Is it just me, or is it odd that for a similar incident in 2001, then Ottawa Senator Andre Roy was suspended for two games for chasing then Canuck Donald Brashear in the same manner. A two-game suspension for Mair would cost him roughly $20,000 in pay, but the new CBA apparently only allows for this $2,500 fine.

Wasn’t the League supposed to be working towards a more professional presentation of their players to the world? An interesting coincidence that this game was broadcast on (and the incident’s footage collected by) the NHL Network.

Posted by SENShobo from Waterloo, ON on 10/29/08 at 11:37 AM ET

2500?

wow.  that’ll teach him a lesson.

goon.

Posted by ColdWar on 10/29/08 at 11:50 AM ET

If you take it as a percentage of his income, for embarassing his company (the NHL) in front its customers (through the NHL footage) and its boss (Bettman was at that game), an ordinary person pulling in $25K annually would have received an $80 fine, or the cost of a couple tickets in Ottawa’s 300 level. Something akin to a speeding ticket I’d say.

Amazing how Roy got 2 games, and there was no footage that I know of, while Mair was on all the highlight reels with his performance and delivery, and Roy very quickly made his apology over the incident known.

Posted by SENShobo from Waterloo, ON on 10/29/08 at 11:59 AM ET

Anyone dumb enough to chase Brashear should keep their coin and have a one on one with him.
Regardless of whom the offender is headed to a dressing room or taking on ice issues up off the ice is utterly classless.

Posted by MOWingsfan19 on 10/29/08 at 12:08 PM ET

Colin Campbell’s Wacky Wheel-O-Justice strikes again!

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems that—at the very least—they could hire a clerk (or even an intern) whose entire job would be to constantly monitor and report on precedents established by previous incidents. I understand each case should be reviewed in its own context, but having the precedents on-hand would at least help set some kind of bar.

Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 10/29/08 at 12:21 PM ET

Is it possible now that the allowable punishment is different (under the new CBA) than it was for when Roy did it?  TSN did specifically point out that it was the max allowable by the CBA (is there a category in there for that really?).

A suspension wouldn’t do much good in this case, unless they can specifically ban Mair and Neil from playing against one another.  We’ll see what happens January 6th, with Rivet and Gaustad both back.

Posted by TheTick from Buffalo on 10/29/08 at 12:31 PM ET

Yes, it does indeed state that, and I do find it curious that such an incident can only get such a light slap on the wrist.

The point of a suspension is always punishment for bad behaviour - exactly what we quite literally saw and heard in this case - not solely to try and prevent the exact same situation from happening again. Suspensions will never be handed out saying “Player X has been suspended from the next four games he plays against Team Y”, that is simply not practical and not punishment.

Posted by SENShobo from Waterloo, ON on 10/29/08 at 01:26 PM ET

A suspension wouldn’t do much good in this case, unless they can specifically ban Mair and Neil from playing against one another.

There’s precedent for it.  Dan Maloney of the Wings was banned from playing in Toronto from 1975-77.

Posted by Doogie2K from Calgary on 10/30/08 at 12:01 AM ET