Ruutu suspended two games

by James Mirtle on Jan 7, 2009 2:34 PM CST Comment 18 comments

The NHL's found another way to get noticed on ESPN:

The Buffalo News had a good roundup of the particulars with this case, something I'm a bit late getting to. The Goose's Roost has more from the Sabres perspective, too.

Frankly, I don't have any time for nonsense like this. If I was running the show, Jarkko Ruutu would get at least a handful of games on the sidelines.

The NHL seems a bit like a playground for toddlers these days. Add "you can't bite" to the house rules.

UPDATE The league has suspended Ruutu for two games.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments | Add comment |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

More proof that the Avery issue was completely mishandled:

Any suspension from here to eternity will now be compared to it. The first thing I thought when I saw this was how retarded it is for biting someone intentionally, such that you draw blood, through a frickin hockey glove, to get 2 games, and accurately pointing out that your ex-girlfriends get around the hockey community in a somewhat inappropriate manner gets 6.

No matter what, any time I see a suspension now, it will be measured against Avery. Not only that, but given that the NHL almost NEVER hands out more than a slap on the wrist to anyone, its going to make it quite embarassing that most disciplinary action will sit in an embarassing light, versus Avery.

by IAmJoe on Jan 7, 2009 2:54 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

They are different issues, in my mind. On ice and off ice conduct are handled differently as they either occur within the context of the game or they don’t.

If you bite someone off the ice, you’ll get charged with assault.

by James Mirtle on Jan 7, 2009 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I can see what you mean, about on-ice versus off-ice transgressions, but when the punishments for each are dealt with on the ice, it muddles that line. I could agree with you if the two got separate punishments, and for the most part, thats how such things are dealt with. If you go off to a reporter about how you think the refs sucked, you get fined, and your punishment doesn’t carry onto the ice. If you do something on the ice to try to physically hurt someone, you not only get your fine, but you get your suspension. The off-ice transgression hits your wallet, while the on-ice transgression (and frankly, the worse one, if you agree that trying to physically hurt someone through illegal means is worse than saying someone sucks, or that they’re “easy”, or whatever) gets you both the fine and suspension.

Avery transcended the line between on-ice and off-ice issues, in a way that he became relate-able to both. This puts his suspension in a position to be compared to any other suspension that happens within the league, on or off the ice, for whatever reason, because it was handled both on and off the rink by the NHL. And as such, even amongst the hockey community, a lot of people are going to immediately compare any NHL supplemental discipline to Avery, and this is further exacerbated by the fact that the NHL’s supplementary discipline was already a punch line, and almost never hands out more than 2 game suspensions. Essentially, almost anything that almost anyone does to merit a suspension by the NHL, is going to be a smaller suspension than Avery’s, which is just going to draw more attention to the NHL’s good ol’ “wheel of justice”. Until the NHL changes its discipline policies to actually punish people who commit stupid acts on the ice, this problem will persist within the hockey community, and will be an even bigger joke outside of that community.

On the actual subject of Ruutu’s suspension, even without the comparison to Avery, its patently ridiculous that biting someone in a deliberate manner, with force enough to draw blood (THROUGH A FRICKIN HOCKEY GLOVE!!!!!) is only two games. Absolutely ridiculous.

by IAmJoe on Jan 7, 2009 3:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Avery was suspended for a lot more than just the comment. He had been warned numerous times by the league and had some underreported run-ins with fans.

He had it coming, was a repeat offender and went way over the line. I’ve got no problem with the suspension he got.

by James Mirtle on Jan 7, 2009 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You’re right, in that he was punished for a lot more than the one comment. Some of his actions were on the ice (screening Brodeur), some where off (numerous stupid things). But rather than deal with issues as they came, and keeping that distinction between what was on the rink, and off, and the according punishments, the NHL more or less let it all sit to a boil. When they finally stepped in, they did so on both sides of the boards, and in doing so, blurred that distinction. A lot of people, in, around, and outside of the league, aren’t going to see that distinction so much anymore.

by IAmJoe on Jan 7, 2009 4:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair, considering what little precedent there was for this.

by Afino on Jan 7, 2009 3:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

What does any sort of precedent have to do with it? If someone comes up with a new and creative or innovative way to hurt someone, should they get off lighter, because there was no precedent? If anything, punishing the first of a new type of offense lightly just makes it harder to come down hard on the next person to do it. If another player decides to bite someone, should their punishment be more or less than Ruutu’s, just because of his 2-game suspension precedent?

by IAmJoe on Jan 7, 2009 3:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If I see this ridiculous suspension and some jagoff has his hand in my face after a whistle maybe I make sure to get a good chunk of his hand.

He freaking bit someone! Toss in the fact that he is a piece of crap and he should have gotten at least life if not lethal injection.*

10 games to teach a lesson.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Jan 7, 2009 4:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be fine with 10

I’d also be fine with five. Two games just doesn’t seem right. The precedent that I’m tempted to make is to Simon’s foot stomp (on Ruutu, I believe) – and while we know Simon’s record got him into trouble there, two games seems awfully small for a transgression that is potentially serious as well as extremely poor sportsmanship.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Jan 7, 2009 4:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This is just plain embarassing

How much lower can this team get? All I need now is for someone to post the home video of Chris Phillips prancing around in his wife’s underwear to put me over the edge.

What a gong show this team has become in the last 18 months.

by hockeycountry on Jan 7, 2009 4:32 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

And that’s without even acknowledging some of the embarrassing rumours/stories that have come from ottawa’s not so golden generation.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Jan 7, 2009 5:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

golden generation? please explain.

by hockeycountry on Jan 7, 2009 7:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I should have put that in quotations. Or called them the snow-covered generation.

I meant The Dynasty That Never Was. God I love that name.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Jan 7, 2009 7:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

...

oh they can get lower, they can get lots and lots lower (it’s the Sens we’re talking about here)

by ChicoMaki on Jan 7, 2009 7:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wonder if Ruutu’s vaccinations are up to date – especially rabies. :)

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Jan 7, 2009 5:56 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Since the NHL’s discipline usually takes into account severity of injury in giving suspensions, if Ruutu was rabid, would it merit a longer suspension?

Dilemmas, dilemmas…

by IAmJoe on Jan 7, 2009 6:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Where was Peters' hand?

Any deliberate attempt to injure incurs a match penalty. Wouldn’t sticking your hand in another player’s mouth qualify? (eg – to try to pull out his few remaining teeth?)

by Hawerchuk on Jan 7, 2009 7:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Ruutu definitely deserves a suspension. However, the tradition of face washing is ridiculous. Honestly, is it impossible to play hockey without the after the whistle stuff constantly?

by J. Michael Neal on Jan 7, 2009 10:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs