Page 10 of 30

Re: I can't believe it's NOT a suspension!

Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 3:40 pm
by Canuck-One
ClamRussel wrote:
Topper wrote:Doc would like things to be black and white.

However the CBA, which Doc continues to advertise his inability to read, recognizes each incident is unique.
Translation: The CBA hereby grants Gary & Shanny the legal right to play favourites with players and teams in their omniscient rulings.
That is bang on Clam.

Re: I can't believe it's NOT a suspension!

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 3:40 pm
by BurningBeard
Lupul was fined $10,000 for crosschecking Eaves.

If there is one area of off ice discipline where I think the NHL could use a clearly defined rule, it would be an automatic suspension for purposefully connecting your stick with another players neck/head. Make it a three game minimum and let Shanny increase it up based on injury and reputation.

I really scratch my head with these plays were there is obvious intent to injure. It's easy to argue over the intent involved in a hit from behind into the boards, or even a misplaced elbow that occurs at high speed in a split second, but when you crosscheck a guy in the neck, that's the obvious shit they need to go after.

Re: I can't believe it's NOT a suspension!

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:20 pm
by Topper
BurningBeard wrote:Lupul was fined $10,000 for crosschecking Eaves.

If there is one area of off ice discipline where I think the NHL could use a clearly defined rule, it would be an automatic suspension for purposefully connecting your stick with another players neck/head. Make it a three game minimum and let Shanny increase it up based on injury and reputation.

I really scratch my head with these plays were there is obvious intent to injure. It's easy to argue over the intent involved in a hit from behind into the boards, or even a misplaced elbow that occurs at high speed in a split second, but when you crosscheck a guy in the neck, that's the obvious shit they need to go after.
Then what do you do about the elbow to the head that Lupul was retaliating to?

Re: I can't believe it's NOT a suspension!

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:48 pm
by Strangelove
BurningBeard wrote: Lupul was fined $10,000 for crosschecking Eaves.
Hilarious!!! :lol:

Re: I can't believe it's NOT a suspension!

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:15 pm
by ClamRussel
A bit of a history of headshots going on here. Suspended 2 games for the Hedman headshot, barely missed Henrik's head w/ a flying elbow. Now this. Safe to say its Lupul's go to move when he gets PO'd. With his priors, a suspension would have been more appropriate if the league wanted to get serious about ending headshots.

I'll bring it up again...Hansen gets suspended for jumping for a puck...is that worse than a crosscheck to the head area? Apparently so if you're Brendan Shanahan.

Re: I can't believe it's NOT a suspension!

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:21 pm
by Strangelove
ClamRussel wrote: I'll bring it up again...Hansen gets suspended for jumping for a puck...is that worse than a crosscheck to the head area? Apparently so if you're Brendan Shanahan.
It's all one big joke!

Don't take any of it seriously folks, it'll drive you mad!

*glances at Topper* :look:

Re: I can't believe it's NOT a suspension!

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:55 pm
by BurningBeard
Topper wrote:Then what do you do about the elbow to the head that Lupul was retaliating to?
Is the fact that Lupul's crosscheck was retaliatory in nature not further proof of intent? If the NHL wants to take action against Kindl, so be it, but it was a fairly weak elbow from what I saw.

Re: I can't believe it's NOT a suspension!

Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:24 am
by Topper
Given Clam's thinking - Tom Sestito should be receiving supplementary discipline for his attempt to injure Lindholm. Clearly Sestito's INTENT was to hit Lindholm dangerously close to the boards with a charge and a late hit.

:mrgreen:

Re: I can't believe it's NOT a suspension!

Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:34 pm
by Hockey Widow
I agree with Clam. If you watch Lupul play enough you will see that this is clearly his go to move when frustrated. You can count on him trying this elbow shot at least once a game. He is a dirty player who himself has had concussion issues. Of all people he should know better. The NHL will wait until he connects squarely with one of these and knocks someone out.

Players have much better control then they want us to think when things like this happen. He is the perfect example of a player who needs to be reigned in and warned. Tell him to clean it up or next time it is 5+ games! similar to the warning Cook got. I like Lupul and what he brings but he is a dirty F'ing player and one day he may seriously injure someone. Reminds me of all the shit Pronger got away with.

Re: I can't believe it's NOT a suspension!

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:11 pm
by mathonwy

Re: I can't believe it's NOT a suspension!

Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:11 am
by ClamRussel
A butt-end = fine
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=443268

...on the heels of Hanzal's fine for taking off Booth's head.

(compared to Hansen jumping for a puck, Edler's incorrect angle suspensions)

Re: I can't believe it's NOT a suspension!

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:03 pm
by ClamRussel
Now if this is 3 games...



...how is this nothing?



For the record, I see the Kassian one as much worse as he had more time to react and avoid driving Dillon into the boards. Even then, I didn't see it as that bad and neither did Ruff. Probably the major + misconduct was appropriate as I've previously stated...and if they wanted to reinforce the "repeat offender" thing then 1 game would have sufficed. However, if that is worth 3 games...then there is no way the Killorn one isn't at least worth a game. Although he didn't have enough time to react he still followed through and you can clearly see he pushed forward driving Ranger head first into the boards. He certainly had time to make an effort to ease up a bit.

So where is the line? If Kassian's hit is worth 3 and Killorn's is worth nothing....what is worth 1 or 2? Thats a rather large gap for two fairly similar offences that both resulted in majors.

Re: I can't believe it's NOT a suspension!

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:44 pm
by Meds
Ranger tries a little fake to throw the forechecker off. At the last fraction of a second he spins back to the corner and gets crunched. This hit is on Ranger until the league changes the rules and eliminates these end wall collisions entirely.....which will never happen. And even in slow motion there is almost no time for Killorn to react there.

Re: I can't believe it's NOT a suspension!

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:41 am
by BurningBeard
Paul Stewart can't believe it's not a suspension.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Paul-Ste ... /196/58889

A pretty damning post coming from a former NHL ref. He saves his most vicious attack for the end of the article.
Situations like these are why I say that the NHL Rule Book is a house of cards built on a foundation of sand. James Neal could be the poster child for what is wrong with the NHL discipline system as steered by Brendan Shanahan and, before him, the doubtable … um, redoubtable… Colin Campbell.

From day one, Campbell has been negligent at best and cowardly at worst. Soupy's Axiom to the Peter Principle is that some people rise BEYOND their level of incompetence in a bureaucracy.
:lol: Oh lawdy, you're not making many friends Paul...

Re: I can't believe it's NOT a suspension!

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:49 am
by rats19
BurningBeard wrote:Paul Stewart can't believe it's not a suspension.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Paul-Ste ... /196/58889

A pretty damning post coming from a former NHL ref. He saves his most vicious attack for the end of the article.
Situations like these are why I say that the NHL Rule Book is a house of cards built on a foundation of sand. James Neal could be the poster child for what is wrong with the NHL discipline system as steered by Brendan Shanahan and, before him, the doubtable … um, redoubtable… Colin Campbell.

From day one, Campbell has been negligent at best and cowardly at worst. Soupy's Axiom to the Peter Principle is that some people rise BEYOND their level of incompetence in a bureaucracy.
:lol: Oh lawdy, you're not making many friends Paul...
He has one in me...