John Scott's Cheapshot

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

    John Scott's Cheapshot

    I refuse to reply to anything Rusty writes here, so I'm creating a new thread.

    It was a bad hit.  A clear cheap blow with the head as the principle point of contact.

    Outside of preseason stuff, Scott has no prior suspensions.

    Five games is the correct length. 

    I would love for him to get 20, but there's no precedent for it. 

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    I'm going to Panthers vs. Sabres tomorrow night.  I'll be there for warmups with a posterboard sign that says something like, "John Scott is a cheap shot worthless goon" along with his career stats, 1-4-5-319.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Also, Adam McQuaid is THE NUTS.

     

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I refuse to reply to anything Rusty writes here, so I'm creating a new thread.

    It was a bad hit.  A clear cheap blow with the head as the principle point of contact.

    Outside of preseason stuff, Scott has no prior suspensions.

    Five games is the correct length. 

    I would love for him to get 20, but there's no precedent for it. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe they need to set a better one NAS. I bet if you start out by giving automatics the players will get it!

    Absolutely outter space way of doing things when you get 10 games for just leaving the bench & not hurt anyone, but when you hurt someone with a headshot you get 1-10 games? You only get more then 5 when you have a prior? 

    1st- offence- 10 games & 100k

    2nd- 20 games & 200k

    3rd- 40 games & 500k

    The other thing I'd like to see the league adopt in their rules. 

    If a team loses a player in the same type of manner of Erikison. That team should have the choice of being able to dress another player to replace him. Why should the team with the injured player be even more punished to have to play with one less player on their bench!? I think the Bruins should've had the option of dressing Caron. Being that it was in the 3rd period; it probably wouldn't make much sense, but if it happens within the first 2 I think the league should allow this! 

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Also, Adam McQuaid is THE NUTS.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He certainly is! 

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    I can see Shanny giving up to ten. It was insanely predatory, didnt let up when he could have, initial point of contact was the head, it was blindside, and it was fairly late.

    Knowing Shanahan id expect anywhere between 5-10. Def not more than ten, no less than five.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    I know it won't happen, but the league needs to make a distinction between the following:

    1. Goon vs. hockey player crime, and

    2. Hockey player vs. hockey player crime.

    Punishment for infractions in category 1 should be heftier than those in category 2.  Time to get the "Hit Men" out of the league.  Most "enforcers", including Thornton, wouldn't headhunt the oppositions skill players.  The Scott hit is just wrong on so many levels.

     

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    The league won't be able to do anything more than 10 games here, unfortunately.

    It should fall on Buffalo management's shoulders. There is literally no point in having him on the roster other than to bring an element of fear for Buffalo, because their real players are probably the softest collective bunch in the league. Vanek, Ennis, Hodgson, Myers, Ehrhoff....they're all so soft that they need to dedicate 1/4 of their roster spots to "skating clowns".

    We defend the Bruins' tough guys, because they can actually play. I don't think Thornton should be out there, but I at least see him create the occasional opportunity that would resemble a professional hockey play. Scott? I'd give him a serious go in a game of 3-bar, provided he doesn't try to kill me.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Apparently if you are called to an in person meeting, it means more than 5 games suspension is in store??

    I hope he gets 10 or more for clear intent to hurt/injure...and downright stupidity. Julien said it right "He did his job tonight.....which comprises of either hurting or fighting (or both) other players."

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to 4everbruins' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Apparently if you are called to an in person meeting, it means more than 5 games suspension is in store??

    I hope he gets 10 or more for clear intent to hurt/injure...and downright stupidity. Julien said it right "He did his job tonight.....which comprises of either hurting or fighting (or both) other players."

    [/QUOTE]

    If he is as dumb as he looks he should be in a group home somewhere. Or as the new Jethro Bodine for the comeback of the Beverly Hillbillies. Not that I know this is happening but c'mon, it has to, right?

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    I'm sure it will get removed quickly, but I edited the wiki page to tell the truth.

    <br/><a href="http://oi41.tinypic.com/1z3cu14.jpg" target="_blank">View Raw Image</a>

     

     

    <br/><a href="http://oi43.tinypic.com/6pxd0y.jpg" target="_blank">View Raw Image</a>

    <br/><a href="http://oi42.tinypic.com/2rzpgso.jpg" target="_blank">View Raw Image</a>

    If the print is too small, you can see the images here:

    Page 1

    Page 2

    Page 3

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Funny stuff NAS!

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    That's brilliant NAS

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Didn't take them long to change it back.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    And Sabre fans were defending Scott on twitter last night, saying it was revenge for Miller. Pure comedy. Shanahan better not muck this up!

    PS. Too bad Wiki won't leave it up as they love to get lobbied for half-truths.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Predatory hit, very similar to the Savard hit and textbook grounds for suspension.

    What hasn't been mentioned;

    He didn't leave his feet.

    He approached from the blind side.

    Louie's position doesn't change - at all - never mind talking about whether or not it changed substantially.

    Louie was injured and did not return to the game and spent the night in the hospital.

    Scott seemed genuinely confused as to why he was being ejected, so I'll bet dollars to donuts he's got a good excuse cooked up, plus he is a fairly smart guy.  He will make some good talking points with Shanaban.

    I predict 3-5 games.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Predatory hit, very similar to the Savard hit and textbook grounds for suspension.

    What hasn't been mentioned;

    He didn't leave his feet.

    He approached from the blind side.

    Louie's position doesn't change - at all - never mind talking about whether or not it changed substantially.

    Louie was injured and did not return to the game and spent the night in the hospital.

    Scott seemed genuinely confused as to why he was being ejected, so I'll bet dollars to donuts he's got a good excuse cooked up, plus he is a fairly smart guy.  He will make some good talking points with Shanaban.

    I predict 3-5 games.

    [/QUOTE]

    Won't be less than 5 BHab, in-person hearing

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Fantastic NAS -- I enjoyed that.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rufus604. Show Rufus604's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Although I believe he will get in the 10 game range, he can still get less than 5 with an in-person hearing.  The in-person hearing just gives the league the option of suspending more than five games but it can still be less.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to hangnail's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I know it won't happen, but the league needs to make a distinction between the following:

    1. Goon vs. hockey player crime, and

    2. Hockey player vs. hockey player crime.

    Punishment for infractions in category 1 should be heftier than those in category 2.  Time to get the "Hit Men" out of the league.  Most "enforcers", including Thornton, wouldn't headhunt the oppositions skill players.  The Scott hit is just wrong on so many levels.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I kind of agree with this sentiment, although I know the league can't get into distinctions in punishment based purely on skill.

    But since Shanahan has already gone down the road of subjective reasoning instead of consistency, why not add this element?  That is, evaluate hits on the whether they are just an extension of competitive hockey plays or something that just has no place in the game.

    John Scott shouldn't be in the league.  He shouldn't have been on the ice last night.  His only possible contribution to the game is to injure an opposing player if he can catch one.  He hit an opposing star player late, illegally, and brutally.  That player is now injured.  There was no reason for the hit behind the play.  They weren't chasing the puck, Eriksson did not put himself in a vulnerable position like Kronwall or Penner.  Eriksson got mugged.

    If Scott isn't punished heavily, the NHL lends credence to the notion that any team can hire any thug of the street to strap on a pair of skates and go mug a skill player from a rival team.

    There could not be a better example of what needs to be removed from the game.

    Throw the book.  Scr*w precedence.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrr. Show NeelyOrr's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I refuse to reply to anything Rusty writes here, so I'm creating a new thread.

    It was a bad hit.  A clear cheap blow with the head as the principle point of contact.

    Outside of preseason stuff, Scott has no prior suspensions.

    Five games is the correct length. 

    I would love for him to get 20, but there's no precedent for it. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Classless hit

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to DaveyN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I can see Shanny giving up to ten. It was insanely predatory, didnt let up when he could have, initial point of contact was the head, it was blindside, and it was fairly late.

    Knowing Shanahan id expect anywhere between 5-10. Def not more than ten, no less than five.

    [/QUOTE]

    THe goon should have to set out as long as the hurt player is out with no pay. Thats how you stop this kind of stuff from happening.............

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to hangnail's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    Won't be less than 5 BHab, in-person hearing

    [/QUOTE]


    oh, didn't know it was an in person hearing.  

    They should throw the book at him since it was clearly predatory, but I'll still go on the low end and say only 5.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Do this:

    Embedded image permalink

     

    Get this:

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    "Scott was offered the opportunity for an in-person hearing as required"

    Interesting how it is worded or expressed. My take is "we really don't want to see you or want you to come hear" to take your medicine.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share