[emperor penguin]

I know this theory is pretty extreme but I've always been a believer in the idea that a player should be suspended for however many games the person he injures misses as a result of an intentionally dirty act....

I have to disagree with that. If you base punishment on outcomes you're not really punishing dirty play, you're punishing bad luck. And since everyone thinks he'll have good luck, that doesn't deter anyone.

The league should punish a deliberate attempt to injure someone by using the stick as a weapon the same way regardless of the outcome. The fact that LaPierre was unhurt, that Hollweg was cut and that Brashear was knocked cold doesn't make the offender's act any different. Punish the act and the intent, not the outcome.

I agree, but if the play doesn't result in an injury but the act was still dirty then it should be up to the discretion of the NHL to penalize accordingly. All I'm saying is that alot of plays are underpenalized by the league, I think this system of penalization would deter dirty plays better than the current system does. For example, when Paul Kariya was cross checked in the face and missed the rest of the year from a cuncussion, Gary Suter should have also missed the rest of the season instead of the measly 3 games he was suspended for.