Any word on Scott's supension?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     



    You realize scott and the nhlpa likely appeal the 7 gm ruling.  Im not gonna be shocked if its reduced.  You cant just start saying joe smith 10+ gms.  Does marchand get 30 if hes suspended again?   

    What if scott steam rolled rask?   50 gms?   

    Scott has never been suspended.  Hes a useless tool but has no priors.  

    The league is lost on this.  I dont know how they fix it.  Sure harsher suspensions may work.  But is anyone ok losing repreat offender lucic for a playoff series if he is suspended again for a borderline call.  

    Its a very hard thing to rule on and i have no idea how they fix it.  Do they take open ice hitting out completely?   put two line passes back in?  Let goalies play the puck to save dmen?   The size and speed of these players combined with opening the game up has really increased head shots.  



    Wouldnt be shocked if they revamp the process entirely and set up more of a guidline like set of rules.



    Kelv its obvious the current set up is major fail.  Just about any suggestion we can come up with has flaws.  the prime example is that a lot of people want longer suspensions for repeat offenders.  sounds great until the playoffs come around.  the risks of playing hockey are always gonna be there.  I just hope they dont ruin the game in the process.  



    You've made some points I totally agree with.  It's incredibly difficult to deal with this stuff, without monumental change.  It's a big, tough problem, and the injuries coupled with the drama over the injuries is hurting the game.  If something isn't done before something really terribl happens though..., the decisions will be made by the lawyers and politicians, which will indeed ruin the game.

    I keep coming back to helmets.  Unlike every other piece of equipment, they haven't changed in 35 years.    It would be so easy to move in that direction.  Better helmets aren't "the" answer, but they are "an" answer.  

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from user_3952186. Show user_3952186's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    Absolute joke. So he gets suspended for as many games as Erikson will probably miss, if not fewer? if the hit results in a concussion, should at least be 20.

    Full out intent with the possibility of ending or limiting a players career. Seven games? Embarrassing.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    People keep throwing out the words "intent" and "predatory", and I'm sorry to say that it sounds a bit Canuckish.  Even going back to the night of the hit, I think Fletch said it wasn't a hockey play.  It started as a hockey play.  "Cutting Eriksson off from the red line" to prevent the dump in is a legit reason to start the play, and Scott starts the move toward Erkisson while he has the puck.  And guys bump at that point often - or look to cut off the breakout.  I'd also make the distinction between deliberately targeting the head, and the head as the principle point of contact.  And last, what do we actually mean by "predatory" because looking to lay a big hit is inherently "predatory" if you define it loosely. 

    The two biggest reasons Scott deserved the 7 are the lateness of the hit and the hit to the head causing injury.  To give him even more would require you to prove intent - that he hit Eriksson's head because he aimed for it (John Scott never hits what he's aiming for), and that he followed through on the hit because he saw Eriksson in a vulnerable position.  Other than reputation, I don't see enough evidence for either one.

    And in the end, I could give a flying f---.  7, 10, 30...none of that brings Eriksson back sooner, and taking out John Scott doesn't really hurt anyone.  It's meaningless.

    The repeat offender thing, I'm with shupe.  You want the option to hammer a repeat offender if they aren't playing with more awareness of how their actions could affect other players.  You don't want Lucic to get suspended 15 games because a defenseman tries to avoid a legit hit at the last second and ends up getting clipped in the head. At least, I don't. As long as hitting's in the game, there are going to be hits to the head that happen because of the speed of the game.  Short of taking hitting out, there's not much you can do.

    As for legislation etc. about head injuries - if I'm the NHL, I fight tooth and nail in any jurisdiction that has a sanctioning body for boxing, MMA, or any other combative sport where the express goal of the competition is to smoke the other guy's head until he's crumpled on the ground.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    Predatory is a word, it could be idiot.  I agree with your assessment of Eriksson.  Yes he had his head down with Scott taking a bead on hitting not in the head but the body.  Scott could have changed Eriksson's course on the ice w/o the high hit or even a hit at all.  Also Scott is not a Lucic.  He plays 3 minutes a game and suspended for 7 games.  Eriksson plays close to 21 minutes in one game.  Justice, nope.


    As for the rule of the game thought.  Many critized Campbell for following the letter of the rule.  Shanny made precedents based on the rule (common law) in the judicial world.  So, Scott is a predator (hired skating goon), Shanny could have made him the poster child of what not to do on the ice. 


    Neely's next move is to goon up for Buffalo. Heh? This was a bad decision by the NHL "conscious of concussions" argument. 

     

     

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    People keep throwing out the words "intent" and "predatory", and I'm sorry to say that it sounds a bit Canuckish.  Even going back to the night of the hit, I think Fletch said it wasn't a hockey play.  It started as a hockey play.  "Cutting Eriksson off from the red line" to prevent the dump in is a legit reason to start the play, and Scott starts the move toward Erkisson while he has the puck.  And guys bump at that point often - or look to cut off the breakout.  I'd also make the distinction between deliberately targeting the head, and the head as the principle point of contact.  And last, what do we actually mean by "predatory" because looking to lay a big hit is inherently "predatory" if you define it loosely. 

    The two biggest reasons Scott deserved the 7 are the lateness of the hit and the hit to the head causing injury.  To give him even more would require you to prove intent - that he hit Eriksson's head because he aimed for it (John Scott never hits what he's aiming for), and that he followed through on the hit because he saw Eriksson in a vulnerable position.  Other than reputation, I don't see enough evidence for either one.

    And in the end, I could give a flying f---.  7, 10, 30...none of that brings Eriksson back sooner, and taking out John Scott doesn't really hurt anyone.  It's meaningless.

    The repeat offender thing, I'm with shupe.  You want the option to hammer a repeat offender if they aren't playing with more awareness of how their actions could affect other players.  You don't want Lucic to get suspended 15 games because a defenseman tries to avoid a legit hit at the last second and ends up getting clipped in the head. At least, I don't. As long as hitting's in the game, there are going to be hits to the head that happen because of the speed of the game.  Short of taking hitting out, there's not much you can do.

    As for legislation etc. about head injuries - if I'm the NHL, I fight tooth and nail in any jurisdiction that has a sanctioning body for boxing, MMA, or any other combative sport where the express goal of the competition is to smoke the other guy's head until he's crumpled on the ground.




     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    My whole rant is based on the fact that Shanahan let another perfect opportunity go by to make the necesssary change. I understand every incident is different. But, it has to start somewhere and it doesn't need to be a star. It needs to be an incident. Just like how rule 48 came out to begin with. It finally came into play after the Toews & Savard hits. Those were the starting points. This Eriksson hit has nothing to do with the fact it was a Bruin. It was a player...PERIOD that took a direct contact to the brain. And if Lucic, or Chara are the guilty parties they should sit as well. That's a terribe way of looking at it imo. There's an epademic with how the players are hitting other players. Yes, there's always going to be injuries in hockey & there's going to be players getting concussed, but the league is confusing everyone including the players instead of educating them on the issue. A particular standard needs to be set. 10 GAMES is the minimum- regardelss of the players track record. Then for the repeat offenders it goes up- regardless of who they are & who they play for.

    You take 2 screens, put them beside each other. One has Scott hitting Eriksson, the other has the newest culprit. And you play them, compare & show the player what he did & check off the similarities between the two! The precedent needs to be that if they're having an in person hearing & it's a head shot you're getting at LEAST 10 games until there's evidence to prove other wise. And that happens with the player present to review the hit with him frame by frame. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    It is hard to prove intent unless it's just blatantly obvious and I don't think it was in this case. The lateness of the hit hints towards it being intentional but you could also consider ( and shanny probbaly did) that Scott isn't the nimblest of skaters and pulling up or a late cut were difficult options that may not have even registered in the guy's head.

    Had to figure the Shanny Random Wheel O' Justice could have landed anywhere between 3 and 10 games. 7 is not out of line. If I am a Sabres fan I hope for the shortest suspension possible as my team is better when he's out of the lineup and I want the highest draft pick possible.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

    My whole rant is based on the fact that Shanahan let another perfect opportunity go by to make the necesssary change. I understand every incident is different. But, it has to start somewhere and it doesn't need to be a star. It needs to be an incident. Just like how rule 48 came out to begin with. It finally came into play after the Toews & Savard hits. Those were the starting points. This Eriksson hit has nothing to do with the fact it was a Bruin. It was a player...PERIOD that took a direct contact to the brain. And if Lucic, or Chara are the guilty parties they should sit as well. That's a terribe way of looking at it imo. There's an epademic with how the players are hitting other players. Yes, there's always going to be injuries in hockey & there's going to be players getting concussed, but the league is confusing everyone including the players instead of educating them on the issue. A particular standard needs to be set. 10 GAMES is the minimum- regardelss of the players track record. Then for the repeat offenders it goes up- regardless of who they are & who they play for.

    You take 2 screens, put them beside each other. One has Scott hitting Eriksson, the other has the newest culprit. And you play them, compare & show the player what he did & check off the similarities between the two! The precedent needs to be that if they're having an in person hearing & it's a head shot you're getting at LEAST 10 games until there's evidence to prove other wise. And that happens with the player present to review the hit with him frame by frame. 



    10 games?  Nhlpa will never ever go for that for starters.   You dont think the players are educated on this stuff?   Its only dominating every sports tv on earth bc there is one every night.  Id rather they take checking out of the game then see 10 games for every head shot.  

    have you ever shot a gun?   If not keep this in mind when dealing with 10 game min suspensions. Its a lot easier to hit a sitting target over a moving target.  You cant control what a moving target does.  Sometimes the moving target turns the wrong way.  Look at sid vs steckle for example.  How do they give him 10 games.  Ference vs halpren.  Its a head shot....10 games!   Chara is 10 feet tall, every time he contacts the head 10 games.  

    I get your frustration, i get your concern and to be blunt i dont think they will ever Make this situation better.  I can see them eliminating open ice hitting at some point.  Not sure if that makes for better hockey bc players will skate with their head down even more then they do now.  A vulnerable player back in the day was an opportunity to plaster someone, now they are victims.  Even though a lot of the time its the victims dumb play that creates it.  

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

    My whole rant is based on the fact that Shanahan let another perfect opportunity go by to make the necesssary change. I understand every incident is different. But, it has to start somewhere and it doesn't need to be a star. It needs to be an incident. Just like how rule 48 came out to begin with. It finally came into play after the Toews & Savard hits. Those were the starting points. This Eriksson hit has nothing to do with the fact it was a Bruin. It was a player...PERIOD that took a direct contact to the brain. And if Lucic, or Chara are the guilty parties they should sit as well. That's a terribe way of looking at it imo. There's an epademic with how the players are hitting other players. Yes, there's always going to be injuries in hockey & there's going to be players getting concussed, but the league is confusing everyone including the players instead of educating them on the issue. A particular standard needs to be set. 10 GAMES is the minimum- regardelss of the players track record. Then for the repeat offenders it goes up- regardless of who they are & who they play for.

    You take 2 screens, put them beside each other. One has Scott hitting Eriksson, the other has the newest culprit. And you play them, compare & show the player what he did & check off the similarities between the two! The precedent needs to be that if they're having an in person hearing & it's a head shot you're getting at LEAST 10 games until there's evidence to prove other wise. And that happens with the player present to review the hit with him frame by frame. 



    But how is 10 games going to change what 7 doesn't?  To use isla's logic, now the Sabres will be without John Scott for 30 minutes.  The equivalent of what Eriksson plays in about five periods.  Whoop di flippin do.

    And with a guy like Scott, losing $75K in salary is meaningless because the $750K he earns this season is based on being a goon.  If he's not a goon, if teams aren't a little worried he might hurt someone, he doesn't have a job and doesn't earn the other $650K at all.  In reality, Scott's only losing about $26.5K in real cash after you'd have taxed those 7 game cheques.

    I'm also not advocating a two-tier system, nite.  I agree that that's the wrong way to look at it, but the tone of response to the Scott hit on Eriksson has been markedly more lynch-mobby than the usual discussions of player safety vs. the integrity of the game.  My issue, though, is that guys who hit are inevitably going to find themselves in these situations, and guys whose games are based on a combination of skill and physical intimidation - the skilled predator - are going to suffer if you have a hard and fast rule.  Physical intimidation and domination have been part of this game for forever.  Take it out - take out the risk that a guy who tries a ridiculous dangle with his head down and his body upright to present a perfect target will get blown up - and I will rapidly lose interest in basketball on ice.  Lucic is a predator, and while he's not always clean, he hits the right way most of the time.  But there will be times that a guy doubles back at the last second a la Kronwall, with even less time to pull off of the hit, so that the only way for a guy like Lucic to avoid 30 games in what you're proposing is - never hit.  That's not a solution in my mind.

    I'm thinking a 0% solution for head injuries is simply fool's gold and it's keeping the game from developing a more meaningful way of improving player safety.  I don't know what that is - I'm caught up in the 0 head injuries thing too - but someone should stop chasing the flavour of the day and the solution of the day (suspension length, fines) to think about it.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    Interesting discussion here.  When I said that Scott's hit wasn't a 'hockey play', I was referring to, of course, the head targeting and elbow follow through, not the effort to pursue someone with the puck and force them to dump it in, before the hit.  I think that when you really attempt to take the body and then end up getting a piece of the head as a result of the collision (Garbutt), that is more of a hockey play.  John Scott got almost exclusively the head and nothing else -- that makes it very hard to rationalize as a 'hockey play'.  It was also very late and John Scott doesn't even belong on this ice.  These factors make it drift further away from a hocky play to me.

    In terms of the suspension, I think more is better than less, when the hits are really bad.  Rationalizing that 10 games or 15 games doens't make much of a difference with John Scott is just as futile as John Scott trying to play hockey.  There has to be some principle involved.  The NHL has to at least make some gesture that they care about this.  I think the NHL is grudgingly tolerating goons like Scott even though it's bad for the game.  But the NHL might be interested in at least limiting goon behavior to the goon-vs-goon dances and keeping them away from star players.  

    John Scott has put himself on the front page of every NHL media outlet -- twice in two months -- for going after a star/skill player on another team.  Players like Phil Kessel, David Clarkson, and Loui Eriksson are the reasons why people buy hockey tickets.  It makes the league look like a joke, if any team can pull a hitman off the street to attack a rival team's star player.  Maybe that isn't what happened, but the NHL has done nothing to suggest that you couldn't.  10 games instead of 7 games is a 43% better attempt at protecting the league's reputation.

    I am definitely starting to agree that none of these suspensions matter much, as a deterrant though.  It hasn't stopped a thing.  Headshots and concussions are happening right and left, still.  So, it may be time for the league to acknowledge that Shanahan and his digital shorts aren't the answer to the problem.  Let him keep at it with punishment, but realize that this will not stop the problem and look for other solution.  What else can be done?  I don't know.  Softer shoulder pads might help.  Re-emphasize self protection as the best way to avoid getting hurt, hybrid iceing, whatever...

    I don't know what the answer is, but it's pretty clear that Shanahan and his video crew aren't solving the problem.  But the league's reputation still might be best protected with stronger punishments for the worst offenses.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

     

    You take 2 screens, put them beside each other. One has Scott hitting Eriksson, the other has the newest culprit. And you play them, compare & show the player what he did & check off the similarities between the two! The precedent needs to be that if they're having an in person hearing & it's a head shot you're getting at LEAST 10 games until there's evidence to prove other wise. And that happens with the player present to review the hit with him frame by frame. 

    [/QUOTE]

    But how is 10 games going to change what 7 doesn't?  To use isla's logic, now the Sabres will be without John Scott for 30 minutes.  The equivalent of what Eriksson plays in about five periods.  Whoop di flippin do.

    And with a guy like Scott, losing $75K in salary is meaningless because the $750K he earns this season is based on being a goon.  If he's not a goon, if teams aren't a little worried he might hurt someone, he doesn't have a job and doesn't earn the other $650K at all.  In reality, Scott's only losing about $26.5K in real cash after you'd have taxed those 7 game cheques.

    I'm also not advocating a two-tier system, nite.  I agree that that's the wrong way to look at it, but the tone of response to the Scott hit on Eriksson has been markedly more lynch-mobby than the usual discussions of player safety vs. the integrity of the game.  My issue, though, is that guys who hit are inevitably going to find themselves in these situations, and guys whose games are based on a combination of skill and physical intimidation - the skilled predator - are going to suffer if you have a hard and fast rule.  Physical intimidation and domination have been part of this game for forever.  Take it out - take out the risk that a guy who tries a ridiculous dangle with his head down and his body upright to present a perfect target will get blown up - and I will rapidly lose interest in basketball on ice.  Lucic is a predator, and while he's not always clean, he hits the right way most of the time.  But there will be times that a guy doubles back at the last second a la Kronwall, with even less time to pull off of the hit, so that the only way for a guy like Lucic to avoid 30 games in what you're proposing is - never hit.  That's not a solution in my mind.

    I'm thinking a 0% solution for head injuries is simply fool's gold and it's keeping the game from developing a more meaningful way of improving player safety.  I don't know what that is - I'm caught up in the 0 head injuries thing too - but someone should stop chasing the flavour of the day and the solution of the day (suspension length, fines) to think about it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Read my above paragraph again Book & Shupe. We're all in agreement here that Scott's hit is the exact definement of what rule 48 is. So, what I'm trying to say is that this clip is the example. So let's just say Luc...No better yet Chara (since he seems to be talked about a lot lately) is the next one in front of Shanahan. Chara shows up, And he see's a screen with Scott hitting Eriksson's head as the still frame. Then let's say it was Chara who hit Kronwall. Shanny & co. then go through that incident frame by frame along with the Scott hit. And they make comparisons. Kronwall himself admitted he turned & put himself in the bad position & the video shows that. So Chara's suspension has now been reduced from 10 to 8 games. Then they go through the rest of other happenings. Is there a chicken wing, does Chara attempt to avoid making contact to the head & so on. I'm saying 10 games is automatic until "proven" otherwise. It doesn't have to stay at 10 games. This way every incident is still considered different. I'm also not saying every contact to the head is an automatic 10 game suspension. I'm saying that only happens when there's questions about how the contact happens.

    And Shupe yes I have a shot a lot of guns. Mostly handguns & I'm a decent shot with a 9mm Beretta. And yes a moving target is far more difficult to shoot. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    Shanahan must resign. That is for starters.

    Second, why don't the Bruins call a press conference and demand Shanahan resign or at least complain about the decision??? Why do they not comment on this?  

    It's an absolutely outrage. It should be 30 games and 100K like I said.  Next time he does it, banned from the league.

    Shanhan is about 70K short and 20 games short in his decision.

    Why is it our players and this organization have been cheapshotted on an almost annual basis with these kinds of hits and the suspensions are basically nothing more than 2-3 weeks???!

    Anyone remember that cheap shot by little Francie Bouillon's hit on Aaron Ward back in 2007?

    Bouillon wasn't even suspended!!!!

    http://boston-bruins-corner.blogspot.com/2007/11/ward-speaks-about-bouillon-cheap-hit-on.html

    http://www.aaronward.com/articles.cfm?Article_ID=97

     



    The Bruins don't lobby.  And they shouldn't.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    Rusty, they're the Bruins, not the Habs.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

     


    Hang. What did you think he deserved. No priors ever.  Im curious?  



    You need to step up & make a change at some point. And you need a prime example to use as a guideline as to have the excuse to make that change. Shanny had the perfect example to use as a guideline to make the announcement & not use "no priors" as the excuse not to give more. Shupe you're an RCMP officer. The drinking & driving laws have changed haven't they? Why did they change them? The laws in place was not an enough of a deterent that's why. The league is becoming a total joke in how they suspend the players. And Chara should've gotten something for his hit on Winnik too! 



    How about charge them criminally as well?   I have no issue with longer suspensions.  But how do you give this guy the example stick.  Bc he hit a bruin? I have seen much worse.  I think everything about the league is a joke.   I dont think you start with scott as the example.  Start with a star.  Yes chara likely should have gotten something.   But this is a nightly event.   They had numerous opportunities to set the table with repeat guys like cooke torres.  scott got what he deserved.   

    as far as criminal code stuff.  DnD Is a joke, the court rooms are a joke, most charges are a joke.  The definition of a joke.  that was my lindy ruff.  sure the courts have changed it up, but criminals are the victims now.   



    Be careful what you say. Sure they steal, do drugs, drive without licenses, but if you say something then YOU are the bad guy.

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     



    You realize scott and the nhlpa likely appeal the 7 gm ruling.  Im not gonna be shocked if its reduced.  You cant just start saying joe smith 10+ gms.  Does marchand get 30 if hes suspended again?   

    What if scott steam rolled rask?   50 gms?   

    Scott has never been suspended.  Hes a useless tool but has no priors.  

    The league is lost on this.  I dont know how they fix it.  Sure harsher suspensions may work.  But is anyone ok losing repreat offender lucic for a playoff series if he is suspended again for a borderline call.  

    Its a very hard thing to rule on and i have no idea how they fix it.  Do they take open ice hitting out completely?   put two line passes back in?  Let goalies play the puck to save dmen?   The size and speed of these players combined with opening the game up has really increased head shots.  



    Wouldnt be shocked if they revamp the process entirely and set up more of a guidline like set of rules.



    Kelv its obvious the current set up is major fail.  Just about any suggestion we can come up with has flaws.  the prime example is that a lot of people want longer suspensions for repeat offenders.  sounds great until the playoffs come around.  the risks of playing hockey are always gonna be there.  I just hope they dont ruin the game in the process.  



    You've made some points I totally agree with.  It's incredibly difficult to deal with this stuff, without monumental change.  It's a big, tough problem, and the injuries coupled with the drama over the injuries is hurting the game.  If something isn't done before something really terribl happens though..., the decisions will be made by the lawyers and politicians, which will indeed ruin the game.

    I keep coming back to helmets.  Unlike every other piece of equipment, they haven't changed in 35 years.    It would be so easy to move in that direction.  Better helmets aren't "the" answer, but they are "an" answer.  



    I'd start at shoulder pads and elbow pads. Weaponry like hard plastic.

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    Shanahan must resign. That is for starters.

    Second, why don't the Bruins call a press conference and demand Shanahan resign or at least complain about the decision??? Why do they not comment on this?  

    It's an absolutely outrage. It should be 30 games and 100K like I said.  Next time he does it, banned from the league.

    Shanhan is about 70K short and 20 games short in his decision.

    Why is it our players and this organization have been cheapshotted on an almost annual basis with these kinds of hits and the suspensions are basically nothing more than 2-3 weeks???!

    Anyone remember that cheap shot by little Francie Bouillon's hit on Aaron Ward back in 2007?

    Bouillon wasn't even suspended!!!!

    http://boston-bruins-corner.blogspot.com/2007/11/ward-speaks-about-bouillon-cheap-hit-on.html

    http://www.aaronward.com/articles.cfm?Article_ID=97

     



    That would just be nonsense and make the big bad bruins look like they were whining.

    All set.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    someone take the soapbox away. this is getting ridiculous.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to DaveyN's comment:

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    Shanahan must resign. That is for starters.

    Second, why don't the Bruins call a press conference and demand Shanahan resign or at least complain about the decision??? Why do they not comment on this?  

    It's an absolutely outrage. It should be 30 games and 100K like I said.  Next time he does it, banned from the league.

    Shanhan is about 70K short and 20 games short in his decision.

    Why is it our players and this organization have been cheapshotted on an almost annual basis with these kinds of hits and the suspensions are basically nothing more than 2-3 weeks???!

    Anyone remember that cheap shot by little Francie Bouillon's hit on Aaron Ward back in 2007?

    Bouillon wasn't even suspended!!!!

    http://boston-bruins-corner.blogspot.com/2007/11/ward-speaks-about-bouillon-cheap-hit-on.html

    http://www.aaronward.com/articles.cfm?Article_ID=97

     



    That would just be nonsense and make the big bad bruins look like they were whining.

    All set.



    Actually, it wouldn't.  I never saw these hits back in the 1980s and 1990s pre instigator. That has what has changed it all.

    So, you can stop with this little argument that the whiny, girly Canadiens whining about every little legal hockey hit is the same as watching our players be blindsided with dangerous elbow hits that could end someone's career.

    It didn't happen back in the dady because the puukey Bettman didn't run the frigggin league.

    Get it?

    It's like some of you are new to hockey.   

    How is the blindside hit on Steve Moore by Bertuzzi any different than a blindside hit like Bouillon on Ward, Cooke on Savard or Scott now on Eriksson? Explain that to the board.

    They are all blindside hits!



    No one is saying the hit wasnt dirty.

    Find a post that says otherwise.  Bad and dirty hits did absolutely happen in the 80's and 90's and you are delusional if you think otherwise. Half of the hits scott stevens through were at peoples heads.

    I just dont want the bruins 'making a statement' or whatever you want to call it to the press and look like babies.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    For two years every poster here has complained about the whining of the Canucks, now you want the Bruins to start acting like them? Real hockey players and teams don't whine, and that's all a public statement on Scott would be.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    Then deal with it at the GM meetings and the board of governors. Fix it through the proper channels. Don't stomp your feet and complain to the press like a toddler having a tantrum in the cereal aisle.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

     

     


    Not at this rate. Dirty hits like this didn't become some acceptable thing. That's false.  One main reason is the little puukes that did those things then would have an angry person coming after them until they were blugeoned into next week.

     

     



    So guys like Ken Linsman, Pat Verbeek, Rob Ray, Ulf Samuelsson, Dale Hunter, and Claude Lemuiex didnt have reps as dirty players in the 80's or 90's? They didnt throw questionable hits fairly regularly?

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    Umm, well, err, umm, they should, Fletcher.  This is outrageous. I haven't seen more potential career ending or career ending cheapshots than what some Bruins players have faced in the last 5 years or so.

    I don't need to see them "lobby".

    I want an honest statement and a verbal bitchslapping in the press, on record, towards Brendan Flippin' Shanhan who was worm as a player and loser and is a loser in this role too.

    That's what I want.  7 games is irresponsible and unacceptable.   The NFL sits on lawsuit after lawsuit because they showed some negligence in years past with regards to protecting players.

    If loser Bettman and Shanahan want to face the same problems, but with FAR LESS power than the NFL, then have at it.

    Don't give me this PC crap about "lobbying". I want the organization to make a statement and take a stand for once.



    I've seen some strange uses of the term PC, but that might take the cake.  Rusty, 'political correctness' has no bearing at all on whether a team whines and cries to the league about their problems.  Look up the terms that you are trying to use, before using them.

    I am in favor of John Scott getting a 10 or even 15 game suspension for his hit, but your complete alarm about this happening to a Bruins player is unwarranted.  What's more, you sound like a Canucks fan that buys into perpetual victim mentality, and encourages the team leaders to sully the dignity of the franchise by throwing a child's tantrum when they don't get their way.  There is no conspiracy here.

    The Bruins also shouldn't lobby because it doesn't work.  Do you think the Canucks improved their situation one iota with all of their hand-wringing, tattleing, and woe-is-me nonsense?  No way.  They are less likely to get the benefit of the doubt now more than ever, and they get no respect around the league.  The Bruins have stuck with the speak softly/carry a big stick mentality and I hope they stick with it.  You should try it too.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

      

    Pull an example off You Tube and show the board some of these kinds of sneaky elbow hits to the temple or head that you're talking about, please.

    It just didn't happen at the rate it does now.



    Ask and you shall receive - 5 clips, plus descriptors of other incidents, all pre-instigator, and all with teams employing enforcers.

    http://oilersnation.com/2012/3/28/the-magical-time-before-the-instigator-rule

    And these are just the tip of iceberg - I'll gladly dig up more if you want more examples.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to DaveyN's comment:

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

     


    Not at this rate. Dirty hits like this didn't become some acceptable thing. That's false.  One main reason is the little puukes that did those things then would have an angry person coming after them until they were blugeoned into next week.

     



    So guys like Ken Linsman, Pat Verbeek, Ulf Samuelsson, Rob Ray, Dale Hunter, and Claude Lemuiex didnt have reps as dirty players in the 80's or 90's? They didnt throw questionable hits fairly regularly?



    Ulf Samuelsson made a career out of it, sure.  He was a dirty loser who didn't go by the code.  Hunter, somewhat, sure. Claude Lemieux absolutely.

    But, are you telling me with the inclusion of the instigator rule now, it hasn't sort of compromised the traditional code of hockey? Of course it has!  Scott is a 6'7 behemoth so it sort of makes his case slighlty different, but a turd like Bouillon or Cooke should have been beaten into a hospital room, never to play again and it's bordering on taboo to even try to do that in this PC Bettman league now.

    I don't think Linesman and Verbeek are in the same category. Pests sure, but not doing things like this.

    Are you telling me you really saw players running peoople with elbows extended back in the day like it was some acceptabel or cool thing to do?  

    Pull an example off You Tube and show the board some of these kinds of sneaky elbow hits to the temple or head that you're talking about, please.

    It just didn't happen at the rate it does now.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22dMrNtPfvc

    go ahead and skip to the 24 second mark.

    There are plenty of more dirty hits if you look for yourself.

    Maybe not as blatant back then, i will kinda give you that one, but there have always been dirty players dishing out dirty hits.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

     


    I am not asking for "lobbying".  The ruling has already come down.

    I want the Bruins to call out the hypocrisy of Bettman's PC league with Shanahan sounding like an awkard Johnnie Cochrane trying to make a case, and then it somehow stands with a final verdict, with it going totally unchecked.

    That's not lobbying. Lobbying is the Bruins calling Shanahan before the ruling, suggesting their preference for a punishment.

    THAT is lobbying.

    The Bruins don't carry a big stick whatsoever. They see a myriad of players cheapshotted, careers ended and they keep their mouths shut like yes men for Bettman.

    The ruling is an  absolute joke and I want a Providence B's goon called up for next game to take out one of their players, too.

    Just doing what Bettman allows in his league, right?

     

     



    So fight cheap shots with more cheap shots.

    How logical!

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    if you actually watched the clips, youd find a couple elbow to heads.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share