huzer Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I honestly can't say I'm surprised. With the key word being intent, was it intent to injure, decapitate, or just finish a check? If you can't prove one specifically, this is what happens (and I think a case could be argued for each side...one may not be more right than the other, but a case could be made nonetheless). We're preparing a Writers Weigh In for either late tonight/early tomorrow, certainly wasn't fun sending in my 2 thoughts basically saying what I just said here, under their strict guidelines for intent, probably was the right call. Moral of the story - the rule could use some rewording. Is "intent to injure" actually the only reason for which a suspension is warranted? Seems a bit absurd to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 Is "intent to injure" actually the only reason for which a suspension is warranted? Seems a bit absurd to me. If you skim through some of the releases from Campbell over the years, intent seems to play much more of a role than I originally thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 If you skim through some of the releases from Campbell over the years, intent seems to play much more of a role than I originally thought. Intent is a cop out and it is why they are so inconsistent. Look at this board last night. It is easily altered by perspective. If Campbell was on the receiving end how does it change Campbell's view of intent? Same situation, different perspecitve, convenient loophole to change the rationale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 Intent is a cop out and it is why they are so inconsistent. You're right about the cop out part...how inconsistent is it when I can sit here and immediately think, "Nope, won't get anything there?" I'm not going back and reading the entire thread again but I know I'm not the only one who expected 0 either. Heck, inconsistent would have been giving him 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huzer Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 If you skim through some of the releases from Campbell over the years, intent seems to play much more of a role than I originally thought. And what's worse is reading all of the various media stories on the matter(for example, the daily debate on ESPN by Burnside/Lebrun) that factor intent into whether or not there should be a suspension. Nearly universally, as I mentioned in a different post, most media people out there didn't expect a suspension and most speak of intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 From now on, when a career will be on jeopardy but without any intent to injure, it will be a 5, a 10 and a game misconduct. Nice precedent NHL ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwihab Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I just don't get it. I thought I'd wait overnight to calm down about this incident, but the non-suspension call has my blood boiling again. As I have said in previous posts, I have never played the game and therfore would not pretend to be knowledgable on the technicalities of the game, however I just don't get the whole argument over intent. In my mind, it is irrellevant what Chara intended to do. The fact is he was doing something illegal (interferance or perhaps even boarding) that directly resulted in a serious injury. The analogy that I would use is someone speeding in their car and hitting a pedestrian. In most cases speeding is not a major infraction and results in a ticket, however if you hit someone it is completely different and the matter of intent does not come into play. I realise that hockey is different from everyday life and if you did some of the stuff that is allowed in hockey (fighting, roughing, boarding etc) in a bar you would be up for assault, but I still don't see how intent plays such a major part in deciding punishment for these types of actions. In my mind it is simple: Chara was breaking the rules and as a direct result, seriously injured someone (potentially ending their career) He is guilty and deserves some form of punishment. Kia Kaha Max Pacioretty PS: Seeing as we are still paying half of Laraque's salary, can we get him back for the next game against Boston? (kidding on this but would be somewhat satisfying to get some retribution) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clawskulls Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 This is freaking ridiculous. I'm really at a loss here. I figured a 2 game slap on the wrist would be the worst case scenario....sad to see I'm wrong. As long as this crap is tolerated in the NHL, it's going to continue and players are going to keep getting injured, careers are going to keep getting cut short, etc. I just cannot fathom how all of the circumstances in this event added up to bupkiss for Chara... -> Recent past history between players? Check. -> Late in the period? Check. -> Game all but out of reach? Check. That alone would seem to set the stage for at least a minimal suspension. Not in the NHL. I'm also sick and bloody tired of hearing "in any other part of the rink, this is a 2 minute penalty". That has no absolutely bearing on things. Location does play a HUGE role in some penalties. The fact that the same action elsewhere on the ice would not have had the same impact is neither here nor there. When somebody is hit from behind against the boards and their head is crushed against them, does anybody justify it being not so bad by saying "well, if they were in the middle of the ice, this is just a two minute penalty". No. That's a freaking ridiculous argument to make. Yet I'm seeing and hearing this over and over again. The NHL is lucky the Habs don't have anybody that could really do anything serious in retaliation, because this is exactly what leads players to thinking they have to take matters into their own hands, whether right or wrong. The NHL has a responsibility to protect their players. Without the players, there is no product. Yet time and time again, their actions show they don't really care about the individuals that play the game. Unfortunately, some of the players have the same damn attitude which is why this is a problem in the first place.... You can bet now that Chara will have the league protecting his ass if a Habs player so much as sneezes at him when they play again.... Words cannot express how disappointed I am with the league right now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehabbit Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 What a joke the NHL is, seriously. I agree with Mario, I really don't know if I want call myself a fan or a part of this anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalhabs Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 See why I was already pissed? Clowns in charge. I still say eye for eye. Screw the Bruins. Somebody retaliate please, the league won't...... How about everybody drills pucks at Chara's head every chance we get, start Auld, screw the 2 points and just fire pucks at heads all night. Even aim at the bench. No rules against that! Maybe even take out a coach or 2 with pucks off the head. I would enjoy watching that. Only problem is that they got the guy with the hardest shot in the league on their team so i guess we have to make the shots count before taking cover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amhabs84 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Unbelievable. I understand intent is difficult to prove, and I know everyone has seen the replay a thousand times. - Chara, knowing he's beat takes his hand off his stick and tries to slow Pacs down. (Holding) - When that doesn't work he pushes him into the boards. (Interference) - Then he continues to follow through pushing his head into the stanchion. (Head Shot) I know it happens fast but how could Murphy possibly call that a hockey play. "This was a hockey play that resulted in an injury because of the player colliding with the stanchion and then the ice surface. In reviewing this play, I also took into consideration that Chara has not been involved in a supplemental discipline incident during his 13-year NHL career." Apparentley everyone gets a freebee, maybe we should seek retribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehabbit Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Call up a goon from the ECHL and send him after Chara, he won't have any prior history of violence in the NHL and intent to injure will be ever so hard to prove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 You're right about the cop out part...how inconsistent is it when I can sit here and immediately think, "Nope, won't get anything there?" I'm not going back and reading the entire thread again but I know I'm not the only one who expected 0 either. Heck, inconsistent would have been giving him 10. The thing is, the exact same thing could happen with a Habs player in the Chara role and we will all say the precedent is set, he will get nothing and the NHL will offer up a press release telling us how they saw the intent and it will afford them the opportunity to create a totally different ruling from the exact same circumstance. They do this all the time with the "intent to blow the whistle" rule, the "kicking motion" rule to the point where they create such a confusion that no ruling is unexpected but EVERY ruling is unexpected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehabbit Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 The thing is, the exact same thing could happen with a Habs player in the Chara role and we will all say the precedent is set, he will get nothing and the NHL will offer up a press release telling us how they saw the intent and it will afford them the opportunity to create a totally different ruling from the exact same circumstance. They do this all the time with the "intent to blow the whistle" rule, the "kicking motion" rule to the point where they create such a confusion that no ruling is unexpected but EVERY ruling is unexpected. Sounds like the doublespeak and doublethink of 1984 that pervades the so-called "leadership" of our society Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 So.. one of our small guys should make a perfect hip check on Chara.. not their fault he is too tall and they took out his knees... it was a clean hockey play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I would guess that Patch being looked after by the best doctors in Montreal. Everyone here wants to see him get better and wishes him the best. While Patch recuperates, the issue of suspensions is important. The Habs and 11 other teams will have to play Boston in the next 5 weeks. Some sort of line in the sand needs to be drawn so that more people don't get hurt. I think your response is well thought out. I come from the position that I have never seen the hit. I think you can drive yourself crazy by trying to speculate on how many games on any incident should be assessed. It would follow for me at least, that habs fans might be slightly biased which is only natural. I don't like what has happened. I think Mr. G and Martin have left their team exposed. The Bruins have responded and will continue to respond to our "team toughness" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thib46 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I think your response is well thought out. I come from the position that I have never seen the hit. I think you can drive yourself crazy by trying to speculate on how many games on any incident should be assessed. It would follow for me at least, that habs fans might be slightly biased which is only natural. I don't like what has happened. I think Mr. G and Martin have left their team exposed. The Bruins have responded and will continue to respond to our "team toughness" You can now close the page, NHL has rules no suspension and no fine. I saw the replay over and over again. I am a Montreal Fan but I cannot get inside Chara's head and say it was intentional. He is a big man and easily his elbows will be high. He should know where he is on the ice, however, in the heat of the game it is possible to forget where you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 And thus they condone the play. You may get a penalty in-game, but, say, if Ovechkin is skating by and you happen to hammer him into the stancheon with your hand on his head thereby taking him out of the series in game one, you stand a very good chance of winning the series, particularly since you'll be there in game two with no repercussions. It's a disrespect to the players and the money-paying fans. I see no reason why a team wouldn't dress a throw-away goon every game now to take vengeance for these types of plays since the league won't do anything about it. If the league can't respect or protect its players - particularly the head, then a team might as well have someone on the bench to, say, knee a guy to level the playing field. It's crude, horrible to say, and ethically wrong, but what else are we supposed to think when the disciplinarians don't really care about the integrity of the game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I would not advise that.. If you do that to a star, you get suspended. If you are a goon and do it, you get suspended. If you are a star and do it to a rookie, its a good hockey play. And thus they condone the play. You may get a penalty in-game, but, say, if Ovechkin is skating by and you happen to hammer him into the stancheon with your hand on his head thereby taking him out of the series in game one, you stand a very good chance of winning the series, particularly since you'll be there in game two with no repercussions. It's a disrespect to the players and the money-paying fans. I see no reason why a team wouldn't dress a throw-away goon every game now to take vengeance for these types of plays since the league won't do anything about it. If the league can't respect or protect its players - particularly the head, then a team might as well have someone on the bench to, say, knee a guy to level the playing field. It's crude, horrible to say, and ethically wrong, but what else are we supposed to think when the disciplinarians don't really care about the integrity of the game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Interestingly, Michael Ignatieff is getting involved saying he doesn't understand what the NHL is thinking. Also threatening other actions if the NHL can't take care of itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 (edited) And thus they condone the play. You may get a penalty in-game, but, say, if Ovechkin is skating by and you happen to hammer him into the stancheon with your hand on his head thereby taking him out of the series in game one, you stand a very good chance of winning the series, particularly since you'll be there in game two with no repercussions. It's a disrespect to the players and the money-paying fans. I see no reason why a team wouldn't dress a throw-away goon every game now to take vengeance for these types of plays since the league won't do anything about it. If the league can't respect or protect its players - particularly the head, then a team might as well have someone on the bench to, say, knee a guy to level the playing field. It's crude, horrible to say, and ethically wrong, but what else are we supposed to think when the disciplinarians don't really care about the integrity of the game? But the league would create a new precedent to deal with that and then ignore it at it's own will. They defy explanation and hide behind the word intent on every major suspension. They change their rationale on each suspension. If they can't russel up 1% of intent after Pacioretty and Chara had two minor incidents to give him 1 game, what needs to occur to prove intent? Bertuzzi/McSorley level incidents? Why did Tom Kostopolous get 3 games on Mike Van Ryn when he showed zero intent and Chara gets nothing when he showed zero intent? It is nonsensical. As Campbell explains it, Kostopoulos isn't getting suspended because the play was a dirty hit from behind, but simply because it caused injury:"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. Does the NHL realize that they make statements that exist on the internet? Edited March 9, 2011 by Wamsley01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I watched this several times. Brobin, your camera angle on theat pic looks like a perfect angle, but I can't find any video where he actually hits his head. At first I was saying that he would not be suspended, even though I thought he should get a couple games. Then I got emotional through the night and made a 50 dollar bet that he would. I bet with my emotions. Sigh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 The key point the league has made is that they don't think it was an illegal hit. Intent doesn't matter. They seem to ignore the arm to Pacs head and have convinced themselves that he didn't contact his head. There is one angle that makes this look like nothing and several hockey friends I know saw it and agreed with the league. Then I showed them the still frame of the arm up..and went.. wow.. never saw that angle.. that is a hit to the head... clearly the league decided to ignore intent. Clearly they decided to give Chara the benefit of the doubt when it comes to him not realizing the danger. You have to be pretty blind to claim he didn't target the head.. unless they are making the claim that is is okay for Chara to do it.. he is tall.. not his fault... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 There was a few sites with frame by frame captures.. the arm comes up, the head go in, the arm comes down.. I watched this several times. Brobin, your camera angle on theat pic looks like a perfect angle, but I can't find any video where he actually hits his head. At first I was saying that he would not be suspended, even though I thought he should get a couple games. Then I got emotional through the night and made a 50 dollar bet that he would. I bet with my emotions. Sigh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRock Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I'd like to see a Bobby-Clarke-type chop at a lower leg next time around. They could claim they were trying to chip the puck out and missed, there was no "intent to injure". 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.