Cornell 1, Dartmouth 1

[Dafatone]

https://twitter.com/chnews/statuses/425356727223988224

Is that two on top of the 1 from the DQ?

[Robb]

https://twitter.com/chnews/statuses/425356727223988224

Is that two on top of the 1 from the DQ?

Per the CHN article, "The supplemental discipline adds one game to the suspension. He is eligible to return Feb. 1 against Princeton."

[Trotsky]

https://twitter.com/chnews/statuses/425356727223988224

Is that two on top of the 1 from the DQ?

It sounds like just the next 2.  He may have a prior, in which case that'd be the ordinary result of a DQ.

Edit: or not, as per comment above.  Interesting.  Is this the first case of supplemental discipline actually resulting in a longer penalty?

[BMac]

Great that the league did *something*.

Much more importantly, it would be great to know that our best player, who missed most of last season due to a neck/back injury, is healthy.

I don't think the punishment is enough. Nothing in college hockey is worth (reaggravating) an injury like that. It would be heartless for the league to do any less than the maximum possible to prevent shit like this from happening.

Should Neiley be punished additionally for reaggravating an injury that he didn't know about? Probably not. (And I'm assuming he didn't know). But at the same time, you have to live with the consequences of your actions.I think 3-5 games would be more appropriate.

[scoop85]

Anyone up in Ithaca have any word on how Bardreau is doing?

[RichH]

It would be heartless for the league to do any less than the maximum possible to prevent shit like this from happening.

Well, the maximum possible would probably be a lifetime ban and criminal charges filed. I don't think this was warranted.

Removing my own emotions from this as I watch the video, and the punishment is probably fair. I've seen much more violent and dangerous hits go unpunished. 1 game for the cheap hit, 1 game for it being after the final buzzer.  I'm OK with that.

[Trotsky]

Great that the league did *something*.

Much more importantly, it would be great to know that our best player, who missed most of last season due to a neck/back injury, is healthy.

I don't think the punishment is enough. Nothing in college hockey is worth (reaggravating) an injury like that. It would be heartless for the league to do any less than the maximum possible to prevent shit like this from happening.

Should Neiley be punished additionally for reaggravating an injury that he didn't know about? Probably not. (And I'm assuming he didn't know). But at the same time, you have to live with the consequences of your actions.I think 3-5 games would be more appropriate.

Suspend him until Bardreau comes back.  Pretty simple.

[KeithK]

Removing my own emotions from this as I watch the video, and the punishment is probably fair. I've seen much more violent and dangerous hits go unpunished. 1 game for the cheap hit, 1 game for it being after the final buzzer.  I'm OK with that.

Agree completely.

[KeithK]

Great that the league did *something*.

Much more importantly, it would be great to know that our best player, who missed most of last season due to a neck/back injury, is healthy.

I don't think the punishment is enough. Nothing in college hockey is worth (reaggravating) an injury like that. It would be heartless for the league to do any less than the maximum possible to prevent shit like this from happening.

Should Neiley be punished additionally for reaggravating an injury that he didn't know about? Probably not. (And I'm assuming he didn't know). But at the same time, you have to live with the consequences of your actions.I think 3-5 games would be more appropriate.

Suspend him until Bardreau comes back.  Pretty simple.

So if it turns out Bardreau is OK and plays this weekend you'd be fine with Neiley not being suspended?  Because that's what linking the two would imply. The infraction is the infraction and should be judged on its own "merit". My opinion anyway.

[Trotsky]

So if it turns out Bardreau is OK and plays this weekend you'd be fine with Neiley not being suspended?  Because that's what linking the two would imply. The infraction is the infraction and should be judged on its own "merit".

Rhetorical license. How about this -- minimum penalty but can't return until Bardreau?  It is tied to "merit" because the amount of damage is quantifiable -- the wrong is partly the loss of control and the attack but also partly the damage inflicted.  Attempted murder and murder have different penalties.

[Dafatone]

So if it turns out Bardreau is OK and plays this weekend you'd be fine with Neiley not being suspended?  Because that's what linking the two would imply. The infraction is the infraction and should be judged on its own "merit".

Rhetorical license. How about this -- minimum penalty but can't return until Bardreau?  It is tied to "merit" because the amount of damage is quantifiable -- the wrong is partly the loss of control and the attack but also partly the damage inflicted.  Attempted murder and murder have different penalties.

I'm generally opposed to this sort of suspension idea.  But in the case of cheap shots that happen during stoppages or after the game ends, it may be fitting.

[marty]

So if it turns out Bardreau is OK and plays this weekend you'd be fine with Neiley not being suspended?  Because that's what linking the two would imply. The infraction is the infraction and should be judged on its own "merit".

Rhetorical license. How about this -- minimum penalty but can't return until Bardreau?  It is tied to "merit" because the amount of damage is quantifiable -- the wrong is partly the loss of control and the attack but also partly the damage inflicted.  Attempted murder and murder have different penalties.

I'm generally opposed to this sort of suspension idea.  But in the case of cheap shots that happen during stoppages or after the game ends, it may be fitting.

I don't understand why you would be opposed to suspensions. Do you think it's OK to maim the opponents as long as the game clock is running? Bardreau was more vulnerable in this instance but intentional goonery isn't supposed to be part of the NCAA hockey experience.

[BMac]

Fair point, I was careless with my phrasing. Though not by much.

How's this: the league should be extremely concerned with minimizing preventable injuries.

My point here is that the preventability of this incident is what merits a very severe response. I'll argue that the rules are generally meant to punish according to the likelihood of injury.

I assume that there's a probability of injury during fair play.
I assume that there's a larger probability of injury during dirty/unfair play. This is exactly what the punishments in the rules are meant to cover. Hitting someone from behind, contact to the head, boarding, cross-checking, spearing, etc are all punished, and more severe infractions (meaning infractions with a higher probability of injury) are punished more.
 
There's an even higher probability of injury when something like this occurs- after the buzzer- because the opposing player is defenseless and does not have a reasonable expectation of defending himself. By the same logic as above, a higher probability of injury merits more severe punishment.

However, this didn't happen during the game. It's way, way worse. There's no chance it was uninentional, and it's much more dangerous. Therefore, it should be punished more severely than a bad infraction that happened during the game.

Since there are in-game infractions that can be punished with 1 or 2 game suspensions, I reason that this case merits some significant amount more.

So to indulge your rhetorical question: what *would* happen if they banned this kid for life and filed charges?
Would it be unfair? Yes, I think it would. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's unprecedented to ban someone for life in college hockey like that.
But it would very likely prevent anyone from ever hitting an opponent meaningfully after the buzzer in ECAC hockey ever again. And I'd be very happy with that outcome.

To be clear, I'm not advocating banning the kid for life. But a 5 game suspension would sure catch every other NCAA player's attention. It's exactly like the NBA's rule against leaving the bench during a brawl, instituted after the Pistons/Pacers fight. It's ridculously inflexible and harsh, but after a couple more people got dinged by it and saw that the league was serious about never seeing a full-team fight again, it has worked perfectly. I was sad when the application of this rule caused the Suns to lose to the Spurs in the western conference finals several years ago, but the results of the rule have been exactly as intended.

[Dafatone]

So if it turns out Bardreau is OK and plays this weekend you'd be fine with Neiley not being suspended?  Because that's what linking the two would imply. The infraction is the infraction and should be judged on its own "merit".

Rhetorical license. How about this -- minimum penalty but can't return until Bardreau?  It is tied to "merit" because the amount of damage is quantifiable -- the wrong is partly the loss of control and the attack but also partly the damage inflicted.  Attempted murder and murder have different penalties.

I'm generally opposed to this sort of suspension idea.  But in the case of cheap shots that happen during stoppages or after the game ends, it may be fitting.

I don't understand why you would be opposed to suspensions. Do you think it's OK to maim the opponents as long as the game clock is running? Bardreau was more vulnerable in this instance but intentional goonery isn't supposed to be part of the NCAA hockey experience.

BMac just covered it pretty well.  To me, there's a big difference between a goon knocking someone out, even with a cheap hit, during play and the goon doing the same during a stoppage.  You get hit during play.  You expect to get hit during play.  If someone takes you out with a cheap hit, it's usually hitting from behind, or slashing, or contact to the head, or hooking, or crosschecking, or whatever other penalty it is.  Plus more, if it's bad enough.

A hit like Neiley's isn't any of those penalties, because those penalties happen during the game.  What Neiley did isn't a penalty at all.  It's more akin to waiting for Bardreau after the game and clubbing him in the knees or something.

A cheap hockey shot is a cheap hockey shot.  What Neiley did had nothing to do with hockey.  Like I said, I'm not a huge fan of the "suspend the guy until the guy he injured returns" concept, but it makes more sense when a guy injures someone outside of a game of hockey than inside it.

[RichH]

I assume that there's a probability of injury during fair play.
I assume that there's a larger probability of injury during dirty/unfair play. This is exactly what the punishments in the rules are meant to cover. Hitting someone from behind, contact to the head, boarding, cross-checking, spearing, etc are all punished, and more severe infractions (meaning infractions with a higher probability of injury) are punished more.
 
However, this didn't happen during the game. It's way, way worse. There's no chance it was uninentional, and it's much more dangerous. Therefore, it should be punished more severely than a bad infraction that happened during the game.

To be clear, I'm not advocating banning the kid for life. But a 5 game suspension would sure catch every other NCAA player's attention. It's exactly like the NBA's rule against leaving the bench during a brawl, instituted after the Pistons/Pacers fight. It's ridculously inflexible and harsh, but after a couple more people got dinged by it and saw that the league was serious about never seeing a full-team fight again, it has worked perfectly. I was sad when the application of this rule caused the Suns to lose to the Spurs in the western conference finals several years ago, but the results of the rule have been exactly as intended.

First of all, there already ARE harsh penalties in ALL levels of hockey to leave the bench to join an altercation. I'm pretty sure they were instituted well before whatever NBA rule there is.

Second, a high percentage of cheap hits & punches thrown by Cornell and their opponents are after the whistle.  I hate to admit it, but Cornell is one of the dirtier teams in the league. Do you argue that the punches CU throws in defending their goaltender after opposing players crash the net a little too hard are less defensible because the whistle blew therefore it's not a "hockey hit?"  I can think of a lot of shots and brawls that happened after whistles/buzzers between us and Brown, Dartmouth, Harvard, Clarkson, Colgate & RPI through the years. Punches and cheap hits thrown after the puck is dead aren't necessarily more dangerous than those checks & charges 5 feet from the boards, for example. BU's Travis Roy was paralyzed *during play*. Todd Bertuzzi sucker-punched Steve Moore *during play*. Just because the whistle hasn't been blown yet doesn't mean the crime (and therefore punishment) is better or worse.