The constant whining about this feels very little brotherish. Fact of the matter is he wasn't hurt. Move on.
To me it's more that the league needs to decide WTF they really want, which game?
Tough, fighting, hitting allowed or calling unnecessary, non-play penalties. Clearly Weber's intent wasn't a check. Hell when Drapes got his face rearranged it was a check, not that this is on the same level. Karsh highlighted an example of another player who was suspended for an actual hit. The player did get hurt, but that really shouldn't matter.
Had Weber swung his stick at Z's neck but missed would he have only been fined because he didn't get injured. It's a ridiculous, sliding standard by a league that is a rudderless ship.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
MotorCityJoe- Since 2007: You talking to me?
Here is my counter to the idea that you shouldn't suspend based on injuries and should on intent - Darren McCarty vs Claude Lemieux. That's my favorite moment in hockey history and probably is for a few of you in this thread. And if you look at the initial incident, there was premeditation, intent to injure, it was a sucker punch, a blow to the head.... I mean everything on the checklist. The first punch isn't really that different than Bertuzzi/Moore. So I'd be a massive hypocrite if I didn't acknowledge that outcome should play a pretty big role in how punishments should be handed out.
By the way, it's crazy that he cracked Hanks helmet. It's pretty hard to crack a hockey helmet. I didn't think he should get suspended until I heard that.
Maybe hank could ask the local prosecuter to file attempted manslaughter charges.
I don't think injury or lack thereof should be the only factor considered, but it should definitely be a part of the evaluation for suspensions/fines.
The fact that this happened at the end of the game, and Hank was ok leads me to being ok with a fine. Now the amount of the fine is rediculous, but that's out of the NHL's hands.