| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 12/15/2011 : 20:30:08
I'm not sure how McQuaid managed to avoid suspension for his knee-on-knee hit on Foligno the other night? It looks to be the exact same type of hit that Porter laid on Booth a week ago, that caused Porter to get a 4 game suspension. McQuaid was given a 2500 fine.
McQuaid knee on Foligno: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvwf_IbuVJA
Porter knee on Booth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmaWfMQrtjc
Other than the result for the kneed player (Booth is out 4-6 weeks, Foligno came back the same night), both are nearly identical. Both players were given 5-and-a-game during their games.
Why the difference? Surely not the outcome, which is not supposed to factor into suspensions for dangerous plays...
|
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Duke |
Posted - 12/22/2011 : 19:40:48
I thought what Lucic did to Miller was cheap. How many times in a game does a goalie have to put himself into a vunerable position knowing an opposing player can cream him, wipe him out ??
99 % of the time players realize a goalies vunerability and penchant to possibly get hurt bad...so they just follow the code and try their very best to avoid these collisions, thank god. If not all goalies would be injured each and every game.
Lucic apparently had no regard for Millers safety and just drilled him...legal hit or not Lucic made no attempt to avoid Miller in my opinion.
Did anyone see M. Pac love tap Chara with his stick earlier in that game after he ( Max . P ) scored ?? Shouldn`t rub a D - mans nose in it after you scored, Max . P really pissed Chara off with this jesture...guess what happened next. If not for the hit being where it was ( by that stantion ) it would have been a clean hit anywhere else on the ice.
Tim Thomas and Chara are quite the combination, those Bruins will be so hard to beat in 7 games this season. I really don`t know if any team are strong enough to beat them this season over a 7 game series. Why is it no one can screen Thomas ?? He is so small, you would think he could be screened so easily. |
| n/a |
Posted - 12/21/2011 : 04:53:22
I thought Shanahan got it dead right for Lucic's 1 game suspension. I also thought he got it right with the Miller hit as well with no suspension.
I am actually being put in an extremely uncomfortable and new position of late . . . I am consistently agreeing with NHL league disciplinarians! 
All that being said - I do think the Bruins definitely got a pass from Campbell many times, specifically with many dirty hits from Chara and Lucic, but others as well. But one cannot blame the current regime for the last regime's mistakes, so I have no complaints so far.
I think the real test is when Chara needs to get suspended, myself. Trust me . . . it'll happen very soon. If not this year, then next.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 12/19/2011 : 14:43:59
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
well, it looks like the suspension goose-egg is over, Lucic has received a 1 game suspension for his hit on Zac Rinaldo. Ironically, of all the suspect Bruin hits this year, this one seemed to be the most innocent of them all...
If that one was innocent, then it goes to show you how ugly the others were! That was clearly a hit from behind on a guy in a vulnerable position, and clearly boarding!
Give Simmonds credit for going after Lucic, only to have McQuaid AND Chara there to help defend the already tough Lucic!!! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 12/19/2011 : 11:59:05
well, it looks like the suspension goose-egg is over, Lucic has received a 1 game suspension for his hit on Zac Rinaldo. Ironically, of all the suspect Bruin hits this year, this one seemed to be the most innocent of them all... |
| spade632 |
Posted - 12/17/2011 : 09:18:00
Foligno's having a rough week.
First he gets kneed by McQuaid in the Boston game and last night against the Pens he gets kneed by Simon Despres (two minute penalty for kneeing) and had to leave the game (Foligno did not return).
I'll be curious to see if there's anything supplemental on this play Video > http://watch.tsn.ca/featured/clip587536#clip587536 < The knee is about the 1:25 mark. (Incidentally, big nights for both Spezza and Cowen - 4pts each 2G2A and 1G3A respectively in a 6-4 win)
Beans - that's about my assessment on Chara/Pacioretty too. Extremely unfortunate to see the injury (great to see him back though) but anywhere else on the ice and it's 2 minutes for interference. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 12:06:17
Lucic on Miller was a joke. If Miller don't flop like a fish out of water and get hurt we are not talking about it.
The Chara on Max P is still a contention issue, however I still believe that it has more to do with the stanchion that it did if the hit was clean or not. Any other area of the ice and it is a 2 minute interference penalty at worst.
However, I do agree that other situations have happened that are very comparable to situations involving Boston that did get suspended.Tootoo running the goalie is a perfect example. I still don't think either deserved a suspension, however if one gets suspended, so should the other. |
| Guest4388 |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 10:17:02
Yeah I'm really tried of seeing Bruins players get away with all...
Lucic/Miller
Pacioretty/Chara
McQuaid/Foligno to name only just a few.. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 10:15:15
quote:
Originally posted by spade632
Unfortunately, I think the outcome still factors into suspension decisions.
It's been said on the forums here (and elsewhere) before - suspend for the infraction NOT the outcome.
I had thought that this was a mandate for reviews this season with dangerous hits, not just forum complaining - however I can find nothing online indicating that they were going to look at the hit, not the outcome.
According to Shanahan's video justification for the Porter hit, it sounds like the injury to Booth was taken into consideration in the suspension: http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/43462-VIDEO-Brendan-Shanahan-explains-fourgame-suspension-given-to-Colorados-Kevin-Porter.html
And, this article states that Foligno's ability to continue playing did factor into the assessment: http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/15/mcquaid-avoids-suspension-for-kneeing-foligno/.
However, this line: "the NHL Department of Player Safety felt the knee-on-knee play was more “reactionary” than “with intent to injure” and didn’t deserve any additional discipline beyond the penalties called." seems to suggest that they felt the McQuaid hit was not intentional, while they felt the Porter knee was. Again, I see little difference between the two plays other than the outcome, but I don't work at the NHL Dept of Player Safety.
According to the same article, this is the 3rd time a Bruin player has avoided suspension for controversial plays this season - the McQuaid hit, a Marchand slewfoot (I didn't hear about that), and of course the Lucic hit on Miller. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 09:14:39
One or two missed calls that many agree should be suspensions is complaining. Multiple missed calls that many agree should be suspensions is far different. I was one on the side of the quit complaining camp. However, it is hard to argue that Boston has had various situations in the past few seasons with almost no repercussions.
There is something there. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 09:02:21
Ah, thanks, i get it now, the "no stick" thing! Makes sense!
Not sure why, but i was thinking teflon was implying "weak". THAT, didn't make sense! |
| spade632 |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 08:42:47
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
BTW, nuxfan.....what's with the title of this thread? Did i miss something?
Alex, I think the idea is that there's a pattern where a Bruin commits some sort of suspendable offence but gets off scot-free stemming from the fact that Campbell plays for the Bruins. Hence "Teflon" as in nothing sticks to them..
Take for example:
Porter knee-on-knee on Booth (4 games)
vs.
McQuaid knee-on-knee on Foligno ($2500 fine)
Or, for that matter, no suspension/fine for Lucic on Miller.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 08:22:32
quote:
Originally posted by spade632
Unfortunately, I think the outcome still factors into suspension decisions.
It's been said on the forums here (and elsewhere) before - suspend for the infraction NOT the outcome.
YES INDEED!!! I've worn out my soapbox preaching this for a long time now!! 
BTW, nuxfan.....what's with the title of this thread? Did i miss something? |
| spade632 |
Posted - 12/16/2011 : 04:31:29
Unfortunately, I think the outcome still factors into suspension decisions.
It's been said on the forums here (and elsewhere) before - suspend for the infraction NOT the outcome. |
