OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from I-Like-Hockey. Show I-Like-Hockey's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]the thing is....what marchand did was not subtle at all. it looked like he was doing the wave. no slo-mo or frame by frame needed. the guy in the nose bleed seat saw this. the point of contact and intention is the same for all the checks. marchand just went a little overboard in making sure salo was airborne. believe me, after first watching marchands hit, i thought "it's just like every other hip check i've ever seen"- UNTIL i watched a bunch of others and noticed they did not follow through with their upper body. i don't think there's wording in the rule book that makes this follow through illegal, but boy it looked bad. hence the load of garbage we heard when shanny described the hit. he couldn't say "look at the way marchand raises his upper body and arms to assist in up-ending salo"  - because this is not against the rules. but he knew it looked REAL bad. and after letting marchy off the hook earlier, he had to come down hard on him.  
    Posted by adkbeesfan[/QUOTE]


    Im just being an antogonist here but isn't this exactly the opposite of the reasoning that was used when explaining the no suspension ruling for former bad boy Matt Cooke after the infamous Savard hit?

    I mean it was awful, it looked awful the end result was awful the premeditation was absolutely there. But when the league ruled no suspension the based on the fact that there was technically no rule against it (although they could've called many including interference, elbowing, attempt to injure etc....) then they said it was impossible to prove it as predatory or premeditated.

    Yet now Marchand is suspended on exactly the opposite grounds. Im fine with it. I really did not like Marchand's hit and I agree completely with you that Marchand went way overboard with the pro wrestler-esque finish.

    Its just pathetic that they used the exact opposite reasoning against Marchand and now arent even taking a look at supplementary discipline on nearly identical hits thrown by other players.

    This is has been my gripe since marchy's suspension was announced.
    -end rant.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming : Leafs are so soft, especially up front. In this incident, it looked worse because Phaneuf jumped slightly at the same time and thus the roll-over was worst.  I don't expect any suspension. Posted by LoveRealHockey[/QUOTE]

    Not if you ask Burke though, I mean his Leafs are tough. Funny how Brian mentioned to the media last spring that Phaneuf had barked at him in late spring last year that indeed "Were not tough enough!". I agree that their should be no suspension either.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]Looks like pretty much the same hit as Marchand to me.  I mean, we can pick out some subtle little differences, but only in Colin Campbell's world of dartboard justice is one a major, an ejection, and a 5-game suspension, while the other is a 2-minute penalty. If Marchand's was 'predatory', then so was this one. That's where we are at now though.  I won't be surprised if nothing happens.
    Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]
     fletch, you can't see that marchand stands up and raises his arms during the hit to intensify the flip? this is the only difference between his hit and the rest. this is not covered in the rule book, so shanny had to make up "predatory" this and that. there was no way #63 was getting off after his slew foot. he paid for both with that suspension.
       
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]every check in hockey is predatory. you're stalking someone with bad intentions. some peoples intentions are just a little worse than others. shanny needed a reason to suspend marchand, because by the book, his hit was legal. it was the intentional flipping(not covered in the rule book) that looked so bad, so he had to make something up to warrant a suspension. there will be a rule that's rewritten this off-season thanks to marchy.... the clipping/ intentionally aiding to the flipping of the opponent rule. 
    Posted by adkbeesfan[/QUOTE]

    Agreed, but both guys approached the hit the same way, both guys flipped the opponent who was suspecting a shoulder check, both opponents landed exactly the same way.  The hits were exactly equal in terms of being dangerous, and cheap.  Both were called clipping despite not meeting that definition.

    The punishment should be more or less the same.  Otherwise, the rulings are just plain inconsistent.

    If they gave Marchand 2 games like they easily could/should have, then you could just give Foligno 1 game and all would be fair.  But now Shanny has to match the ridiculous 5-game suspension for similar hits to be consistent.  He's put himself in a bad spot.

    For this hit, 5 games would be totally unfair to Foligno.  No punishment at all for Foligno would be totally unfair to Marchand.  Shanny's in trouble...
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming : Im just being an antogonist here but isn't this exactly the opposite of the reasoning that was used when explaining the no suspension ruling for former bad boy Matt Cooke after the infamous Savard hit? I mean it was awful, it looked awful the end result was awful the premeditation was absolutely there. But when the league ruled no suspension the based on the fact that there was technically no rule against it (although they could've called many including interference, elbowing, attempt to injure etc....) then they said it was impossible to prove it as predatory or premeditated. Yet now Marchand is suspended on exactly the opposite grounds. Im fine with it. I really did not like Marchand's hit and I agree completely with you that Marchand went way overboard with the pro wrestler-esque finish. Its just pathetic that they used the exact opposite reasoning against Marchand and now arent even taking a look at supplementary discipline on nearly identical hits thrown by other players. This is has been my gripe since marchy's suspension was announced. -end rant.
    Posted by I-Like-Hockey[/QUOTE]
     one ruling was made by colin campbell, the other brendan shanahan... shanny is trying to be more proactive. campbell was a dope, almost robotic by the book. but you're right shanny is putting the cart before the horse here. marchands hit was not "nearly" identical imo, no one else did quite what he did. point of contact was the same that's it. the "predatory" thing is laughable, he was reaching for an excuse that's all.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from I-Like-Hockey. Show I-Like-Hockey's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming : Agreed, but both guys approached the hit the same way, both guys flipped the opponent who was suspecting a shoulder check, both opponents landed exactly the same way.  The hits were exactly equal in terms of being dangerous, and cheap.  Both were called clipping despite not meeting that definition. The punishment should be more or less the same.  Otherwise, the rulings are just plain inconsistent. If they gave Marchand 2 games like they easily could/should have, then you could just give Foligno 1 game and all would be fair.  But now Shanny has to match the ridiculous 5-game suspension for similar hits to be consistent.  He's put himself in a bad spot. For this hit, 5 games would be totally unfair to Foligno.  No punishment at all for Foligno would be totally unfair to Marchand.  Shanny's in trouble...
    Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]


    well said.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    If the word "predatory" was already in the N.H.L's suspendable language category then why was Cooke not suspended for his hit on Savard as mentioned above? He has an extensive prior history of bad hits, and by the video was quite "predatory".Marchand ,also with a history although not as extensive as Cooke's, gets 5 games . I remember when Campbell handed down his non suspension he said there was nothing in the rulebook presently constituted that covered this hit. Shanahan should have said the same thing and give Marchand a $2500.00 dollar fine and be done with it but it seems he wants to use the "etch-a-sketch" rule book and hit the "predatory" players with his own justice.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from GillesGilbert. Show GillesGilbert's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming : Agreed, but both guys approached the hit the same way, both guys flipped the opponent who was suspecting a shoulder check, both opponents landed exactly the same way.  The hits were exactly equal in terms of being dangerous, and cheap.  Both were called clipping despite not meeting that definition. The punishment should be more or less the same.  Otherwise, the rulings are just plain inconsistent. If they gave Marchand 2 games like they easily could/should have, then you could just give Foligno 1 game and all would be fair.  But now Shanny has to match the ridiculous 5-game suspension for similar hits to be consistent.  He's put himself in a bad spot. For this hit, 5 games would be totally unfair to Foligno.  No punishment at all for Foligno would be totally unfair to Marchand.  Shanny's in trouble...
    Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]

    I guess Marchand got an 2-3 games because Salo was hurt worse than Phaneuf and 2-3 games for being a general repeat offender.  If I try hard I can swallow that. What I can't understand is why one is a 2 minute penalty and the other a major and game misconduct.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming : I guess Marchand got an 2-3 games because Salo was hurt worse than Phaneuf and 2-3 games for being a general repeat offender.  If I try hard I can swallow that. What I can't understand is why one is a 2 minute penalty and the other a major and game misconduct.
    Posted by GillesGilbert[/QUOTE]
    Bad officiating.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]the thing is....what marchand did was not subtle at all. it looked like he was doing the wave. no slo-mo or frame by frame needed. the guy in the nose bleed seat saw this. the point of contact and intention is the same for all the checks. marchand just went a little overboard in making sure salo was airborne. believe me, after first watching marchands hit, i thought "it's just like every other hip check i've ever seen"- UNTIL i watched a bunch of others and noticed they did not follow through with their upper body. i don't think there's wording in the rule book that makes this follow through illegal, but boy it looked bad. hence the load of garbage we heard when shanny described the hit. he couldn't say "look at the way marchand raises his upper body and arms to assist in up-ending salo"  - because this is not against the rules. but he knew it looked REAL bad. and after letting marchy off the hook earlier, he had to come down hard on him.  
    Posted by adkbeesfan[/QUOTE]
    ADK, I think all players rise up at the point of contact when making these hits. Foligno did it as did Ellis in one of the hits of the week....
    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/ryan-ellis-hipcheck-flyers-wayne-simmonds-awesome-clipping-193201449.html
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    The hits are the same, but there won't be suspension because neither one was a suspendable offence.  The Marchand suspension was simply an attempt to reign in a guy that Shanahan felt was being to bold and dangerous.  Neither hit was clipping.  You want to see clipping that should be given a lengthy suspension?  Here's what clipping really is, not hipchecks. You may actually get a knee injury, because a knee is actually targeted and there is actually contact with a knee area.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aSFRHuKcFQ
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from I-Like-Hockey. Show I-Like-Hockey's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]The hits are the same, but there won't be suspension because neither one was a suspendable offence.  The Marchand suspension was simply an attempt to reign in a guy that Shanahan felt was being to bold and dangerous.  Neither hit was clipping.  You want to see clipping that should be given a lengthy suspension?  Here's what clipping really is, not hipchecks. You may actually get a knee injury, because a knee is actually targeted and there is actually contact with a knee area. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aSFRHuKcFQ
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    Thats not clipping, its a leg check. Seperate penalties.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from birbobruins. Show birbobruins's posts

    Jon gets it...

    Take a look at this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npn0dyhSyr0&feature=player_embedded
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]Looks like pretty much the same hit as Marchand to me.  I mean, we can pick out some subtle little differences, but only in Colin Campbell's world of dartboard justice is one a major, an ejection, and a 5-game suspension, while the other is a 2-minute penalty. If Marchand's was 'predatory', then so was this one. That's where we are at now though.  I won't be surprised if nothing happens.
    Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]


    and to me.....Bieksa-Moore is even more identical to Marchand.  your thoughts?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming :  one ruling was made by colin campbell, the other brendan shanahan... shanny is trying to be more proactive. campbell was a dope, almost robotic by the book. but you're right shanny is putting the cart before the horse here. marchands hit was not "nearly" identical imo, no one else did quite what he did. point of contact was the same that's it. the "predatory" thing is laughable, he was reaching for an excuse that's all.
    Posted by adkbeesfan[/QUOTE]


    but don't you think that it's totally unacceptable for a supposed impartial, alledgedly enlightened, enforcer of league rules.....to be "reaching for an excuse" to suspend somebody.

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

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]There are a few things that make it hard to compare the two - Phaneuf sees the hit coming, and he jumps a bit, which means he makes the point of contact lower.  Phaneuf had the puck; he wasn't about to hit Foligno.  That means that on the one hand, Foligno is doing something far more common in trying to make a hit to take his man out of the play - throwing a hip check as OatesCam says.  On the other hand, you see him start to prepare the hip check  early, a good second or two before the actual contact, and it's clear he's setting up for the hip check and not a regular body check.  To me, that would seem more premeditated or predatory than what Marchand did, though you could argue Marchand's sudden lunge at Salo was the tripping of a trap he set for him.
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    When I think of a hip check, I generally think of a check that is thrown with a hip.  The initial point of contact here is Foligno's shoulder.

    Take a look at this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TiQTG9Qef0

    This is what a hip check looks like.  The "hitter" is almost always skating backwards and, get this, uses his hip as the initial checking point.

    Since Marchand's five game suspension for his dirty hit (which B's fans defended as a hip check), people have forgottten what a hip check actually is.

    It's a check.  Make by using one's hip.  It's not ducking under someone and flipping them over your shoulder like Hilbilly Jim vs. Kamala.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming : but don't you think that it's totally unacceptable for a supposed impartial, alledgedly enlightened, enforcer of league rules.....to be "reaching for an excuse" to suspend somebody.
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]
    Yes, i thought Shanahan was going to be a breath of fresh air, but its looking like were smelling the same old pulp mill.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming : ADK, I think all players rise up at the point of contact when making these hits. Foligno did it as did Ellis in one of the hits of the week.... http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/ryan-ellis-hipcheck-flyers-wayne-simmonds-awesome-clipping-193201449.html
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]
    just watched the clip you provided... and they're not even close imo. marchands arms were extended above his head as high as he could reach. it looked like he was celebrating a goal. like i said previously, it reminded me of that "fake wrestling" move where they throw the guy against the ropes, and duck underneath them, launching the guy into the air. it was textbook. not a single other video i've seen comes even close to this upper body follow through. there's really nothing written in the rules against it, BUT IT LOOKED BAD. shanny spews out a load of bull to give justification for a suspension. i'm not saying i agree with it, but shanahan was not going to sweep this one under the rug, because he already gave marchand the benefit of the doubt (slew foot). i remember laughing at hanrahans avatar, it really looked like #63 was celebrating a stanley cup winning goal as he followed through on the check. show me a hip check where the guys arms extend above his head adding a little extra to the launch factor, and we have comparable hits.  again i repeat... i think shanahan overstepped his bounds here, but i can see why- it was the perfect storm.
    marchand only fined before, media frenzy in canada, league-wide perception that the bruins are thugs, chara and lucic let off the hook. all of this played into the decision. it shouldn't have... but the reality is, it did.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming : just watched the clip you provided... and they're not even close imo. marchands arms were extended above his head as high as he could reach. it looked like he was celebrating a goal. like i said previously, it reminded me of that "fake wrestling" move where they throw the guy against the ropes, and duck underneath them, launching the guy into the air. it was textbook. not a single other video i've seen comes even close to this upper body follow through. there's really nothing written in the rules against it, BUT IT LOOKED BAD. shanny spews out a load of bull to give justification for a suspension. i'm not saying i agree with it, but shanahan was not going to sweep this one under the rug, because he already gave marchand the benefit of the doubt (slew foot). i remember laughing at hanrahans avatar, it really looked like #63 was celebrating a stanley cup winning goal as he followed through on the check. show me a hip check where the guys arms extend above his head adding a little extra to the launch factor, and we have comparable hits.  again i repeat... i think shanahan overstepped his bounds here, but i can see why- it was the perfect storm. marchand only fined before, media frenzy in canada, league-wide perception that the bruins are thugs, chara and lucic let off the hook. all of this played into the decision. it shouldn't have... but the reality is, it did.
    Posted by adkbeesfan[/QUOTE]
    I guess I'll have to look again because I've no idea what you're talking about regarding the arms. I'm simply saying that most hip-checks involve a player crouching (somewhat) and then springing upward.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming : I guess I'll have to look again because I've no idea what you're talking about regarding the arms. I'm simply saying that most hip-checks involve a player crouching (somewhat) and then springing upward.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    i think the arms are up to regain balance after flipping salo over him.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming : i think the arms are up to regain balance after flipping salo over him.
    Posted by goodnewsbears[/QUOTE]
    I truly didn't think it was part of a suplex so you're theory makes more sense to me.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from fourrings. Show fourrings's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l5gOlr4unw&feature=player_embedded Im going to say 2-3gms as Foligno doesn't have the history of Marchand. But if this doesnt even get a look at from the VP of Player Safety. Then I have to ask is there really a league crackdown specifically targeted at the B's?? does mass amounts of fan/media groaning like VAN with Marchand's suspension really influence these decisions?
    Posted by I-Like-Hockey[/QUOTE]

    all of the hits like marchands are bad and that one by foligno is just as bad if you ask me
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming

    In Response to Re: OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming:
    [QUOTE]In Response to OK Shanny time for consistency there should be a Shanaban incoming : all of the hits like marchands are bad and that one by foligno is just as bad if you ask me
    Posted by fourrings[/QUOTE]
    They were definitely similar.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share