For the life of me, I still don't understand why the NHL cannot or will not produce a standard list of offenses and associated penalties. You can still adjust these based on mitigating circumstances. Repeat offenders would get a compounding effect until they are either out for the season, or out for good. And don't tell me there are too many mitigating circumstance or it's too complicated to set a standard. We have an entire criminal court system that has standards in place and while it may not work perfectly, it's easy to tell that murder is more serious than assault and carries a stiffer penalty (i.e. the RESULTS of the actions carry weight in terms of punishment) Try these minimum penalties on: Headshots: 20 games; hitting from behind 10 games, use of the stick to intentionally injure (and we KNOW when someone intends to use their stick to hurt, it's obvious 99% of the time) 10 games.

First off, since when does lack of intent mean you don't get punished for a crime? Manslaughter is when you kill someone without intent - it's still a crime, but the sentence is reduced. Just as intent should carry weight in terms of the punishment, so should the result of the play, including any and all injuries. Secondly, why is the person handing out discipline in the league at all associated with the game? Why should they be a former player, coach or anything else? The league says that person needs to understand what is a "hockey play" which is crap. By this same logic, all judges should be prior criminals or crime bosses. The league thinks it's sh*t doesn't stink. It needs to get with the program