Jump to content

Chara non-suspension talk


dlbalr

  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. How many games, if any, will Chara get?

    • 0
      5
    • 1
      1
    • 2
      4
    • 3
      1
    • 4
      0
    • 5+
      7


Recommended Posts

Cherry didn't exactly say it as brobin made it out to be... He didn't really target francophones at all, just the companies based in Montreal who threated to rescind their sponsorships. While I wasn't entirely pleased with Cherry's opinion either you all seem to have missed his main point: he simply said that it should have been a 20 game suspension or 0 game suspension, nothing in between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why do we care what Don Cherry thinks? If you ask the president of Coca-Cola if he likes Pepsi better, what do you expect the response will be?

What is the point of looking for confirmation? It isn't going to come from the CBC.

We all know if Phil Kessel was on the receiving end of the hit that they would sing a different tune. Why does it matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his defence, Don made one very strong point:

Molson released this very strong statement about the Canadiens being very invested in the health of the players, yet we still use that damned seamless glass and boards with zero give. If we question why Los Habitantes may have more injuries now and then, this is at least something to be examined. For all our talk of the hypocritical nature of the suspension, it is a little of the same out of Montreal. We care about the players health, we care about the players health, we care about the players health! Just don't look at our rink.

He also made one good recommendation:

Instead of the glass at the "turnbuckle" being upright, have it at a 45 degree angle to significantly lessen the chance of anyone hitting it. There's been lots of finger pointing but that was the first reasonable and actionable piece of advice I've heard.

And here I was thinking I could listen to Don just to get uber-pissed; I wanted to re-enrage myself. I mean, it was his usual drivel, but at least he made an unusual couple of strong comments.

I find it very interesting that the old-boys club and all the goons in the game think it was a perfectly reasonable hit, but so far the skilled players (you know, the ones people actually come to watch?) all think it was dirty. Thornton's comment was doubly pleasing because, not only did he point out the obvious in Boston getting away with things because of the familial connection, but I believe he was also insinuating the reality that Bruins ownership is the one that's keeping Bettman in power and is fully behind Bettman's reign. Jacobs (is that his name) is big-time old school. And let's be honest, the league is run the Boston way these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two more votes in..

Rob Ray - Good hit.

Kerry Fraser - Excessive and unnecessary. (by the way, he noted he finally saw the other angle which made it clear Chara pushed him in. Makes you wonder why the TV never shows that angle)

I find it interesting that all the goons stand up for Chara, but the refs, good players, etc, see the clear dirty hit. I think this speaks to how polarized the game is and why they can't get anything done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his defence, Don made one very strong point:

Molson released this very strong statement about the Canadiens being very invested in the health of the players, yet we still use that damned seamless glass and boards with zero give. If we question why Los Habitantes may have more injuries now and then, this is at least something to be examined. For all our talk of the hypocritical nature of the suspension, it is a little of the same out of Montreal. We care about the players health, we care about the players health, we care about the players health! Just don't look at our rink.

He also made one good recommendation:

Instead of the glass at the "turnbuckle" being upright, have it at a 45 degree angle to significantly lessen the chance of anyone hitting it. There's been lots of finger pointing but that was the first reasonable and actionable piece of advice I've heard.

And here I was thinking I could listen to Don just to get uber-pissed; I wanted to re-enrage myself. I mean, it was his usual drivel, but at least he made an unusual couple of strong comments.

I find it very interesting that the old-boys club and all the goons in the game think it was a perfectly reasonable hit, but so far the skilled players (you know, the ones people actually come to watch?) all think it was dirty. Thornton's comment was doubly pleasing because, not only did he point out the obvious in Boston getting away with things because of the familial connection, but I believe he was also insinuating the reality that Bruins ownership is the one that's keeping Bettman in power and is fully behind Bettman's reign. Jacobs (is that his name) is big-time old school. And let's be honest, the league is run the Boston way these days.

It is a typical response from a biased mind though. Let's skirt the issue by looking for something that could place the onus of blame on them that has nothing to do with the actual play. It is just as stupid as people who say "it was a hockey play with unfortunate results". Does that mean that if I trip a player 5 feet from the board because I am losing a foot race that the "trip" was a "hockey play" and the arena was at fault because the player was close to the boards?

A trip is a "hockey play" just like interference. A cross check in the same situation is a "hockey play" that occurs 4-5 times a game. Sure it's a penalty, but so is interference right?

The reasoning is flawed and ridiculous and does nothing but move the onus of guilt away from the target Cherry wants to avoid.

This hit was not a result of seamless glass, if it was then what Cherry brought up would be relevant. If that hit happens in Anaheim and Perry is lost for the season could I say Anaheim has the worst ice in the league and the owner should shut up because the dangerous ice proves he doesn't have any interest in protecting his teams players?

He is playing a shell game to justify the situation. It is self defense 101.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two more votes in..

Rob Ray - Good hit.

Kerry Fraser - Excessive and unnecessary. (by the way, he noted he finally saw the other angle which made it clear Chara pushed him in. Makes you wonder why the TV never shows that angle)

I find it interesting that all the goons stand up for Chara, but the refs, good players, etc, see the clear dirty hit. I think this speaks to how polarized the game is and why they can't get anything done.

Is it really just the goons though? It seems like the majority agree with the call. Habs fans are obviously enraged about it but nobody else seems too upset except for a handful of exceptions. On HFboards (a sort of stand in for "the masses"), for instance, the consensus is that Habs fans are overreacting, hypocritical babies that put lives at risk by jamming the 911 emergency line over an unfortunate hockey play. Most people on TSN, Sportsnet and CBC seem to share the opinion that this isn't a big deal.

Can you give me a more complete list of all the "famous" people that like and dislike the call?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with BTH on this. I'm just not getting the impression many players find the hit all that bad. I heard a Sidney Crosby comment today, he had a wondeful chance to further his cause, but he said nothing really. Just a comment that head-shots should be eliminated. He avoided saying anything about the Chara hit.

Edited by Habsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a typical response from a biased mind though. Let's skirt the issue by looking for something that could place the onus of blame on them that has nothing to do with the actual play. It is just as stupid as people who say "it was a hockey play with unfortunate results". Does that mean that if I trip a player 5 feet from the board because I am losing a foot race that the "trip" was a "hockey play" and the arena was at fault because the player was close to the boards?

A trip is a "hockey play" just like interference. A cross check in the same situation is a "hockey play" that occurs 4-5 times a game. Sure it's a penalty, but so is interference right?

+1, that's what I've been claiming (and debating with friends) over the last week. This IS the real issue. Beyond protecting Chara from any suspension (trying to start a fight after a OT loss anyone...), this is why the decision is a real non-sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really just the goons though? It seems like the majority agree with the call. Habs fans are obviously enraged about it but nobody else seems too upset except for a handful of exceptions. On HFboards (a sort of stand in for "the masses"), for instance, the consensus is that Habs fans are overreacting, hypocritical babies that put lives at risk by jamming the 911 emergency line over an unfortunate hockey play. Most people on TSN, Sportsnet and CBC seem to share the opinion that this isn't a big deal.

Can you give me a more complete list of all the "famous" people that like and dislike the call?

You are right. Many people side with Chara and the league on this issue. Just like many did with Mike Richards, David Steckel and Matt Cooke. Isn't that the whole problem? Sometimes the majority just means all the fools are on the same side.

As for Habs fans overreacting, that is an enticingly easy argument to make. In the end, I fear it's rather a case of people underreacting. A player looked near-death after a violent act that left him, luckily, with only a concussion and a damaged vertebrae. Really, regarding violence and hockey, collectively we have been underreacting for years. All of us, Habs fans included. We watch almost indifferently as Steve Moore had his career ended, Chris Simon wacks people on the head, Games turn into 300 PIM sideshows. And now, this year The Chara incident, the loss of the games best player and another 71 wonderful concussions thus far.

The league needs to step in, set clear guidelines regarding punishment and mette out harsh discipline when unnecessary violence occurs. That means banning fighting as well. Don't get me wrong, I admire and enjoy a good tilt. I applaud White or Mara for sticking up for their teammates. But the fact the must stick up like that at all is kind of ridiculous. Proper rules and proper enforcement should remove such a need, right? I want safety and dignity restored to the sport I so love. I'm tired of it being the butt of a Rodney Dangerfield joke ("Went to a fight last night and a hockey game broke out")

But, for all that to happen, we must stop collectively rationalizing these incidents as "part of the game" or "hockey plays".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right. Many people side with Chara and the league on this issue. Just like many did with Mike Richards, David Steckel and Matt Cooke. Isn't that the whole problem? Sometimes the majority just means all the fools are on the same side.

As for Habs fans overreacting, that is an enticingly easy argument to make. In the end, I fear it's rather a case of people underreacting. A player looked near-death after a violent act that left him, luckily, with only a concussion and a damaged vertebrae. Really, regarding violence and hockey, collectively we have been underreacting for years. All of us, Habs fans included. We watch almost indifferently as Steve Moore had his career ended, Chris Simon wacks people on the head, Games turn into 300 PIM sideshows. And now, this year The Chara incident, the loss of the games best player and another 71 wonderful concussions thus far.

The league needs to step in, set clear guidelines regarding punishment and mette out harsh discipline when unnecessary violence occurs. That means banning fighting as well. Don't get me wrong, I admire and enjoy a good tilt. I applaud White or Mara for sticking up for their teammates. But the fact the must stick up like that at all is kind of ridiculous. Proper rules and proper enforcement should remove such a need, right? I want safety and dignity restored to the sport I so love. I'm tired of it being the butt of a Rodney Dangerfield joke ("Went to a fight last night and a hockey game broke out")

But, for all that to happen, we must stop collectively rationalizing these incidents as "part of the game" or "hockey plays".

Everybody is getting caught up in the red herring of "intent". They don't care about the hypocrisy of previous decisions and they don't care that the puck was 2 zones away and there were 2 players behind Chara to cover him should he get beat along the boards or that it was 4-0 or that there were 10 seconds left in the period.

Everybody I talk to regurgitates what they have heard on TV. Chara didn't mean it. It's a hockey play. If it was anywhere else on the ice it's not a big deal. He was finishing his check. etc etc etc. Baaaaaaaaaaa. Baaaaaaaaaaaa.

It really doesn't matter what anybody thinks. How many experts thought the Canadiens were crazy to trade Halak? How many experts continued to predict the Canadiens demise this season. How many are convinced that Subban is a jerk who doesn't know his place as a rookie? It is irrelevant to look for consensus because consensus takes the easy route. If you put every fan base in the position where they lost one of their elite prospects to a reckless and unnecessary play and "then" asked them their opinion, then you would get a realistic assessment about where the hit stands, outside of that it is just noise and a waste of time to lobby for them to agree with you.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most hockey players just go with the flow. the goons have actively supported chara. Only a few players have come out definitely and called out the league. There isn't a culture in the NHL to speak up. If CC doesn't get you the next time you hit someone, the goons and the code will get you.

As for Crosby, I wasn't all that surprised. He never said anything before he got hit, and he only seems to talk about his own hit.

I think Sedin was right by calling out the stupid logic in the nhl decision. They ran a few replays of Chara making some pretty iffy hits from behind and taking people out (remember that hit on Grabs), yet he never gets suspended. They seem to excuse him for being big and strong. So as Sedin says, when he nails someone and take them out next week, he will still have a clean record, so.....

I will give you a counter example. Ovie was running a lot of people. Nothing super dirty, but after a while they gave him a suspension for one of those hits. The message to Ovie was to tone it down and stop trying to kill guys. If you have noticed, Ovie got the message. Plays hard, but seems to pull up now when the hit is "iffy", when he used to go for it. IMO, this same message needed to be sent to chara...

I found it interesting that the NHL said that most concussions this year were accidental and from legal hits. The narrative was it was just the reality of the sport and there was not a lack of respect. (note, Pacs hit fell into this category). I think that is being turned around on them. The new dialog from GMs is that they need to do something to fix the game, if normal means players like Crosby keep getting hurt. It will be interesting to see if the Shapio and Molson's of the league can get anything actually pushed through when you have Burke and his ilk running the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most hockey players just go with the flow. the goons have actively supported chara. Only a few players have come out definitely and called out the league. There isn't a culture in the NHL to speak up. If CC doesn't get you the next time you hit someone, the goons and the code will get you.

As for Crosby, I wasn't all that surprised. He never said anything before he got hit, and he only seems to talk about his own hit.

I think Sedin was right by calling out the stupid logic in the nhl decision. They ran a few replays of Chara making some pretty iffy hits from behind and taking people out (remember that hit on Grabs), yet he never gets suspended. They seem to excuse him for being big and strong. So as Sedin says, when he nails someone and take them out next week, he will still have a clean record, so.....

I will give you a counter example. Ovie was running a lot of people. Nothing super dirty, but after a while they gave him a suspension for one of those hits. The message to Ovie was to tone it down and stop trying to kill guys. If you have noticed, Ovie got the message. Plays hard, but seems to pull up now when the hit is "iffy", when he used to go for it. IMO, this same message needed to be sent to chara...

I found it interesting that the NHL said that most concussions this year were accidental and from legal hits. The narrative was it was just the reality of the sport and there was not a lack of respect. (note, Pacs hit fell into this category). I think that is being turned around on them. The new dialog from GMs is that they need to do something to fix the game, if normal means players like Crosby keep getting hurt. It will be interesting to see if the Shapio and Molson's of the league can get anything actually pushed through when you have Burke and his ilk running the show.

I don't know if I buy Bettman's percentages because it comes down to what he deems accidental or legal hits. It is very easy for him to come out and say 27%, 12% and 8% with zero video evidence of what he is referring to especially when they lack consistency in what they suspend and call illegal hits.

It is like me telling you I went through every goal allowed in the NHL and 6% were bad goals, 29% were unstoppable, and 65% were in the grey area. Where is the context or proof for you to believe me, especially if I have a history of lying my ass off to get myself out of trouble.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROFL.. I think we have had that argument. :)

It is like me telling you I went through every goal allowed in the NHL and 6% were bad goals, 29% were unstoppable, and 65% were in the grey area. Where is the context or proof for you to believe me, especially if I have a history of lying my ass off to get myself out of trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if I buy Bettman's percentages because it comes down to what he deems accidental or legal hits. It is very easy for him to come out and say 27%, 12% and 8% with zero video evidence of what he is referring to especially when they lack consistency in what they suspend and call illegal hits.

It is like me telling you I went through every goal allowed in the NHL and 6% were bad goals, 29% were unstoppable, and 65% were in the grey area. Where is the context or proof for you to believe me, especially if I have a history of lying my ass off to get myself out of trouble.

Zero video evidence and zero math skills to boot, the 4 'categories' added up to 95%. The other 5% apparently was left off due to a 'lack of evidence'...not buying that one especially since it wasn't in the original report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Bettman is dreaming up stats and trying his best to maintain what small ounce of credibility he might have in the media.

Imagine that, the figurehead of a major corporation lying about deficiencies in his organization. Crazy.

I'm glad that the hit on Pacioretty took it to the next level and has incited enough public outrage that he's forced to at least pretend that there is a problem.

Look forward to seeing how your 5 point plan works out Gar-bear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zero video evidence and zero math skills to boot, the 4 'categories' added up to 95%. The other 5% apparently was left off due to a 'lack of evidence'...not buying that one especially since it wasn't in the original report.

Bettman is of the school that you deny, deny, deny and hope it goes away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Bettman's statistics have to be assumed to be BS. As anyone who works with statistics will tell you, you can make the numbers say anything, and he is bound to massage the numbers to make whatever case he wants to make.

2. The safety of arenas is a legitimate issue. The error is in trying to make it the only issue. As Wamsley says, doing so is a dodge, a smokescreen designed to obscure the more serious problem, which is lack of respect.

3. On 'lack of respect:' old-school people like Cherry have been griping about this for years and years (generally blaming it on equipment and the instigator rule). On a rational level, then, it IS surprising that they almost unanimously refuse to put 2 & 2 together and say that the Pacioretty hit constitutes the ultimate example of this. Technically not a direct shot to the head - just a catastrophically reckless play of the sort we never would have seen in earlier eras. What the hell is 'lack of respect,' if not that??

4. An illegal play (i.e., a hit away from the puck) is NOT a 'hockey play' any more than a hook or a high-stick is. The whole proposition that Chara's hit was a hockey play represents a classic case of Newspeak.

5. The replay angle. It is a very, very disturbing question whether the people jumping to Chara's defence actually paid much heed to the 'bad' angle. Or did they just see the most common one, which does look sort of like a 'normal' hit (albeit still a reckless one, see above)? In other words, is there anything resembling due diligence in either the media or Campbell's office?

6. One thing incident reveals is just how much goodwill Chara has accumulated by virtue of not taking full advantage of his physical strength over the years. It's almost as though there is a sense of gratitude toward him for not abusing his power and systematically destroying all comers. This is grotesquely distorting the entire issue.

7. The desire of so many people involved in the NHL to deny the problem is surreal and requires explanation. It can't be that they're afraid of taking the physical part of the game away, because we had very physical hockey long before the era of life-endangering reckless hits. I suspect that what's actually going on here is another case of warped NHL machismo. They feel that we're pansies for being concerned about people getting hurt (and in this respect it doesn't help that the NHL has been under attack for decades from people that I would agree are basically pious bleeding-hearts - the whole 'if only we could get rid of this awful bodychecking and fighting' crowd). The real concern of the Chara defenders is the perceived sissification of the game. REAL men can take it. A REAL man shrugs off a damned concussion. A REAL man wouldn't moan just because Chara steered his head into the stanchion. I mean, this is a league where Mark Messier's attempts to develop a safer hockey helmet have found little response because the players feel that protecting their heads better makes them look like pussies. Such a culture is incompatible with common sense, and will lead directly to paralysis and death.

In short: WE are not the ones who are crazy. Think for two seconds about the implications of our position - a safer game where players show each other basic respect on the ice - versus that of the NHL - ruined lives, paraplegic former players, people killed on the ice - and you realize that immediately. What we're seeing is a classic case of 'spin' and media manipulation, where you emit a rhetorical fog ('arena safety!' 'hockey play!' And most of all: 'intent!') designed to redefine an issue in a way that neutralizes it as much as possible. Politicians do this all the time. You get ahead of the issue by reframing it. The NHL and its media peons have done a world-class job of this.

Edited by The Chicoutimi Cucumber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, plausible deniability, a favourite of the sleazy who often find themselves in positions of power.

And yes, CC, politicians do this all the time because most of them are lawyers like the shit weasel Buttman.

Edited by thehabbit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politicians do this all the time. You get ahead of the issue by reframing it. The NHL and its media peons have done a world-class job of this.

This sums up Bettman's entire reign. Constant lawyer speak where he says nothing and accomplishes nothing but clouding the issue. I am convinced that the "intent" game is there for them to manipulate the media and use slight of hand to move their focus away from the point.

We are talking about a commissioner who has sold TWO franchises and rubber stamped them to fraudulent crooks and draws his line in the sand with a multi billionaire and goes out of his way to pull every string possible to keep him out of the league and all the guy wants to do is overpay for a failing team and move it to a fertile territory. He has spent almost 4 years stonewalling a Coyotes move and spent less than 6 months trying to save the Nords or Jets, but sells that he is against franchise movement.

If anybody was diligent enough to take all of his press conferences/media appearances and write a book, the contradictions would be colossal.

It is pretty clear that his first priority is $$ and maintaining the proper influence among the most powerful NHL owners. The game is secondary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zero video evidence and zero math skills to boot, the 4 'categories' added up to 95%. The other 5% apparently was left off due to a 'lack of evidence'...not buying that one especially since it wasn't in the original report.

Homer Simpson: "Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homer Simpson: "Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."

That's the response you get when asked to justify why heavy sack beatings are up a whopping 900%. (I saw the episode the other day.) Both stats (the 900% sack beatings and the missing 5% of concussions) are out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bettman has Pacioretty's concussion in the "legal body hits" category. Tells you how much his stats mean.

He hasn't separated "legal body hits that just happened to result in concussions" from "legal body hits to players in vulnerable positions that result in concussions."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bettman has Pacioretty's concussion in the "legal body hits" category. Tells you how much his stats mean.

He hasn't separated "legal body hits that just happened to result in concussions" from "legal body hits to players in vulnerable positions that result in concussions."

Apparently 24-6 is the GM's who thought that there should be no punishment.

For all those expecting any meaningful change in the NHL, you can give up the pipe dream. This will not change without a significant hit to the bottom line ($$$) or a death or paralysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently 24-6 is the GM's who thought that there should be no punishment.

For all those expecting any meaningful change in the NHL, you can give up the pipe dream. This will not change without a significant hit to the bottom line ($$$) or a death or paralysis.

Hopefully Air Canada and Via Rail follow through on their threats then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully Air Canada and Via Rail follow through on their threats then.

I didn't take Via's letter as a threat, but rather voicing concern. Unlike Air Canada who have basically painted themselves into a corner, I think Via can slink away, so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...