John Scott's Cheapshot

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Wrong place

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi'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]

    5 is exactly the number I thought of too.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    precedents are precedents for a reason, change NEEDS to happen, this could be the one. is it still an indefinite suspension at this point? or am i way behind on things?   

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to adkbeesfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    precedents are precedents for a reason, change NEEDS to happen, this could be the one. is it still an indefinite suspension at this point? or am i way behind on things?   

    [/QUOTE]


    It would have to happen to start the season.  They can't suspend Kaleta for 10 after 1,000 offenses and then give Scott 10 a few days later.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to jmwalters' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DaveyN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Between the hit last night and him trying to fight Phil Kessel, exactly what code is John Scott playing by?

    [/QUOTE]


    UFC?

    [/QUOTE]


    KFC?

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jmwalters' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DaveyN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Between the hit last night and him trying to fight Phil Kessel, exactly what code is John Scott playing by?

    [/QUOTE]


    UFC?

    [/QUOTE]


    KFC?

    [/QUOTE]

    Good stuff guys!

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to DrCC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The way it works as I heard from Dennis Potvin this morning.  Player is offered an in person hearing. IF that player refuses the in person- he automatically gets 6 games, or more. So far he's getting at least 5. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm pretty sure that's nonsense.  All this is is the CBA guaranteeing that a player facing a potential 6+ game suspension has the right to defend himself in person.  His decision to do so - or not - has no automatic effect on his suspension.  

    [/QUOTE]

    What's nonsense? The way the rule is, or what Potvin said?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    I think that giving them an automatic extra game for not having the in person hearing makes sense. You want to break the rules and then be a duche and not show up for a hearing then you should automatically be penalized further.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    I think it'll be 8-10.  I really do.  I have a long history of being disappointed by these decisions, so I'm probably wrong, but I think there are plenty of reasons for 8 to 10 here.

    There is the hit and there is the person here -- two things that the NHL is trying to get rid of.  I think the league is grudgingly tolerating the complete goons of the league right now, as long as they keep quiet and stay away from star players.  Twice in two months now John Scott has put himself on the front page of every NHL media outlet, going after a star player.  In the second incident he has taken a very good NHL player off the ice indefinitely, with a garbage hit.

    It isn't McLeod or Garbutt to me.  It is everything the NHL is trying to get rid of on several levels.

    8 - 10 games.  Any bets?

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think it'll be 8-10.  I really do.  I have a long history of being disappointed by these decisions, so I'm probably wrong, but I think there are plenty of reasons for 8 to 10 here.

    There is the hit and there is the person here -- two things that the NHL is trying to get rid of.  I think the league is grudgingly tolerating the complete goons of the league right now, as long as they keep quiet and stay away from star players.  Twice in two months now John Scott has put himself on the front page of every NHL media outlet, going after a star player.  In the second incident he has taken a very good NHL player off the ice indefinitely, with a garbage hit.

    It isn't McLeod or Garbutt to me.  It is everything the NHL is trying to get rid of on several levels.

    8 - 10 games.  Any bets?

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree with you Fletch that this one needs to be handled differently because, well, it is different - and for all the reasons that you describe so well.  Change has to start someday, hopefully this will be the catalyst.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to adkbeesfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    precedents are precedents for a reason 

    [/QUOTE]


    Bingo, they all start somewhere and now is as good a time as any.

    Its still close enough to the beginning of the season to do so....

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think it'll be 8-10.  I really do.  I have a long history of being disappointed by these decisions, so I'm probably wrong, but I think there are plenty of reasons for 8 to 10 here.

    There is the hit and there is the person here -- two things that the NHL is trying to get rid of.  I think the league is grudgingly tolerating the complete goons of the league right now, as long as they keep quiet and stay away from star players.  Twice in two months now John Scott has put himself on the front page of every NHL media outlet, going after a star player.  In the second incident he has taken a very good NHL player off the ice indefinitely, with a garbage hit.

    It isn't McLeod or Garbutt to me.  It is everything the NHL is trying to get rid of on several levels.

    8 - 10 games.  Any bets?

    [/QUOTE]


    Agree fletch, enough wrong with this hit for Shanny to whack him with more than 5 games.

    * rule 48

    * late

    * predatory

    * player injury

    The only mitigating circumstance is no prior record. 

    I'm sure the Sabres will miss his 5 minutes per game.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    Like Fletch, I think it will be 10, but I'm prepared to be disappointed. 

    In the end, I'm wondering if I care.  As Crowls points out, so what if the Sabres don't have this lummox in their lineup?  So what if the lummox loses $75000 in salary.  He's still banking $675K.  The biggest problem with Shannahan's circus is that it's really meaningless when dealing with goons.  Even losing a 4th liner who might kill a few penalties is more painful for the team than losing this moron.  Suspend him for life, it doesn't get Eriksson back on the ice.  If McQuaid had pushed his mush in, it would be satisfying to watch, but it wouldn't help with Eriksson's situation.  And the Sabres will find another clown to replace him - maybe a shorter one.

    There has to be some kind of eye for an eye for this to matter, and at the team level.  Like, Buffalo must sit a player comparable to Eriksson for the duration of the suspension, though that player will get paid and Scott will not.  It would be great if it was for the length of the injury.  Can you imagine how quickly Cooke would be sent packing in Pittsburgh if the league had said that, because Cooke took out Boston's top centre, Crosby must sit until Savard is able to return?  Juicy.  Never happen - the league wants Crosby on the ice too much.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

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

    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

    [/QUOTE]

    Fcuk that is funny.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot


    Next Thursday morning for Scott's hearing

    http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=435030

    No idea why so long, but that's a minimum of 3 games then as that's how many they'll have played by hearing time. The long wait makes me think they're going to lower the boom and need the time to get their ducks in a row.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to red75's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Next Thursday morning for Scott's hearing

    http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=435030

    No idea why so long, but that's a minimum of 3 games then as that's how many they'll have played by hearing time. The long wait makes me think they're going to lower the boom and need the time to get their ducks in a row.

    [/QUOTE]

    You nailed it red.  I'm confident that this hit was the last straw, and my guess is it is being discussed ad nauseum in the league offices.  I think everyone finally gets it.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    I'd say at least 4, red.  I also looked it up, and I don't see them letting Scott play the night of the hearing.  I don't know if I read much into it, though.  I figure it's six for sure with the in-person hearing, and the week delay in getting the hearing doesn't really change that.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Like Fletch, I think it will be 10, but I'm prepared to be disappointed. 

    In the end, I'm wondering if I care.  As Crowls points out, so what if the Sabres don't have this lummox in their lineup?  So what if the lummox loses $75000 in salary.  He's still banking $675K.  The biggest problem with Shannahan's circus is that it's really meaningless when dealing with goons.  Even losing a 4th liner who might kill a few penalties is more painful for the team than losing this moron.  Suspend him for life, it doesn't get Eriksson back on the ice.  If McQuaid had pushed his mush in, it would be satisfying to watch, but it wouldn't help with Eriksson's situation.  And the Sabres will find another clown to replace him - maybe a shorter one.

    There has to be some kind of eye for an eye for this to matter, and at the team level.  Like, Buffalo must sit a player comparable to Eriksson for the duration of the suspension, though that player will get paid and Scott will not.  It would be great if it was for the length of the injury.  Can you imagine how quickly Cooke would be sent packing in Pittsburgh if the league had said that, because Cooke took out Boston's top centre, Crosby must sit until Savard is able to return?  Juicy.  Never happen - the league wants Crosby on the ice too much.



    This is it in a nutshell, book.  What does it matter if it's 5, 10 or 15?  Eriksson is out indefinately, while the Sabres will actually be better without this hump in their lineup.  There is really no way to even out the impact of Eriksson's loss.

    I know Scott did score a goal back in 2009-10 and does log 5 mins per game, just thinking the Sabres will be able to get by no matter what Shanahan decides.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    The only justice here is if Miller gets run again and nobody on the ice for the Sabres does anything. Lets face it, the only reason John Scott is a Sabre is because Lucic ran Miller and Buffalo did nothing about it other than send Gaustad out on a late change a week later with a deer in headlights look only to get a beating.

    And Book is right, what difference does it make how many games John Scott gets.

    Would be nice if the Bruins were to face the Sabres during the time Scott is serving his games and have Lucic bump Miller a few times to the point where it has to be adrressed. Who is going ot do that? Steve Ott? He'd get ragdolled.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    All personal Bruins feelings aside, I think the Scott hit was a text book predatory hit to the head.

    And if the NHL is at all serious about this, they should crucify Scott for this, priors or no priors.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    The only justice here is if Miller gets run again and nobody on the ice for the Sabres does anything. Lets face it, the only reason John Scott is a Sabre is because Lucic ran Miller and Buffalo did nothing about it other than send Gaustad out on a late change a week later with a deer in headlights look only to get a beating.

    And Book is right, what difference does it make how many games John Scott gets.

    Would be nice if the Bruins were to face the Sabres during the time Scott is serving his games and have Lucic bump Miller a few times to the point where it has to be adrressed. Who is going ot do that? Steve Ott? He'd get ragdolled.



    He probably would, kel.  I wouldn't doubt Buffablow traded for him also as a result of the Bruins being division-mates.  Same with Montreal having Moen, Prust and now Parros.  Amazing effect the Bruins have on some teams, eh?

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think it'll be 8-10.  I really do.  I have a long history of being disappointed by these decisions, so I'm probably wrong, but I think there are plenty of reasons for 8 to 10 here.

    There is the hit and there is the person here -- two things that the NHL is trying to get rid of.  I think the league is grudgingly tolerating the complete goons of the league right now, as long as they keep quiet and stay away from star players.  Twice in two months now John Scott has put himself on the front page of every NHL media outlet, going after a star player.  In the second incident he has taken a very good NHL player off the ice indefinitely, with a garbage hit.

    It isn't McLeod or Garbutt to me.  It is everything the NHL is trying to get rid of on several levels.

    8 - 10 games.  Any bets?

    [/QUOTE]

    I said 7.  Im sticking to 7.  It could should be 5.   The best was his interviewer where he says hes a hockey player.  

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

    As for the "why do we care" idea mentioned by many:

    For future protection.  If Scott, with no suspension history, gets a whopper, others will take notice.  We don't care if that guy ever plays again, but if a big fat suspension ends up having some 4th liner think twice about railing Krejci (which we'll never know because it didn't happen of course), it's good news for all.

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

    Re: John Scott's Cheapshot

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

    As for the "why do we care" idea mentioned by many:

    For future protection.  If Scott, with no suspension history, gets a whopper, others will take notice.  We don't care if that guy ever plays again, but if a big fat suspension ends up having some 4th liner think twice about railing Krejci (which we'll never know because it didn't happen of course), it's good news for all.

    [/QUOTE]

    What's a whopper that would make a difference?  Not 5, 10 or 15.  Do you think Scott thought about the suspension implications before throwing the hit?  How will the suspension impact the Sabres?

    The big suspension number is red meat for fans, but means little in the context of protecting Krejci in the future.  There will always be a new, un-skilled, thug out there looking to keep his job and take these types of chances. 

    The players own this.  They need to respect each other.  Until that happens, all the Shanny-bans in the world won't change things.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share