brobin Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share Posted December 19, 2011 One game is about right. It would be two games, minus one for a Bruin, plus one for a Hab. Seriously, that would be two games for most guys. I am surprised they gave him anything but when you have Bruins fans becoming embarrassed by the lack of suspensions for Marchant, etc, it was time to give them a slap on the wrist. At least it is the game against the habs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 One game for a hit that has gotten everyone else 2 games. The only reason Shanny handed out this 1-game suspension is to make people believe he;s not favoring the Bruins. This, if anything, shows more-so how much the Bruins are favored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 To be honest, I'm shocked he got a game. He deserved at least two, but with no injury I'm satisfied with one game... especially since it's a Bruin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Rene Bourque gets two games. Just more ammo on the bruins bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Anyone see the Kronwall hit last night? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Anyone see the Kronwall hit last night? Yeah that was some shitty reffing. Kronwall jumps, hits Kesler... Kesler comes up angry and gives him a shot.... no penalty to Kronwall, 2 minutes to Kesler. Canucks come down shorthanded... Hansen runs over the goalie, Edler puts it in to the open net while Howard has been wiped out. Good Goal. It benefitted the Canucks in the end... but it was a giant mess of refereeing.. bad calls both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted December 22, 2011 Author Share Posted December 22, 2011 Yeah that was some shitty reffing. Kronwall jumps, hits Kesler... Kesler comes up angry and gives him a shot.... no penalty to Kronwall, 2 minutes to Kesler. Canucks come down shorthanded... Hansen runs over the goalie, Edler puts it in to the open net while Howard has been wiped out. Good Goal. It benefitted the Canucks in the end... but it was a giant mess of refereeing.. bad calls both ways. Yeah, I saw that goal.. but Cole.. he interfered.. LOL.. the reffing in this league can be very entertaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Yeah, I saw that goal.. but Cole.. he interfered.. LOL.. the reffing in this league can be very entertaining. Like that high stick in the Toronto NYI game haha The puck was just shot in the guys face and the ref thought there was a high sticking haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=60&id=148388 5 games for Marchand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 Well, I am surprised, but the League was getting embarrassed by the Bruins. They got away with a ton of stuff and just kept going back to the well. Still, Marchant is an easy mark. Wake me when they suspend Chara. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Next headline; Shanahan fired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Shanny's video on this one was awesome. The amazing thing about the Bruins is that they still feel like the victims. Julien gave a presser whining about the concussions to Bergeron and Savard - lamentable, I agree, but how those incidents justify Chara's attempted murder, or the can-opener on Raymond that nearly paralyzed him, or the assault on Miller, or the job on Salo, or any of the other outrages committed by a Bruins team that considers itself above the rules, I don't know. And Chiarelli had the nerve to come out and attack Shanahan for his verdict. Unfortunately that delusional sense of victimhood helps to fuel their success. It's gonna take a team like the Canucks to KILL them on the power-play to put a stop to their bulls*t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 If I hadn't seen the part where Marchand went into the corner and did the body check with Salo a mere 16 seconds earlier and came out of that hit frustrated and nailing Salo in the back of the head, I would have called bull on the decision to suspend Marchand. Call me old school in this case, or not sufficiently a Habs fan if that's where you want to go, but taken in isolation, in my humble opinion, the hit looked like a hip check only slightly below the waist - and I think Habs fans would have been rioting had Robinson, for instance, been suspended every time he did that. Again, I agree with the call because of what happened before the hit, but I feel the hit itself looked more like a hip check than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Its not a hip check, because in a hip check you hit a guy with your hip. Marchand hits him with his shoulder and flips Salo over the top. With a hip check he doesn't have the same leverage as he got here which was going low with his shoulder. Marchand also went lower. Sure both involve bending at the waist... but there is a difference between what you can do, when you flip a player over your hip and ass, and when you lead with your shoulder into his knees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbhatt Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Shanahan got the Marchand suspension right. Let's hope this means the Bruins are no longer 'above the law' from here on out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=629019 25 games for Torres !!! A multiple times offender though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=629019 25 games for Torres !!! A multiple times offender though. Yeah that is huge.. Is he a ufa this season? Or did he sign multiple years with Phoenix? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 He's signed next year. This is Torres third incident just this season, so I can see where Shanny is coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 25 is good. But Keith should have gotten about that number for his vicious attack on Sedin. The whole 'repeat offender' thing carries too much weight IMHO. Yes, it should carry some weight. But right now it seems the only way to get a suspension that actually fits the deed is to be a repeat offender. The Torres hit was vicious, but not remotely as ridiculous as either the Weber assault on Zetterberg or the Keith 'hit' on Sedin. The explosion of hostile commentary that followed the Torres hit had more to do with Torres than with the hit itself; everyone had identified Torres as a problem case and were ready to destroy him when he did something. This approach leads to a grotesque leniency regarding players like Chara, Keith, and Weber, all of whom got the benefit of the doubt for egregiously obvious deliberate attempts to destroy their opponents. 'Oh, Chara didn't mean to do that...' 'Well, let's give Keith five games 'cause, you know, he's a good guy...' 'Weber, well, he didn't actually cause an injury despite a deliberate attempt to inflict a concussion...' It's basically the logic of the old boys network. You crucify the guys that are hated, but when it comes to first-time offenders, the guys that are well-liked, you show more concern for the perpetrator than the victim. The real message is: you get to commit one gruesome act of savage brutality every few years with minimal consequence. So pick your spot. Just like Chara did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalhabs Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I dont think the Torres hit was that bad. I think he jumped mostly out of reflexes when he noticed he were going to colide with Hossa, sure a suspension but 25 games feels a bit much for THAT hit. (Bet the spelling of that sentence is some of the worst Ive ever done) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 25 is good. But Keith should have gotten about that number for his vicious attack on Sedin. The whole 'repeat offender' thing carries too much weight IMHO. Yes, it should carry some weight. But right now it seems the only way to get a suspension that actually fits the deed is to be a repeat offender. The Torres hit was vicious, but not remotely as ridiculous as either the Weber assault on Zetterberg or the Keith 'hit' on Sedin. The explosion of hostile commentary that followed the Torres hit had more to do with Torres than with the hit itself; everyone had identified Torres as a problem case and were ready to destroy him when he did something. This approach leads to a grotesque leniency regarding players like Chara, Keith, and Weber, all of whom got the benefit of the doubt for egregiously obvious deliberate attempts to destroy their opponents. 'Oh, Chara didn't mean to do that...' 'Well, let's give Keith five games 'cause, you know, he's a good guy...' 'Weber, well, he didn't actually cause an injury despite a deliberate attempt to inflict a concussion...' It's basically the logic of the old boys network. You crucify the guys that are hated, but when it comes to first-time offenders, the guys that are well-liked, you show more concern for the perpetrator than the victim. The real message is: you get to commit one gruesome act of savage brutality every few years with minimal consequence. So pick your spot. Just like Chara did. I agree with all this. I like the 25 games for Torres, but it doesn't mean much because I know it won't change anything for everybody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I agree with all this. I like the 25 games for Torres, but it doesn't mean much because I know it won't change anything for everybody else. Interesting comments from Alain Vigneault on this. He basically nails it when he says the Torres hit was more of a 'hockey play' than the Keith assault on Sedin, and that the ruling merely adds to the confusion. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/stanleycup2012/2012/04/torres-suspension-adds-to-confusion-on-headshot-rulings-vigneault.html This league is total B.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Vigneault is correct. Keith's hit was far worse. But Keith has the mitigating factor of never being suspended before. Where Torres has 6 incidents in 3 years.... 3 in this season alone (4 in the last 13 months)... plus the Seabrook hit which he didn't get suspended or fined for (and should have). Its clear that Torres is a player who like Matt Cooke (before his long suspension) ... isn't learning, isn't changing his game according to the rules. When that becomes the case. When its the same guy every damn time, you really have to drop the hammer and drop it hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Vigneault is correct. Keith's hit was far worse. But Keith has the mitigating factor of never being suspended before. Where Torres has 6 incidents in 3 years.... 3 in this season alone (4 in the last 13 months)... plus the Seabrook hit which he didn't get suspended or fined for (and should have). Its clear that Torres is a player who like Matt Cooke (before his long suspension) ... isn't learning, isn't changing his game according to the rules. When that becomes the case. When its the same guy every damn time, you really have to drop the hammer and drop it hard. I agree that if you're a repeat offender, that should be taken into consideration. But like I said before, the ratio is totally out of whack. Torres's hit in and of itself is not worth 25 games. But when you factor in his history, it sure is, because this guy is a menace to the safety of everyone else out there. Keith's hit in and of itself is worth 20-25 games. If he were a repeat offender it'd be worth even more. It's the second part of the equation the NHL has totally flubbed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Considering how many times Torres has been suspended it makes sense to me. Keith should have got 10 imo as a first time offender and then if he did anything like that again throw him into the Torres range of missing 30-40% of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.