Supplemental Discpline 2013-14

[Chadd 916]

As I mentioned earlier, the linesman really created and escalated the situation with Carcillo. I think the NHL had to hold him accountable for his actions, but they also needed to recognize that the linesman was responsible for putting him in that position. All in all, I think the NHL did the right thing this time.

[iceman8310 106]

As I mentioned earlier, the linesman really created and escalated the situation with Carcillo. I think the NHL had to hold him accountable for his actions, but they also needed to recognize that the linesman was responsible for putting him in that position. All in all, I think the NHL did the right thing this time.

agreed 100%

[IPv6Freely 2094]

If the Rangers hadn't made it to the finals, I could see them just upholding the 10 games. But in this case, let the guy have a chance to play for the cup!

I doubt that was on Bettman's mind when he made his decision, but I'm happy Carcillo gets to at least play a couple games, assuming they don't get swept.

[Stewie 721]

If the Rangers hadn't made it to the finals, I could see them just upholding the 10 games. But in this case, let the guy have a chance to play for the cup!

I doubt that was on Bettman's mind when he made his decision, but I'm happy Carcillo gets to at least play a couple games, assuming they don't get swept.

that shouldnt factor into disciplinary action at all. your actions are your actions regardless the stage.

As I mentioned earlier, the linesman really created and escalated the situation with Carcillo. I think the NHL had to hold him accountable for his actions, but they also needed to recognize that the linesman was responsible for putting him in that position. All in all, I think the NHL did the right thing this time.

Agreed.

[IPv6Freely 2094]

that shouldnt factor into disciplinary action at all. your actions are your actions regardless the stage.

Agreed.

[IPv6Freely 2094]

Fraser posts his opinions: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=453958

I agree completely. It was categorized under the wrong section of Rule 40 from the get-go. Making it a Category III offence (3-9 games) is more correct, and so he was basically given double the minimum, if you want to look at it that way.

What bothers me are the people saying he simply reduced the number of games, which he did not. And I agree with him, Carcillo's actions (while illegal, thus a 6-game suspension) were his attempts to free himself, not to actually cause harm.