connee Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 The reason he wasn't suspended is the hit on Drury was TECHNICALLY legal and the league and (more importantly) the NHLPA doesn't want to impose further discipline on players for hits that are legal (but blatently dirty). The goon Neil's hit was intent to injure, which he proved by verbally threatening to injure the Sabres' other captain ("you're next"). The correct call should have been a match penalty. BTW, have you seen Drury's face? Looks like he got run over by a train. The NHL needs to explain itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 I gotta check the rule book again I know they reference another penalty if the boards are not near the hit, and it is basicly the same rules to it cause it literaly says if the play is not near the boards then the call goes under the other penalty *edit* 42.1 is the section and I was mistakend it is not roughing it is charging that is the penalty associated with boarding Unfortunately, I don't think either hit qualified as a charge. Again, they were close, but I don't think they rose to what is commonly accepted as a charge. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, as I don't think either of us will convince the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Balls Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 So Cam Janssen gets a 3 game suspension for almost paralyzing a great player! Chris Neil gets nothing for almost giving Drury a permanent brain injury, and then gets to go out and break some dudes arm for good measure afterwards. This NHL front office is a complete joke. Hypothetically, if I run into douchebag Bettman on the street and beat the living #%^$#! out of him and leave him bloodied on the streets of NYC, what happens to me? Anyone have an answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connee Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 You say Janssen didn't mean to cause injury. Does that mean you think he shouldn't have been suspended? I also am curious in what rule you think he violated other than interference or intent to injure. If Neil doesn't get suspended, he shouldn't have. But, frankly, I think they both should be arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 If Neil doesn't get suspended, he shouldn't have. But, frankly, I think they both should be arrested. And that is where the NHL's incident by incident system of justice fails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 dave I understand what your saying about them not be considered charging the way it is called. What I am saying is if you read the description for thous rules without being a ref you would rightly say the hits should get covered. As such the NHL needs new leadership that will change the way the ref's make the decision to call that penalty. I am not trying to debate wither or not they qualify as a charge (the nhl already said they don't) with the way it is currently called. I am saying that it should be called as a charge. But like you said agree to disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 dave I understand what your saying about them not be considered charging the way it is called. What I am saying is if you read the description for thous rules without being a ref you would rightly say the hits should get covered. As such the NHL needs new leadership that will change the way the ref's make the decision to call that penalty. I am not trying to debate wither or not they qualify as a charge (the nhl already said they don't) with the way it is currently called. I am saying that it should be called as a charge. But like you said agree to disagree I think we both agree that the league SHOULD consider both hits illegal. (And those illegal hits should result in suspensions.) Where we seem to disagree is, I think the league should institute a specific penalty for hits to the head, and based on your last post, you think the hit should be covered under the existing charging rules. My reason for disagreeing with you, is in order to make those hits charging (unless you alter rule 43, which I don't really care whether it's a special type of charge or it's own penalty, I want the rule book amended) you will almost necessarily have to call hits that currently are considered clean, solid hits charges to keep a consistancy to the rules/rulings. To make a shoulder to the head a charge regardless of how far a player travels to deliver that hit, I believe given the current wording of the rule, would result in a lot of hard checks becoming labelled as charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 That's one way to look at it. That the only / primary difference in the plays was the laundry. But there was one other difference. While the hit on Drury was barely legal on about 4 different grounds, it was legal. It was dirty, but legal nonetheless. The hit on Kaberle barely stayed within the framework of about 3 rules, but when that puck touched Colaiacovo's stick before Janssen hit 15, it put the hit outside the framework of 1 rule. It made the hit interference and thus illegal. Hopefully, the league will add a rule about shots to the head this offseason, so the hit that Drury took will be illegal in the future. The rule should be... The minute the puck LEAVES your stick, you gotta lay up on the hit... I know the purist will be in uproar... But, what point does it serve to say you can still take the guy out until the puck ends up on another's stick???... What is the person who passed the puck gonna do? Get the puck right back?... The whole idea of finishing a check makes no logical sense, since nobody is there to feed it back to the passer... Of course I am talking about passes that are a couple strides away... The "in close game", IMO, where the checking really has definition, can remain the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 The rule should be... The minute the puck LEAVES your stick, you gotta lay up on the hit... I know the purist will be in uproar... But, what point does it serve to say you can still take the guy out until the puck ends up on another's stick???... What is the person who passed the puck gonna do? Get the puck right back?... The whole idea of finishing a check makes no logical sense, since nobody is there to feed it back to the passer... Of course I am talking about passes that are a couple strides away... The "in close game", IMO, where the checking really has definition, can remain the same. The Kaberle hit was so far after he passed the puck I don't think the possession rule even applied. Also, Even if Drury had the puck it still was an illegal hit to the head from behind. Whether or not he had the puck is pointless. Neil charged Drury and then went after his head. Puck or not Neil should have been suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Just to fan the flames a little here... I watched the NJ telecast last night. They were of course talking about the legality of the hit. It will surprise no one that the NJ broadcaster's opinion was that it was legal and that the proximity to the boards was the issue. At best, it deserved a penalty. They claimed that the FSN Production crew timed the play and the hit was delivered less than 1.5 seconds after the puck left his stick. They also were rather emphatic that Janssen didn't leave his feet. Don't know how they see it that way. Also considering the Neil hit on the icing play, Cherry was advocating again a "no touch" icing call. In other words, if you ice the puck, no sense chasing it down to see who can touch it first, just blow the play dead. Not sure how I feel about this. I guess Gleason would be in favor of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 I said the same thing last night while watching that Nj vs Bos game couldn't believe the downright insanity of the Nj announcers saying that it was a questionable hit at best... 1.5 seconds is an eternity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Also considering the Neil hit on the icing play, Cherry was advocating again a "no touch" icing call. In other words, if you ice the puck, no sense chasing it down to see who can touch it first, just blow the play dead. Not sure how I feel about this. I guess Gleason would be in favor of it. Watch the end of this video from Coach's Corner. It might change your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 Just to fan the flames a little here... I watched the NJ telecast last night. They were of course talking about the legality of the hit. It will surprise no one that the NJ broadcaster's opinion was that it was legal and that the proximity to the boards was the issue. At best, it deserved a penalty. They claimed that the FSN Production crew timed the play and the hit was delivered less than 1.5 seconds after the puck left his stick. They also were rather emphatic that Janssen didn't leave his feet. Don't know how they see it that way. Also considering the Neil hit on the icing play, Cherry was advocating again a "no touch" icing call. In other words, if you ice the puck, no sense chasing it down to see who can touch it first, just blow the play dead. Not sure how I feel about this. I guess Gleason would be in favor of it. That's like saying Janssens is a great guy for not breaking his stick over Kaberle's head while he was down. Chico Resch is an idiot. Paul Maurice had a great line. If you want to punish the Devils for the hit you make them play Janssens more than the two minutes a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsey05 Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 Watch the end of this video from Coach's Corner. It might change your mind. Cherry annoys me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 One thing is for certain, a player's life will have to expire on the ice before they even think about examining hits to the head, even then I'm not sure. Why someone as pussified as Bettman allows this type of conduct in his league is beyond me. Then again this is the guy who wants to remove fighting from hockey because it will attract more fans. I seem to remember a game between Buffalo and Ottawa that got a wee bit of attention in the anticipation of fights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsey05 Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 One thing is for certain, a player's life will have to expire on the ice before they even think about examining hits to the head, even then I'm not sure. Why someone as pussified as Bettman allows this type of conduct in his league is beyond me. Then again this is the guy who wants to remove fighting from hockey because it will attract more fans. I seem to remember a game between Buffalo and Ottawa that got a wee bit of attention in the anticipation of fights. Who knows what drives the "minds" behind hockey? Leaving ESPN for OLN? That's just idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 Just when you thought this thread was dead... Check out this video. The 18-second mark or so. And tell me after THAT happened whether you cheered or thought a letter of complaint should be written to Gary Bettman? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 I love Michael Peca. I think if Buffalo still had him or more players of that nature, fans would be a lot more forgiving of those hits. For better or worse this team was built with skill not braun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Just when you thought this thread was dead... Check out this video. The 18-second mark or so. And tell me after THAT happened whether you cheered or thought a letter of complaint should be written to Gary Bettman? :) It was a cheap hit and he should have been suspended for leaving his feet. The only difference between that hit and the Neil and Janssens hits was that it was delivered by a hockey player. Not a two minute a game head hunter. Who knows what drives the "minds" behind hockey? Leaving ESPN for OLN? That's just idiocy. Did they have a choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Did they have a choice? Hallmark channel? Just saying... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 It was a cheap hit and he should have been suspended for leaving his feet. The only difference between that hit and the Neil and Janssens hits was that it was delivered by a hockey player. Not a two minute a game head hunter. Did they have a choice? Isn't that the inverse of the "protect the star" mentality? "Punish the goon." Should player identity factor into suspensions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Who knows what drives the "minds" behind hockey? Leaving ESPN for OLN? That's just idiocy. You can't get a new contract with a network that doesn't want you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.