| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| freddyboy |
Posted - 03/08/2011 : 18:37:21
At the end of the second period, Zdeno Chara nails Max Pacioretty in the glass between the bench. I'm sorry don't have the video yet, but soon there should be some videos on youtube. It's by far, interference, and he as far i saw he clearly pushes Max's head toward the corner.... Both those players have an history and i think it's some sort of retaliation.....
any thoughts guy?
P.S. Colin Cambell is at the game....so what will he do? suspend him?
joe is a god, if u dont agree....i dont care |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| spetz101 |
Posted - 04/11/2011 : 17:14:52
It was an accident. Do you honestly think if this happened in Atlanta, they would have made that big of a deal? NO !! It's Montreal folks, one of, if not the biggest hockey cities in the world! It's funny that they talked about a possible career ending incident, but yet he is already practicing, and maybe ready for the playoffs. More whinning in Montreal, that's all !! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 22:44:51
Lol, that's the one!  |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 21:34:32
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
freddyboy....nice find, and a very interesting read indeed!
Wonder if Recchi "buys it"???
Alex don't you mean Dr. Recchi.....
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| freddyboy |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 15:35:25
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
freddyboy....nice find, and a very interesting read indeed!
Wonder if Recchi "buys it"???
yea i wonder that also, i was thinking do i post it here or on Recchi's tread haha
joe is a god, if u dont agree....i dont care |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 11:49:22
freddyboy....nice find, and a very interesting read indeed!
Wonder if Recchi "buys it"??? |
| freddyboy |
Posted - 04/07/2011 : 09:59:07
there's an article in Maclean's magazine whixh is pretty interesting on why is Max Paccioretty getting healthier at a faster rate than Crosby...
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/01/what-really-happened-to-max/?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d974c577aa4c66d%2C0
pretty interesting
joe is a god, if u dont agree....i dont care |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 03/21/2011 : 04:54:26
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I was at Rexall on Thursday for the game and noticed there is not stanchion between the benches. There is a gap there and there is some glass that kind of comes from the back of the bench towards the ice surface but it stops about 18" before the edge of the boards.
There was also some very heavy pads and the two turnbuckles and the end of each bench before it goes back to glass. Not sure how thick they were before, but those appeared to be big enough to drive a truck into.
They were saying Montreal Boston and a few other rinks are the only one with the 4 "danger zones" and most rinks just have 2.....
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| Guest4271 |
Posted - 03/21/2011 : 03:10:07
BLAA, BLLAA, BBLLAA, tired of hearing the crap, no suspension has every been laid due to running someone into the stantion/ turn buckle, its in play, now get over it.............plain Jane hits to the head and better helmets to protect would be better for everyone, wonder if Crosby is helping Reebok with new helmet???????$$$$$$$$$$ |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/19/2011 : 16:01:21
I was at Rexall on Thursday for the game and noticed there is not stanchion between the benches. There is a gap there and there is some glass that kind of comes from the back of the bench towards the ice surface but it stops about 18" before the edge of the boards.
There was also some very heavy pads and the two turnbuckles and the end of each bench before it goes back to glass. Not sure how thick they were before, but those appeared to be big enough to drive a truck into. |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/19/2011 : 07:33:25
100 percent agreement from me, Fat Elvis.
Nothing more to add, other than that the next day after the Pacioretty hit, and I am guessing it was Burke himself who pressured/made it happen - new, heavy padding was put up at the ACC (Toronto's rink). Did not see it, but listening on radio, several people mentioned it.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest0408 |
Posted - 03/18/2011 : 12:13:43
Chara is no dummy, and in the end the only person that will know if Chara did it on purpose is Chara. But with the replays and the last minute picture while Pacc was hitting the barrier, to me, it looks like he know exactly what he was doing with he glove in pacc's face and looking right at the barrier. I just think that he didn't want to hurt him as bad as he did. but as usual The crappy a$$ Bettman will do nothing . |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/18/2011 : 12:03:17
Absolutely agree guys. Although I did not include the point in my thread, the idea is that the act is what the orginal suspension is based on and the outcome will impact the depth of the suspension.
For example, I think the NHL could and should institute an automatic 2 game suspension for any hit where the initial and main point of contact is the head. Front, side, back, doesn't matter. If the head is hit, suspension. Then, depending on the severity of the hit, the injury (if one occured) the history of the player and everything else the suspension would be much higher.
Sure, people would complain about the size of player and what ever else and there would mostly likely be a few minor and insignificant situations where a player maybe didn't deserve the suspension. However, the overall outcome of a program like that is a the kind of thing that will make players think about how they are delivering hits.
If the players won't respect themselves then someone has to force that respect. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 03/18/2011 : 10:41:28
I agree Beans, with a slight addendum.
There has to be some consideration for the outcome.
I'll use checking from behind as an example. I would like to see something along the lines of an automatic major and attached minimum suspension that increases with any subsequent major for the individual, that sends the message that it's a reckless and dangerous play and isn't tolerated.
If the check from behind causes significant injury, I'd see nothing wrong with adding additional suspension time due to the outcome.
I think there has to some wiggle room for the severity as not all situations are going to be the same.
For example in recent games, Langenbrunner's hit from behind was not done with nearly the intent of GIllies run at Clutterbuck. Had Langenbrunner got an automatic 5, game misconduct and the 1st time 1 game suspension, the message is sent. If he does it again 3 game, then 5 game, so on and so on.
Gillie's suspension was done correctly, reviewed deemed dangerous, intent to injure, etc.
The league needs to start with the 'soft' suspensions first, then the players view of pushing those limits may begin to change, because as it is right now, they seem to play at that edge all the time, again, the players being their own worst enemies, while wanting change.
The league needs to solidify the 'gray' areas they seem to have trouble enforcing as of late. If it's a penalty call it as such at some level regardless of outcome, but if the outcome is bad, deal with it accordingly through the review process, just begin consistency and take away the players' ability to skirt the lines of right and wrong.
As you mentioned earlier they have the structure in place, minor, major, misconduct, etc. they just need to start finding the chutzpah to start enforcing their own rules consistently regardless of player.
And as a quick aside, have any of the rinks changed their stanchions that anyone knows of as of yet? Other than adding some extra padding? That seems to be, to me anyways, an indicator of how serious the league is about change. |
| Guest5052 |
Posted - 03/18/2011 : 10:40:40
I've never really understood why both the act and the consequences cant be taken into consideration. If you cross the line and no one gets hurt, then I agree the league ought to punish the wanton or reckless act. But if someone is hurt, the culprit should also pay for the consequences.
I'd want to be careful with that as really its the likeliness of injury that the league ough to look. More dangerous high risk illegal behaviour which does or does not result in injury ought to be treated more harshly.
But why not factor in the injury or consequence to determine the punishment.
food for thought. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/18/2011 : 10:03:38
Tbar, I am not twisting anything. I am trying to clarify your opinion. I don't care what the NHL did or didn't do, say or didn't say. I want to know YOUR opinion.
MY opinion is that if you punish the outcome over the action you are giving approval reckless behavior as long as an injury does not occur. The injuries are based on the actions. When the actions are punished regardless and injury occurring or not, then true change will happen within hockey.
What is your opinion?? Not what the NHL has said. |
| MrBoogedy |
Posted - 03/18/2011 : 01:32:53
I see they've added new padding to the stanchion in Montreal. Too bad no one thought of that a few weeks ago.
This is an interesting prelude to what looks like a very probable first round match-up between the habs and the bruins, not that they need more hoopla... sure to be a hell of a battle. |
| leigh |
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 14:47:50
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
....DID OR DIDN'T THE NHL SAY OV ONLY GOT SUSPENDED BECAUSE HIS "PENALTY CAUSED IN INJURY??????
If not then my argument holds no ground and its over! If so they got this one wrong!!
Easy there big fella. I don't recall the specifics - I believe it was a part of the assessment but wasn't the exclusive factor for their judgement.
But since you're the one drilling this point home why don't you go research the specific statement and bring it back to the discussion. |
| Guest0825 |
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 14:31:45
Blame the coaches. They've drilled into every players head since they were young to "finish your hit" or else you wont get ice time. Thats why every player finishes their hit they don't want to be benched. |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 14:00:13
good news on the injury front for Pacioretty apparently he starts rehab on march 26th,, right now he basicly isn't allowed to move at all, and they say 3 to 5 weeks from now he can resum skating.. juast intime for the habs second round series vs. the Bruins
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| tbar |
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 13:20:22
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
To get back to my a few post ago and specifically, "Interference is Interference" all I can do on this is drop my jaw in awe. The entire structure of the NHL rule book is built of a varying level of infractions. That is why there is a system of a minor, double minro, major, misconduct, game misconduct based on how severe the infraction is.
So, if I am reading the properly, the idea is if we treat everything equally then things will get better???
I'm not following the logic.
You always twist things. DID OR DIDN'T THE NHL SAY OV ONLY GOT SUSPENDED BECAUSE HIS "PENALTY CAUSED IN INJURY??????
If not then my argument holds no ground and its over! If so they got this one wrong!! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 11:26:12
To get back to my a few post ago and specifically, "Interference is Interference" all I can do on this is drop my jaw in awe. The entire structure of the NHL rule book is built of a varying level of infractions. That is why there is a system of a minor, double minro, major, misconduct, game misconduct based on how severe the infraction is.
So, if I am reading the properly, the idea is if we treat everything equally then things will get better???
I'm not following the logic. |
| tbar |
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 10:43:45
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
tbar,
Until then though, suspending every play that causes injury which is what you are saying regardless of hypothetical, is not the answer.
This is what I wrote in my loast post "Unless I am dead wrong on what I believe the NHL said last year about the OV suspension "the penalty on the play caused an injury so we have no choice but to issue a suspension" or something to that extent (and please correct me if I am wrong because then ill withdraw any statement I have made) then the play should have resulted in a minor suspension."
If the NHL said that which i believe they did......this should be a suspension.
Trust me FE I love the game the way it is. I would hate to see a guy get a 1 game suspension for a trip that injured a player, but if the NHL took a stern stance one way or the other than you myself and every other hockey fan out there would know the rule and learn to except it.
|
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 10:16:57
tbar,
I agree with what you are saying and have been an advocate for stiffer enforcement of the rules, as I have stated in other threads, I would much prefer to see the game called with the potential for error favoring the safety of the players.
To try and blanket call every infraction that results in injury is just not viable though. Your hypothetical using Crosby is an example of that. If there were indeed 6 mississippi's as you stated, it can't be, as you stated; "The hit is clean no head shot no elbow no knee nothing perfect hit if Crosby still had the puck.."
It is clearly blatant interference at best, intent to injure at worst warranting a suspension, but if the hit happens after 2 or even 3 mississippi's in full flight, the lines of it being an infraction then begin to blur. It could easily then be called interference, but could also be argued as the ever popular, 'finishing your check'. If the same result happens and an injury is incurred, is it still suspendable? I think not, as it is the result of arguably, a hockey play.
This brings me to a point I have mentioned before as well, until the referees are mandated to use more discretion, in favor of safety of player safety, the players will push those blurred boundaries.
Saying that of course, Koharski, i believe it was, watches a blatant hit from behind involving Langebrunner,, 2 arguable headshots, and a blatant elbow happen all in the same game, while all this talk of player safety is going on, and the only infraction even reviewed was the elbow? The players and referees, may be their own worst enemies in their cry for player safety!
I am a hockey fan and consider myself somewhat of a purist, but it would not have bothered me in the least to see Langenbrunner, and Heatley get tossed, to start sending the message about player safety.
I am beginning to agree with Slozo, it may take someone to get killed before the sweeping changes in attitude and culture that need to happen, actually do.
Until then though, suspending every play that causes injury which is what you are saying regardless of hypothetical, is not the answer. |
| Guest7752 |
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 10:13:53
News today has Pacio returning to play within 3 to 5 weeks. |
| Guest9923 |
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 09:28:39
The hit was good and the unfortunate of a very fast came. Chara was moving to the boards to make a solid hit, when Max turned on the jets to try a squeak by Chara and at the same time he jumped to avoid the hit. This brought him slightly ahead of Chara and Chara reached ahead to push him toward the boards. It just happened to be in the place of the glass stantion. Had he not jumped or been going at the speed he was, he likely would have been hit a couple feet before the stantion. The league made the right call. This game is going at such a high speed today and most of it is reactionary not intent. |
| tbar |
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 09:05:58
Beans "Clearly that would be an issue of suspension but you are not delving into the area of clear intent to injury. "
As far as I am concerned interference is interference. How can one be "clearly" an issue of suspension and the other not? regardless of how far a stretch it might be it "hypothetically" could happen.
I’m not arguing intent to injure or whether or not Chara did it on purpose, I’m simply stating the NHL needs to piss or get off the pot.
Unless I am dead wrong on what I believe the NHL said last year about the OV suspension "the penalty on the play caused an injury so we have no choice but to issue a suspension" or something to that extent (and please correct me if I am wrong because then ill withdraw any statement I have made) then the play should have resulted in a minor suspension.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 08:52:09
If you are going to bring something up, make is logically or something that is not completely loaded. 6-7 Mississippi's?? Clearly that would be an issue of suspension but you are not delving into the area of clear intent to injury. The points being brought up by FER and others is the actual hockey infractions. The minor penalties where there is already a structure of majors, misconducts, etc. As in when does a hook become a suspension.
Call out what ever hypothetical you wish but make it relevant and comparable. Such as, if Chara does this exact play on the opposite side of the ice and Max P is injured with say, a shoulder injury, are we even having this conversation??? |
| tbar |
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 08:28:26
I have been asked a buck of hypothetical questions, and have tried to answer them so here is one for you guys.
Let’s say Crosby has the puck cutting through center ice dishes it off and 6 or 7 Mississippi’s later Iginla rocks him. The hit is clean no head shot no elbow no knee nothing perfect hit if Crosby still had the puck.. Crosby ends up getting hurt on the play and it was a 2 minute minor penalty.
So here is the question would you like to see Iginla suspended for this hit?
|
| n/a |
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 07:33:36
And to continue that point Beans,
This is why I feel any talk of what has happened historically is almost entirely invalid.
Either the history in the recent past is severely lacking in accountability and consistency and desperately NEEDS to be changed, or, going back farther, it is irrelevant due to the player size, speed, strength and equipment changes.
That is why the NFL has had many very quick changes - you have even more of a size disparity than in hockey, and it has happened fairly quickly where those positions became so specialised. They made the helmets better, and then they started knocking out guys with the head . . . so they made a change. It makes sense.
But it has to start from the top down. I seriously think it has zero to do with the fans, and mostly to do with ex-players and coaches in management for hockey. If they were progressive guys who thought "safety for our assets comes first", there would be a trickle down of attitude, and of learning, in terms of why a change was needed, and for whose safety it was. The fans of the NFL are no different, in my mind . . . trust me, they love their glorification of brutal hits and painful plays as much as any beer-drinking hockey fan - but they have bought into what the NFL does for their rule changes.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 06:59:31
Slozo, I can tell you enough how valid the point of the NFL is in this situation. You are exactly right in that if something needs to change, the change is nearly instant. They deal with a very similar head shot issue as the NHL does and is quite possible the closest comparison of sport to hockey in regards to the collisions and the violence involved in the game. Although I think the fines for NFL players are a bit of a joke when we are talking about some guys getting $50+ million in garenteed money. However, it is a sign that it is serious and they are willing to do something about it and that something happens immediately.
I think the biggest different are the fans. There seems to be an uproar regardless of what the NHL does. There seems to be a fear of that 'hockey purist' that says the game should stay the same. I also liken the NHL to the House of Commons. A bunch of guys (and gals in some cases) that talk a bunch of crap and blow of ton of hot air but at the end of the day there is no result or change.
I think we can all agree that something(s) need to be done and the current process if far to slow for any real impact. |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 06:37:18
My faith in my fellow hockey brethren is now restored - thanks guys.
Thanks for the response Leigh, nicely said.
Beans, I appreciate your integrity in posting your last message about Heatley's suspension. How ironic is that, eh?
FatElvis, I see your tongue, I see your cheek. Mostly your cheek.
Leigh,
Your point on the reason for no suspension for checks into the stanchion was well put, basically going by historical suspendable offences and making a contradictory ruling. Myself, even though I totally disagree with that take (I think some incidents deserve suspension based on pure recklessness in the situation), I can undertsand it, and it makes sense.
And about my overstatement of "does someone need to die" . . . well, I suppose it is an overstatement - at least, I hope it is. And yet, you'd think that a league with this many high-priced stars out due to concussion would being doing more, and more quickly, to ensure it protects their valuable assets. Yet, the NHL remains one of the least progressive leagues when it comes to rule changes in regards to player health, and continuity of the game as it evolves and changes.
NFL football, for example, makes sometimes serious/affective rule changes every year, but the NHL acts as if changing one small rule, that later is ignored, might change the game into some form of figure skating, as if all body checks were now illegal.
That stubborness from NHL manegment, and hockey people in general, is what frustrates me, in essence.
Not that I'm stubborn at all. 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 16:54:43
Very poignantly put Leigh, as I too have misconstrued Slozo and made incorrect assumptions as to the meaning and veracity of is posts at times.
I am sure Slozo did not intend for his posts to have us incorrectly assume that he was necessarily relaying facts, but was merely being strong in his conviction. We have no business trying to state his intentions when he posts.
I am sure Slozo would agree that guessing at anyone's actual intentions and implying they are facts is not kosher?
They really need a 'tongue in cheek' emoticon!!
|
| leigh |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 16:20:28
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
...I give up . . . I guess someone does have to get killed for there to be a change in attitude.
I disagree, attitudes do change, but it takes time - sometimes over generations. There is definitely an attitude change on head shots and it has been building momentum since the lock out. The result is the first ever rule around headshots. One that will get refined and tightened down as time progresses.
And in the case of the stanchions there are not many here who don't think that a rule, or change in gear/environment, would be a bad thing. I'm ok with it anyway. I just don't want to see a guy used as a scapegoat. |
| leigh |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 16:11:56
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
So then, most of you disagree with the statements made by Henrik Sedin and Joe Thornton? Just curious.
And yes, my mind is still boggled, and now my stomach is upset . . . after all, I ate the can of worms! 
And all the Montreal fans that are upset . . . are they just all overreacting, too passionate, have a double standard, etc?
@Leigh:
If by giving my opinion, and stating that I am confused and befuddled at others opinions that run contrary to mine is "jumping up and down and yelling", then so be it.
Then I guess you are skywriting, getting too emotional, and totally irrational in your comments. A loon, if you will. Hey, if you can exaggerate and make stuff up, so can I - fair, no?
I think you know by now what my opinions are on the game of hockey, and that I am in no way a "reactionary" fan who wants to change rules as soon as something bad happens.
A pity I have to defend myself because you got offended about me including in Steckel's hit on Crosby for context.
sigh.
I give up . . . I guess someone does have to get killed for there to be a change in attitude.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Sorry Slozo, no harm intended. Your post (and previous ones) was written in such a way that you sounded exasperated, frustrated and in disbelief that anyone could see it differently. I also interpreted it as though you believed that it was a fact that the Steckle hit was "on purpose" since you made reference that it took time for people to "wake up" and see it as such. You seemed very emotional so I guess my mind's eye pictured you jumping up and down, yelling, and stating things as facts rather than opinions. Obviously I was mistaken.
And to be clear, I was not in the least bit "offended" by your previous comments and I am confident that my reply didn't indicate that I was. I merely take an opposing viewpoint, I can appreciate that you have a differing one. I'm happy to debate the facts anytime. I'm also happy to debate conjecture, but let's make sure that the two are not mistaken for one another....or if they are woven together, let's at least admit it.
As for your question about Thornton and Sedin. Thornton's comments are intriguing and there may be a trend to not penalize Boston Players, but I still can't see a suspendable offense under the current rules for Chara (although I thought he was going to be suspended for one or two games due to the trend to suspend anything and everything these days)
As for Sedin, I do agree that Chara knew where he was on the ice and that the check was going to be a doozy....but I can't prove it. And since there is no rule about hitting a player into the stanchion then I couldn't suspend the guy (if it were from behind - it would be a different story). Make the rule, announce the rule, let the players play under the rule, and then discipline them if they break it. In order to have consistency it is important to minimize personal interpretation and ensure that emotion is removed from the decision. I think the NHL did a good job in a difficult situation. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 15:12:51
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
To ensure I am answering the proper question:
I assume you are referring to Joe Thornton's comments that Boston receives special treatment from the league. In that case, no, I don't agree with that comment at all. Not even a little. If Joe would like to look at special treatment from the league he might want to take a look at the three clear elbows to the head thrown by his team mates in last nights SJ/DAL game and see how many resulted in even a penalty let alone a suspension. There actually is a rule regarding elbows to the head. Is there a rule for hits into the stanchion???
I guess I might have to eat some of my words here as Heatley got 2 games for the elbow to the head of Steve Ott. Murray layed 2 elbows to the head last night and got nothing.
If Marchard from Boston (who is also going to have a disciplinary review) gets nothing, I guess I will have to retract at least part of this argument. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 15:03:18
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
.....Yes I agree it is silly but the fact is it is a penalty resulting in an ingury and if the NHL would have decided to take that stance against Chara I think they would need to stick to their guns. 1 game for an "accidental" infraction really wouldnt be the end of the world because seriously how many times a year does a play like this happen? ...
I must be missing something, you just debated yourself? Does that make you a masterdebater then?
Anyways, I said I understand why the league didn't suspend because of the consistency it would then have to follow with any other infractions and suspensions, which for the most part would not be warranted, thereby creating the 'slippery slope'
You argued that there would be no slippery slope if the league was consistent in their discipline regardless of circumstance, but then agreed that such consistency would be silly?
We all should know by now, that would never work well. If that was the way things were to begin to be evaluated, Alex Burrows and Sean Avery would already have filed for their legal name changes to Alexandre Despatie and Greg Louganis. They have both already proven how easily a ref can be fooled with the proper theatrics.
These incidents are indeed rare as you pointed out, all the more reason to not jerk one's knee, when they do. I wish there would have been something to begin to force the players to consider each others safety, but I understand why there wasn't, and I think it may be time for Montreal fans and any others who think of this as the worst thing they have seen in hockey, to move on.
Whatever happened to Chris Therien? Was he suspended for shooting the puck that crushed McCleary's larynx? Why do they still allow slapshots if we are going to get down to it?
Where were the calls of outcry when newly signed Canadien John Ferguson purportedly beat Ted Green to a bloody pulp, 12 seconds after the opening face-off, in his first NHL game?
As mentioned earlier, do the fans have a double standard?, maybe they do.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 14:06:57
Ok, so we have established you point.
What about when a player goes outside the rules and does not cause bodily harm. Is that ok??? Can and should that be a suspension as well???
Furthermore, every penalty in the NHL is 'outside of the rules' so does that mean every penalty must be invenstigated to see if an injury occured and if so, suspension??? |
| tbar |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 14:03:28
Beans the only thing I am trying to argue and maybe I have not stated this clearly is that if you go out side the rules and you cause bodily harm to an apposing player a suspension should be warrented.
Fat Elvis "So the poke check that misses, or the swipe at the puck that gets skate, that then causes a player to fall awkwardly into the net, the boards, simply...down, and causes an injury is suspendable?..silly."
Yes I agree it is silly but the fact is it is a penalty resulting in an ingury and if the NHL would have decided to take that stance against Chara I think they would need to stick to their guns. 1 game for an "accidental" infraction really wouldnt be the end of the world because seriously how many times a year does a play like this happen?
"To compare an automatic delay of game call to ANY play that involves the physical contact part of the game and the infinite variables that come in to play with it, is poor and reaching at best"
Once again just pointing out that a duck is a duck! NHL needs to decide if a injury is an automatic suspension or not on a play where a penalty was called.
I am pretty sure that is the stance they took on OV last year? Or am I wrong It was some time ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 13:33:25
I would have thought the intent of my particular references would have been clearer but let me try to clarify what I meant,
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
Q: A tripping penalty that results in Injury could be a suspension if that trip is called on the ice?
A: Yes
So the poke check that misses, or the swipe at the puck that gets skate, that then causes a player to fall awkwardly into the net, the boards, simply...down, and causes an injury is suspendable?..silly.
Q: Can any infraction called on the ice can turn into a suspension?
A:Yes regardless of wether it is a 5 or 2 minute penalty.
I don't see where anyone said otherwise
Q: Whys does eveyone continue to talk about a slipery slope if this obvious interference penalty resulted in a suspension?
A: No idea!
This is an isolated incident and should have been treated as such, the league took the stance it did. I never said it should not have been a suspendable offense and actually I stated a 'message' suspension should have been given to force the players to begin to be conscious of the potential outcome should they be reckless. That would be end of story, but it never is, not here anyways. 
I believe this should have resulted in 2-5 games. If I were to make the rulling I would have never brought up the "stanchion" I would simply have said Chara is suspended for _ games due to an illegal interferance penalty which resulted in injury.
On this I agree wholeheartedly, I would maybe have used a more all-encompassing type of verbage, to leave the option open for further suspendable offenses that are similar in regards to impact and outcome. I would have felt very comfortable with a 1 to 3 game suspension for 'Unsportsmanlike Conduct', or something similar, thus leaving the door open for almost any kind of questionable, reviewable play.
Someone asked "what if a guy gets triped and hurt is that a suspension" it could be. Is there a penalty called on the play? If so yes there very well could be. If you chasing down a puck at full speed and you trip a guy thats dangerous. Maybe not 5 games worth but you could get one game why not? I bet people would start taking more care of the actions they make out there.
You are reiterating your first point, so I'll not repeat mine
Accidents allways will happen but accident or not....see the puck over glass rule.....a penalty is a penalty and if a player is injured due to the penalty why cant you get suspended?
To compare an automatic delay of game call to ANY play that involves the physical contact part of the game and the infinite variables that come in to play with it, is poor and reaching at best
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 13:23:39
Ok, firstly, following through can be considered a penalty. Here is the actual highsticking rule from the NHL.
60.1 High-sticking - A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players and goalkeepers must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.
Finally, you are admitting to the effect that the punishment is levied on the outcome and not the action.
So, is that not saying it's ok for a player to do anything they want as long as the other player does not get injured???
|
|
|
