I just think the whole bar needs to be ratcheted up--WAY up. They need to start somewhere, some time, if they want these suspensions to actually be a deterrent. Right now they're a joke. Yes, you should get more games if you're a repeat offender, more games if you injure someone than not, but they should announce at the beginning of next season new guidelines that by today's standards seem draconian in their swift effectiveness. They only seem harsh because we've gotten used to seeing a guy inflict these vicious, avoidable hits targeting the head and only get a couple games off. If a hit like Murray's would get, say, 12 to 15 games for a first offense plus the huge fines to the coach, GM and owner of maybe 25, 50 and 100k respectively that I've advocated in the past, we might not even SEE the repeat offenses that would get 25, 30, 40 games and up. And isn't that the entire point of the exercise? Curtail the behavior?
Risk an opponent's ability to play, and you risk your own. Problem solved. (Not game for game though, that's unworkable for the reasons Burnt suggests.) Even if you don't give a rat's rectum about inflicting brain injury on your opponents, you definitely damn sure don't want to be the guy who gashes a giant leak in your bosses' wallets.
Anytime they want to, they can make headhunting go the way of the bench-clearing brawl--an extinct relic of a bygone era. And they could do it using the same method, fines so massive no one will do the behavior no matter how bad they may want to.
For Democrats every day is opposite day. Getting destroyed in an election means the other side better wise up...record cold is evidence of too much heat...those who use guns to break the law will suddenly obey a law banning guns. And more law enforcement makes a community less safe.
Last edited by Top Shelf; 04-04-2014 at 01:42 AM.