BuffalOhio Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Pretty good article written by Jim Kelley. Sportsnet Blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hirly5 Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Good post This only feeds the conspiracy theory of the NHL against the Buffalo Sabres. The most disturbing thing for me was that the NHL is holding a grudge against Lindy for the No-Goal fiasco. I hope this isn't true because that would be very unfortunate. It will be tough for people not to think that Kelley is unbiased but I think he made some valid points. He even left out the through the net goal against Philly. The NHL is no different than any other sports league. The stars and marquee (popular) teams get special treatment. I agree with Kelley on the fact that Colin Campbell is very uneven on suspensions. There really is no rhyme or reason to his lengths of suspension and reasons for suspending or not suspending. I am afraid that when the Sabres play Toronto on the 16th that something will happen then Campbell will suspend a Sabre for a portion of the play-offs. This is a very slippery slope for the Sabres. They almost feel compelled to retaliate against Tucker but as we all know well, often the one retalitating receives the punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 I think Jimbo is losing it. Seriously. How in the world did no penalty being called on Darius K. with a couple of minutes left in regulation time in Game 7 agains the Pens have any impact on his goal that was scored well in overtime? I don't get it. And how can he call Darius' hit on Tim Connolly a "dive"? To paraphrase Lindy... that's a JOOOKE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottnc Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Whether Kelley is biased or not, I still think the league's justice system needs to be more consistent. Just because Tucker didn't connect with the elbow doesn't mean there wasn't intent to injure, plus it all gets magnified by the fact that Briere got a two game suspension for an accidental high stick where Leetch got the penalty on the play. I did agree with the point that this leads to things like the Bertuzzi incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 I think Jimbo is losing it. Seriously. How in the world did no penalty being called on Darius K. with a couple of minutes left in regulation time in Game 7 agains the Pens have any impact on his goal that was scored well in overtime? I don't get it. And how can he call Darius' hit on Tim Connolly a "dive"? To paraphrase Lindy... that's a JOOOKE! I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Kaspiritis turtled when Drury retaliated to the Connolly hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 I'm not being sarcastic. Kelley noted that Darius (he whose last name never should be typed) "wasn't suspended for his dive on Connolly's knee." He wasn't referring to Darius' response to the challenge. He didn't "dive" into Connolly. It was a pretty clean hip check. Scott... I don't know. If you're going to suspend every hockey player who makes an ATTEMPT to injure, how many guys would be left? It's such a gray area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottnc Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Scott... I don't know. If you're going to suspend every hockey player who makes an ATTEMPT to injure, how many guys would be left? It's such a gray area. I agree, it is a gray area, but when you are going at a guys head with your elbow... I guess I'm just a little bitter we lost our best 2-way player after getting him back for less than a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock DJ Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 I agree, it is a gray area, but when you are going at a guys head with your elbow... I guess I'm just a little bitter we lost our best 2-way player after getting him back for less than a game. More so, when you travel about 50 feet to DO it, skating right by the guy that hit you initially, even glancing at him as you do, THEN throw the elbow and knee, THEN turn back into him AGAIN.... Somehow that isn't gray to me. But then, what do I know.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 I think Jimbo is losing it. Seriously. How in the world did no penalty being called on Darius K. with a couple of minutes left in regulation time in Game 7 agains the Pens have any impact on his goal that was scored well in overtime? I don't get it. And how can he call Darius' hit on Tim Connolly a "dive"? To paraphrase Lindy... that's a JOOOKE! Well...the game may very well have not gone into overtime if a penalty had been called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Well...the game may very well have not gone into overtime if a penalty had been called. And there lies the rub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted April 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Kaspiritis turtled when Drury retaliated to the Connolly hit. I think what he's saying is that Kasparaitis dove into Connolly's knee with that hip check. Also - I remember being insensed when he threw the puck into the stands with his hand and nothing was called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Well...the game may very well have not gone into overtime if a penalty had been called. A good point, of course, but that's not what Kelley wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 A good point, of course, but that's not what Kelley wrote. That non-penalty call was crucial in the outcome of that contest given that Kasparaitis later scored the game and series-winning goal. I take it to mean that the non-penalty call was crucial, because it was at a key time of a game and they lost...and scorer of the goal happened to be Kasparaitis. I agree with you that there was not a relationship between the non-call and the goal (other than the fact that the goal never would have happened if the Sabres scored on the PP). I think he just chose his words poorly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.