Update: Cernak gets a Two Game Suspension. for His elbow on Kyle Okposo

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

The penalty on Dahlin was pretty dirty as well. I thought cross check from behind deserved at least a 5 minute minor. 

IIRC, there was no penalty called on that play, either.

[Eleven]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

IIRC, there was no penalty called on that play, either.

YRC.

[Weave]

Just now, Eleven said:

YRC.

Yonkers Reading Club?

[Eleven]

1 minute ago, Weave said:

Yonkers Reading Club?

If you'd ever visited Yonkers, you'd know that this is an impossibility.

[Taro T]

21 minutes ago, RochesterExpat said:

Agreed and it drives me nuts. It's something that needs to be addressed in the CBA

Think about it, the maximum fine is $5,000. I understand cap hits accrue daily over the 185 day season, but if we consider cap hit on a per-game basis, even a league minimum player makes more than $5,000 a game. In Cernak's case, his daily cap hit is ~$16K, but per game his cap hit is $36K. Even with taxes he still made more than the fine in the game.

Fines should be relative to cap hit. Fines should start at the "income" from the game and scale up from there. I'm also a firm believer that if you committed a play with intent to injure, and you injured the opposing player, you should be suspended until the game after the opposing player returns to the ice. The fact we have a league where a player can serve a two game suspension for injuring a player and then return to play while the injured player takes months to recover is absurd.

I'm also a believer that organizations should be forfeiting draft picks for repeat offenders. Player gets two hearings in the same season? Goodbye second round pick. Player has his third consecutive season with a suspension? Goodbye first round pick.

That is how you have accountability and give DOPS real firepower. Of course, it'll never happen.

The maximum fine ISN'T $5,000.  It is 50% of a single day's salary.  BUT a 1st fine can only be $10k or less.  (Fines of $5k or less have less hurdles to climb to implement.)

Players can be fined OR suspended.  If they are suspended, they sacrifice their pay while suspended.  1st time offenders sacrifice a day's pay for each game suspended.  Repeat offenders lose a game's pay for each game suspended.  (So 1st timers lose ~1/187th of their pay for each game suspended and repeat offenders lose 1/82nd of their pay for each game suspended.)

Fine money and suspension money go to the players emergency assistance fund.

6 minutes ago, SwampD said:

IIRC, there was no penalty called on that play, either.

2 minute cross check was called.

[RochesterExpat]

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

The maximum fine ISN'T $5,000.  It is 50% of a single day's salary.  BUT a 1st fine can only be $10k or less.  (Fines of $5k or less have less hurdles to climb to implement.)

Players can be fined OR suspended.  If they are suspended, they sacrifice their pay while suspended.  1st time offenders sacrifice a day's pay for each game suspended.  Repeat offenders lose a game's pay for each game suspended.  (So 1st timers lose ~1/187th of their pay for each game suspended and repeat offenders lose 1/82nd of their pay for each game suspended.)

I was confused since I didn't realize this. The $5,000 is always referred to the "maximum allowed under the CBA" when announced by the NHL so I just took it as truth, but you're correct in what you said and the NHL is kind of misleading with the statement. Per the CBA, it's the maximum the league can fine without a hearing. So, yes, $5,000 is the maximum allowed under the CBA, but only when the NHL doesn't want to hold a hearing.

That's some nice PR language by the NHL then whenever they announce one of these. I appreciate the comment. I had no idea it was written this way. It also explains the "additional hurdles" bit.

[SwampD]

10 minutes ago, Taro T said:

The maximum fine ISN'T $5,000.  It is 50% of a single day's salary.  BUT a 1st fine can only be $10k or less.  (Fines of $5k or less have less hurdles to climb to implement.)

Players can be fined OR suspended.  If they are suspended, they sacrifice their pay while suspended.  1st time offenders sacrifice a day's pay for each game suspended.  Repeat offenders lose a game's pay for each game suspended.  (So 1st timers lose ~1/187th of their pay for each game suspended and repeat offenders lose 1/82nd of their pay for each game suspended.)

Fine money and suspension money go to the players emergency assistance fund.

2 minute cross check was called.

This is incorrect. It happened in the second period of one of the Stockholm games. There was no penalty called on the play.

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

This is incorrect. It happened in the second period of one of the Stockholm games. There was no penalty called on the play.

We are talking about different plays.  Thought you were referring to Paul's retailiatory hit on Dahlin for checking Perry cleanly behind the net last night.  Didn't realize you were talking about the game ~4 years ago.

Pretty sure GA was referring to the Paul hit.

 

 

[SwampD]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

We are talking about different plays.  Thought you were referring to Paul's retailiatory hit on Dahlin for checking Perry cleanly behind the net last night.  Didn't realize you were talking about the game ~4 years ago.

Pretty sure GA was referring to the Paul hit.

 

 

Ah, Gotcha. I thought he was referring to Cernak's other elbowing of a Buffalo Sabre.

Repeat offender. He got 2 games last time, so 5 games? Well, it's the NHL so they'll give him 3 and say it's more than last time.

 

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Ah, Gotcha. I thought he was referring to Cernak's other elbowing of a Buffalo Sabre.

 

Repeat offender. He got 2 games last time, so 5 games? Well, it's the NHL so they'll give him 3 and say it's more than last time.

 

 

 

 

Probably not repeat offender.  It resets every 18 months a player hasn't been a d-bag.

[Contempt]

33 minutes ago, Eleven said:

If you'd ever visited Yonkers, you'd know that this is an impossibility.

It's possible, but it refers to a bat.

8 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Probably not repeat offender.  It resets every 18 months a player hasn't been a d-bag.

Which is why, as much as the NHL hates it, Mr. Cernak needs an in person meeting with some fists his first shift the next time we play those jerkoffs.

[matter2003]

1 hour ago, inkman said:

I don’t fu king care what the punishment will be. Fine, suspension.  These guys make millions and would love a week vacation midseason.  Until they start fining dudes 6 figures or give them the season off, it’ll never be enough.  

"Never be enough....never be enough...never be enough...for me...never never....never never...never...for me...never... for me...never enouuuuuggghhhh....never ennnooouuuuugggghhhhh....never enoooouuuugghhhh! For me....For meeeeeee!"

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by matter2003

[Mango]

2 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

The penalty on Dahlin was pretty dirty as well. I thought cross check from behind deserved at least a 5 minute minor. 

I was shocked he didn't get 5 for that. Stunned. I thought there was a strong argument to toss him from the game for that. It was wildly flagrant and targeted. 

[K-9]

47 minutes ago, SwampD said:

This is incorrect. It happened in the second period of one of the Stockholm games. There was no penalty called on the play.

It was one of those Stockholm games where Kucherov basically ended Sobotka’s career, too. 

[Taro T]

12 minutes ago, Mango said:

I was shocked he didn't get 5 for that. Stunned. I thought there was a strong argument to toss him from the game for that. It was wildly flagrant and targeted. 

Agree it should've been 5.  But shocked it wasn't called that way?  Was that your 1st NHL game watched? ;)

[Stads]

2 hours ago, French Collection said:

Probably.

Krebs will take care of it next game.

I never thought Krebs would be the "take care of it" guy, but I love it

[Doohickie]

26 minutes ago, Mango said:

I was shocked he didn't get 5 for that. Stunned. I thought there was a strong argument to toss him from the game for that. It was wildly flagrant and targeted. 

Well, with only a minute and a half left, it would pretty much be a match penalty.

[North Buffalo]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

If you'd ever visited Yonkers, you'd know that this is an impossibility.

PS Im working in a Hospital in downtown Yonkers right now... and Im not really reading even this blather... lol

[RochesterExpat]

1 hour ago, Mango said:

I was shocked he didn't get 5 for that. Stunned. I thought there was a strong argument to toss him from the game for that. It was wildly flagrant and targeted. 

48 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Well, with only a minute and a half left, it would pretty much be a match penalty.

The NHL rule on a 5 minute major for cross-checking is: 

Rule 59 – Cross-checking

59.1 Cross-checking - The action of using the shaft of the stick between
the two hands to forcefully check an opponent.

59.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty, at the discretion of the Referee
based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player
who “cross checks” an opponent.

59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee
based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player
who “cross checks” an opponent (see 59.5).

59.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match
penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately
injured his opponent by cross-checking.

59.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is assessed for
cross-checking, an automatic game misconduct penalty shall be
imposed on the offending player.

59.6 Fines and Suspensions - If deemed appropriate, supplementary
discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer
to Rule 28).

If a five minute major were assessed, it carries with it an automatic game misconduct penalty. So, to @Mango's comment, any cross-checking five minute major includes a game misconduct. Please note also there is no such thing as a double minor for cross-checking.

That aside, the cross-check was an egregious attempt to injure when you rewatch it. It was not a hockey play. It was nothing other than an attempt to injure Dahlin. Plain and simple. That would make it a match penalty. For those wondering, a match penalty is counted as such:

A match penalty shall be imposed on any player who deliberately
attempts to injure or who deliberately injures an opponent in any
manner. 

[...]

For all match penalties, a total of fifteen minutes shall be charged
in the records against the offending player (five minutes on the penalty
clock, plus an additional 10 minutes for being removed from the game).

In addition to the match penalty, the player shall be automatically 
suspended from further competition until the Commissioner has ruled
on the issue

The correct call should have been a match penalty if NHL games were called by the book which would then carry with it an automatic 5 minute major and ejection. 

So, point is, a cross-checking major carries an automatic game misconduct. However, this was technically a match penalty as it was pretty evident it was intent to injure and not a 5 minute major for the severity of contact. The amount of time left doesn't make it a match penalty @Doohickie but you're also confusing the hit on Okposo with the hit on Dahlin. The hit on Dahlin had a 2 minute minor for interference called and it was in the 2nd period.

And the reason it's only a minor is because the referee hilariously considered it an otherwise clean hit. And, no, I'm not joking. Again, if we go by the NHL rulebook on Interference:

56.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty for interference shall be imposed: 

[...]

(iii) On any player who deliberately checks an opponent, including the
goalkeeper, who is not in possession of the puck; 

[...]

56.4 Major Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major
penalty, based on the degree of violence, to a player guilty of
interfering with an opponent (see 56.5).

Because of how Dahlin landed, the "degree of violence" wasn't satisfied to make it a major (which, again, would carry a game misconduct with it).

There is no match penalty for interference for attempt to injure in the NHL rulebook. I'm sure someone is going to argue I'm wrong so here's a screenshot from the NHL rulebook:

Now, it's important to note the NHL does say "not limited to" this list; however, there's never been a match penalty assigned for anything not on this list--so that statement comes without teeth.

In short, the referee was practicing game management. If he called it a cross-check (which it was) it would have been a match penalty because it was attempt to injure. By calling it interference, it was a two minute minor since the act wasn't violent enough to justify a 5 + game. There's no match penalty consideration for attempting to murder a player for interference.

Welcome to the wonderful world of NHL rules.

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by RochesterExpat

[CTJoe]

Refs really blew this big time and should be held responsible.  I find it hard to believe than none of the 4 saw the blatant elbow.  All major penalties are reviewable, and can be upheld, changed to a minor or changed to no penalty.  So what should have happened is they call a major and review it.  When no penalty was called it wasn;t reviewable afterwards.  The continued ineptness of NHL refereeing is incredible.  

[Pimlach]

Whatever he gets will not be enough considering Cernak's track record.  

5 minutes ago, CTJoe said:

Refs really blew this big time and should be held responsible.  I find it hard to believe than none of the 4 saw the blatant elbow.  All major penalties are reviewable, and can be upheld, changed to a minor or changed to no penalty.  So what should have happened is they call a major and review it.  When no penalty was called it wasn;t reviewable afterwards.  The continued ineptness of NHL refereeing is incredible.  

Yet they reviewed a deflection off of a stick and charge Buffalo with a delay of game.  

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, CTJoe said:

Refs really blew this big time and should be held responsible.  I find it hard to believe than none of the 4 saw the blatant elbow.  All major penalties are reviewable, and can be upheld, changed to a minor or changed to no penalty.  So what should have happened is they call a major and review it.  When no penalty was called it wasn;t reviewable afterwards.  The continued ineptness of NHL refereeing is incredible.  

Can't see any scenario where the refs call a major just to have the ability to re-review a play/call.

Hated that they didn't call anything and also that they let Paul off so lightly on such an obvious intent to injure.  Regarding the Paul hit: As soon as Perry went down, Paul made a beeline for Dahlin but missed him at the boards.  Once he finally figurred out where Dahlin had gone he made another beeline for him this time crosschecking him in the back long after the puck was moved on.  That was a blatent attempt to injure.

But not convinced Cernak MEANT to injure Okposo.  That should've been at least 2 of not 5 for the head contact, but it was at least a bang bang play.  No way Paul's wasn't deliberate.

[North Buffalo]

22 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Can't see any scenario where the refs call a major just to have the ability to re-review a play/call.

Hated that they didn't call anything and also that they let Paul off so lightly on such an obvious intent to injure.  Regarding the Paul hit: As soon as Perry went down, Paul made a beeline for Dahlin but missed him at the boards.  Once he finally figurred out where Dahlin had gone he made another beeline for him this time crosschecking him in the back long after the puck was moved on.  That was a blatent attempt to injure.

But not convinced Cernak MEANT to injure Okposo.  That should've been at least 2 of not 5 for the head contact, but it was at least a bang bang play.  No way Paul's wasn't deliberate.

He stuck out his chicken wing bs intent was there to make contact with Okie's head

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

It wasn't cross checking, it was elbowing.

He isn't referring to the Cernak hit on Okposo, he's referring to the Paul hit on Dahlin.

[Doohickie]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

He isn't referring to the Cernak hit on Okposo, he's referring to the Paul hit on Dahlin.

I realize that, that's why I deleted my post, you fasty, you.

He responded to me and I was referring to the Okposo hit but I realize the post I was responding to was discussing the Dahlin hit.  So rather than try to explain all that I just went all

But you foiled my plan.