Controversial Draisaitl Hit on Barkov: What Should the Outcome Be?

by

Debate is swirling around the Draisaitl hit on Barkov in Game 2. Greg Wyshynski’s take sheds light on a potential suspension dilemma.

[Greg Wyshynski] On the Draisaitl hit on Barkov: The sense I get is that Barkov’s status for Game 3 – not injury, but whether he plays or doesn’t – could tip this thing to a suspension. But if he plays, I don’t think Draisaitl gets more than a fine. At this point, my sense is no suspension.
byu/Duffleman0609 inhockey

Summary

  • Should intent or injury be the basis for a suspension?
  • Clear frustration over lack of consistent rulings on dangerous plays.
  • Call for a fair and consistent system in determining suspensions.

Debate Over Intent vs. Injury

The community is divided on whether the severity of the hit should depend on the outcome of the victim. Some argue that intent to injure should be the primary factor in determining penalties. User ‘zellmerz’ expresses dissatisfaction with the current focus on injury status, stating, ‘Injury being a determining factor for suspension has to stop.’ This sentiment is echoed by ‘eatingasspatties,’ who questions the logic behind punishing based on the victim’s injuries.

Consistency in Rulings

Many users are frustrated by the perceived inconsistency in disciplinary decisions. ‘Radjage’ highlights the frustration of seeing similar dangerous plays go unpunished year after year, emphasizing the need for a more uniform approach to handling such incidents.

Appeal for Fairness

Users like ‘ManWithBag15’ advocate for a fairer system where the severity of the play, rather than the outcome, guides the disciplinary action. There is a call for a transparent and impartial process to ensure that players are held accountable for dangerous plays.

The ongoing debate reflects a desire for a more equitable and consistent approach in addressing player safety and ensuring a fair playing field.