#also this has apparently been in my inbox since january along w another one | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

yahoo-puck-daddy-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Gary Bettman upholds Antoine Vermette's 10-game suspension

Anaheim Ducks Left Wing Antoine Vermette battles on a face-off during a NHL game between the Minnesota Wild and Anaheim Ducks on February 14th, 2017 at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, MN. The Ducks defeated the Wild 1-0. (Getty Images)

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman upheld the 10-game suspension of Anaheim Ducks forward Antoine Vermette after the player and the NHLPA requested a review of the ruling.

The review took place last Thursday in New York City where Vermette was present along with his agent Allan Walsh along with Bruce Meyer, Don Zavelo, Roman Stoykewych and Mathieu Schneider of the NHLPA and Ducks general manager Bob Murray.

Linesman Shandor Alphonso, who Vermette had hit with his stick in Feb. 14 in a game between the Ducks and Minnesota Wild, and Dan O’Halloran of the NHL Officials Association were also there.

[Follow Puck Daddy on social media: Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | Tumblr]

The review took place in front of Bettman.

Bettman said rule 40.3 Automatic Suspension – Category II was indeed violated in this case and didn’t deserve any lesser games total. Category II states the following:

“Any player who deliberately applies physical force to an official in any matter (excluding actions as set out in Category I), which physical force is applied without intent to injure, or who spits on an official”

Bettman’s ruling stated that the NHLPA argued for Category III, which was a suspension of three games. That rule states the following:

Any player who, by his actions, physically demeans an official or physically threatens an official by (but not limited to) throwing a stick or any other piece of equipment or object at or in the general direction of an official, shooting the puck at or in the general direction of an official, spitting at or in the general direction of an official, or who deliberately applies physical force to an official solely for the purpose of getting free of such an official during or immediately following an altercation shall be suspended for not less than three (3) games.

In Bettman’s ruling, he noted that Vermette should know that under no circumstances a player should hit an official in such a manner.

The penalty for such an offense under Rule 40 is a minimum ten (10) game suspension. That is a substantial penalty – and appropriately so. As is true of every Player in the NHL, Mr. Vermette learned at an early age that under no circumstances may a Player strike an Official, either with his stick or otherwise. The fact that a Player may be distracted or under stress cannot excuse an offense or justify reducing it from a Category II to a Category III offense. As I noted in Carcillo, “neither emotion nor frustration caused by a real or perceived missed call can ever constitute a mitigating circumstance for violation of Rule 40.” While in a particular case, and one such as this, the ten (10) game penalty may seem harsh, the purpose of Rule 40 is to protect Officials and ensure the integrity of our game. Therefore, any inappropriate conduct by Players vis-à-vis Officials cannot be condoned or tolerated.

At the same time, I do not believe the circumstances here warrant imposing a suspension of greater than ten (10) games. The NHLPA is correct that Mr. Vermette has been an exemplary citizen throughout his NHL career. He has not been the subject of any prior supplementary discipline or suspension of any kind and he has incurred only two major penalties in his entire NHL playing career. The conduct giving rise to his suspension here is, admittedly, an isolated incident that was clearly out of character for Mr. Vermette. He exhibited sincere remorse both at the hearing and in his prior apology delivered to (linesman Shandor) Alphonso. The ten (10) game suspension mandated by Rule 40 is sufficient.

The reference to former NHLer Daniel Carcillo has to do with how Carcillo’s suspension of 10 games was reduced to six games by Bettman in June of 2014. This was about an altercation with an official in the postseason when Carcillo was with the New York Rangers and the player tried to shake loose in an altercation while the official tried to prevent him from doing so. Bettman cited wording he used in that decision in regards to how he looked at this case.

I have generally approached such matters in the past by affording substantial deference to the Officials’ judgment and I will not lightly overrule the Officials’ decision unless I am satisfied there is clear and convincing evidence that they were wrong or, alternatively, that although their ruling may have properly applied existing standards, there is nonetheless some overriding policy consideration that requires me to assess and revise those standards.

The situation in question occurred with 12:27 left in the third period off a faceoff between Vermette and forward Mikko Koivu. After the puck was dropped by Alphonso, Vermette slashed the official and was immediately assessed a game misconduct.

youtube

Vermette was automatically suspended since the on-ice officials deemed it was a Category II violation, which carried a 10-game suspension.

Bettman’s ruling said the NHLPA showed Vyacheslav Kozlov’s three-game suspension in 2003 as a similar infraction as well as Bettman’s lessening suspensions of Michael Peca in 2009 and Rob Ray in 2001 for abusing officials as precedent for decreasing the Vermette ruling.

Bettman said Kozlov’s suspension was the correct amount and pointed out how why it was different.

The Kozlov suspension, however, is distinguishable for at least two reasons:

(i) The determination to treat the conduct as a Category III offense, warranting a three game suspension, was made by the On-Ice Officials and neither the Officials nor the Player requested Commissioner review. By contrast, I am here reviewing a determination by the Officials that the conduct was a Category II offense. As discussed above, and as explained in prior decisions, I will not disturb the Officials’ determination absent clear and convincing evidence that it was erroneous. There is no such evidence here. In fact, the evidence is compelling that the Officials were correct in their assessment of the conduct in question.

(ii) The Kozlov incident occurred when the Referee “tried to intervene” after Kozlov had cross-checked another Player. In other words, the conduct appears to have taken place during an altercation for the purpose of getting free of the Official, making the assessment of a Category III violation in that circumstance a more logical outcome.

The Peca appeal seemed to be an area that the NHLPA could find precedence since it was more recent, and also successful. But Bettman didn’t see much in line between’s Peca’s ordeal and Vermette’s.

The Union argues that Mr. Vermette’s conduct was no more serious than the conduct in Peca. While I do not necessarily agree with that contention, the facts and procedural history of the Peca case render it unnecessary for me to reach that issue. As noted in the Peca decision itself, the On-Ice Officials originally imposed a Category II suspension on the Player there and they changed their determination to a Category III suspension at the review hearing after hearing the evidence and reviewing previously unavailable video footage. In my decision, I indicated that “[t]heir [the Officials’] initial application of Rule 41 was fair and reasonable, as was their decision to re- classify the penalty upon viewing the videotape.”

On that basis, I concluded that their reclassification of the conduct from a Category II to a Category III offense was reasonable under the circumstances and therefore appropriate. I likewise find that the determination here that Mr. Vermette’s slash of Linesman Alphonso on the back of his leg was a Category II offense is entirely appropriate.

Bettman also saw little congruence with the Ray appeal.

Third, the NHLPA cites In re Appeal of Rob Ray (January 11, 2001), where I concluded that a Category II suspension should be reduced to a Category III suspension and increased the number of games above the minimum for a Category III violation. There, however, the Player did not deliberately apply physical force to an Official.

As discussed in the decision, the Player’s “beef” was with the Referee. While the Player apparently struck a Linesman while swinging his stick, he did so accidentally (as opposed to “deliberately”), and the “stick touch” was not the basis on which the Rule 40 penalty was assessed. In Ray, the Abuse of Officials penalty was assessed in response to the Player’s later actions in throwing his stick on the ice in the general direction of the Linesman. No intent to actually hit the Linesman in that case could be ascertained, and, significantly, the stick did not actually hit the Linesman. Applying the plain language of Rule 40 in that case, I found that the Player had not deliberately applied physical force to an Official.

Vermette can now appeal Bettman’s ruling to an independent arbitrator. Last year, Bettman upheld a 20-game suspension on defenseman Dennis Wideman’s cross-check of linesman Don Henderson before a neutral arbitrator reduced it to 10 games. Wideman still sat for 19 games, but the lessening of the suspension decreased his fine.

Vermette will sit out his fifth game Saturday when Anaheim plays the Los Angeles Kings. The Ducks have their bye week upcoming and won’t play again until Friday, March 3 following Saturday’s contest.

[Newsletter: Get 5 great stories from the Yahoo Sports blogs in your inbox every morning!]

The 34-year-old Vermette had previously received no supplemental discipline from the NHL in his career, which has spanned 968 games. Vermette will be docked $97,222.22 of his salary for this season and could sit out until March 12.

Anaheim signed Vermette to a two-year, $3.5 million contract last summer after he was bought out by the Arizona Coyotes. He has turned into a consistent on-ice contributor with 22 points while winning 62.4 percent of his faceoffs.

– – – – – – –

Josh Cooper is an editor for Puck Daddy on Yahoo Sports. Have a tip? Email him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter! Follow @joshuacooper