| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Guest9296
( )
|
 Posted - 03/14/2011 : 15:38:27
|
IMO there are 2 issues here. Did Chara run him into the stansion? and did he intend to injure? I don't think he intended to injure Pacioretty, but he did run him into the stansion. Many of your posters are correct that on the other side of the ice, it would have just been interference, but there seems to be a consensus among players interviewed that all players are aware of where the stansion is at this level. I think Chara should have got a suspension for running him into the stansion, but I don't think the injury should be considered.
Having the opportunity to watch games from the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, I have watched the game evolve as the equipment changed. As the padding got better, body checking evolved into hitting, sticks got wilder and higher with the addition of helmets and visors. The most telling aspect of the game right now comes from rule changes. Players are leaving themselves vulnerable because they think they won't get hit because it would be a penalty or because they are trying to draw a penalty. 2 decades ago, a player like Pacioretty would have protected himself, but in today's game whether trying to draw the penalty or feeling like it was upto Chara to back off he skated his head into harms way. Yes Chara ran him into the stansion, but it was Pacioretty that chose to go in head first. People need to watch some older hockey to see how players protected themselves from hits, how little time they spent facing the boards, skated with their heads up and how they kept their sticks down. I am getting sick of seeing guys playing with their heads down facing the boards as if hockey is a non-contact sport as well as skating head first waiting for someone to touch them so they can dive like a soccer player. |
 |
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2011 : 18:07:03
|
I loved what Bettman said about Air Canada threatening to pull their sponsorship...
"Air Canada is a great brand, as is the National Hockey League," said Bettman. "And if they decide that they need to do other things with their sponsorship dollars, that is their prerogative, just as it is the prerogative of our clubs that fly on Air Canada to make other arrangements if they don't think Air Canada is giving them the appropriate level of service."
|
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2011 : 06:46:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
OK I have read most of this topic. I have seen the hit a couple of times and all I have to say is no suspension is dead wrong!
Not one person has mentioned this from what I have read but in case you did not know any infraction resulting in injury can be called a 5 minute major at the refs discretion.
Now if the Ref's who were on the ice made the correct call (and they did) the NHL pretty much slapped the officials in the face by not giving a couple game suspension.
If I remember correctly Ovechkin got suspended last year and the play was a 2 minute penalty that caused an injury, The NHL came out and said any penalty resulting in injury is a suspendable offence......WTF is this then?
Tbar.....read what i bolded above. Now, with what you said in bold, it doesn't say is "a suspendable offense". It says a 5 min major can be called. Does EVERY 5 min major get a subsequential suspension?
The Ovechkin one was prob the one that the refs were wrong on. That's prob why they suspended him later (the league).
Don't get me wrong, i agree Chara got off on something he should prob have gotten a handful of games for. Just mentioning that what you're saying isn't necessarily bang on. The refs got the call right, and for whatever reason, the league didn't give a suspension. This to me does not imply that the refs ruled wrongly on it so personally i don't think the league is throwing them under the bus by any means.
Alex your right it does not call for a suspension. The point I was trying to make is if the NHL says any infraction causing injury is suspendable then how was this not?
I have not seen one person try to argue this was not a penalty on the ice.... |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2011 : 08:03:29
|
I continue to not get why such a vast majority of hockey fans are so convinced that Chara didn't intend to run him into the stanchion (as opposed to just a regular check).
Why would top hockey players like Thornton and Henrik Sedin come out and say what they did then, hmm? Seriously . . . do you think they have it in for Chara or something? Or that they are talking out out of their a**?
It boggles my mind how people put so much relevence as well into what Chara said, or how well they were convinced by what he said.
Googling up stanchion hits should tell you something quite simply: players do it on purpose for the spectacular hit. It's not unheard of. Players who were and are a LOT less skilled than Chara, btw, if you want to question simplistic things like "did he know where he was on the ice?", lol.
It took so long for some people to start to wake up to the Steckel hit being on purpose (as if he didn't know where Crosby was and what his position was), and still people think so little of these professional hockey players and what they can do, what they see.
Like I said, it boggles my mind how anyone can say that Chara did not push with both hands for the stanchion hit.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2011 : 10:36:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I continue to not get why such a vast majority of hockey fans are so convinced that Chara didn't intend to run him into the stanchion (as opposed to just a regular check).
Why would top hockey players like Thornton and Henrik Sedin come out and say what they did then, hmm? Seriously . . . do you think they have it in for Chara or something? Or that they are talking out out of their a**?
It boggles my mind how people put so much relevence as well into what Chara said, or how well they were convinced by what he said.
Googling up stanchion hits should tell you something quite simply: players do it on purpose for the spectacular hit. It's not unheard of. Players who were and are a LOT less skilled than Chara, btw, if you want to question simplistic things like "did he know where he was on the ice?", lol.
It took so long for some people to start to wake up to the Steckel hit being on purpose (as if he didn't know where Crosby was and what his position was), and still people think so little of these professional hockey players and what they can do, what they see.
Like I said, it boggles my mind how anyone can say that Chara did not push with both hands for the stanchion hit.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Slozo, although I'm now off topic, I do not believe the Steckel/Crosby hit was intentional in the slightest. It was a case of two guys colliding. Just because Steckel was looking up ice does not mean that he had seen Crosby turning blindly into the lane that Steckel was skating in, and then tried to avoid. Jumping up and down, yelling louder than others, and stating it as if it were a fact does not make it so.
As for Chara, inside my small brain I do believe he did it on purpose, but I can't prove it and neither can anyone else. There is no evidence. That is the canundrum.
The most important thing to recognize is that the NHL has a chance to make a change to the rinks and the gear. And to educate, but let's get off our high horses and stop trying to blame the players who are playing within the confines of the rules we created. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2011 : 11:26:42
|
Here here Leigh!! Well put. The argument is moot as long as the rules are what they are. Do I personally believe that Chara intended on hitting Max P into the turnbuckle?? Absolutely. But can I(or anyone else) prove it?? Not at all.
Suspend this event you MUST suspend ever other hit into the stanchion. That is not a box that the NHL, the NHLPA, players, fans, or anyone else would logically want to see happen. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2011 : 12:31:46
|
PPSSHHHTTTTT!!!!
Sorry, my rather lame sound effect for the 'can of worms' that I hear opening.
My mind gets boggled regularly as well, and not always for the same reasons.
Thanks Leigh for the reminder that an opinion is still an opinion, and regardless of forcefulness, for lack of a better term, it is still just that.
Facts are still very much a lost commodity at times in here.
The recurring theme I am hearing, and I tend to agree, is that Chara did indeed know what he was doing when he directed Pacioretty towards that stanchion, he just did not see the result being what it was, very similar to many bad decisions made in all walks of life.
I have said I would have liked to have seen a nominal suspension to send some sort of 'respect' message, regardless of intent, similar to the automatic high stick, but I can see why none was decided upon.
The 'slippery slope' created by that message could cause even greater issues, as to what then should be suspendable or not. Does the inadvertent, or purposeful trip, also an illegal play, that causes a player to crash in to the boards and break something, warrant a suspension as well? Does the hooking minor that causes a player to fall and break something carry the same weight? These are illegal plays as well, and many times done with intent to interfere with the player.
And before anyone jumps up and down and says one can't compare a trip or a hook with this incident, I'll use a better example, should any hit from behind be an automatic suspension? Is there any clearer play of potential injury?, yet it would be ludicrous at best to make that happen as there are too many factors involved, as we have collectively debated many times, over many such plays.
Again, I stand on the side of it being better to err on the side of player safety when handing out penalties and suspensions, but I also understand the leagues reluctance to do so.
They can''t prove intent, and neither can we.
|
|
|
|
OILINONTARIO
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
816 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2011 : 14:02:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
PPSSHHHTTTTT!!!!
Sorry, my rather lame sound effect for the 'can of worms' that I hear opening.
Were you not alarmed to find that you had purchased a can of carbonated worms?
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2012. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2011 : 14:07:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
Alex your right it does not call for a suspension. The point I was trying to make is if the NHL says any infraction causing injury is suspendable then how was this not?
I have not seen one person try to argue this was not a penalty on the ice....
Well, first off, i couldn't agree more with Leigh's last post, both regarding Chara's hit and the hit on Crosby! Very well said and it's what my opinion has been all along!
Tbar....to answer your question, i'm reading the rule as "any infraction causing an injury is suspendable" to mean, a suspension is "possible" but not necessarily mandatory. That's the way i read it? Not sure it it's correct, but it would make sense that that's what it means when looking at the Chara hit. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2011 : 14:18:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by OILINONTARIO
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
PPSSHHHTTTTT!!!!
Sorry, my rather lame sound effect for the 'can of worms' that I hear opening.
Were you not alarmed to find that you had purchased a can of carbonated worms?
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2012.
Not really, it was 'Can of Worms.......MAX!!!!'
I knew it would have zero calories for sure! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2011 : 14:19:02
|
Good Point FER. That is the Pandora's Box I was referirng to. Some would make the point that these are professional athletes that have been playing the game forever and they know exactly where they are at all times. Regardless of the reasons, players are responsible for their actions, period.
Then, there are others who will see that players can't be held responsible for their every one of their actions and that hockey is a fast paced game with no out of bounds and boards surrounding the playing surfance. Injuries will happen and it's just part of the game.
Then, there is that massive grey area in between those two points of view that the NHL is trying to land on. Problem is that grey areas is in continuous motion. Always growing or shrinking and each people has a different view of what part of that grey area the NHL should be at.
Bottom line, like Bettman or hate him, I can't seem to think of anyone who can argue with one of his recent statement. That is, there is no magic bullet to fix this issue. I don't agree with all of his 5 points, but it's something. It's a start and it's more than anyone else is doing. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 07:31:17
|
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 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 10:13:48
|
Slozo, the problem is not your opinion. It's the disrespect and contempt shown to anyone who doesn't share your opinion. I am one of those guys out that that didn't see the Steckel hit as a directed headshot. I am also one of those guys out there that said Chara absolutely intended on hitting Paciorretty into the turnbuckle. But do you not see that suspending on that action will start a chain reaction?? Do you not see the potential, much as FER eluded to, in that will mean every infraction of any kind will be scrutinized and could result in further action?? When does a trip because more than a trip??? When does holding become more than holding??
Hockey is a phsycial game that comes with inherent dangers. Other dangers are being brought into the game (targeting of the head for example) that need to be cleaned up. However, some dangers will always be there and can not be controlled without taking all physicality out of the game. A player can no be responsible for his actions when his actions are within the tolerance of the game. Has there EVER been a player suspended for causing an injury in the process of a fight?? Not that I know of. It's an illegal part of the game but there is never a suspension based on an injury from a fight. It is tolerated. It is accepted as part of the game. You opinion lends itself to the assumption that if ever an injury occurs in the sport that someone must be held responsible for it.
At least that is what I am reading. |
|
|
|
Guest2900
( )
|
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 10:22:23
|
Bettemen is an idiot, and should have been kicked out of his job ages ago. He is bringing down the NHL.
I've long said that an incident between two players that results in a significant injury of another player should result in an automatic suspension, regardless of intent.
Kind of like how high-sticking that results in blood results in a longer penalty. Same thing.
Some have said that Chara deserves a break because it is his first offense. I'm kind of glad the justice system doesn't work like that. In 37 years I've never killed anyone, but the first time I do maybe I should get off, 'cause I've never done anything like that before.
First infraction or 70th infraction - there is no difference to the player lying in a crumpled heap on the ice, and should have no bearing on the minimum punishment.
Agreed if it is a repeat offender - then by all means throw the book at them.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 10:41:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Slozo, the problem is not your opinion. It's the disrespect and contempt shown to anyone who doesn't share your opinion.
Show me where, besides my facetious comment to Leigh, I showed disrespect to someone having a different opinion?
Bear in my mind that I have many, many examples to show for you using language that could be deemed much more offensive than "it boggles my mind".
I know that you also disagree about the Steckel hit on Crosby. I certainly don't think you will ever change your mind about it either.
I can live just fine with that - I know that you are never going to be in Colin Campbell's position, or Gery Bettman's! 
Oh - and you still didn't answer me about Thornton and Henrik's comments (jeesh, does everyone here avoid questions that don't agree with their hockey opinion?).
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 11:16:39
|
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 now assume you are referring to Sedin's comments that Chara didn't get suspended based on the lack of past suspensions. Also if a player never gets suspended because of not getting suspended in the past than when does it start. I actually do agree with that. But it really doesn't have anything to do with the hit does it?? You do realize that you are trying to make an argument towards a suspension to a person who would have agreed with a suspension???
If we are calling people out for ignoring questions, I fail to see your response to some very interesting and thought provoking questions brought up by Fat Elvis. Just sayin.......
Finally, if you want to open a can of worms regarding how disrespect and contempt has been show to people who do not share you ideas, look back on virtually every argument regarding Phoenix, a team in the GTA, Gary Bettman, Toronto Maple Leafs, the Edmonton Oilers, should I continued??? Even thinly veiled contempt is contempt none the less.
And for the record, I am not at all saying I am not guilt of that myself. I admit that openly. But I'm not the one up on the soapbox here......... |
Edited by - Beans15 on 03/16/2011 11:18:48 |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 12:47:46
|
Q: A tripping penalty that results in Injury could be a suspension if that trip is called on the ice?
A: Yes
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.
Q: Whys does eveyone continue to talk about a slipery slope if this obvious interference penalty resulted in a suspension?
A: No idea!
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.
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.
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?
|
Edited by - tbar on 03/16/2011 12:48:22 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 13:05:55
|
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
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.
Q: Whys does eveyone continue to talk about a slipery slope if this obvious interference penalty resulted in a suspension?
A: No idea!
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.
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.
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?
Using two example that not a single person has been able to argue, tell me if either of these situations should result in the suspension.
1) Brian Berard skates towards Marian Hossa taking a slap shot. The follow through strikes Berard in the eye, ultimately ending his career through loss of sight. High sticking in a penalty. Is this a suspension??
2) Curtis Foster and Tory Mitchell are racing for an iced puck. Mitchell takes Foster's skates out (which is interference as best) and Foster strikes the boards and breaks his leg in multiple places. Foster is injured for more than a year and shocks many doctors in his ability to return to play hockey again. Is this a suspension??
The thing about discipline is the only way it is effective is if it is consistant. Finally, is this a suspension if Max P is not hurt??? Are we punishing the outcome over the action????
|
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2011 : 13:12:42
|
Question 1 = No! A follow through on a shot is not a penalty.
Question 2 Is there a penalty on the play? If not no, if yes whay not a game or Two? Maybe mitchell and others will be a little less careless when chacing down icings.
Question 3 No suspension if max P is not hurt just the PP. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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???
|
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
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
|
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Edited by - tbar on 03/16/2011 14:06:50 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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??? |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
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
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
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!!
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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
deleted
4809 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
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?
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Guest7752
( )
|
Posted - 03/17/2011 : 10:13:53
|
| News today has Pacio returning to play within 3 to 5 weeks. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
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!! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Chara "headshot" to Paciorretty.... 
