Kadri

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Repeat offender status only affects your pay.
I know that is supposed to be the intent, but I don't buy this personally which is why I believe they gave Kadri the length they did. Scheiff's hit was worse than Kadri's and on face value alone should have gotten more. I am perfectly fine with that though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jabubenice
Funny, I keep hearing that Sheifele wasn't a repeat offender which is why his hit was only 4 games.

Feels like this idea is pretty selectively applied.
I mean a 4 game suspension in the playoffs for a first time offender is a pretty hefty suspension.
 
this is what i was asking for,
"A Player is considered a repeat offender for 18 months following his most recent incident that resulted in a suspension. His status as a repeat offender in this category is used to determine the amount of salary forfeited should he receive another suspension.
It is important to note that even if a Player is not defined as a repeat offender, his past history may come into consideration when determining future Supplemental Discipline."
 
First time offender? What does that have to do with it?
4 games is the baseline for that hit in this instance. Because this was his first suspension they give him that baseline but if others with a history make that hit, the suspension will very likely increase due to their history.
 
What is history without repeat offender status? This is a distinction without a difference.
The point is that there is an official status of repeat offender for financial matters relating to suspensions. But, disciplinary history is taken into account informally for handing out suspensions.
 
What is history without repeat offender status? This is a distinction without a difference.
They should rephrase the term because it's confusing. You always have history and the history always affects your suspension length.

The difference:
"Non-repeat offenders lose salary based on the number of days in the season. For example, if there are 190 days in a season, a three game suspension would cost a non-repeat offender 3/190ths of his average salary.
Repeat offenders lose salary based on the number of games in a season (82). For example, a three game suspension would cost a repeat offender 3/82nds of his average salary."
 
The point is that there is an official status of repeat offender for financial matters relating to suspensions. But, disciplinary history is taken into account informally for handing out suspensions.

I must not be smart enough to understand the difference. How do you "repeat" something without there being a "history" of it? Linear time is confusing AF.
 
They should rephrase the term because it's confusing. You always have history and the history always affects your suspension length.

The difference:
"Non-repeat offenders lose salary based on the number of days in the season. For example, if there are 190 days in a season, a three game suspension would cost a non-repeat offender 3/190ths of his average salary.
Repeat offenders lose salary based on the number of games in a season (82). For example, a three game suspension would cost a repeat offender 3/82nds of his average salary."

Right, I get this. I understand that "repeat offender" has some official meaning when it comes to compensation during suspensions.

What I don't get is how it can ALSO be claimed that repeat offender status is NOT considered during discipline review.
 
If someone who had been suspended multiple times had done what Scheifele did he would've gotten a bigger suspension?

How does that jibe with "repeat offender status only affects your pay?"

Seems like it also affects the length of your suspensions as well.
 
I must not be smart enough to understand the difference. How do you "repeat" something without there being a "history" of it? Linear time is confusing AF.
Maybe I don’t understand your question. I just wanted to highlight that the formal definition of “repeat offender” only exist and apply to financial matters.
 
Right, I get this. I understand that "repeat offender" has some official meaning when it comes to compensation during suspensions.

What I don't get is how it can ALSO be claimed that repeat offender status is NOT considered during discipline review.
I think you're overthinking it a little bit too much.
 
Repeat offender status only affects your pay.

True, but in between this week, and the last Kadri punishment, Reaves has been fined twice and suspended twice. What about Tom Wilson? He has the same exact amount of suspensions as Kadri, including one this year, barely two months prior to the Panarin situation. Kadri's last suspension was in 2019. His fines have been for embellishment, not violence. So what, precisely, is a repeat offender and how does Bettman make that decision? The Scheifele hit was far worse than the Kadri hit. So why does 1 get 8 and the other 4? It has to be a repeat offender theme. But then how are Wilson and Reaves explained? Both are worse htis. Both have similar disciplinary issues. Both have been suspended more recently than Kadri.

I think Kadri should have gotten 4 or 5. But 8 is fine with me, as long as everyone else guilty of similar infractions and similar histories get 8 as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LTC Pain
How does that jibe with "repeat offender status only affects your pay?"

Seems like it also affects the length of your suspensions as well.
Every incident-less 18 months you lose the "repeat offender" tag. So if you go 18 months without a suspension your next one will affect your salary less on a game to game basis. But the suspension history still matters when it comes to determining how long you will be suspended for.
 
Ok, maybe I was just confused as to what exactly was being discussed. I'm not sure anyone cares how much actual money Kadri et al are losing per missed game, we care about the number of games being missed.

But if I'm going to be pedantic (and clearly I am), if the history still matters when it comes to length of suspension, then losing less per game is moot if you are suspended for longer. E.g. "repeat offender" tag, despite no longer being present, is still costing you more money.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad