| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 10/04/2010 : 11:29:44
Should Montreal Canadians forward Mike Cammalleri recieve a suspension for his two handed slash to the back of Islanders rookie Nino Niederreiter calf?
Pasty |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 10/10/2010 : 02:09:38
My opinion can't be fact, otherwise it's not an opinion. The facts I use, simply enforce my opinion when it's being debated. It's my opinion granted, but there is significant video evidence supporting it. It doesn't matter how many times you spin it, I gave facts to support my opinion.
Facts;
- Niederreiter's initial hit was legal, shoulder to shoulder
- Cammalleri's return hit in the next sequence was clearly high, his hands, and stick were above his shoulders, the video shows that clearly.
- Niederreiter did push Cammalleri away with a cross check, on the arm, again the video shows that clearly
- Cammalleri did take a swipe/slash/spear/poke with his stick in the vicinity of Niederreiter's face
- Cammalleri did slash Niederreiter, from behind.
These are indisputable facts, that the videos clearly show, there shouldn't be any argument there.
These facts support my opinions, I do not touch on heresay, I do not touch on what was said in an verbality they may have had, I do not bring Cammalleri's character or history in to play, although I did make light of his size, it in no way detracted from the explanation of my opinion.
I simply took the antagonist's role in debating your opinion, and I backed up my debate with facts, it doesn't matter how much you repeat the version through rouge, blanc et blu, glasses, the facts are what they are.
You chose to look for reasons to condone what transpired, I chose not to. Simple as that. |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 10/09/2010 : 18:22:40
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Pasty, do you really think I would have put up such 'colorful commentary', had I not repeatedly also, reviewed the videos? You choose to see things in your way, which by the way, sounds more like personal bias, than my analysis, as I mean, really Cammy really IS a wee man! That's fact! 
You are making assumptions regarding my bias, I never once stated I didn't like Cammalleri, or had any particular opinion about Niederreiter. I explained the sequence of events from my perspective, from the videos you so graciouisly provided.
Again, I'll disseminate what actually happens versus what you are seeing.
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7
here let me discribe it as i see it, i've just watched three times again and my opinion has changed:
Cammalleri Takes offense to the blindside run Neiderrieter takes at him,
He took offence because he got caught dangling, and the hit as you admitted, was legal, stop the lawyer talk about it being a 'blindside run' 
Cammalleri later gets back on the play and hits Neideriter and says Something to him,
You left out the fact, that the 'hit' Cammy threw had about three potential infractions in it, as I already mentioned earlier.
Cammalleri than turns and is skateing away with his head being the only part of him faceing Neiderriter (still chriping at the rookie)
Sounds like a scene from 'The Exorcist on Ice', I wonder if Laraque will be in thnis Ice Capade too.
Neiderreiter than throws a light cross check to the back of Cammalleri (who is skateing away still chriping) ,,
Okay, not what I saw, I thought Cammy was shoved on the arm from the side, but it could have just seemed that way as his head was apparently on backwards(see above)
Cammalleri turns and swipes his stick back at him (no stabbing motion by the way more of a high slashing motion) then the ref gets in between them.
You make it sound like he's using a baby wipe on the excremental *ss of a toddler, I prefer my 'lady-like', description I used earlier. Another infraction that he got away with either way.
Neiderrieter trys to skate away Cammalleri pursues hitting him one more time, then returns the light crosscheck then the slash,
I saw no secondary cross check from Niederreiter, only Cammy chasing him around, like that little Taco Bell chihauhau after a burrito, and nice of you to downplay the reason for this whole thread by smiply calling it 'the slash'.
(notice how i re told this whole sequnce without alludeing to my bias for one side or another your colourfull comentary allthough amusing is much like a lawyer useing this same tatic to make his client seem better and the opposition seem worse in the eyes of the jury)
By mentioning you are not alluding to your bias, you are actually drawing more attention to it, as I stated facts based on video evidence, whereas you imply I used colorful commentary and lawyerspeak. I'm not trying to get Cammy sent to the Big House, I simply appreciate factual analysis, when a video is presented for review.
Cammy did not respond correctly, legally in the confines of the NHL, or justifiably. That's fact, he's got the benchwarmer's *ss to prove it.
Fat Elvis Rocked.
[b]Pasty[b]
you keep saying the word Factual.. explain to me exactly what is Factual about your opinion,,, not very much in my opinion, so what makes your opinion more factual than mine? because you refer constantly to Cammalleri's height?
Pasty |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 10/09/2010 : 11:07:18
Pasty, do you really think I would have put up such 'colorful commentary', had I not repeatedly also, reviewed the videos? You choose to see things in your way, which by the way, sounds more like personal bias, than my analysis, as I mean, really Cammy really IS a wee man! That's fact!
You are making assumptions regarding my bias, I never once stated I didn't like Cammalleri, or had any particular opinion about Niederreiter. I explained the sequence of events from my perspective, from the videos you so graciouisly provided.
Again, I'll disseminate what actually happens versus what you are seeing.
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7
here let me discribe it as i see it, i've just watched three times again and my opinion has changed:
Cammalleri Takes offense to the blindside run Neiderrieter takes at him,
He took offence because he got caught dangling, and the hit as you admitted, was legal, stop the lawyer talk about it being a 'blindside run'
Cammalleri later gets back on the play and hits Neideriter and says Something to him,
You left out the fact, that the 'hit' Cammy threw had about three potential infractions in it, as I already mentioned earlier.
Cammalleri than turns and is skateing away with his head being the only part of him faceing Neiderriter (still chriping at the rookie)
Sounds like a scene from 'The Exorcist on Ice', I wonder if Laraque will be in thnis Ice Capade too.
Neiderreiter than throws a light cross check to the back of Cammalleri (who is skateing away still chriping) ,,
Okay, not what I saw, I thought Cammy was shoved on the arm from the side, but it could have just seemed that way as his head was apparently on backwards(see above)
Cammalleri turns and swipes his stick back at him (no stabbing motion by the way more of a high slashing motion) then the ref gets in between them.
You make it sound like he's using a baby wipe on the excremental *ss of a toddler, I prefer my 'lady-like', description I used earlier. Another infraction that he got away with either way.
Neiderrieter trys to skate away Cammalleri pursues hitting him one more time, then returns the light crosscheck then the slash,
I saw no secondary cross check from Niederreiter, only Cammy chasing him around, like that little Taco Bell chihauhau after a burrito, and nice of you to downplay the reason for this whole thread by smiply calling it 'the slash'.
(notice how i re told this whole sequnce without alludeing to my bias for one side or another your colourfull comentary allthough amusing is much like a lawyer useing this same tatic to make his client seem better and the opposition seem worse in the eyes of the jury)
By mentioning you are not alluding to your bias, you are actually drawing more attention to it, as I stated facts based on video evidence, whereas you imply I used colorful commentary and lawyerspeak. I'm not trying to get Cammy sent to the Big House, I simply appreciate factual analysis, when a video is presented for review.
Cammy did not respond correctly, legally in the confines of the NHL, or justifiably. That's fact, he's got the benchwarmer's *ss to prove it.
Fat Elvis Rocked.
[b]Pasty[b]
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/09/2010 : 10:53:17
He got one game for not hitting the guy??
Is that not enough??
Seriously, we must all be really hockey starved to be spending so much time on this. Let's talk about Eberle!!!
|
| nuxfan |
Posted - 10/09/2010 : 08:46:13
quote:
I think the reason he only got one game was because it doesn't apear to hit Neiderrieter
I think the only reason he got one game is because his name is "Cammarelli", and not "Cooke" or "Avery" or any other number of lower profile players.
I agree with Slozo - any motion of a stick to the head, whether contact is made or not, should be dealt with harshly. |
| n/a |
Posted - 10/09/2010 : 04:44:00
Let's leave out comparison's to McSorely's vicious swing (which if it didn't connect should have gotten more than 5 games as well), ok?
So, because it didn't connect perhaps (I actually think it might have slightly grazed him, from Niedereiter's small reaction and wipe of his own face for blood) the penalty should be less?
I just think that any clear action where a player is making a blatant high stick move to the face to injure should be dealt with very harshly . . . not only is it a flagrant violation, it is very dangerous.
Do you not agree, Pasty? How many games do YOU think Cammy should have gotten?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 10/09/2010 : 04:11:42
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Fat Elvis:
Your last comment was . . . . AWESOME!
Thanks for the morning laugh, nothing else to say. Oh wait, I have something to add:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH3bqxNiJSo
At the 0:12 mark is the "high slashing motion" towards the face of Neiderreiter (as described so lovingly by Pasty). Because it does come from the height of a vertically challenged fellow, it is coming at him from under his visor.
I could see it being described as closer to a slash than a spear - which is generally more of a stabbing motion by definition. But even if we accept it as a slash instead of a spear . . . it is to the face of the player.
Does that not warrant more than one game, Pasty?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Yess 100 % if he had made contact... and this sounds ridcoulous because to be honest, anytime someone swings his stick to another players face or head it should be met with drastic consequences (weather he hit him or not) this i can agree. I think the reason he only got one game was because it doesn't apear to hit Neiderrieter and what leads me to believe it didn't hit nino was because Neideirrieter himself only focused on the slash after the game and i think had he hit him he would have gotten the 5 games,,, but lets also remember this wasn't a visious swing at a players head like the Mcsorley incident. |
| n/a |
Posted - 10/09/2010 : 03:54:07
Fat Elvis:
Your last comment was . . . . AWESOME!
Thanks for the morning laugh, nothing else to say. Oh wait, I have something to add:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH3bqxNiJSo
At the 0:12 mark is the "high slashing motion" towards the face of Neiderreiter (as described so lovingly by Pasty). Because it does come from the height of a vertically challenged fellow, it is coming at him from under his visor.
I could see it being described as closer to a slash than a spear - which is generally more of a stabbing motion by definition. But even if we accept it as a slash instead of a spear . . . it is to the face of the player.
Does that not warrant more than one game, Pasty?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 10/09/2010 : 02:38:13
here let me discribe it as i see it, i've just watched three times again and my opinion has changed:
Cammalleri Takes offense to the blindside run Neiderrieter takes at him, Cammalleri later gets back on the play and hits Neideriter and says Something to him, Cammalleri than turns and is skateing away with his head being the only part of him faceing Neiderriter (still chriping at the rookie) Neiderreiter than throws a light cross check to the back of Cammalleri (who is skateing away still chriping) ,, Cammalleri turns and swipes his stick back at him (no stabbing motion by the way more of a high slashing motion) then the ref gets in between them. Neiderrieter trys to skate away Cammalleri pursues hitting him one more time, then returns the light crosscheck then the slash, (notice how i re told this whole sequnce without alludeing to my bias for one side or another your colourfull comentary allthough amusing is much like a lawyer useing this same tatic to make his client seem better and the opposition seem worse in the eyes of the jury)
Pasty |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 10/09/2010 : 02:02:31
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7
here you go Fat Elvis you were right the following is a quote from an article on TSN.ca about the new rules on Blindside hits :
We've seen a couple of blindside hits, shoulder to shoulder, shoulder to chest, that are still legal," league disciplinarian Colin Campbell said. "I can't tell you that I've seen exactly a player who's tried to avoid it. Hopefully they are avoiding it."
so yes Shoulder to Shoulder is still legal i was mistaken, it stilll looked chippy to me, and its easy to portray Cammalleri as a coward in this as you so elegantly did with some well phrashed creative writing, its not for Cammy to drop first because this rookie wasn't going to drop, this kid should have droped when Cammalleri confronted period.
Pasty
Now Pasty, don't let your Cammalleri man-crush get in the way of your common sense.  (I am joking)
My writing was not to paint Cammy a coward, the videos that you provided, speak for themselves, I only helped to clarify, albeit, elegantly, I agree.
You've lost me with the statement about who drops them first, is there a section in the rule book about that as well? If Cammy really wanted to beat the kid down for that clean check, why didn't he just throw em' down, borrow a ladder, and start pummeling the whelp, being the physical specimen of aggression and animosity that he is.
I know, let me try this one. He got caught in a embarrasing hit, thought, 'I'll show this punk motherf*cker who he's dealing with', realized, 'damn, I'm only 5'5", 125lbs, he's a big fella!".
He then continued his tantrum of terror by challenging? the rook to a fight? As I explained, I saw Niederreiter maliciously and dangerously(again, I embelish for your sake),shove him away, whence Cammy took a rather lady-like, yeah that's right, I said lady-like, poke at the rookies face, with his stick!!! Not a fist, not a glove, nothing to lead one to believe he was actually looking for a fight. The rookie looked to the ref, with a sort of confused, 'can the Munchkins actually do that here in Oz?', look, and once realizing that yes, yes they can, he decided to try and get back in to the game. The shenanigans that transpired after?, well I covered that before.
Now, where in that sequence was the cue, that it was up to Niederreiter, to drop the gloves first? Was it high-noon, and he wasn't the sherrif? Was it when someone whistled that spaghetti western gunfight whistle that made Eastwood famous? Was it when Cammy said "Draw, pardner"? Actually that could have been it, but Cammy was speaking into Niederreiter's navel, so I'm sure it was missed.
I argue that Niederreiter had no reason to fight, as he knew he threw a clean check, that and he was slightly scared of potential child abuse accusations.
|
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 10/08/2010 : 21:31:28
here you go Fat Elvis you were right the following is a quote from an article on TSN.ca about the new rules on Blindside hits :
We've seen a couple of blindside hits, shoulder to shoulder, shoulder to chest, that are still legal," league disciplinarian Colin Campbell said. "I can't tell you that I've seen exactly a player who's tried to avoid it. Hopefully they are avoiding it."
so yes Shoulder to Shoulder is still legal i was mistaken, it stilll looked chippy to me, and its easy to portray Cammalleri as a coward in this as you so elegantly did with some well phrashed creative writing, its not for Cammy to drop first because this rookie wasn't going to drop, this kid should have droped when Cammalleri confronted period.
Pasty |
| Guest7886 |
Posted - 10/08/2010 : 07:45:30
I'm amazed he got off so light. There's at least 2 suspendable infractions in that chain of events, both of them arguably deserving more than a 1 game ban, particularly the spear/highstick...
I still don't understand why the NHL doesn't implement something like a "minimum suspension is 5 games" rule. Make players/teams actually feel the sting of sitting a player for that long and then maybe these suspensions will actually have an effect. The 32k that Cammalleri loses out on is nothing but a slap on the wrist to him and the 1 game is completely inconsequential.
Once again, Campbell's decision is a complete joke. |
| n/a |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 20:24:13
Fat Elvis - I hope that if I am ever in trouble with the law, that you are not lead prosecutor . . . excellent breakdown, and I completely agree.
Which is why i would have given 5 games.
If properly policed by the referees (who would obviously have to be backed solidly by Campbell et al), these vicous spearing incidents, and other stupid behaviours, would be very rare indeed. Instead, with a one game suspension, it almost seems like condoning it.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 16:45:46
when I first saw the replay, I thought for sure the infraction everyone was talking about was the stick in the face gesture - how is raising the stick above your shoulders and poking it in the face/neck of another player not a multi-game suspension?
If that had been someone like Matt Cooke spearing the face of his opponent, there would have been more than one game. I say Cammarelli got off light with this one. |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 15:30:00
Elvis, good video evidence that Cammalleri is not a saint.
I was wondering since the contact was made above the opponents shoulder what would be penalty call for the infraction in this video |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 15:09:22
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
"If this was Avery, Boogaard, Brasher, Ruttu, Burrows, Kesler, any Canuck, any Flame, any Leaf then it absolutely should have been a more stiff penalty. "
As Jeff Dunham's "Sweet Daddy Dee'' would say, "That's some funny sh*t!"
PS. something I remembered from a year or so ago....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g_r0xcKVIY
Kharma? |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 15:04:46
I appreciate your gracious rebuttal Pasty, and I understand your passion for the perceived wrong, and if the videos supplied showed anything to support your stance, again, I would gladly concede to the wrong, but, , as I go back and look at the videos supplied by yourself, it not only strengthens my convictions, but makes Cammalleri look more the buffoon as I scrutinize them further, I'll try and explain.
In the first video, I see, and I am by no means a video expert, only saying what I see, Cammalleri carrying the puck, doing some fancy arse dangle/drop pass to the teammate coming up to his right, which I'm sure would have looked good on the highlight reel, except he left himself exposed and in an awkward position. I then see Niedereiter, come up beside Cammalleri, and check him, in an upward motion, starting in at least a shoulder to shoulder position, and following through upwards successfully throwing Cammalleri off balance and to the ice. All clean and legal, and a good check,in my opinion. I think, once viewed enough, this becomes apparent. Not taking a run, not taking a head shot, not a late hit, nothing other than a clean check to separate player from puck.
I can't speak for what happens between that sequence and the next and if that is where the incident you hear about happens, I can only take your word for it, I can only judge on what is there as video evidence that you provided. As in any court, hearsay is still hearsay.
In the second video, I see Niederreiter, playing the puck along the boards, and then Cammalleri comes in to check, probably guilty of a combination of elbowing, roughing, high-sticking, but as Beans kindly pointed out, only one infraction per contact .
I then see him stand there, calling Niederreiter out?, yet looking in no position to drop his mitts, and yet with a firm grip on his lumber, as evidenced in the next events. I see Niederreiter shove Cammalleri away, with yes, what could be called a vicious cross-check(I embellish for your sake), to which Cammalleri, instead of dropping said mitts and going at Niederreiter, decides to instead attempt to high-stick(for you Beans), him in the face, and back away as fast as his little size 5 skates allow him.
Niederreiter looks to the ref, and unbelievably, there is no penalty being called, so he tries to go after the play. Cammalleri, instead of realizing he got away with one, decides to pursue Niederrieter and physically interfere(another infraction)with Niederreter, and when that doesn't scare the bejesus out him, he decides to go for the ever popular slash from behind, once Niederreiter is fully turned away from him.
Kind of makes a one game suspension seem light now, doesn't it?
Again, I respect your opinion and am no way belittling it, only defending mine. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 14:48:59
It was incredibly out of character, hence the lighter suspection. Don't get me wrong. I am one of those "throw the book at 'em" kind of people but you gotta throw the book at the right people too.
If this was Avery, Boogaard, Brasher, Ruttu, Burrows, Kesler, any Canuck, any Flame, any Leaf then it absolutely should have been a more stiff penalty.
One game for a love tap and a slash by a player who really is a saint??
Good 'enough. Let's move on to some hockey.
Watch for me at the Oilers home opener tonight. I will be the one with the Oilers Jersey on. |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 14:29:00
You are right Fat Elvis deserves a Broken nose was a poor choice of words , what i meant by that he should have dropped the gloves when Cammalleri confronted him, I feel this was a very dangerous hit regardless of the rules but i will conceed I can understand your opinion. But if you are going to run a vet with a "questionable hit" you better be ready to back it up.
Now this is strictly rumour but i have herd from a fairly reliable source who played in the pre season with the habs (not in that game). This player told me Nino Neiderrieter had purposly spit on Cammalleri behind the play and that was the cause for Cammalleri to lose his head. Again don't jump all over me I know this player in passing having played hockey together when we were younger and being close friends with some of his close friends. But this is entirly possible given Cammy's out of character reaction,,,
Pasty |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 14:22:37
Hey Beans, just finished talking with Colin Campbell, he says since you know more about the rules then actual NHL referees he has job for you providing clarification for the entire NHL rulebook.!!!!
|
| Guest5052 |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 14:20:55
I have a few points to make on the subject if I may.
The technicality of whether its high sticking or spearing or anything else isn't really the crux of the matter. Its whether the league should do something in light of what Cammalleri did. At first I though for sure, I dont like the unnecessary two hand or waive the stick in a players face. But one game is about right in my estimation. It's not nothing, but there probably wasnt that serious of a risk of great harm there.
It also made me think that if Cammalleri had of turned around fought him and broke his cheek bone he probably would have got 5 mins and maybe an extra 2 for instigating. I know fighting is a more accepted element of hockey, but thinking about that out loud seems odd to me.
Finally, the idea that any and all stick infractions above the shoulder are called highsticking seems incorrect to me. Surely Dino Ciccarelli didnt go to jail for High-sticking... I ask was McSorely called for highsticking on the Braeshaer play (I'm not sure) or dave brown when he crosschecked sandstrom and broke his jaw... surely thats crosschecking and not highsticking... but as I said above that debate kinda misses the point in my opinion. I admit I may well be wrong, just seems wrong to me.
|
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 10:15:25
So far Pasty, and I'll admit I can do more researching, all I've seen regarding the blindside hit rule change, is blindside hits targeted at the head.
Another example of perception, but I saw no head contact, I saw, essentially, shoulder on shoulder, taking the height difference into consideration. There was no head contact, making it, as far as I have been able to discern, a legal hit.
I ask with sincerity, if there is a specific rule, stating other than blindside hits to the head, I will indeed graciously concede to your stance. If "The only difference being Cammalleri saw him at the last minute and avoided the hit to an extent.", is indeed the case, it makes it tough to argue it was even a blindside hit I would think, as every successful hit is somewhat blindsided if the hitee never sees it coming, for whatever reason.
This is a totally different situation than the Booth or Savard hits, those were vicious, malevolent checks, thrown with intent, even though still within the old rule, right or wrong, This was an intended separation of player from puck,
It was Cammalleri who opted for separation of head from shoulders, or lower leg from knee....
He deserved the slash? He should have gotten a broken nose?
I would hope for a better judgement than that from someone with your hockey knowledge. Condoning that sort of thought means, Bertuzzi was not wrong, or Simon really deserved to slash Hollweg in the face, etc. etc. etc.
PS. Sorry Beans, when I refer to Simon 'slashing', Hollweg in the face, I'm not implying the infraction wasn't high sticking |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 09:42:45
Still, people missing the point.
An NHL referee simply can not call a spearing penalty when the stick makes contact above the shoulders. By defintion,
ANY
contact above the shoulders is high sticking.
Not unlike slashing, hooking, or any other stick infraction. Once it is above the shoulders no other penalty can be called. |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 10/07/2010 : 03:19:31
OK Beans lets make this simple, because you are missing the point and I sure hope you do not referee a hockey game anywhere.
Did Cammalleri stab at his opponent with the point of the blade of his stick?
Simple Yes or No answer will do.
It does not matter where he did it, in the ankle, the thigh, the jock strap, the gut, the shoulder, in between the shoulder blades, or in the head.
Spearing "carries not more weight" then highsticking but as I said it "carries a heavier penalty". It is an automatic double minor when contact is not made, a major when a spear makes contact, and a match when there is an injury. Rule of thumb with referees is if the player cannot continue the shift then an injury has occured and the match penalty is given.
By comparison you can get a only minor penalty with a high stick when no injury has occured. This means a cut anywhere as result of the highstick will get you a double minor.
Big difference in the penalty.
You are right, they will not call the spear/highstick penalty, the call should have been a double minor penalty for spearing (it did not look like contact was made) and a major for slashing which carries an automatic game misconduct. That certainly could have been called under NHL rules. You cannot get a "dual infraction", but two penalties by one player can be called on the same play.
Hence when reviewed and 3 hrs after the game when ol' Colin Campbell called, Cammarelli recieved a deserved 1 game suspension. |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 22:07:16
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
Wow, another epic rhetorical battle, that totally neglects the topic at hand , sure makes for entertaining reading though!
Spearing, high-sticking, the non-call is moot, as it stands, and either call could have been acceptable, as the rules posted can be argued either way. Was there a deliberate motion, regardless of contact? Yes. Was it high-sticking? Most definately. Does it matter as from what I understand, the suspension was due to the deliberate slash? No.
The entire sequence, from Cammalleri's actions, should be be construed as intent to injure, and a realistic penalty/suspension, levied.
Is one game enough? I don't think so, but at least the message was sent.
In my opinion, the hit that instigated all the kerfluffle, was shoulder on shoulder and far from damaging. There was no elbow, there was no shot to the head, there was nothing wrong except a momentary diva-like reaction from a player not known for that type of play. Smart play on the part of Niederreiter, to ignore the nonsense that Cammalleri started after that.
Why should the kid fight and remove himself from the game for 5 minutes? He threw a clean check. Cammalleri got caught, twice, once with the check, and the other with the antics afterwards. I hope he learned from it.
Some say a rookie should have more respect for a veteran player, I didn't see the rookie looking like the fool, I saw the veteran.
last year Fat Elvis that was a clean check ,, this year with the new rules, due to two players one playing for the Bruins the other for the Panthers being taken out with severe injury due to identical of checks. No way you can argue that this check is not the same as what Richards did to Booth and Cook to Savard. The only difference being Cammalleri saw him at the last minute and avoided the hit to an extent. My point being with good reason the blindside hit is now illegal,, Neiderreiter should have got a broken nose for that attempt to hit Cammalleri from the blindside instead he got a bruised calf, he earned it! Don't forget their are talks of Savard never playing again due to this kind of hit,,, did you take booth in the first 3 rounds of your hockey pool (probably not) why because he was on pace to be a star and now this hit leaves a ton of question marks about his health, Personnaly i understand completly the reaction of Cammalleri when you see what hits like this have done to two very similar players just last year!
Pasty |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 17:50:16
You guy are completely missing the point.
High sticking is any play where a stick makes contact above the opponents shoulders. That means any slashing motion, any jabbing motion, any poking motion, any swiping motion.
Any contact in any way shape or form where the stick makes contact with the opponent over the shoulder is high sticking.
Period.
Spearing carries not more weight than high sticking. Each have a criteria for a minor, major, and match penalty.
The call what high sticking, regardless of the motion and regardless how funny you may thing the definition is. The definition I posted is directly out of the NHL rule book.
Now, I agree that the infraction based one definition can easily be confused with spearing and the motion was a spearing motion. However, it is not possible for a ref to call a spearing penalty to the face as the infraction above the shoulder is high sticking.
There is no such thing as a dual infraction. You can not have a spearing high stick.
|
| The Duke |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 16:06:20
Beans, one question i would like you to answer. Leave out the call, what should have been called, what the referee didn`t call...etc... in your opinion, did camm. make a forward, thrusting motion with his sticks blade toward the rookies face ? |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 15:27:18
You are stretching a bit there to make your point Beans. No one is disputing the stick was over the shoulders but it was still a spear. A spear carries a heavier penalty because of the intent to injure and must be called a spear when the definition is met. If it was a high stick to the head without the point of the blade then the call is high sticking or an "Axe like motion with the intent of certain death" if it happens in TO and you are an avid Leaf hater.
The suspension was given because of the sequence of events was intent to injure. This included the SPEAR (am I allowed to capitalize there) which was above the shoulders but a SPEAR all the same. I guess I am saying a SPEAR is still a SPEAR no matter where it is intended.
You are perfectly right Fat Elvis, the hit was clean and although I like Cammalleri he sure did look the part of a FOOL for this.
I am not sure I used the proper capitalization in this post. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 10:34:04
Wow, another epic rhetorical battle, that totally neglects the topic at hand , sure makes for entertaining reading though!
Spearing, high-sticking, the non-call is moot, as it stands, and either call could have been acceptable, as the rules posted can be argued either way. Was there a deliberate motion, regardless of contact? Yes. Was it high-sticking? Most definately. Does it matter as from what I understand, the suspension was due to the deliberate slash? No.
The entire sequence, from Cammalleri's actions, should be be construed as intent to injure, and a realistic penalty/suspension, levied.
Is one game enough? I don't think so, but at least the message was sent.
In my opinion, the hit that instigated all the kerfluffle, was shoulder on shoulder and far from damaging. There was no elbow, there was no shot to the head, there was nothing wrong except a momentary diva-like reaction from a player not known for that type of play. Smart play on the part of Niederreiter, to ignore the nonsense that Cammalleri started after that.
Why should the kid fight and remove himself from the game for 5 minutes? He threw a clean check. Cammalleri got caught, twice, once with the check, and the other with the antics afterwards. I hope he learned from it.
Some say a rookie should have more respect for a veteran player, I didn't see the rookie looking like the fool, I saw the veteran. |
| n/a |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 07:47:09
No problem Beans, glad you are richer for the added knowledge. Maybe you can think about it if you happen to go triping today! 
I actually laughed at you posting the definition of high sticking . . . it would be funnier, if it weren't so ridiculously frustrating.
I am talking about S P E A R I N G . Yes, Cammalleri did a high stick infraction that happened to ALSO be a spear . . . except the spear was not called.
Give us the definition of spearing, watch the youtube clip, and let me know how exactly you can twist words and phrases to fit some "old time hockey" notion that this was not a spear.
Go ahead and try.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 07:29:35
Gents, let's get technical for a second.
If I "stab" my stick towards a players skates and trip them, it is spearing??? No, it's triping. There is one call on any infraction. There is no such things as a "spearing high stick" nor is there a "spearing trip".
The simple fact that is escaping people is the explaination of high sticking:
60.2 Minor Penalty - Any contact made by a stick on an opponent above the shoulders is prohibited and a minor penalty shall be imposed.
60.3 Double-minor Penalty - When a player or goalkeeper carries or holds any part of his stick above the shoulders of the opponent so that injury results, the Referee shall assess a double-minor penalty for all contact that causes an injury, whether accidental or careless, in the opinion of the Referee.
60.4 Match Penalty – When, in the opinion of the Referee, a player or goalkeeper attempts to or deliberately injures an opponent while carrying or holding any part of his stick above the shoulders of the opponent, the Referee shall assess a match penalty to the offending player.
I bolded it for everyone to clearly see. It does not say, "unless there is a stabbing motion" or anything else. High sticking encompasses any and all stick contact above the opponents shoulders.
Granted, the definition of spearing does not state, 'unless the stick contacts above the shoulders" however, in a quick poll, how many people have ever watched a spearing, slashing, hooking, or any other stick infraction be called when the stick hits the face/head???
I never have, it is always high sticking.
Slozo. Thanks for the lesson on Capitalization. I guess I am such a moron that I can't tell the difference between someone making an emphasis and someone trying to make an opinion into a fact. I am a richer man for having this understanding. |
| n/a |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 07:08:56
And to add to what Porkchop said, just because the ref didn't call it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
A spear is a spear is a spear. High sticking does not specifically include a stabbing/poking motion towards a player, and VERY CLEARLY (I am using capitals here for emphasis, not to prove my point Beans 0 that is what capitalisation is mostly used for in internet discussion, btw) you can see stabbing motion.
It is disappointing AS ALWAYS for me to see refs, Colin Campbell, and tv "kiss-butt" pundits glossing over the simple fact that it was a spear.
They try to couch it in phrases like "payback", or "old-time hockey" to justify what is clearly a very illegal and dangerous thing to do . . . there is just no way around it. It wasn't accidental or careless use of the stick; Cammalleri clearly uses his stick with the intention of jabbing the player in the face here.
What kind of person, never mind player, does that?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 10/06/2010 : 02:15:04
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
The infraction was a high stick, not spearing. Any action of a players stick being carried higher than his opponents shoulders is considered high sticking. Any situation where a player or goalkeeper attempts to or deliberately injures an opponent while carrying or holding any part of his stick above the shoulders of the opponent, the Referee shall assess a match penalty to the offending player.
By definition, it is high sticking not spearing and I don't need to capitalize it to state the rule.
Perhaps you did not read far enough into the rule book Beans.
Here is the NHL rule for spearing
"62.1 Spearing - Spearing shall mean stabbing an opponent with the point of the stick blade, whether contact is made or not"
Cammalleri made a motion with the point of the stick blade to his opponents head. This cannot be disputed.
It clearly is the more important call to make then high sticking. |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 10/05/2010 : 21:42:50
I obviously can't read Cammalleri's mind but from what i saw as i said before Cammalleri wanted to go and Nino didn't drop,,, i think Cammy gave him more than one oppurtunity to learn his lesson the right way and the kid backed down,, hence he got a bruised calf to remind him you don't blinside a player or hit to the head. The kid deserved it and Cammy deserved his game suspension, Duke you said he should have fought him and you are right but i don't think anyone can argue Cammy didn't give him a chance to drop!
Pasty |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 10/05/2010 : 16:26:54
I kind of like what Bob McKenzie said on OTR - Camalleri was playing old school hockey - payback with the stick.
Honestly, Cami was teaching the kid a lesson. I didn't like the stick going high - no matter the intent or force, a high stick is always dangerous.
What I don't understand is why Cami slashed the rookie. He should have just pulled the skates from under him. Then he only would have gotten a 2min tripping penalty, not a 1gm suspension.
Making the rookie land on the ice would have been way more embarrassing than a slash to the ankles.
The rookie needed a lesson, and since Cami wasn't a fighter, that's how he taught him. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/05/2010 : 15:11:49
Hey Duke, just because you say something like "AND it WAS a spear" does not make you right. Although you might (and other may agree) that you are right, there are also others that would say you are wrong. I am definitely one of those people say you are wrong. Your capitalization of words does not make you are more or less correct.
The infraction was a high stick, not spearing. Any action of a players stick being carried higher than his opponents shoulders is considered high sticking. Any situation where a player or goalkeeper attempts to or deliberately injures an opponent while carrying or holding any part of his stick above the shoulders of the opponent, the Referee shall assess a match penalty to the offending player.
By definition, it is high sticking not spearing and I don't need to capitalize it to state the rule.
Secondly, if it was my kid out there, firstly I would insist he wore a visor. Secondly, if my kid was highsticked to the face, I would expect him (and his team mates) to take care of business prior to the ref getting involved or that players having a chance to slash the back of my son's skates.
In the end, the tap to the lips should have instigated something from the opposition and ultimately, we have all watched significantly more intense infractions occur that held far less consequence.
The one game suspension is more than adaquate in this situation. One also have to remember that we are talking about a player who has never been suspended before nor has he even had a season with more than 50 PIMS. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 10/05/2010 : 15:02:44
Pasty i was going to touch on the fact that now-a-days with more seemingly smaller / skilled players coming into the league then there were in the 80`s - 90`s perhaps, these players have to protect themselves.
The size difference in the NHL now seems enormous. I know players are mostly bigger and stronger than ever but it seems more slightly built players are coming back too. Must be tough being 5` 10``...170 lbs going against someone 6`4``...240 lbs.
Remove the instigator rule and leave it the way it was. Some1 is always trying to change the game. Don`t see people trying to change the NFL as they do in the NHL.
|
| The Duke |
Posted - 10/05/2010 : 14:47:52
Beans while at home and falling and hitting your head on cement has nothing to do with work. I love rough, physical hockey and the fighting too, but the ice is these players work place and rules are put into place to protect these players while in their work place. AND it WAS a spear, to the throat.
How would you feel if this was your own son`s first pre-season and some veteran player did this to him and maybe ruined his vision for life, thus ending his playing career in the process ?
If Camm. had a problem with the hit, drop the gloves and fight, don`t fight with your stick. Couple smacks in the face never hurt any1...))
|
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 10/05/2010 : 13:16:07
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
The slash to the ankles, ok. Fine. One game to send a message.
The "spear" to the face??? Really?? Spear???
More like a love tap to the cheek. And I know, I know, he could have lost an eye. But you could also slip walking out of your house, fall down, hit your head on the cement and die.
Spear to the face, that's a good one. Can't wait until one of the golden boys in TO gets his stick a little bit too high. I'll swear it was an axe swinging motion intending to inflict certain death.
Beans, whether you like it or not, the motion Cammallei made with his stick is considered a spear in the NHL and was called a spear by the officials. I like how you tie it to the Leafs though. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/05/2010 : 07:31:06
The slash to the ankles, ok. Fine. One game to send a message.
The "spear" to the face??? Really?? Spear???
More like a love tap to the cheek. And I know, I know, he could have lost an eye. But you could also slip walking out of your house, fall down, hit your head on the cement and die.
Spear to the face, that's a good one. Can't wait until one of the golden boys in TO gets his stick a little bit too high. I'll swear it was an axe swinging motion intending to inflict certain death. |
|
|
