat" offenders
  • For repeat offenders (fined in the prior 12 months), that maximum is increased to $15,000
  • For any fine, a fine greater $5,000 requires a telephone hearing be offered
  • Fines are also treated as a de facto warning for any further suspension that player may be involved in in the given season
Suspensions:​
  • Salary lost due to suspension is calculated as one day's salary, for every game lost, for "non-repeat" offenders
  • For repeat offenders (suspended in the prior 18 months), that is calculated as one game's salary for every game lost
  • Suspensions of 1-5 games require at minimum a telephone hearing be offered
  • Suspensions of 6+ games require an in-person hearing be offered
Unique Cases:​
  • Diving/embellishment fines are preset and the fine amount is dependent on how many times the player is fined for diving/embellishment in the season, using an escalating table
  • For discipline of off-ice incidents, salary lost is calculated as one day's salary, for every day lost; SPC's can be terminated
All of that is in stone.

What the DoPS can do though is simply levy more and longer suspensions, and actually dole out maximum fines (instead of the $5,000 fine we've become so familiar with). It would require more work for them, as they would have to offer more hearings and each hearing requires the DoPS to provide evidence (video footage, testimonials from officials and players, doctors reports, etc.), and for the player to be able to provide counter-evidence and argue their case.

So, TL;DR fines are pretty much locked in barring a new CBA, but the DoPS can certainly just provide harsher, longer suspensions if they wanted to crack down, it's just they wouldn't get to be as lazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wej20
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X