GDT: Game 7, Habs vs Bruins

[Wamsley01]

First, let me start this by saying that in my opinion, the Ference-Halpern incident was at worst a 2 minute interference penalty. I don't think a disciplinary hearing was in order but since it was, let's look at the wording of the decision. In particular:

Oh, so now injuries or lack thereof play a role into supplementary discipline decisions? Guess I missed the memo on that one. Again, I don't think this was suspension worthy but even so, after all the talk of how Pacioretty's injury couldn't come into play with regards to determining a suspension for Chara, it's a little too overtly two-faced for my liking.

http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=561340

There consistency is absolutely absurd. Their rationale changes with the wind.

Injury was a factor in suspending Kostopolous. Injury non-factor in Pacioretty's incident. Non-injury is a factor in the Halpern case.

Campbell/Murphy are clowns.

Like I said. Intent is a red herring intended to allow them to make decisions by the seat of their pants. So is their use of injury to influence a decision.

Cooke, Richards and Chara get off scott clean because of lack of intent, but Kostopolous is held accountable for his actions?

"While it is my determination that Kostopoulos did not deliver a check to an unsuspecting opponent, his actions caused injuries," said NHL Senior Executive Vice President of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell.

So stupid.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I think they've been remarkably consistent. Bruins don't get suspended. The end.

[Wamsley01]

I think they've been remarkably consistent. Bruins don't get suspended. The end.

The Bruins fans will bring up Paille and Marchand as their proof that absolves them.