26CornerBlitz Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 My guess is 5 games for Scott. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni0aYmQJJqg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 10 for Grigs sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 10 for Grigs sake. heheheh , thats good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 0. Does. Not hit him in the head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 Does Scott have previous suspensions? If not then he can't be suspended because he has no history of suspensions which in the past has been Shamabans reason for not suspending guys. I swear to Gawd. I say 3 games because he's just too damn big and it wasn't intensional but that being said this is the Sabres so maybe 5. on the other hand the severity of the injury has to be duly noted. Is there bruising ? If so add 1 game to the 3. Headaches ? Subtract 1 game for the Milbury effect but add a game for the blindside. Was there malice of forethought on the part of BIG JOHN or was he simply doing what he's been taught to do since pee wee ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skaught Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 10, hes a Sabre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 5 games. looks like scotts shoulder caught his chin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 All of them because f*ck you that's why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two or less Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabills Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 0. Does. Not hit him in the head Watch that chin snap. If he hits him in the shoulder or the chest it doesn't respond like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 3 is the norm for "illegal check to the head." He's not repeat offender. IF Shanahan has any consistency, and he doesn't, it should be 3. Milbury should be suspended for 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 The only thing he should have been penalized for was a late hit. The Bruin player should also have been penalized for being too short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 It wasn't an elbow, he didn't take a run and the height difference clearly played a role. But it was also clearly a hit to the head by a questionable hockey player. Three seems the standard for a first-offender hits to the head, add two more because it was Scott and I predict five. But in the greater scheme of things this year, does it matter how long John Scott is suspended for? Scott played a regular fourth line shift all game. Milbury is hockey's biggest douche and I've heard more balanced broadcasts from Jack Edwards. ###### you NBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 Quit this ###### about height. Sure, him being taller made Eriksson's head an easier target, but it wasn't the only factor. And I didn't know that height makes you lower your shoulder and throw your elbow through the hit. Give me a break. He'll get 5, but should get 10. John Scott shouldn't be in the NHL. He seems like a good guy. He's the worst player active in the NHL. (However, Mike Milbury should be fired for his over-the-top, blatantly biased rant after the game). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 Based on Shanahan's rulings, he should get 3. Based on the standards I'd like to see, he should get 15. He'll probably get 10. Milbury should be fired two years ago. I eagerly await Eleven's analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 But there's so much irony about all of this: 1. The Bruins are the only reason we have John Scott. 2. The Bruins have been called "classy" for not responding. We were criticized for not responding to Lucic. What gives? 3. Mike Milbury literally went into the stands and beat a fan with his shoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 But there's so much irony about all of this: 1. The Bruins are the only reason we have John Scott. 2. The Bruins have been called "classy" for not responding. We were criticized for not responding to Lucic. What gives? 3. Mike Milbury literally went into the stands and beat a fan with his shoe. Oh, it's hilarious. I don't feel bad at all, Boston had it coming...but that doesn't mean Scott shouldn't get smacked. I just wish it had happened to Marchand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 Oh, it's hilarious. I don't feel bad at all, Boston had it coming...but that doesn't mean Scott shouldn't get smacked. I just wish it had happened to Marchand. Agreed, Lucic would have been good to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Amerk Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 In reality, it should be 0 games. Legal hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 TSN says it'll be an in-person hearing. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=434887 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skaught Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 Agreed, Lucic would have been good to. Eh, he got a puck to the face and then proceeded to smash his head into the wall after scoring a goal. I think that was enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 But there's so much irony hypocrisy about all of this Absolutely. Just so we have it on record, here's Milbury after Miller/Lucic: What did Milbury think of the hit and the ruling on it? ...“I thought it was the right call, it was a two minute minor and they were both going for the puck. We want to have players that play hard like Lucic does and there’s going to be contact and sometimes oh my God people will get hurt,” Milbury said. Keep in mind Mill######head played for Boston for 12 years (his only team), beat a fan with his shoe in the stands as a player during a game, is a failed coach and GM, and currently collects paychecks from not only NBC, but NESN and HNIC as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 Milbury is the definition of the word 'hypocrite'. What made it even worse was Pierre and Lucic on the bench talking about dirty hits. I agree with Stebb, the double standard presented by the tools on NBC regarding the way both teams reacted in their respective situations is extremely aggravating. At most Scott should get 3 games. That's IF Shanahan is consistent, which we all know he won't be. The tools on NBC make Scott out to be a knuckledragging ogre. If anybody looks at his history he has never been one to throw cheap shots or illegal hits. He's here to fight and he only fights players who are willing to fight back. There are many more players in the league notorious for throwing cheap hits all the time and rarely get called. A few of them were in this game tonight. Making an issue of WHEN a coach puts a line on the ice is totally absurd! Did it ever occur to the NBC idiots that our 1st round pick from last year was on that line and he needs to get some ice time? Did he happen to notice the offensive contributions that Scott had tonight? ###### NBC, I'm so glad we're not on the schedule again until January. Now, we can all get ready to compalin about Shanahan's inconsistencies when Scott gets 7 games tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.