Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?
posted at 1/11/2012 10:39 AM EST
In Response to Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these?
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Shannahan, you are a joke. What about these? : This conspiracy thing "the Bruins get away with too much" or "now the league is against Boston" is out of hand. Sports fans that think Networks and TV advertisers/corporations can dictate the way a championship can be influenced by suits is just as ridiculous thinking. No one could convince me that you would catch Shanahan sending an email saying that this player is a "little faker" or allow himself to be lobbied by a GM at the General Manager meetings to not punish a certain player. Shanahan didn't teach Marchand to slew foot nor elbow someone in the head, that call was made on reputation by a terrible ref who can't make it out of the first round of the playoffs. I didn't like the length of the suspension either but Shanahan knows certain players aren't getting it so he has to start to dropping the hammer.
Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]
For the record, I don't/never have subscribed to the conspiracy crap, in fact I've publicly dissed that mentality on another thread. Since it appears above, that you're responding to my comments, please know I've never infered any of those things written above.
And...I agree, he has no reason to play favorites, or pander to GM's. He probably is smart enough to keep his derogatory comments, "out of print", but I don't for a second think his personal feelings for a player like Marchand, are one bit different than Campbell's are of Savard. As a result, he's put himself above the game, and dished out his own justice. That's probably my biggest beef.
That is absolutely wrong, and not very bright.
I won't even argue that BM "needs" a little lesson. I don't disagree that maybe the hammer should be dropped on this guy. You can't just do it, cuz you want to though...there needs to be grounds.
On this one, Shanahan ruled like a ticked off player seeking retribution, not an impartial judge.
The slew foot was Shannahan's chance, but he blew it.
Cuz the slew foot was, in fact a slew foot. A dirty play, according to league rules, so Brendon has the backing of the rule book. He can do what he wants. Maybe we can whine about the length, but it's pretty hard to argue a suspension. Same with Lucic-Miller. Big tough guy runs puny goalie. That can be a discretionary charging, interference call by a ref, which would be supported, followed by supplemental discipline.
This issue is totally different. The hearing should make this one black and white. Obviously the penalty stands, but when considering a suspension, the league can see that the hit is considered legal. It's not at or below the knee's, therefore, you don't dole out suspensions in that case. If the league doesn't like it...change the rules, and start from scratch.
Again, this can be taken to a black and white level. Most can't. If a figure of authority wants to send a message...they should have the good sense to pick their spot.
One exagerated example, and I'm done with this.
Player A and B are going hard on a potential icing call. Player A appears to be tripped, goes head first into the boards and breaks his neck. Player B is penalized, and ejected from the game. The whole world wants player B's head. In the hearing though, it's conclusive that player B didn't trip player A. With the luxury of slow-mo video close-ups, it's obvious that in attempting to block player B's line to the puck, player A attempts to break B's stick by stomping on it, and inadvertently sends himself headfirst, into the boards.
Player A still has a broken neck and his career is ruined. In that case does B get suspended? No. Hindsight shows there was no violation of the rules, and we must follow rules in sport. There could very well be a groundswell of indignation, but the fact someone gets hurt...unfortunately, is a fact of life, and in this case, a moot point. Maybe we rekindle the no touch icing debate, but we seperate the two things. We don't confuse the 2 issues, as one issue, and the league should have the gonads to stand up, look people in the eye, and tell them you don't make decisions based on the severity of injury. Decisions are based on rules.
Shanahan's resulting diatribe regarding his logic is laughable, and speaks to his overall lack of competence. He's stuck on this "self preservation" stuff, when anyone old enough to read a rule book knows it's completely irrelevant. There is nothing in the rule book regarding "clipping", that states "submarining" is ok if one is "protecting ones-self". The rule says "knee or below". It's conclusive, no more needs to, or should be, read into it. Shannahan is "dancing" here, in an attempt to justify his personal view, not that of the NHL rule book.
In his easiest case yet, Shannahan totally blew it. I'm sure he's making as much as any judge in the country. He has a responibility to know the laws of the game...inside out, and respond with wisdom and fairness. He responded like a not so bright fan. Total incompetance, when he had all the tools, and all the time in the world. He'd be fired in the real world.
Nothing personal against Shannahan, just disrespect for his professional conduct. This one was really really easy, and again, his insistance on the relevancy of his own predator-victim theory, proves he doesn't posess the critical thinking capacity, nor the impartiality to handle this stuff.
Referee's can do make up calls. Judges can't.