Any word on Scott's supension?

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    Chelios on Propp-elbow to the head

    Mallette on LaFontaine-elbow to the head.

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    Anyone know where I can find a Gordie Howe highlight reel?

    For now, how about Pat Quinn?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UWpW-Z3BmY

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    When you ask them to call a press conference to dispute the league's decision of the hit...that...is...lobbying.

    A bad idea too.

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    There's a half dozen Dale Hunter ones red.

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    I'm quickly understanding why I am one of the few that doesn't have this guy on ignore.  

    Stick with your original argument and either try to defend it, or give up Rusty.  You're all over the place and making less sense with every post.  red gave you what you asked for.  Sometimes you just gotta admit you were wrong.

     
  6. 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:

     

     


    Please post the 6 that show Hunter extending a sneaky elbow, open ice, with the puck gone, from a 90 degree angle/blindside.

    Thanks.

     



    HAHAHAHA!
    How much more specific can you make it?
    While youre at it, make sure its an away, and on a wednesday.

     

     

    You asked for headshots/elbows to the head and you got it. Heres what you said

    [/QUOTE]



    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    you got multiple videos of players elbowing other players in the head.

     
  7. 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:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Open ice, 90 degree angle with puck gone? Which ones?

    [/QUOTE]

    How specific can you get? But OK here ya go - puck gone, 90 degree angle blindside arm up shoulder and elbow to the head - basically identical to the Eriksson hit. It's at the 3 minute mark

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdiY-2u6U9Q

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    book, I think the 7 games is about right or at least in the range.  No priors, is what it is.

    My point was simply that Shanahan was able to climb inside of the Marchand's head on the Salo hit and determine that there was motive to duck Salo's pinch.  Called it predatory and was delivered out of frustration.  Attached the video as a refresher.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05-O-uRuKyY

    Shanahan was not able to do that in this case.  Down 4-2 in the 3rd period, put out John Scott and he lays out a top-6 forward.  I guess he was out there to score a goal, and absent that make a sound defensive play to cut off the red-line.  John Scott is so sound that way, a real 2-way player.

    Nothing Canuckish about having a discussion, especially when talking about a good, honest player like John Scott.

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    red, that didn't happen during the vernal equinox, which is now one of Rusty idiotic criteria.  Try again.  

    This guy's a riot.  The argument has evolved from demanding a Bruin press conference to whine about the league, all the way to demands for unnecessarily specific videos, with changing criteria in every new post, just to save face, I guess?  I'm off to the game...have fun...

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    Please people...Just tell me one thing???  I know I'm lobbying for a change, but please just tell me my soapboxes aren't like this? 

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Please people...Just tell me one thing???  I know I'm lobbying for a change, but please just tell me my soapboxes aren't like this? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Hell no, nite.

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    Good argument, yet if Scott is out 30 games he is not out to fight, hurt other players, and degrade the sport. Eriksson on the other hand is what the sport needs, skill and playmaking.  Crowls does not understand my view, if the NHL is not going to take efforts to eliminate concussion like hits, then it will create circumstances where a Stamkos is out for half the season.  The "Canuck" analogy is just a parody Red.  Arbitrary decisions do not have to be legally written, use common sense (lost in our world) or even common law (precedence) and perserve the game as it was played decades ago.  Stan Makita was dirty, but he was tough.  Scott is like ffing Schlutz or Wensink.  The NHL made a bad decision here.  Kessel had it right, slash the mother. Goon it up 70s style!!!! 

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/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]


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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    red, that didn't happen during the vernal equinox, which is now one of Rusty idiotic criteria.  Try again.  

    This guy's a riot.  The argument has evolved from demanding a Bruin press conference to whine about the league, all the way to demands for unnecessarily specific videos, with changing criteria in every new post, just to save face, I guess?  I'm off to the game...have fun...

    [/QUOTE]

    How did I "change criteria" when in my first post I talked about Bruins players being blindsided at a 90 degree angle with elbow to head hits away from the puck?

    Nice backpedal, Fletcher.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Is there a thread, in any forum, where you don't end up arguing with someone? 4182 posts in less than 6 weeks, and banned over 10 times.
    Sad.

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:



    How is me being right, "arguing"?  You fanboys are pathetic. Don't know the game, support Bettman and Jacobs and haven't changed.   That's what is sad.  

    I post plenty in the music forum and enjoy the people there for their knowledge.  I don't post here because you're a bunch of fanboy dorks who somehow love Bettman, Jacobs and Shanahan.

    It's not my fault you just take what Bettman spoon feeds you and play off this piggybacking tough guy Bruins code routine.  The real Bruins code would be taking care of this crap both on and off the ice.   Cooke should have been impaled, Bouillon and now Scott. But, no one does anything about it in fear of Shanahan's pathetic PC instrcutions from Bettman.

    It's hard to see knowledgeable people here and on the Pats forum because they have odd agendas.  You're one of those people. Stick to tiddlywinks.  Stick to anything but not realizing that Shanhan is a moron.

    I remember when you had a Canadiens avatar.  It was funny. It's kind of like a Sox fan having a Yanks avatar. You probably had a Raycroft avatar here at one point, too, Kevie.   Probably a Toivonen one as well. Talk about sad.  You buy into anything.

    I've never seen anyone count posts as if it means something either.  Try reading a book and then tell us if counting pages means something. What a moron.

    Moron supports Bettman, Jacobs and Shanahan. Ugh. It's like, who are these Bruins fans? Were these people really in the old Garden? Nope.  You weren't, little teenie bopper. You weren't.

    [/QUOTE]

    How is anyone supporting Bettman? You stated that Scott should have gotten 30 games and fined 100K. How the heck can he justify that for a first time offender? Because it happened to a Bruin? I bet the NHLPA would let that one slide huh?Thats well thought out, you moron. Thats not supporting Bettman, Shanahan or Jacobs. Thats just being realistic. Reality passed you by a long time ago.

    I'll explain the Avatar thing for you one more time. I love how I have to do this to a guy who has had more Avatars than anyone due to the fact that he has been banned so many times. Every avatar I've ever had has featured a goalie. i played goalie for 30 years. Favorite goalie growing up: Patrick Roy, much like 80% of the goalies playing youth and high school hockey at the time, no matter where they grew up or what team they rooted for. I had a Carey Price avatar. Have followed him since his junior days, long before he was drafted by Montreal. Why does it have to be a Bruin? Seems to me a only a "Jacobs Fanboy"  would ask that.

    I was also a shortstop growing up from Double AA to Legion Ball.  Had a Cal Ripken poster above my bed. Was I any less of a Red Sox fan for having that? Someone real stupid might think so, and even then, I couldnt care less.

    One of my German Shepherds is named Jeter. Am i Yankee fan? Not at all, but I love the way that guy plays and handles himself. I don't need to wear a "Jeter Swallows" t-shirt with black jeans to show I'm a Red Sox fan.

    I've defended Jacobs on this board here, but only when it comes to lockouts. If more owners/G.M's ran their franchises like him instead of giving Bobby Holik or Bill Guerin outrageous multi- million dollar contracts only to cry poor, i dont think we would have had as many if any work stoppages at all.

    They should put the instigator rule back in. Will it deter players from delivering these knock out hits? Can't say for sure, but I know we didnt have this many while the instigator rule was in place. Bring back the instigator rule, and change the weaponry like hard plastic elbow and shoulder pads and I guarantee there will be a significant decline in these kind of hits resulting in concussions going forward.

    Argue that.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    Here's one of the dirtiest players in the history of the league with a "sneaky elbow" hit to the head.  Click on the truth to view it.

    Rusty is wrong.  Obviously.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Jacobs is an absolute disgrace and so is Bettman.  They've helped destroy the league.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, the league is destroyed.  The team gear is probably being appraised for auction right now.

    You know...

    Report: NHL aiming for additional $1 billion in national revenue

     

    Or not.

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    Rusty, Scott did not lead with the elbow - he followed through with it the same way Stavens di.. aww screw it.

    You're a secondary character from a Chevy Chase flick (Which is four degrees below Pauly Shore). Why are we wasting our time?

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

     



    How could ROy be your favorite goalie if you're a Bruins fan? That makes zero sense. It appears you're more interested in attention.  That's like saying my favorite SS is Derek Jeter. What a weird person you are.

    Holik, Guerin?

    Look, kid:  Jacobs led the lockouts in 1994 and 2004 because he didn't like his margins.  Period.

    I didn't see Jacobs trying to save the Stars or Jets back in the early 1990s.  He was concerned about margins, not the league.  That's why the lockouts happened and why he gutted the Bruins teams at the time.   Jacobs runs the league with Bettman.  

    We've had numerous B's players decapitated with dirty hits to the head and you just sit there and shrug your shoulders like the rest of these toolish fanboys who apparently missed the 1980s and early 1990s B's teams who would have pummeled these turds into the hospital.

    Jacobs is an absolute disgrace and so is Bettman.  They've helped destroy the league.

    [/QUOTE]

    How could Roy be my favorite goalie if I'm a Bruin fan? I don't know. How could one be a Patriots fan and continuosly bash the greatest quarterback in franchise history?

    How many "numerous" Bruins have been "decapitated"...I have Savard and Eriksson  taking shots to the head in recent memory. Getting a little desperate with those exaggerations maybe?

    I shrug my shoulders? Again, getting desperate. Instead I look at recent suspensions handed out and come to a realistic decision based on information. 30 games? Real bright. Scott is a first time offender, Kaleta is a repeat offender and gets 10 games a mere  week before. Now we are going to hand John Scott 30 games? That makes sense.

    Don't call me kid like your talking down to me either. You need to read and learn before you speak. You've been caught in so many lies and misinformation it's almost hard to keep track of. Like this:

    in one post while bragin about how much you know you claimed  to have been a season ticket holder at the old garden for many years. Yet in another, you claimed to have played high school hockey against Keith Aucoin. Maybe you werent lying, maybe you graduated at 40 something because your not all there. You'd certainly have enough evidence on this board to support that claim.

    Once Again.

    OWNED.

     

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    NAS, I was wondering why someone didn't just put up a compilation of Messier's career highlights.  Guy is the second leading scorer in the history of the league, and I'd bet he got away with more elbows to the head than he had points.  He used to murder guys behind the play in the Battle of Alberta, and I'm pretty sure red will say the same about the Oiler/Jets playoff wars of the 80s.

    But red's point is the most valid on here - Rusty's off his meds.  Why are you even trying?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You're a secondary character from a Chevy Chase flick (Which is four degrees below Pauly Shore). Why are we wasting our time?

    [/QUOTE]

    Whoa whoa whoa.

    Hang on.

    Chevy Chase is a riot in a ton of great flicks.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    But red's point is the most valid on here - Rusty's off his meds.  Why are you even trying?

    [/QUOTE]

    No, he's a drunk.  It was Friday night.  It's not like he has any women to drunk-dial.

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    Give Fletch a little respect for God's sake (the movie, not the idiot poster).

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?


    I could've worded that better - I meant that as a shot at Anthony Michael Hall, who played Rusty the secondary character in a Chevy Chase flick (and I'm not eniterly convinced that Rusty here isn't actually him after some sort of epic Hollywood mental breakdown), and not Chase. I still love Spies Like Us.

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    NAS, I was wondering why someone didn't just put up a compilation of Messier's career highlights.  Guy is the second leading scorer in the history of the league, and I'd bet he got away with more elbows to the head than he had points.  He used to murder guys behind the play in the Battle of Alberta, and I'm pretty sure red will say the same about the Oiler/Jets playoff wars of the 80s.

    But red's point is the most valid on here - Rusty's off his meds.  Why are you even trying?




    I was trying to find a clip of one that he threw on Carlyle in the playoffs, but couldn't track it down. Completely destroyed him with an elbow to the chin. Number two and three on that all-time scoring list are likely number one and two for dirty elbows.

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

    Re: Any word on Scott's supension?

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    NAS, I was wondering why someone didn't just put up a compilation of Messier's career highlights.  Guy is the second leading scorer in the history of the league, and I'd bet he got away with more elbows to the head than he had points.  He used to murder guys behind the play in the Battle of Alberta, and I'm pretty sure red will say the same about the Oiler/Jets playoff wars of the 80s.

    But red's point is the most valid on here - Rusty's off his meds.  Why are you even trying?

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    I was trying to find a clip of one that he threw on Carlyle in the playoffs, but couldn't track it down. Completely destroyed him with an elbow to the chin. Number two and three on that all-time scoring list are likely number one and two for dirty elbows.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't remember Mess elbowing anybody- sarcasm. Just how the so called "look" would make people tremble in their skates! UGH, that was such a bunch of BS. He was a fine hockey player, but he wasn't as tough as everybody claimed. I don't remember him giving a beat down to a Clark Gillies, Bob Nystrom, Joey Kocur, or a Probert! He had some great attributes, but being a tough hockey player certainly wasn't one of them imo. Throwing elbows doesn't make you tough. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share