Marchand get 5 games

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

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    I think LRH hits the nail on the head.  Well done.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games : That stance can be flipped, though.  Given that Marchand had been giving Salo punches to the head, doesn't that make it more believable that he thought Salo might retaliate and try to take his head off?  I'm not saying that is the case - but that is why it isn't really discussed.  It can be used to support both sides. Anyways, the more I think about Shanahan's video, the more one aspect really bugs me.  Basically, he said that this hit is fine as long as it is in self-defense, but worthy of a multi-game suspension otherwise.  That is a huge gap in discipline based on a judgement call on intent.  As far as I am concerned, this hit either needs to be allowed or declared suspendable anytime it is done intentionally.
    Posted by DrCC


    That's exactly what I said somewhere else. If Marchand is one of the most hated players on the Bruins can it be that it was Salo going after Marchand ?

    1-In this case Shannahan gives the benefit of the doubt to Salo. Just that is an un-fair assumption . Ina court of law benefits of doubts, without real proof does not stand to lay down a verdict.

    2- He did not hit Salo to the knees or below.  When something this clear is not recognized then we know that the real reason for this ruling is not being mentioned.

    Just based on these 2 points Marchand did not deserve 5 games. 2games would have been fair  for an interference call that turned out bad and as a repeat offender.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jalvis. Show jalvis's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games : 2- He did not hit Salo to the knees or below.  When something this clear is not recognized then we know that the real reason for this ruling is not being mentioned.
    Posted by BsLegion


    That is very concerning going forward.  It's a slippery slope that Shanny's on.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Krispy73. Show Krispy73's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    Now the true colors come out.  Will all of the North49 butt buddies finally see this tiger for his stripes?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    You say butt buddy like it's a bad thing.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    Even on Montreal TSN Radio they're saying the reason why Marchand got 5 games might be because got they got away with other suspensions. 
    Fact is Marchand shouldn't have gotten suspended 5 games for the hit .
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    BsL,

    How is that a fact?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    Whats funny is I have been reading and listening to a lot of sports shows and they are saying Boston does get away with a lot.  I really am not sure what they are basing this on. There are tow incidents that stick out to me, maybe three. Chara vs MP Lucic vs Miller And possibly Ference vs Halpren. Of those the only one that I thought should have been a suspension was Ference but there really wasn't enough to suspend similar to Steckel on Crosby.  I often claim many as having Bruins Homer glasses but thats more in line of poor officiating etc etc and not so much league wide distain against this club and getting away with suspensions.  Are we all that blind that even I am wearing homer-sized glasses?  I didnt think Marchand deserved a suspension.  I don't.  I didn't think Raymond did, I didn't think Ballard did, I didn't think Hamhuis did.  Is Marchand supposed to stand in there and take this hit?  What in the rules says a player must stand in and take a hit?  I see lots of players turning numbers to the boards to avoid a collision.  Anyway, I believe that setting an example in this case is very bad.  There have been way worse head shots that are simply getting 1-2 games.  Salo fell on his gazoo sized head.  He didnt get elbowed.  His head wasnt targeted. Yes it was a sly move for sure.  I really don't think its that dirty though.  I have seen players duck under checks lots.  Crosby along the boards all the time... AV saying Marchand is gonna get it someday.  Too bad his gutless crew didnt do anything about it after Gazoo Twin got speed bagged or on Saturday.  Guess they will have to wait for a team with grapes like the Habs play them. 
    Posted by shuperman


    As Shanny correctly pointed out, and is clear on the video (if you rewind it 30 seconds), the two of them did exactly that, a clean, no injury, shoulder-to-shoulder hit, in virtually the exact location of the penalized hit. Then Marchand proceeds to punch Salo in the head (twice), then low-bridges him.  Moments after a regular, legal hit, why does Marchand now decide "that he's in imminent danger, and must protect himself"?  Because he illegally punched Salo twice, and now Salo will be "out for revenge"?  Geez man, if you make your own bed, you've got to sleep in it too.

    Shanny, and virtually everyone else saw right through that ridiculous statement (made even more so by being echoed by B's management).
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    BsL, How is that a fact?
    Posted by shuperman

    because it seems he was suspended for being brad marchand(not going to argue this one), and because there was an injury to salo. as shanahan describes the hit with the video, he repeatedly says "across/below the knee"- video proves this to NOT be the case. as a cop shupe, would you agree that it's possible marchand was conditionally discharged for the slew-foot? meaning, marchand was off the hook for the slew-foot, but warned if something of questionable nature happens AGAIN, punishment will be for both infractions? is this a reach?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games : because it seems he was suspended for being brad marchand(not going to argue this one), and because there was an injury to salo. as shanahan describes the hit with the video, he repeatedly says "across/below the knee"- video proves this to NOT be the case. as a cop shupe, would you agree that it's possible marchand was conditionally discharged for the slew-foot? meaning, marchand was off the hook for the slew-foot, but warned if something of questionable nature happens AGAIN, punishment will be for both infractions? is this a reach?
    Posted by adkbeesfan


    "Seems" is not a fact, its a generalization.  PS...I am saying he didnt deserve a suspension before you amp it up on me.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    when it SEEMS the rule book does not apply in this situation, it's plausible to to think it the suspension was for OTHER reasons. what's your take on the con/dis argument? does it hold water? maybe this is why there is such a gray area here? shanny can't just come out and say, "hey, i told this kid this borderline crap is done, gave him the benefit of the doubt ONCE, now he's going to pay for both"
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    BsL, How is that a fact?
    Posted by shuperman


    I re-phrased sorry.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games : As Shanny correctly pointed out, and is clear on the video (if you rewind it 30 seconds), the two of them did exactly that, a clean, no injury, shoulder-to-shoulder hit, in virtually the exact location of the penalized hit. Then Marchand proceeds to punch Salo in the head (twice), then low-bridges him.  Moments after a regular, legal hit, why does Marchand now decide "that he's in imminent danger, and must protect himself"?  Because he illegally punched Salo twice, and now Salo will be "out for revenge"?  Geez man, if you make your own bed, you've got to sleep in it too. Shanny, and virtually everyone else saw right through that ridiculous statement (made even more so by being echoed by B's management).
    Posted by 49-North


    Again, what did he do.  I don't think its a suspension.  I don't think the three similar hits by Canucks are either.  Does it matter that Marchand had 5 seconds more to think about it? 
    Illegally punched Salo?  Was he penailized? Hmmm?  Lots of stuff goes on the ice that isn't caught.  Can they bring every single play into consideration or base it on the actual play.  I haven't seen Shanny's take but if he is basing this on an early collision it doesn't make sense. 

    Don't confuse me as a Pro Marchand type.  I am not.  I don't think this was a suspension and 5 games is absolutely an example.  How does Torres(who I used to love) get away with three head shots in a week and have a rap sheet get away with 2?  How?  Shanny has lost his marbles.  Trust me if I think Marchand deserved a suspension I would be letting people know. 

    Vancouver's front office is classless, they lobbyed for this...Salo is a freaking bandaid.  What's next will they be wearing neck braces when they do interviews.  Its getting as bad as the WWE in Van-Land with all the acting, biting and such.  Having coaches and GM's yapping in the media?  Come on.

    I think if you are the honest type would even suggest he should have got 5.  Then to deflect similar incidents (3 if we are counting) and say they were different....cmon man.  They aren't. 


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

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games : As Shanny correctly pointed out, and is clear on the video (if you rewind it 30 seconds), the two of them did exactly that, a clean, no injury, shoulder-to-shoulder hit, in virtually the exact location of the penalized hit. Then Marchand proceeds to punch Salo in the head (twice), then low-bridges him.  Moments after a regular, legal hit, why does Marchand now decide "that he's in imminent danger, and must protect himself"?  Because he illegally punched Salo twice, and now Salo will be "out for revenge"?  Geez man, if you make your own bed, you've got to sleep in it too. Shanny, and virtually everyone else saw right through that ridiculous statement (made even more so by being echoed by B's management).
    Posted by 49-North


    Keep wearing the horse blinders and avoid the other facts.

    DrCC wrote:

    That stance can be flipped, though.  Given that Marchand had been giving Salo punches to the head, doesn't that make it more believable that he thought Salo might retaliate and try to take his head off?  I'm not saying that is the case - but that may be why it isn't really discussed.  It can be used to support both sides.  Shanahan even addresses this.  He agreed that the line of thinking could be used, but it was insufficient to warrant the duck.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    when it SEEMS the rule book does not apply in this situation, it's plausible to to think it the suspension was for OTHER reasons. what's your take on the con/dis argument? does it hold water? maybe this is why there is such a gray area here? shanny can't just come out and say, "hey, i told this kid this borderline crap is done, gave him the benefit of the doubt ONCE, now he's going to pay for both"
    Posted by adkbeesfan


    I have chimed in.  Read above.  I am no fan of Marchand.  No way he deserved 5 games.  Not 1 game in my eyes.  What makes Salo's play not a charge? His feet were still moving.  I mean heck I can make up stuff as well.  Seems thats what the NHL has turned into.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games : As Shanny correctly pointed out, and is clear on the video (if you rewind it 30 seconds), the two of them did exactly that, a clean, no injury, shoulder-to-shoulder hit, in virtually the exact location of the penalized hit. Then Marchand proceeds to punch Salo in the head (twice), then low-bridges him.  Moments after a regular, legal hit, why does Marchand now decide "that he's in imminent danger, and must protect himself"?  Because he illegally punched Salo twice, and now Salo will be "out for revenge"?  Geez man, if you make your own bed, you've got to sleep in it too. Shanny, and virtually everyone else saw right through that ridiculous statement (made even more so by being echoed by B's management).
    Posted by 49-North

    Let's say we agree that Marchand put a cheap hit on Salo and we don't buy the self-defense argument (I don't).  I thought it was a bad hit and a stupid hit, although I'm not sure what rule was broken.  The reaction/suspension is grossly over the top, and I think you know it.

    That's why I keep asking questions about the calls (no answer...?).  I get that you're a Canuck fan and I'm a Bruins fan.  I get that you're happy to see Marchand blow the game and get a 5-game suspension.  I would probably be happy to see the same on Burrows.  But take off your Canucks hat for a second and consider:

    -Was the play a penalty in the rule book?  What penalty?
    -Is there any precedence for a 5-game suspension for that hit?
    -Should Lucic have been ejected?
    -Who was the "3rd man in" in the Thornton scrum (or 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, etc)?
    -Should Vancouver have been given a 5 on 3 as a result? 
    -How insane would the reaction from Vancouver be if the same calls/suspensions were called on their team (would Gillis still be with us?)?

    I'm giving you a chance to be objective.  You can just say 'I don't care whether it's fair or not, Boston deserves it based on the past'.  That answer is fine and it is what most people in Vancouver think, but it is NOT what Shanahan and the league are supposed to be doing.  They are not supposed to consider league wide hurt feelings about a team or the outcry of bitter management.  They are supposed to consider the specific incident and the specific violations of the rulebook.  It's a little scary that they have departed from that...no?

    The Bruins will be fine.  This is an opportunity to reign Marchand in a bit and try out some young talent, mid-season.  But Shanahan is setting a precedent that is arbitrary, emotional, and inconsistent.  Don't complain when it happens to your team.


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

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games : Let's say we agree that Marchand put a cheap hit on Salo and we don't buy the self-defense argument (I don't).  I thought it was a bad hit and a stupid hit, although I'm not sure what rule was broken.  The reaction/suspension is grossly over the top, and I think you know it. That's why I keep asking questions about the calls (no answer...?).  I get that you're a Canuck fan and I'm a Bruins fan.  I get that you're happy to see Marchand blow the game and get a 5-game suspension.  I would probably be happy to see the same on Burrows.  But take off your Canucks hat for a second and consider: -Was the play a penalty in the rule book?  What penalty? -Is there any precedence for a 5-game suspension for that hit? -Should Lucic have been ejected? -Who was the "3rd man in" in the Thornton scrum (or 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, etc)? -Should Vancouver have been given a 5 on 3 as a result?  -How insane would the reaction from Vancouver be if the same calls/suspensions were called on their team (would Gillis still be with us?)? I'm giving you a chance to be objective.  You can just say 'I don't care whether it's fair or not, Boston deserves it based on the past'.  That answer is fine and it is what most people in Vancouver think, but it is NOT what Shanahan and the league are supposed to be doing.  They are not supposed to consider league wide hurt feelings about a team or the outcry of bitter management.  They are supposed to consider the specific incident and the specific violations of the rulebook.  It's a little scary that they have departed from that...no? The Bruins will be fine.  This is an opportunity to reign Marchand in a bit and try out some young talent, mid-season.  But Shanahan is setting a precedent that is arbitrary, emotional, and inconsistent.  Don't complain when it happens to your team.
    Posted by Fletcher1


    Very good post. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    i'm telling you guys, there was a conditional discharge for the slew foot incident(only because there was no injury). now marchand is doing the time for BOTH incidents. there is more behind the scenes stuff being said and done than we all realize i bet. like..."you're lucky nobody got hurt for that slew foot, you'll get the benefit of the doubt- this one time. i'm not joking, you hurt anyone doing this cheap stuff again, i'm coming down hard on you. maybe then you'll learn your lesson". this is all about the guy who delived a questionable(not saying illegal) hit, not the hit itself. how else can it be explained when this same hit has occured numerous times with NOBODY seeming to mind?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    i'm telling you guys, there was a conditional discharge for the slew foot incident(only because there was no injury). now marchand is doing the time for BOTH incidents. there is more behind the scenes stuff being said and done than we all realize i bet. like..."you're lucky nobody got hurt for that slew foot, you'll get the benefit of the doubt- this one time. i'm not joking, you hurt anyone doing this cheap stuff again, i'm coming down hard on you. maybe then you'll learn your lesson". this is all about the guy who delived a questionable(not saying illegal) hit, not the hit itself. how else can it be explained when this same hit has occured numerous times with NOBODY seeming to mind?
    Posted by adkbeesfan


    I highly doubt they tell the player or the NHLPA that.  But you are probably right.  The slewie in my eyes is a dirty play and should have been suspended for it.

    I don't think this was that bad.  Sure it looks bad seeing a 6'5 dman going assoverteakettle and yes its a sly sneaky move...but if Sid Crosby does this Pierre McGuirre would cream on camera.  Sorry if cream offended anyone.  I meant like coffee cream in coffee.   
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    Historically, there have been almost as many "mooning' penalties, as "clipping".  The rule book states, "knee's or below".  Although, in my book, a little dirty, it's definately above the knee's, and not nearly as dispicable as a slew-foot.
    Anyway, the video is conclusive.  Contact is above the knee, therefore, legal.
    Referee's can make the wrong call, and call it a penalty, but in this case, we've gone beyond that.  We've gone to a review process, where the principals have the luxury of video tape, and the time to digest all the facts.
    The issue here, is not the predatory vs preservation lunacy, it's the "fact", this isn't a clip.  This is not a penalty.  If the league wishes to make it one, fine.  As of 1/8/12, ducking a hit is a penalty, subject to discipline.  That was basically the leagues position on the Cooke hit.  Yeah, it's kinda dirty, but we've always allowed that sort of thing.  It's unfortunate that Savard got hurt, but we can't suspend as the result of something questionable.  It has to be an infraction.  I disagreed with the league then, cuz they could have picked a couple of tried and true violations to use in that situation(charging, interference).
    Anyway, their defense that they couldn't make up rules as they went....was solid.
     
    Now they are.

    Obviously, the league agree's with, or wants to pacify the majority who feel Marchand is a rat.  They want to send a message.  There are many more hockey fans who aren't partial to the Bruins, than are....so lets go the easy route, and appease the masses.

    The league has made a huge mistake though.  One that will haunt them.  It's fine to send a message, but without the facts, that message is not the one you want delivered.

    All of this predatory BS.  Seems to me, that logic would have worked much better
    in the Lucic-Miller case.  Big guy steamrolls little guy, and little guy is a goalie.  In my books, that's a much dirtier play, and "could" easily be interpretted as a penalty(roughing, interference, charging).  Thing is though, the BM deal is not at or below the knees, so there is no penalty.  If it's not a penalty, how can it be a suspension.
      
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games : Let's say we agree that Marchand put a cheap hit on Salo and we don't buy the self-defense argument (I don't).  I thought it was a bad hit and a stupid hit, although I'm not sure what rule was broken.  The reaction/suspension is grossly over the top, and I think you know it. That's why I keep asking questions about the calls (no answer...?).  I get that you're a Canuck fan and I'm a Bruins fan.  I get that you're happy to see Marchand blow the game and get a 5-game suspension.  I would probably be happy to see the same on Burrows.  But take off your Canucks hat for a second and consider: -Was the play a penalty in the rule book?  What penalty? -Is there any precedence for a 5-game suspension for that hit? -Should Lucic have been ejected? -Who was the "3rd man in" in the Thornton scrum (or 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, etc)? -Should Vancouver have been given a 5 on 3 as a result?  -How insane would the reaction from Vancouver be if the same calls/suspensions were called on their team (would Gillis still be with us?)? I'm giving you a chance to be objective.  You can just say 'I don't care whether it's fair or not, Boston deserves it based on the past'.  That answer is fine and it is what most people in Vancouver think, but it is NOT what Shanahan and the league are supposed to be doing.  They are not supposed to consider league wide hurt feelings about a team or the outcry of bitter management.  They are supposed to consider the specific incident and the specific violations of the rulebook.  It's a little scary that they have departed from that...no? The Bruins will be fine.  This is an opportunity to reign Marchand in a bit and try out some young talent, mid-season.  But Shanahan is setting a precedent that is arbitrary, emotional, and inconsistent.  Don't complain when it happens to your team.
    Posted by Fletcher1


    Did you watch Shanny's explanation? That covers the first two questions, from the point of view of the league.  My take? 5 games is a lot.  I thought it was going to be 2-3 games, max.  My guess for the 5, and it's only that, is that Marchy is a repeat offender, his rationalization was beyond lame (if he has taken responsibility, perhaps it would have been less?), and he was attempting to throw the 'self-defense' explanation back at the league (trying to make the league look bad?).  While not being a mind reader, I also suspect that the league is trying to send Marchand a message -- clean up your act, or next time, it'll be much more than 5 games.  As for precedent, new ones are set from time to time, especially when "there's a new sheriff in town" -- as I recall, Rome's 4-games-during-a-Cup-Final suspension was also unprecedented; yet I'm sure all of you agreed wholeheartedly with that one. (and before everyone jumps on me, I'm not comparing the two incidents, I'm only bringing it up in the context of precedent).

    When I was listening to the game, the radio call didn't give much of an explanation for Lucic's game misconduct.  And when I watched it on PVR later, it  was already announced that his automatic suspension had been revoked.  So, it looks like a mistake on the part of the refs, unless his game misconduct was for something else, unrelated to the "coming off the bench" issue.  Sorry, can't give you a better explanation than that.

    Re: the Thornton scrum.  You called it correctly -- a scrum, rather than a fight.  As far as I know, there isn't a penalty for "3rd man in a scrum".  Had Thornton and Burrows dropped their gloves and engaged in an actual fight at that point?  I haven't reviewed the tape Zapruder-style to check.  And isn't the Canucks' response in this situation akin to the "pack" mentality that the Bruins espouse? A teammate is being attacked by someone who outweighs him by almost 30 lbs, and is known as one of the fiercest fighters in the league, so everyone jumps to his defense?

    The 5-on-3:  I didn't even attempt to read through the number of penalties assessed and whom they were assessed to as a result of that scrum.  My guess is that they called Thornton's over-the-top (my opinion, probably not shared by you) response to Burrows' stick wave (referred to by Mr. Potato-Head as "a stick across Thornton's throat"), and Lucic's return to the scrum, after he was separated and told to go to the penalty box (again, my assumption, not necessarily supported by video evidence).  Also, I'm using the somewhat unflattering nickname for CJ, only because someone on this forum used the also unflattering handle of "Tomato-Face" for Gillis -- who knows? Maybe CJ likes the nickname?

    Van reaction: Obviously, this was an emotionally-charged game, so everything is going to be 'over-the-top', including the response.  The Boston media is also responding in kind.  I suspect that if Burrows had low-bridged Chara, there would have been outrage in Boston.

    Does anyone in Boston think that the linesmen blew the icing wave-off that led to a Bruins' goal?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    Historically, there have been almost as many "mooning' penalties, as "clipping".  The rule book states, "knee's or below".  Although, in my book, a little dirty, it's definately above the knee's, and not nearly as dispicable as a slew-foot. Anyway, the video is conclusive.  Contact is above the knee, therefore, legal. Referee's can make the wrong call, and call it a penalty, but in this case, we've gone beyond that.  We've gone to a review process, where the principals have the luxury of video tape, and the time to digest all the facts. The issue here, is not the predatory vs preservation lunacy, it's the "fact", this isn't a clip.  This is not a penalty.  If the league wishes to make it one, fine.  As of 1/8/12, ducking a hit is a penalty, subject to discipline.  That was basically the leagues position on the Cooke hit.  Yeah, it's kinda dirty, but we've always allowed that sort of thing.  It's unfortunate that Savard got hurt, but we can't suspend as the result of something questionable.  It has to be an infraction.  I disagreed with the league then, cuz they could have picked a couple of tried and true violations to use in that situation(charging, interference). Anyway, their defense that they couldn't make up rules as they went....was solid.   Now they are. Obviously, the league agree's with, or wants to pacify the majority who feel Marchand is a rat.  They want to send a message.  There are many more hockey fans who aren't partial to the Bruins, than are....so lets go the easy route, and appease the masses. The league has made a huge mistake though.  One that will haunt them.  It's fine to send a message, but without the facts, that message is not the one you want delivered. All of this predatory BS.  Seems to me, that logic would have worked much better in the Lucic-Miller case.  Big guy steamrolls little guy, and little guy is a goalie.  In my books, that's a much dirtier play, and "could" easily be interpretted as a penalty(roughing, interference, charging).  Thing is though, the BM deal is not at or below the knees, so there is no penalty.  If it's not a penalty, how can it be a suspension.   
    Posted by stevegm


    If the NHL was interested in "appeasing the masses", then both Chara and Lucic would have been suspended for the Patch and Miller incidents.  If anything, there's suspicion around the league that the Boston-NHL Front Office connection has resulted in the league going easier on Bruins (at least, in the past).  There may be no basis for this, but perception is a powerful thing.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    According to Kerry Fraser, Third-Man-In is third man into an altercation - which does not require dropped gloves.  Only that a penalty is going to be assesed.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    According to Kerry Fraser, Third-Man-In is third man into an altercation - which does not require dropped gloves.  Only that a penalty is going to be assesed. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=384640
    Posted by DrCC


    That's been the rule since the 70's. Surprised so few people realize that.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from saultont. Show saultont's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Marchand get 5 games:
    Seems a bit over the top to me. The nucks did a hit like that saturday and lucic got hit like that in the finals. I guess its ok for some players or teams to do hits like that and other its not. Shanny is turning the nhl into a joke.
    Posted by LUCICmilan17


    I always liked  Shanahan as a player and thought he would have looked great in a Bruins jersey....when he nailed down his present job I assumed it would be a good thing as I believed him to be his own man and would bring credibility...he seemed to be religiously sticking to the rule book when making decisions as it should be but has proven he is nothing more than a puppet to higher ups by ignoring the description of clipping and making his own qbservation stand,,,he has without doubt created a double standard....just another pawn on the NHL chessboard...too bad...he is a disappointment in my humble book!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Marchand get 5 games

    In Response to Re: Marchand get 5 games:
    According to Kerry Fraser, Third-Man-In is third man into an altercation - which does not require dropped gloves.  Only that a penalty is going to be assesed. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=384640
    Posted by DrCC


    Why was Burrows not given more for his spear to the throat?  Seemed pretty obvious to me and TV land.  How did they land a 5 on 3 when they jumped hog pile on Thornton(b/c now one would man up one on one) after Burrows spears him.  

    Ooops got off track...

    11 PP to 7 PP.  I will never complain about losing a game to bad officiaiting. Those come and go and human error makes the game exciting at times.  

    Marchand is a weasel...no doubt about it.  I said it all last year and basically stopped b/c it was becoming a broken record.  Some on here love and defend, others don't and pile it on.  I was in the latter but stopped and became neutral as I can on his matters.  I personally think the league made a mistake.  Much much bigger fish to fry than that hit.  This was likely the biggest game of the year and I believe thats why this was handled in this manner.  I don't care what team you cheer for.  That simply isnt a 5 game suspension!

    Again, everyone is entitled to an opinion.  I just really dislike your team.  It takes me a lot to strongly dislike a team and normally can find something I like...but the brand your team plays is well...read almost every post here in the last week.  I'm a hockey fan first...and if Van was my team I would seriously change teams.  I dislike the way they play...The Gazoo's are talented no denyig it and Van when rolling can beat anyone.  But year in year out they get beat by the same recipe...someday maybe they reach the top.  I think they peeked last year.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share