Ryan Hartman Match Penalty for "Attempt to Injure" on Tim Stützle (upd: in-person hearing)

[Ratsreign]

Freedom of speech does not apply to private enterprise.

No need to look any further than HFboards for verification of that.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

The only public Professional arena I know about in the US is Lambeau Field, as that is publicy owned. I still may be incorrect with that as well.

A company can do whatever they want to do as long as they don't break any laws (which includes discrimination based on protected classes). People who flip people off isn't a protected class. As with everything, there is nuance.

The Sabres, Red Wings, and Blue Jackets arenas are owned by governmental entities. Others may be too those were just some of the first ones I looked at.

EDIT: Arena List I think many / most of these arenas are owned by a government.

 

[Sheppy]

My guess is 6 games.

 

[Stealth JD]

That should be 20+ games.
Send a message by making him an example.

 

[jokesondee]

Not the only time, did this last year on Perfetti

And then later on admitted that it was on purpose to Perfetti who was mic'd up.

 

[jokesondee]

Dont forget about this dirty dogshit play on Ehlers where Hartman has possession of the puck and is skating up-ice, leaves the puck, and reverse hits an unsuspecting Ehlers who is skating no where near the puck in the neutral zone. IIRC it was game 81 and it knocked Ehlers out for most of the playoffs. F'ing piece of shit that guy is.

 

[Silky Johnson]

The Sabres, Red Wings, and Blue Jackets arenas are owned by governmental entities. Others may be too those were just some of the first ones I looked at.

EDIT: Arena List I think many / most of these arenas are owned by a government.

Who owns the Arena is unimportant, although probably who is leasing/renting it is.

The main point is the employment contract/CBA that has no first ammendment protection in this case.

You may be able to march with swastikas and tiki torches on your private time in public, and it is debatable if your employer wants to fire you for doing so. It is not debatable wether you can be disciplined for doing so at work.

 

[OilersFanatics505]

I

WTF? What he said was not analogous to that at all.

@Dr Jan Itor pointed out (correctly) that two of supplenary disciplines were not for player safety things but then conceded that it was still too much.

Why the reference to racism? Are you trying to take the high ground through unjustified ad hominem attack? Do you realise that you come of like a bit of a dick when you attack people like that for no reason?

We’re still talking about 5 fines and 4 suspensions if he wants to defend those his shitty antics.

I’m obviously not calling him a racist, I was talking about the correlation between statements. If people are taking that in that way then they need to have a long hard look at their lives.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

We’re still talking about 5 fines and 4 suspensions if he wants to defend those his shitty antics.

I’m obviously not calling him a racist, I was talking about the correlation between statements. If people are taking that in that way then they need to have a long hard look at their lives.

Wasn't defending. Just providing additional information.

 

[OilersFanatics505]

Wasn't defending. Just providing additional information.

The difference between 5 suspensions vs 4 is still above league average… even by shithead player standards. Especially when throwing a stick at a referee is the one you’re taking out.

 

[canadianmagpie]

Is Hartman the new Raffi Torres? Does he need to be tagged with a lengthy suspension?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

The difference between 5 suspensions vs 4 is still above league average… even by shithead player standards. Especially when throwing a stick at a referee is the one you’re taking out.

Not disputing.

Just that, without description, one might think that he put another player's safety in jeopardy 11 times, when it was 9 times. Additional information never hurt anybody.

 

[Silky Johnson]

We’re still talking about 5 fines and 4 suspensions if he wants to defend those his shitty antics.

I’m obviously not calling him a racist, I was talking about the correlation between statements. If people are taking that in that way then they need to have a long hard look at their lives.

HE MADE A FACTUAL CORRECTION BUT STIPULATED THAT YOUR CONCLUSION WAS CORRECT.

He was not defending the actions in any way.

I didn't say you called him racist. I think just used that example because racism adds gravitas to your argument in a bullshit and "charged" way.

They aren't correlated in any way.

When someone says "I'm not a racist but..." they are not making a factual correction but agreeing to the original conclusion, they are generally about to say something racist.

Had he said "I don't condone this behaviour but..." and then went on to defend Hartman, your analogy would be apt. But he didn't.

 

[OilersFanatics505]

Not disputing.

Just that, without description, one might think that he put another player's safety in jeopardy 11 times, when it was 9 times. Additional information never hurt anybody.

You can see how Minnesota fan saying “he’s not really THAT bad when you ignore these others times he was only a slightly less shithead” makes it look like you’re defending him right? You’re not that naive?

 

[Connor McConnor]

Hartman has been doing this all year. That was disgusting.

 

[BigDaddyLurch]

Hartman has been doing this his entire career.

...fixed that for ya!!...

 

[Silky Johnson]

You can see how Minnesota fan saying “he’s not really THAT bad when you ignore these others times he was only a slightly less shithead” makes it look like you’re defending him right? You’re not that naive?

"I am NOT defending him" was the first thing he says and then goes on to make a factual statement about the supplementary discipline.

Now at this point you might be "Naive" to believe he isn't trying to defend him but the only other statement is

"Still, too much, and he should get pretty well slammed."

So that pretty much seals it right?

You know who also falsely accuses people of things...racists! I'm not saying YOU are racists but I am associating you to them because you do a thing that they do.

The fun part is that my analogy, unlike your, is actually apt.

 

[Ratsreign]

You can see how Minnesota fan saying “he’s not really THAT bad when you ignore these others times he was only a slightly less shithead” makes it look like you’re defending him right? You’re not that naive?

If one is looking hard for something to be offended by, perhaps.
His comment was in no way attempting to defend Hartman.

 

[Phrasing]

Suspend him for 15 games. Nonhockey plays like that are intentional and cause danger and injury have no place.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

damn how long does it take to throw a book

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

Who owns the Arena is unimportant, although probably who is leasing/renting it is.

The main point is the employment contract/CBA that has no first ammendment protection in this case.

You may be able to march with swastikas and tiki torches on your private time in public, and it is debatable if your employer wants to fire you for doing so. It is not debatable wether you can be disciplined for doing so at work.

Who owns the Arena is rather important. One of the few ways a private company is restricted by the 1st amendment is when they're providing services on behalf of a government, the state action doctrine.

I'm not familiar with any cases regulating 1st amendment protections on an NHL; and I feel (as stated in my original post) that it may not qualify for the state action doctrine.

Basically a government can't 'launder' their 1st amendment restrictions by having a nominal 3rd (private) party censor people on their behalf.

 

[pld459666]

Minimum should be 10 games

If they drop a 20 spot, I wouldn't be mad.

Anything under 10 is highly disappointing.

 

[Score08]

Clean hit bitches get stitches . Perfect case of fafo. Run around like an idiot for 2 seasons and someone is bound to settle it up.

 

[OilersFanatics505]

"I am NOT defending him" was the first thing he says and then goes on to make a factual statement about the supplementary discipline.

Now at this point you might be "Naive" to believe he isn't trying to defend him but the only other statement is

"Still, too much, and he should get pretty well slammed."

So that pretty much seals it right?

You know who also falsely accuses people of things...racists! I'm not saying YOU are racists but I am associating you to them because you do a thing that they do.

The fun part is that my analogy, unlike your, is actually apt.

He can say he’s not defending him until he’s blue in the face but the rest of his words are speaking much louder.

 

[AKL]

He can say he’s not defending him until he’s blue in the face but the rest of his words are speaking much louder.

Not really. Think you're just looking for something that isn't there so you can argue with someone you think is morally inferior to you. You can say that's not what you're doing until you're blue in the face, but the rest of your words are speaking much louder.